Bush Bashing

[P.J.]

[Hooked]

what is the implied significance ?

Why was this posted twice, and what has one's military service or lack thereof got to do with Bush bashing?

[Nudony]

I guess P.J is implying that we have no business criticizing the war or Dubya if we've never served in the military.

Rubbish.

[KirkOntario]

More likely he means that those who bash Bush for his National Guard service would never have served in either the National Guard or Vietnam but would have ducked out of either. Or like the son of Senator Gore would have pulled strings to get a cushy job behind a desk as a reporter.

[ken0254]

OOOOOPS!!!!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

I selected the wrong answer. I'm retired Navy.

ken

[NudeAl]

Hey what about active duty military? Soon to be retired but not there yet, lol.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
More likely he means that those who bash Bush for his National Guard service would never have served in either the National Guard or Vietnam but would have ducked out of either. Or like the son of Senator Gore would have pulled strings to get a cushy job behind a desk as a reporter.

For once, I agree with kirk. I believe that's precisely what P.J. is insinuating with his poll.



UW

[Trailscout]

Who said anything about bashing Bush? The question was neutral: "political statements".

I usually make favorable political statements about our president and almost always about our military service people.

By the way, I was eligible for service when I was younger. I did well on the ASVAB test and considered a hitch with the Air Force, but we were at peace and I decided at the last minute to pursue my education in the civilian world.

[nudeM]

Though I never saw action while in the service, I do respect the military and their principles. Being that the Veterans Organization I belong to, sponsored having the "Moving Wall" come to our town, I truely understand the closness of Veterans from ALL branches. Being that I am receiving a monthly pension from a service connected disability, I know first hand that while you are in the service, you are truely one large family.

As far as 'Bush bashing' goes, not stating my position (many know of it), I wish we were never in Iraq and Afghanistan, but now we are involved, then we must support the troops and NOT turn our backs on them.

Even though we may not all agree with the President, we must now forge together as one nation and together, try to get rid of the terrorists that are out there.

I do not wish to turn this into a dabate on the war; I do know this, we must all support our troops. They are there, not by choice, but just following orders.

It makes me sick just knowing there are individuals, and groups, who are trying to split our nation and down grade our services (military). We must support the mission and the President, no matter what your stand is on the war itself. We are there, so let's finish the job and bring our troops home.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by nudeM:
Though I never saw action while in the service, I do respect the military and their principles. Being that the Veterans Organization I belong to, sponsored having the "Moving Wall" come to our town, I truely understand the closness of Veterans from ALL branches. Being that I am receiving a monthly pension from a service connected disability, I know first hand that while you are in the service, you are truely one large family.

As far as 'Bush bashing' goes, not stating my position (many know of it), I wish we were never in Iraq and Afghanistan, but now we are involved, then we must support the troops and NOT turn our backs on them.

Even though we may not all agree with the President, we must now forge together as one nation and together, try to get rid of the terrorists that are out there.

I do not wish to turn this into a dabate on the war; I do know this, we must all support our troops. They are there, not by choice, but just following orders.

It makes me sick just knowing there are individuals, and groups, who are trying to split our nation and down grade our services (military). We must support the mission and the President, no matter what your stand is on the war itself. We are there, so let's finish the job and bring our troops home.

Well said nudeM. America is a country that has shed so much blood for other peoples. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and now in Iraq. Of course it has foreign interests but that is not what it is truly about. That is simple minded reductionism. Americans have literally brought freedom to billions of people around the world and have offered hope to billions more. I'm fed up with people bashing America and Americans when they have done so much good in the world and I cannot think of another country in history that has acted to bring freedom and hope to so many.

Remember 1989? The protesters in the square in China had never experienced democracy, been to America and probably few of them had ever met an American. And yet when they personified liberty by erecting a statue in the square, it was the statue of your Lady Liberty torch held high. That was no accident and was the greatest tribute to your nation that I have ever seen.

[Trailscout]

I do not think that supporting Bush as commander in chief means that civilians need to give carte blanche approval to every action he has taken.

I saw the need to finish the Gulf war, but I am very displeased with the way the occupation is being handled. We should be much further along in a transition to Iraqi self-rule and the borders need to be sealed.

I heard nothing from John Kerry that indicated that he had a better exit strategy.

I wonder if any leader of any party has articulated a cohesive plan for equipping the Iraqis for self-defense and moving on to the next item(s) on our military agenda.

We should be making ready to deal with Syria, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, and not get bogged down in Iraq.

Energy independence and moving toward renewable energy sources is part of our defense strategy and the current action is woefully inadequate.

None of these comments mean that I do not support the commander in chief. I simply think that it is our patriotic duty to participate in the process and demand better ideas and excellence from all our elected officials.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
More likely he means that those who bash Bush for his National Guard service would never have served in either the National Guard or Vietnam but would have ducked out of either. Or like the son of Senator Gore would have pulled strings to get a cushy job behind a desk as a reporter.

For once, I agree with kirk. I believe that's precisely what P.J. is insinuating with his poll.



UW </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PJ, please clarify the poll question! As you can see many of us are not really sure what the background is.

One part that confuses me is the part "those who make political statements and comments concerning our military". I think it is important to distinguish between comments made about the military (of which there have been very few) and comments made about war policy (of which there have been quite a lot).

In summary, I stongly support the military (Canadian and American). I feel that if the American military under the direction General Jay Garner had been allowed to direct the rebuilding of Iraq [1], instead of being kicked out in favour of Bush-friendly neocons, then it will likely be in much better shape than it is today. It will be interesting to see how history judges that decision.

I've long been fascinated with military history, and today often work with people currently or formerly with the U.S. and Canadian militaries. With nary an exception, I have those in the military to be some of the finest examples of humanity: strong, determined, and always ready to go the extra mile to lend a helping hand.

Due to my high myopia, actually going into an enlisted military career was never an option so I never really considered it. Though as I said, my career path led me to working frequently with military or ex-military individuals.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2924201.stm

[jon71]

I would like for Kirk to apologize to the families of everyone who had a loved die in combat while serving as a "cushy" military reporter. I'm not going to claim it is the most dangerous job in the military but it's dangerous enough people have been killed doing it. Gore and others who have held that position are not behind a desk 24/7 but are on the combat field as well. That is honorable service the same as any other position.

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Well said nudeM. America is a country that has shed so much blood for other peoples.

It's also a country that has shed a lot of blood around the world.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki we killed 270,000 people in just two bombings. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html)

Isn't mass murder by Hussein Bush's present reason for invading Iraq? The US has done that with the Japanese and slower with our own Indians.

And don't forget that we killed over 100,000 Iraqis in this war too, mostly women and children.

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Who said anything about bashing Bush?

The title "Bush Bashing".

[ken0254]

I'm not a Bush hater.... well I don't hate Bush any more than Hannity and Limbaugh hated Clinton. Oh, and for the record, I think 3 bombs should have been dropped. We forgot Moscow!!

ken

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Well said nudeM. America is a country that has shed so much blood for other peoples.

It's also a country that has shed a lot of blood around the world.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki we killed 270,000 people in just two bombings.[/URL]

Isn't mass murder by Hussein Bush's present reason for invading Iraq? The US has done that with the Japanese and slower with our own Indians.

And don't forget that we killed over 100,000 Iraqis in this war too, mostly women and children. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the Indians I agree with you. We were the aggressors and are no better than Hitler or Hussein in that regard..

However Japan was part of an axis power trying to take over the entire world. They were fighting to the death and would have done the same to us if they had developed the bomb first. If the bombs hadn't been dropped, the war would have drawn on for possibly years longer and the same amount of lives would have been lost, if not more. Japan learned its lesson and is now one of the most prosperous nations on earth (thanks to the U.S. reconstruction after the war).

Hussein's mass murders were for no reason other than he hated those he killed, just like the Nazis with the Jews. Comparing his crimes to the United States' actions while fighting a World War is ignorant.

Obviously you didn't read the link I had. The bombs weren't hitting military targets, they hit civilians. I suggest you actually read it, it disproves what you said.

The comparison is just.

And please tell me when you talked to Hussein that he told you why he killed?

[jon71]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because of the munitions factories there. Yes you are right Cyndianne, we killed civilians, but there was also a legitimate military rationale behind it. Considering the alternative was full scale invasion, with much greater casualties, both American and Japanese I agree with the call there. No excuse for our massacre of Native Americans or the Iraq invasion though.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Well said nudeM. America is a country that has shed so much blood for other peoples.

It's also a country that has shed a lot of blood around the world.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki we killed 270,000 people in just two bombings. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html)

Isn't mass murder by Hussein Bush's present reason for invading Iraq? The US has done that with the Japanese and slower with our own Indians.

And don't forget that we killed over 100,000 Iraqis in this war too, mostly women and children. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The debate over dropping the atomic bomb has gone on for years. Did it save American lives? Yes. It probably saved many Japanese lives also as Japanese solidiers would have fought to the last man across every inch of Japan, but does that sort of cost benefit analysis make it moral to bomb civilians? Good question. Many Japanese were grateful that the war was brought to an end and that Douglas Macarthur set up a constitutional monarchy that has worked well for 60 years and brought prosperity and freedom to the Japanese people.
I remind you those bombs were dropped by a democratic president.

BTW you did not kill 100,000 Iraqis civilians. Those numbers are partisan guestimates which by their own admission admit most Iraqis have died due to criminal violence in the country and at the hands of insurgents not the U.S. military.

Another more recent estimate by a group with partisan anti-war links put the number at 25,000 with only about 9000 at the hands of American forces, the rest due to insurgents and criminal violence. Those numbers also fail to make the distinction between civilian and an insurgent firing at American troops out of a mosque.

This is where I have a problem with the anti-war left and their claim to support the troops. Accusing Americans of murdering 100,000 troops is wrong and puts them in danger as Al Jazeehra hypes these 'findings' and stirs up hatred against Americans. It is used to recruit suicide bombers. That is why one must be very careful with such claims.

You also fail to distinguish between 'murder' as being unintentional killing versus unintentional killing. Driving your suicide bomber car into a group of Iraqi children getting candy is murder. Firing on a car that doesn't stop at a checkpoint is not although you might put a lesser degree on blame on troops for being nervous and firing in that situation.

[George F.]

Yes Cyndiann the two bombs dropped on Japan hit civilian areas. Why does anyone kill Cyndiann? Do you know why they do it? Perhaps you need to ask the terrorists (they are terrorist, not insurgents or freedom fighters) why they kill innocent men, women, and children everyday in Iraq. I suppose you would also disapprove of how we cleaned up things after WW2 in Japan and Germany as well when it comes to the groups of terrorists who ran around killing, maiming, and harming those who worked with the Americans, British and others to repair their countries. The mass murders by Hussein were not the only reason for going to war in Iraq. If you ask me Bush Sr. should have thrown down the gauntlet when Saddam started playing games right off the bat and taken him out then, instead of turning his back on the Kurds and Shietes (?sp). How many innocent men, women and children have the terrorists killed in Iraq Cyndiann? You seem to want to ignore them doing so as well or do you believe that is America's fault too?

As for me I am on the border of eligble for military service due to my eye sight (take off my glasses and I might as well be blind).

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Obviously you didn't read the link I had. The bombs weren't hitting military targets, they hit civilians. I suggest you actually read it, it disproves what you said.

The comparison is just.

Sorry but there's no comparison. Japan was a world aggressor. They asked for a showdown - and they got one. They awoke a sleeping giant.

I guess you forget the atrocities inflicted in Asia by the Japanese. Nanking Massacre (http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking1.htm) ring a bell? (be sure to read page 2 of that url)

Want to see some photos of disembowled pregnant women with their babies impaled on bayonets? Heads of Chines men with their severed penies in their mouths? No?


And please tell me when you talked to Hussein that he told you why he killed?

Didn't have to.. it's not a secret that Hussein and his faction hate the northern tribes (Kurds), the Shietes, etc. and want to exterminate them. It's been going on there for generations. His atrocities were all ethnic hate crimes. Sorry, but our taking out an aggressor bent on world domination (Japan) is not in the same category.

And now thanks to Bush the US is seen as a world agressor....

[KirkOntario]

The rape of Nanking was perhaps one of the darkest moments of the 20th century. It literally went on for months. Absolutely unbridled barbarism by a relatively civilized modern nation against unarmed civilians.

[Nudony]

And WHY exactly is this debate going on the the "Miscellaneous" section of the forum???

I propose that the moderator please move this to the "Open Conversation" section. This topic has NOTHING to do with nudism.

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The rape of Nanking was perhaps one of the darkest moments of the 20th century. It literally went on for months. Absolutely unbridled barbarism by a relatively civilized modern nation against unarmed civilians.

And the atrocities inflicted by Hussein's regime were disturbingly similar.

And right now we have the same going on in Sudan. How come nobody is horrified? Why is it being allowed to continue?

Your link said Nanking was 6 weeks long. Darfur has been lots longer than that.

Originally posted by George F.:
Yes Cyndiann the two bombs dropped on Japan hit civilian areas.

The president lied about that. Get it now?

[Qikdraw]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

You can support the troops, but be against current policy. That is not mutually exclusive, although many people think that if you are against current policy you are against the troops. That is just not so.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country." George Washington, 1789

"In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (1-25-05), Pentagon official David Chu, in a mockery of the contribution of veterans, defended a new round of cuts by ironically describing funding for programs like veterans’ education and job training, health care, pensions, VA housing and the like as "hurtful" to national security."

Linky (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12861)

Why do I get the feeling that this administration are not the ones supporting the troops?

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
--Plato

The curse of American politics...

Qikdraw

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

You can support the troops, but be against current policy. That is not mutually exclusive, although many people think that if you are against current policy you are against the troops. That is just not so.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country." George Washington, 1789

"In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (1-25-05), Pentagon official David Chu, in a mockery of the contribution of veterans, defended a new round of cuts by ironically describing funding for programs like veterans’ education and job training, health care, pensions, VA housing and the like as "hurtful" to national security."

Linky (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12861)

Why do I get the feeling that this administration are not the ones supporting the troops?

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
--Plato

The curse of American politics...

Qikdraw

Great quotes!

[gormenghast20]

Here's a link regarding the dropping of the atomic bombs... Hiroshima/Nagasaki (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/hanson/hanson200508050714.asp)

[Qikdraw]

Since we have added a talk about Hiroshima & Nagisaki please check out this link.

The journal of 13-year-old Moriwaki Yoko, who died in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FH07Dh02.html)

An interesting perspective.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
And right now we have the same going on in Sudan. How come nobody is horrified? Why is it being allowed to continue?

Your link said Nanking was 6 weeks long. Darfur has been lots longer than that.

Ask those self proclaimed moral nations that aren't getting involved: like the Europeans who let Serbia run rampant in their own backyard in Bosnia and Kosovo until America showed some leadership and put a stop to it. The African countries haven't been much help. Osama bin Laden fully approves of the slaughter of Christain blacks by Muslims. The precious U.N. is mired in corruption that goes right up to the Secretary General himself (an African at that) and couldn't rescue a ***** cat in a tree at this point.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
I would like for Kirk to apologize to the families of everyone who had a loved die in combat while serving as a "cushy" military reporter. I'm not going to claim it is the most dangerous job in the military but it's dangerous enough people have been killed doing it. Gore and others who have held that position are not behind a desk 24/7 but are on the combat field as well. That is honorable service the same as any other position.

Okay and I will but only if you apologize to the Bush family whose son flew planes. Many National Guardsmen have been killed doing so and Bush put in many 100's of extra flying hours more than he was required to.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Bush put in many 100's of extra flying hours more than he was required to.

Why was he taken off flight status then?

Qikdraw

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
And right now we have the same going on in Sudan. How come nobody is horrified? Why is it being allowed to continue?

Your link said Nanking was 6 weeks long. Darfur has been lots longer than that.

Ask those self proclaimed moral nations that aren't getting involved: like the Europeans who let Serbia run rampant in their own backyard in Bosnia and Kosovo until America showed some leadership and put a stop to it. The African countries haven't been much help. Osama bin Laden fully approves of the slaughter of Christain blacks by Muslims. The precious U.N. is mired in corruption that goes right up to the Secretary General himself (an African at that) and couldn't rescue a ***** cat in a tree at this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe there's not enough money of the "oil-for-food" type to be skimmed by the UN hierarchy to make intervening in the Sudan a reality. Guess the murder of thousands of Christians by Muslims isn't as newsworthy as Gitmo!

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Bush put in many 100's of extra flying hours more than he was required to.

Why was he taken off flight status then?

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because he went AWOL when he was supposed to show up for a flight physical. An Examination of the Bush Military Files (http://www.glcq.com/)

By the way, there is still $10,000 waiting for anyone who can prove they personally witnessed George W. Bush reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between the months of May and November of 1972. Bush's Guard Service (http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html)

And if that is not good enough (because that $10,000 would actually be contributed in your name to the USO), Texans for Truth (http://tinyurl.com/ao8zm) are offering $50,000, no strings attached.

So far no takers.

Hmmmmmm....

-Mark

[jon71]

Well said Mark. The difference between them is Gore (and countless others throughout American history) actually showed up for duty.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
Well said Mark. The difference between them is Gore (and countless others throughout American history) actually showed up for duty.

And so did Bush. For years until the war was winding down, his plane was being retired and his employer basically acquieced in him working on a campaign. He left with a well-deserved excellent record in the National Guard.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
And so did Bush. For years until the war was winding down, his plane was being retired and his employer basically acquieced in him working on a campaign. He left with a well-deserved excellent record in the National Guard.

KirkOntario = Scott McLellan? You decide. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw

[P.J.]

Originally posted by Nudony:
I guess P.J is implying that we have no business criticizing the war or Dubya if we've never served in the military.

Rubbish.


Your implication is "rubbish."
You are absolutely entitled to your opinions, whether or not we agree and also regardless of whether or not you served in the armed forces.
However, it is my honest opinion that those who criticize or raise questions about someone's military record, whether it is the Air National Guard service of President G. W. Bush or the Naval service of Senator J. F. Kerry, are more credible if they themselves are veterans of the active or reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Like it or not, many (but not all) of the life-long civilians, don't know about military service and should get the facts before attacking our military or someone else's military service.
Believe it or not, as much as I opposed Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign, I continue to respect his right not to make his military service record public. Whether or not it contains such black marks as a "letter of caution," non-judicial punishment or something more personal such as minor case of hemorrhoids, I can't blame Sen.Kerry for wanting to keep it closed and out of the public view.

[OZJames]

Being and Aussie , when I saw this topic I thought it would be about nude bush hikes. "Bush bashing" here means walking or driving through the "bush" (bush is scrub, thickets, woods, jungle, undergrowth etc) Bush bashing is going through the "bush" NOT on the track or along paths.

Bush bashing NUDE would be a very pr|ckly activity and not recommended http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[George F.]

The president lied about that. Get it now?

Cyndiann just what am I supposed to get. Truman lied, Clinton lied, Bush lied.... and the list goes on. Sadly the overwhelming majority of politicians (from the lowest levels to the top) both democrat and republican are nothing more than pathological liars. So again just what is it that I am supposed to get here. As a side note you might want to make sure your quoted sources are a little less biased sources. Someone who describes himself as an antiwar liberal probably isn't the best source for writing about war from a non biased standpoint.
(courtesy of yahoo websearch.)

As for Sudan, just what do you want us to do Cyndiann? Perhaps we can go in stop things momentarily, let the U.N. take over and then everything can start back up under "new management" to borrow Mr. Kennedy's favorite quote. Just like we did in the Bosnian conflicts. Is this what you are proposing or would like to see?

I agree something should be done about Sudan, perhaps we should be the great aggressor nation that you seem to think we are and go in there with 200,000 U.S. troops and put a stop to the genocide. But then we still would probably get accused of invading an innocent blameless country (probably even accused of killing innocent men, women and children, just like the 19 terrorist did on September 11th or like the terrorist are doing every day in Iraq) by you wouldn't we?

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
And so did Bush. For years until the war was winding down, his plane was being retired and his employer basically acquieced in him working on a campaign. He left with a well-deserved excellent record in the National Guard.

KirkOntario = Scott McLellan? You decide. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not an argument, Qik just an ad hominem. Sorry.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
left with a well-deserved excellent record in the National Guard.

You mean missing record. There are no documents showing he served in Alabama. There are no Alabama guard officers with any memory of his ever serving there. Nothing. Isn't that extraordinary?

-Mark

Since I seriously doubt there is one single person on this earth who is perfect, why is it that people seem to expect perfection from others?

I don't know about the rest of you, but there are things in my past that I would NOT want made public for all to read about. Why is it that just because someone becomes a "public figure" (politician, movie star, athlete, rock star, etc) their entire becomes an open book for all to read, and people want to know all the intimate, juicy details? Personally, I couldn't care less about anyone's personal life. What I do care about is whether or not we can trust the leaders of our country, and we haven't had a leader in a LONG time who is trustworthy.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
That's not an argument, Qik just an ad hominem. Sorry.

Its called a joke. Thats why the big grinning face was there.

Lighten up a bit Krik and relax.

Qikdraw

[Mo]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Well said nudeM. America is a country that has shed so much blood for other peoples.

It's also a country that has shed a lot of blood around the world.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki we killed 270,000 people in just two bombings. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html)

Isn't mass murder by Hussein Bush's present reason for invading Iraq? The US has done that with the Japanese and slower with our own Indians.

And don't forget that we killed over 100,000 Iraqis in this war too, mostly women and children. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before I go slightly off topic, I'm going to say that while I am against Bush's actions, I have absolutely no qualms with our troops. If anything I sympathize with them for getting stuck in the middle of a power struggle for nothing more than oil.

Now to go off topic and suggest that, while it was a terrible thing that I do not condone, the bombings in Japan back then may have saved the world as we know it from greater devastation by nuclear weapons later. This has been a topic of discussion by friends and relatives many times, and I've always found it fascinating.

The premise is:
1. It is merely an eventuality that a nation developing devastating technology, without any prior empirical experience, will eventually use it, at least once.
2. In 1945, no nation had any empirical experience with atomic weapons. Clearly they knew it would have a "shock" value to any nation it would be used against, but no one really knew or wanted to know the global "shock" value.
3. A derivation of Moore's law states that technology makes leaps every few years. Thus atomic weapons vanished and we replaced with nuclear weapons which were even more destructive.

Now imagine if we had reached 1962 without the world ever seeing a demonstration of what a small nuke could do. It's the middle of the Cuban missile crisis. Would Kenedy or Khrushchev have ordered a strike on that October 27th? Maybe not. But possibly, without any prior experiece telling them that there should never be a repeat of that terrible massacre, one or both of them would have not hesitated as much.

That's one scenario, but there have been and are today many other situations that have arisen with nuclear capable countries that might have ended in strikes. Could it be that because of the US's grevious actions in 1945, those countries chose not to go ahead?

We'll never know, of course. It's just a topic for debate. But it's kind of interesting nonetheless.

[Mo]

Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Since I seriously doubt there is one single person on this earth who is perfect, why is it that people seem to expect perfection from others?

I don't know about the rest of you, but there are things in my past that I would NOT want made public for all to read about. Why is it that just because someone becomes a "public figure" (politician, movie star, athlete, rock star, etc) their entire becomes an open book for all to read, and people want to know all the intimate, juicy details? Personally, I couldn't care less about anyone's personal life. What I do care about is whether or not we can trust the leaders of our country, and we haven't had a leader in a LONG time who is trustworthy.

I'm curious who you think was our last good leader. I think it was Kennedy. I think he was too honest and trustworthy and that's why he was taken out. IMHO, it's after him that everything went to sh*t, to put it bluntly. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Mo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Since I seriously doubt there is one single person on this earth who is perfect, why is it that people seem to expect perfection from others?

I don't know about the rest of you, but there are things in my past that I would NOT want made public for all to read about. Why is it that just because someone becomes a "public figure" (politician, movie star, athlete, rock star, etc) their entire becomes an open book for all to read, and people want to know all the intimate, juicy details? Personally, I couldn't care less about anyone's personal life. What I do care about is whether or not we can trust the leaders of our country, and we haven't had a leader in a LONG time who is trustworthy.

I'm curious who you think was our last good leader. I think it was Kennedy. I think he was too honest and trustworthy and that's why he was taken out. IMHO, it's after him that everything went to sh*t, to put it bluntly. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reagan was probably the best President since FDR. Presidents like him don't come along often.
Nixon was very smart in foreign affairs.
Carter was a disaster.
Clinton accomplished very little.

[Ren]

Reagan shifted the tax burden to the middle class, helped homophobia flourish, hurt unionized workers, and fostered a nice working relationship with Saddam Hussein, helped to provide weapons to the future terrorists against us, and was but one of many Presidential catalysts who ended the Cold War, but wasn't the sole reason for it.

[jon71]

Reagan will be remembered for tripling the national debt and nothing more. There were no actual accomplishments. If anyone wants to credit him for the U.S.S.R. ending get real. Communism was a lousy system, doomed to fail since it was created. It had been running on fumes for years, that's just something they toss out for the really guillible. Carter was easily our most honest and moral president in years. Clinton was certainly the most successful.

[gormenghast20]

I think I know why Clinton wanted to speak at the Reagan's funeral so badly...After hearing and reading all about Reagan's accomplishments, Clinton realized how irrelevant he will be in the history books, and he wanted to try to associate himself with greatness, since he was less than great himself. His legacy is squat, and the news coverage of Reagan's death and accomplishments made it even more apparent than it already was. Maybe he wanted to thank Reagan one last time for economic policies that led to the roaring economy of the 80's and 90's that benefitted him?

[jon71]

Clinton created and maintained the greatest economic expansion in history and did it during peace time. The previous largest as well as the next one or two behind that happened in war time. Under Clinton the stock market boomed, unemployment was the lowest it had been in decades, inflation was the lowest in decades, and combined unemployment and inflation was the lowest ever. Home ownership hit an all time high (percentage and raw numbers) and home ownership among racial minorities far surpassed the old record. Real wages (income after inflation) rose soundly under Clinton. Success after success after success. If it wasn't for the two term limit Clinton would still be in office and would keep it for 20 years easy. Reagan on the other hand triple the debt, and oversaw the largest increases in violent crime and illegal drug use ever. For the record crime and drug use both fell under Clinton. Also several attempted terrorist attacks were thwarted during Clinton's time in office. Neither Reagan or either Bush can claim that. Clinton is the standard by which all others are judged and the shrub is found woefully lacking.

[Ren]

Umm, Clinton balanced the budget to right the country from the wrong direction Reagan brought it in. And from personal experience, my family did not do well in Reagan's America, but did much better under Clinton.

You don't actually get into specifics about Reagan, because you know there is no case.

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
left with a well-deserved excellent record in the National Guard.

You mean missing record. There are no documents showing he served in Alabama. There are no Alabama guard officers with any memory of his ever serving there. Nothing. Isn't that extraordinary?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark,

You don't understand. He was undercover. Doing top secret intelligence work. Get it? Intelligence work and Dubya. Never seen.

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by jon71:
Clinton created and maintained the greatest economic expansion in history and did it during peace time. The previous largest as well as the next one or two behind that happened in war time. Under Clinton the stock market boomed, unemployment was the lowest it had been in decades, inflation was the lowest in decades, and combined unemployment and inflation was the lowest ever. Home ownership hit an all time high (percentage and raw numbers) and home ownership among racial minorities far surpassed the old record. Real wages (income after inflation) rose soundly under Clinton. Success after success after success. If it wasn't for the two term limit Clinton would still be in office and would keep it for 20 years easy. Reagan on the other hand triple the debt, and oversaw the largest increases in violent crime and illegal drug use ever. For the record crime and drug use both fell under Clinton. Also several attempted terrorist attacks were thwarted during Clinton's time in office. Neither Reagan or either Bush can claim that. Clinton is the standard by which all others are judged and the shrub is found woefully lacking.

Dubya could get a third term if he pulled political strings to get the 22nd Amendment repealed. On the other hand, that would open the door for Bill Clinton to run for a third term in 2008, and he would whip Dubya.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I think I know why Clinton wanted to speak at the Reagan's funeral so badly...After hearing and reading all about Reagan's accomplishments, Clinton realized how irrelevant he will be in the history books, and he wanted to try to associate himself with greatness, since he was less than great himself. His legacy is squat, and the news coverage of Reagan's death and accomplishments made it even more apparent than it already was. Maybe he wanted to thank Reagan one last time for economic policies that led to the roaring economy of the 80's and 90's that benefitted him?

That's so true. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Originally posted by George F.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The president lied about that. Get it now?

Cyndiann just what am I supposed to get.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, he lied about it. I Don't see that as a mystical or vague statement really.

As a side note you might want to make sure your quoted sources are a little less biased sources. Someone who describes himself as an antiwar liberal probably isn't the best source for writing about war from a non biased standpoint.
(courtesy of yahoo websearch.)

I don't know of anyone that isn't biased in one form or another, do you?

As for Sudan, just what do you want us to do Cyndiann? Perhaps we can go in stop things momentarily, let the U.N. take over and then everything can start back up under "new management" to borrow Mr. Kennedy's favorite quote. Just like we did in the Bosnian conflicts. Is this what you are proposing or would like to see?

I'm wanting the whole world to get involved, not just the US. It really isn't up to us to police the world even if Bush thinks so. I want the babies to stop dying.

I agree something should be done about Sudan, perhaps we should be the great aggressor nation that you seem to think we are and go in there with 200,000 U.S. troops and put a stop to the genocide. But then we still would probably get accused of invading an innocent blameless country (probably even accused of killing innocent men, women and children, just like the 19 terrorist did on September 11th or like the terrorist are doing every day in Iraq) by you wouldn't we?

It's the world that considers us the aggressor, that is common knowledge. At least we have a reason to go in there.

And let's not forget that we killed a lot of innocents in Iraq as well, many times more than the insurgents have.

[hm0504]

Many of the Sudanese attacks are co-ordinated from the air -- a Western-based no-fly zone over Darfur would give the local Darfur residents a real chance. So says a U.S. Marine I saw on the BBC a while back; he was stationed there as an observer and has now left the Marines in order to lobby for the action he proposed. Wish I'd caught his name because I'd like to find out how he is progressing.

[Captain Zen]

We can stop discussing Sudan until you seen this:
Sudan — Oil - Proved Reserves (BBL): 1,600,000,000
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

And if you like to drive your SUV next year still and the years thereafter, it is better to stop wailing over the wars that Bush and Co are waging. These wars are to make sure your bread is fresh in the morning and your beer is cold at night, and how many non-americans have to die or suffer for it is not relevant. See this here very well written explanation and please comment: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm

[missouriboy]

See this here very well written explanation and please comment I had not seen that particular missive, but I was aware of the underlying message about the dollar vs. Euro struggle to be the world currency for oil trading. I made a post about it somewhere, but couldn't find it just now. I remember posting that Bush was forced to oust Hussein because the latter was threatening to sell his oil for Euros, and that would doom the dollar. And that for some reason, the importance of NOT revealing this as the true reason for the Iraq invasion, was worth taking all the flack over his lying about the reasons. He had to sacrifice his own credibility and popularity in order to maintain world confidence in the dollar, and to hold off the inevitable economic collapse of America and its already near-worthless dollar.

O what awful webs we weave, when first we seek to deceive... (or something like that).

[Captain Zen]

Now you see the real reason behind the war(s) the Bush cabal is waging. My question is only why don't they say the truth about it? If it is to save the world domination of the useless dollar versus the strong real valued Euro, SAY SO! The truth shall set you free....................

[shomymojo]

WOW...what a bunch of "hot air" in this thread...LOL...( he says ...drinking a cold one while nekkie)...my wife prefers to trim her bush...Cheers...Shomymojo http://www.rowdys.net

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
I remember posting that Bush was forced to oust Hussein because the latter was threatening to sell his oil for Euros, and that would doom the dollar.

In November 2000, Saddam Hussein insisted that Iraq's oil be bought in euros. When the value of the euro rose, the country's revenues increased accordingly. As the analyst William Clark has suggested, the economic threat this represented might have been one of the reasons why the US government was so anxious to evict Saddam

That according to this article. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,940757,00.html)

This essay (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html) is far more detailed about it as well. Its called"Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth". Oddly enough its the essay that the Guardian is using as its source.

I don't claim to think this is truth, but it does bare thinking on.

There is no greater naivety than the belief in the patriotism of capital.
A capitalist may be a patriot, capital is not.
Victor Cambon, 1913

Another odd quote I picked up that seems to fit in nicely here.

Qikdraw

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by shomymojo:
WOW...what a bunch of "hot air" in this thread...LOL...( he says ...drinking a cold one while nekkie)...my wife prefers to trim her bush...Cheers...Shomymojo http://www.rowdys.net

I did trim my GF bush yesterday with a cold beer at hand. However, I like you all to know that the "hot air" I been blowing is something very true to contemplate. My NJ friend Andrea bought herself a house in the French West Indies and is steadily converting her dollar stocks in Euro stocks. A deep look in my crystal ball reveals a steep decline in American values, as the rest of the world finds out that the old greenback is not worth the paper it's printed on. My comments on what the Zionists are doing in the American governemnt have been met with hostility , although it was only an exposure of what was in the news. Attack the messenger when the news is bad, an old adadigio..........

[missouriboy]

WOW...what a bunch of "hot air" in this thread Question: With Saddam gone, is Iraqi oil still being traded for Euros? (I honestly don't know.)

And, if not, when did that change, in relation to the time of his ouster?

[Captain Zen]

A Bigger Bang!
Bush bashing!?
Finally, Sir Jagger done the deed for true. How long did I wait for a top musician to come out and speak up! As Bob Dylan and many others did during the Vietnam debacle, it surprised me every day that no American band has yet hit the charts with anti-war songs. The foreign and famous oldest rock group on earth The Rolling Stones had to start it. We will surely see others follow suit.
Cool runnings!

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Now you see the real reason behind the war(s) the Bush cabal is waging. My question is only why don't they say the truth about it? If it is to save the world domination of the useless dollar versus the strong real valued Euro, SAY SO! The truth shall set you free....................


I do not think that the us dollar is weak because Saddam wanted to sell its oil in euros. I think the dollar is weak because G.W. Bush is in power. If a genius like Bill Clinton would still be in power, today, you would have two euros for your dollar. That is the result of replacing a genius having compassion with a complete idiot.

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WOW...what a bunch of "hot air" in this thread Question: With Saddam gone, is Iraqi oil still being traded for Euros? (I honestly don't know.)

And, if not, when did that change, in relation to the time of his ouster? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know, OPEC nations price their oil in US dollars - with the exception of Iran, which accepts a basket of currencies.

In reality - the open market dictates the price and the OPEC cartel's attempts to fix it at one level or another usually doesn't last long.

Remember - the Euro went from around .88 at its outset to around 1.25 or so today. Oil being priced in dollars has been a boon to the EU.

[Captain Zen]

I do not think that the us dollar is weak because Saddam wanted to sell its oil in euros. I think the dollar is weak because G.W. Bush is in power. If a genius like Bill Clinton would still be in power, today, you would have two euros for your dollar. That is the result of replacing a genius having compassion with a complete idiot.

Allow me to disagree: as long as the US has a trade deficit, no matter how big or small, it was already here long before Bush came, the dollar is worthless.
Imagine if every country today that holds dollars start asking goods for it, like China tried to buy Unical, National Security would just squarely stop them. Because the USA would be owned by foreigners.
Bye, bye free trade agreements and globalisation! It is the end of the USA when OPEC starts accepting Euros for oil......... There are not enough goodies in the whole wide USA to sell for all the trillion dollars foreigners have.
Total debt is now 40 trillion dollars! see:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm
So sorry to upset some readers, please do not attack me as you did when I pointed out the difference between Zionists and Jews.
BTW, don't mention the AIPAC scanddal with Franklin and partner OK?

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
A Bigger Bang!
Bush bashing!?
Finally, Sir Jagger done the deed for true. How long did I wait for a top musician to come out and speak up! As Bob Dylan and many others did during the Vietnam debacle, it surprised me every day that no American band has yet hit the charts with anti-war songs. The foreign and famous oldest rock group on earth The Rolling Stones had to start it. We will surely see others follow suit.
Cool runnings!

Actually Greenday had a song called "American Idiot" that got a lot of play on the radio. Its actually a good song too, and the lyrics are pretty funny.

Qikdraw

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do not think that the us dollar is weak because Saddam wanted to sell its oil in euros. I think the dollar is weak because G.W. Bush is in power. If a genius like Bill Clinton would still be in power, today, you would have two euros for your dollar. That is the result of replacing a genius having compassion with a complete idiot.

Allow me to disagree: as long as the US has a trade deficit, no matter how big or small, it was already here long before Bush came, the dollar is worthless.
Imagine if every country today that holds dollars start asking goods for it, like China tried to buy Unical, National Security would just squarely stop them. Because the USA would be owned by foreigners.
Bye, bye free trade agreements and globalisation! It is the end of the USA when OPEC starts accepting Euros for oil......... There are not enough goodies in the whole wide USA to sell for all the trillion dollars foreigners have.
Total debt is now 40 trillion dollars! see:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm
So sorry to upset some readers, please do not attack me as you did when I pointed out the difference between Zionists and Jews.
BTW, don't mention the AIPAC scanddal with Franklin and partner OK? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the USA remains very strong for many reasons.

1) American culture is everywhere. There are very few people in the world who do not watch Disney movies, who do not eat at Mc Donald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken, who do not know Michael Jackson, who do not watch american movies or listen to american music.

2)The USA is so big that it can produice almost anything it needs. Even oil can be replaced by other kind of energies. The USA produce cars, movies, food, houses...

The real problem is that you have christians fanatics in power who could start a world war in the hope that would bring the armagedon and the return of Christ...

The real problem is that the image of the USA is darker since G.W. Bush was elected, espacially since the last war in Irak that 99% of muslims worldwide opposed, not to mention most other people as well.

The real problem is that people worldwide are begining to ask themselves if America is still a democracy, if America is still a model to fellow.

The real problem will come when people worldwide, will have such a distate for America, that they will not want to see american movies, listen to american music, go to Mc Donald's or to Disney, visit America, go to an american hotel or buy a Ford.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
Yes, but the USA remains very strong for many reasons.

American culture is everywhere. There are very few people in the world who do not watch Disney movies, who do not eat at Mc Donald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken, who do not know Michael Jackson, who do not watch american movies or listen to american music.

So American culture consists of cartoons, theme parks, fast food, and child molesters? Glamorous http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2)The USA is so big that it can produice almost anything it needs. Even oil can be replaced by other kind of energies.

Yeah.. and it could have done so about 20-30 years ago. Why didn't it?


The real problem will come when people worldwide, will have such a distate for America, that they will not want to see american movies, listen to american music, go to Mc Donald's or to Disney, visit America, go to an american hotel or buy a Ford.

What you describe is slowly (or quickly) becoming a reality.

For starters, I'll never buy a Ford or any other American car for that matter. And I'm an American! The quality just doesn't compare to Japanese & European manufacturers.

[Captain Zen]

Most American sold products have a tiny tiny sticker somewhere that says: Made in China....or Honk Honk, or Philipines or Korea.... The USA gets its raw materials from Africa and pays with what? Outdated surplus weapons. So the poor simpletons there can murder each other faster, leaving political gaps to be filled with USA friendly puppet regimes. It gets its labor from Asia and pays with??? You tell me, or are that the dollars that go back in the coffers when they get a little oil from OPEC... America gets its oil from the Middle East and pays with bullets and bombs. Now if that is not a recipe for disaster than what is?

[conspiracy/propaganda material removed]

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Since I seriously doubt there is one single person on this earth who is perfect, why is it that people seem to expect perfection from others?

I don't know about the rest of you, but there are things in my past that I would NOT want made public for all to read about. Why is it that just because someone becomes a "public figure" (politician, movie star, athlete, rock star, etc) their entire becomes an open book for all to read, and people want to know all the intimate, juicy details? Personally, I couldn't care less about anyone's personal life. What I do care about is whether or not we can trust the leaders of our country, and we haven't had a leader in a LONG time who is trustworthy.

I'm curious who you think was our last good leader. I think it was Kennedy. I think he was too honest and trustworthy and that's why he was taken out. IMHO, it's after him that everything went to sh*t, to put it bluntly. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reagan was probably the best President since FDR. Presidents like him don't come along often.
Nixon was very smart in foreign affairs.
Carter was a disaster.
Clinton accomplished very little. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Clinton did have some accomplishments...

People in the Clinton administration wrongly and perhaps illegally retrieved the FBI files of people considered threats to them.

Like the Nixon administration, the Clinton people had their own list of unfriendly reporters and other citizens.

Some Clinton friends wanted to increase business through the prestige of running the White House travel office. On Hillary Clinton's orders, the whole office was fired to make room for them.

Then-Governor Clinton, an alleged friend of the feminism, propositions Paula Jones in a lewd manner by dropping his pants and inviting her to perform oral sex on him. Obviously, this says a lot about his true attitude toward women. The Paula Jones case against him was later dropped because Jones could not mean a strict definition of sexual harrassment when she did not show that her job was affected by her refusal to satisfy Governor Clinton. No doubt this came a relief to Clinton, because Jones had gotten a good enough look to be able to describe certain "distinguishing characteristics" that lent credence to her story.

In exchange for political donations, President Clinton issued a record number of waivers into Arlington National Cemetary, a place supposedly reserved for national heroes. The memory of the true heroes was dishonored by such frauds as Larry Lawrence, all so Clinton could pump up campaign funds.

Then-Governor Clinton allegedly used his influence to get help associates get loans for an Arkansas investments. The investments went bust, but not before many people had lined their pockets with a nice amount of cash.

Working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, vice president Al Gore helped collect tons of money from monks that had taken a vow of poverty. It was apparently obvious to everyone but Gore and Clinton that this was a political money-laundering operation -- people that had already given the legal limit funneled additional money through the monks.

No, the Clinton's did not kill Vince Foster, despite some wacko accusations. As tragic as the suicide was, the real scandal occurred after as his death, as Clinton people, including Hillary, made sure that no incriminating evidence was left in his office or on his computer.

Were key decisions involving national security compromised by money from the Chinese military? One undisputed fact is that money from the the Chinese military was donated to Democratic coffers, including the legal defense fund of Hillary Clinton. Though this money was eventually returned after the scandal was exposed, key decisions about China policy had been made. Among those decisions was a Clinton administration decision to override a recommendation to stop selling China technology that could be used to guide intercontinental missiles -- some of which are aimed at the United States.

President Clinton engaged in a sexual relationship with 25-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky. Nobody seriously disputes that. Although morally objectionable to most people, there was nothing illegal about it. What is illegal is the fact that both Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton lied about their affair under oath when the Paula Jones legal team questioned them about it in an attempt to establish prior relevant behavior on the part of Clinton. Linda Tripp -- whatever one may think of her tape-recording a friend -- finally blew the whistle on them when she was ask to also lie under oath to back up their story.

When she amd her husband were down on their luck, Kathleen Willey tried to use her political connection to Bill Clinton to get a break. Clinton's response? According to Willey, he told her he had had his eye on her, fondled her breast, and placed her hand on his groin.

Although Bill Clinton promised "the most ethical administration" to the American people, most of his cabinet has been indicted on one criminal charge or another.

From the Vietnam draft to marijuana to eating at McDonald's to partial birth abortion, Clinton never could seem to tell the truth.

IMHO...Lyndon Johnson was a far better president than Kennedy...he accomplished more in the civil rights arena.

[jon71]

Clinton was easily our greatest President in decades. He was the architect to the greatest economy in American history and he did it during peace time, the two previous strongest economies were both in times of war. Add to this military success in Bosnia and Diplomatic success in Haiti. Also falling crime rates, falling drug use, and improvements in education. Despite one well publicized lie about sex he was actually one of our most honest presidents and kept campaign promises at a ratio several times greater than Reagan or either Bush. People have belatedly woken up about this Bush, he has the lowest approbal rate of any second term president ever and it's still falling. If only we could recall the failure.

[KirkOntario]

You forgot Sandy "Burglar". What documents did he steal and destroy from the Clinton years. He plead guilty. Were they the dcouments the Able Danger documents that showed the US government and the Clinton admin knew Atta and he terror cell were operating in the USA but did nothing about it? That was a year prior to 9/11 when who was President? Clinton.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Hijacke...094&partner=homepage (http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Hijackers.html?hp&ex=1123819200&en=75c8bf9eafed684c&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[Captain Zen]

this whole "Atta" thing is hogwash. No Atta ever flew a plane and all this is just more lies and more. I dont believe a word of the "official" version of the WTC catastrophy.

[jon71]

Don't forget Clinton remains our only president who has successfully had an administration to thrawt terrorists. There were multiple attempts on 1-1-01 that were stopped before anything could happen. I do appreciate your reminder that in addition to being America's greatest economic President ever that Clinton was also our greatest commander in chief ever. It's hard to believe you and others favor our current yellow bellied deserted instead. Of course doing his duty is a foriegn concept to Bush. Patriotism and sacrifice are only for the little people in his eyes.

[P.J.]

Of the 20 years that I served on active military duty, eight of those years were served while Bill Clinton was Commander-in-Chief.

Believe me, Bill Clinton was not "the greatest commander in chief ever."

If any of the Clinton loyalists want to make a big deal out of questioning the military service of President G. W. Bush, some of us might raise some questions about former President Bill Clinton's military service.

If pushed, many veterans have plenty to say about it, but isn't that a can of worms which should be left unopened?

[jon71]

People tried that and basically embarrassed themselves. Clinton didn't serve in the military as is true of about half our presidents. The previous best commander in chief was F.D.R. who also never served. Others like Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and the first Bush served honorably. Bush 2 however went A.W.O.L which is dishonorable. Pretty simple matter.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
People tried that and basically embarrassed themselves. Clinton didn't serve in the military as is true of about half our presidents. The previous best commander in chief was F.D.R. who also never served. Others like Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and the first Bush served honorably. Bush 2 however went A.W.O.L which is dishonorable. Pretty simple matter.

Ahhh Jon...Clinton didn't serve for a reason. He went to Oxford so he would not have to serve. And he lied about that too. And he lied about so many things starting with the middle class tax cut, inhaling, Jennifer Flowers, and on and on.

[smoothm]

Odd, a man who all the media hyped as a Rhodes Scholar lied about going to Oxford? How did I miss that? As for the others, I guess we should hold Clinton to a much higher standard than we do Dubya. It's perfectly excuseable to lie about WMD's, yellow cake, and .... well the list is way too long.

[jon71]

Clinton did not lie about Oxford, Jennifer Flowers, Marijuana, or tax cuts. Conservatives made accusations they couldn't back up. Not the same thing.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by jon71:
Don't forget Clinton remains our only president who has successfully had an administration to thrawt terrorists. There were multiple attempts on 1-1-01 that were stopped before anything could happen. I do appreciate your reminder that in addition to being America's greatest economic President ever that Clinton was also our greatest commander in chief ever. It's hard to believe you and others favor our current yellow bellied deserted instead. Of course doing his duty is a foriegn concept to Bush. Patriotism and sacrifice are only for the little people in his eyes.

Refusing to take custody of Usama bin Laden when the Sudan offered him on a plate doesn't strike me as someone serious about battling terrorism. Neither does lobbing cruise missiles at a bunch of mud huts after two US embassies are leveled. I'm sure the terrorists figured Bush would do much the same...surprise, surprise.

[smoothm]

Bush's war in Afganistan was justified, it was a haven for Al Qida. Iraq was a sandpile with no defence. All Iraq had was oil. Now, thanks to GW, it is overrun with Bin Laden's ilk and we are in a quagmire. It is obvious that it will be up to some future administration to figure out a way to find true success there and stop the terrorists.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Ahhh Jon...Clinton didn't serve for a reason. He went to Oxford so he would not have to serve.

Didn't Cheney have 4 deferments, and he's also quoted as saying "I had better things to do".

Qikdraw

[True Brit]

I think we all agree that the war in Afghanistan was a justified course of action by the west. We however beg to differ when Iraq is discussed, i do believe that Iraq would have become more of a rogue state with the Afghan insurgents fleeing there to set up training camps with Saddam & whoever joining forces to take on their common enemy, you & me.
Iraq may not have had nuclear material but they certainly had the best brains in the world when it came to chemical & biological weaponary.

The West has sat back too long and allowed others first strike, we can no longer stand by and allow this ever to happen again, I am glad the world has a tough US President who is willing to stand up to those who wish to destroy our freedoms & democracy.
Of course for every innocent and soldier killed is one too many, we are facing great evils that need to be confronted, mistakes will be made and history will eventually prove if the war in Iraq was justified.

As much as i admired Bill Clinton as being a great President, i do believe he underestimated the ever growing power of Al-Quida during the 90's, we all knew about the training camps in Afghanistan but did nothing, we knew about the young men who where training there, again we did nothing! They are now living amongst us armed & dangerous ready to strike, if we cannot defeat them today with their crudely made bombs how will we defeat them when they launch a chemical or biological attack tomorrow! imagine your food and water being contaminated by a fanatic at a supermarket or food processing factory, it will happen if these fanatics are not defeated around the world, how do you defeat an enemy who wishes to meet his God and be welcomed by 70 virgins!

Our troops from around the world are doing a great job in extremely difficult circumstances i wish them all a safe return to their families.

[ken0254]

gormenghast,

What was the overwhelming evidence we had to take custody of Bin Laden from the Sudanese?

ken

[Captain Zen]

The Bush cabal had decided to take the Iraqi oil fields 12 years before it was done, so all arguments over who did what to make it happen are irrelevant. A lot of the neo con spindoctors have put out and keep putting out stories to keep forums like this one blabber away untill eternity is over.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by ken0254:
gormenghast,

What was the overwhelming evidence we had to take custody of Bin Laden from the Sudanese?

ken

I guess the bombing of the USS Cole wasn't sufficient reason to bring him in...if you're going to need "overwhelming evidence" to go after terrorists you might as well stop the war on terror and grin and chuckle at their antics (murder and mayhem). How can you get "overwhelming evidence" against a secretive organization in a part of the world where governments don't even the capability of controlling vast areas of their own countries?

[Trailscout]

Three Cheers to Tony Blair for taking decisive action (albeit a bit late)!

We can learn from his example.

[jon71]

We did take action namely sending missiles after Bin Laden. Unfortunately he moved but some of his accomplices were killed. The idea we just decided not to take him is false, no one ever had him in custody at any time.

[NudeAl]

posted by Trailscout
Three Cheers to Tony Blair for taking decisive action (albeit a bit late)!

We can learn from his example .

I agree 100%

I also think it may be time to start instituting a similar policy here. I mean if you actively and openly support the actions of terrorists against the country you live in and incite them to commit similar acts what do you expect? But they often hide behind our freedoms to preach hate and violence, citing freedom of religion etc. I know we a loath to restrict anyones freedoms, after all it is one of our founding principals and a very slippery slope indeed when we would tell others what to think or say but events must govern our actions. Even president Lincoln suspended habius corpus durring the civil war, something which was later ruled illegal. At the time to preserve the union he made that tough decision and it probably helped win that war and saved the nation. Now I am not suggesting suspending habius corpus, I am suggesting we take a look at those who incite others to commit acts of terror against us and our allies. If they fit the criteria then they should be given the boot. I also feel we should have a much more indepth screening process for those who come from areas of the world that are known to sponser terrorists. It really just makes sense take extra steps to keep them out of our country.

[Trailscout]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jon71:
Support our troops. End the Iraq war now. QUOTE]

Jon, I hope you are talking about an orderly exit, not a Vietnam-like scramble off the rooftops of Saigon.

Bill Clinton recently said that we cannot just walk away at this point no matter how much we would like to.

Yes, we should leave, but Iraq must be ready to take our place when we do. I am not one of those who say that we have done a good job preparing Iraq to take power. So far, it looks pretty sloppy. But maybe we can simply learn from our mistakes and do what it takes to excute the transfer of power and end the loss of American life in Iraq. Sadly this is not likely to end the loss of Iraqi life.

[Trailscout]

Al, I disagree with your contention that Lincoln saved the nation. Things would have been far better if the Confederacy had defeated the North. Now we must try by peaceable means to do what the Civil War could not achieve.

But your point is well-taken that Draconian measures may be necessary to secure our borders. Sean Hannity recently demonstrated how easy it is simply to walk over from Mexico. Our Canadian border is so vast and so rural that it is a great challenge. I think we would do better to gain Canada's cooperation in restricting access to Canada by undesireable foreigners.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Don't forget Clinton remains our only president who has successfully had an administration to thrawt terrorists. There were multiple attempts on 1-1-01 that were stopped before anything could happen. I do appreciate your reminder that in addition to being America's greatest economic President ever that Clinton was also our greatest commander in chief ever. It's hard to believe you and others favor our current yellow bellied deserted instead. Of course doing his duty is a foriegn concept to Bush. Patriotism and sacrifice are only for the little people in his eyes.

Refusing to take custody of Usama bin Laden when the Sudan offered him on a plate doesn't strike me as someone serious about battling terrorism. Neither does lobbing cruise missiles at a bunch of mud huts after two US embassies are leveled. I'm sure the terrorists figured Bush would do much the same...surprise, surprise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that Bush slashed the anti-terrorism budget when he came to office.

[NudeAl]

Al I disagree that Lincoln saved the nation. Things would have been far better if the Confederacy had defeated the North. Now we must try by peaceable means to do what the Civil War could not achieve.


The basic issue over which the war was fought, that is slavery, was and is indefensible. It was just plain wrong. For that reason alone they had to be defeated. I agree that the issue of states rights was something worth saving but not at the expense of the freedom of an entire race of people to preserve an abominable institution like slavery.

The federal government and it's powers over the individual states did grow exponentially durring this time though. In fact if memory serves this was the begining of federal income taxes. But to be honest in this day and age a strong federal government is nessesary given where we are now.

We could go round and round on this one and still never see eye to eye. I think it might be best to just agree to disagree on this one rather than re-fight the war.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by NudeAl:
posted by Trailscout
........I know we a loath to restrict anyones freedoms, after all it is one of our founding principals and a very slippery slope indeed when we would tell others what to think or say ...........

This forum does not loath restricting MY freedom to express my disgust for certain semi religious political powers, oh no.......

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
...
But your point is well-taken that Draconian measures may be necessary to secure our borders. Sean Hannity recently demonstrated how easy it is simply to walk over from Mexico. Our Canadian border is so vast and so rural that it is a great challenge. I think we would do better to gain Canada's cooperation in restricting access to Canada by undesireable foreigners.

I assume what you mean is that there should be a U.S.-Canadian policy with regard to entry by undesirable foreigners. I would generally agree but I do not think it will be wise or possible to make it completely uniform.

What the two countries need to do is have a uniform policy on what both agree are highly undesirable foreigners (eg. Islamists) and continue to have separate policies for other types of foreigners.

[Captain Zen]

Maybe he is a ghost, made up by the spindocters that invented the terrorists that they said flew the WTC planes, but who happened to be alive and well in other countries........

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jon71:
Support our troops. End the Iraq war now. QUOTE]

Jon, I hope you are talking about an orderly exit, not a Vietnam-like scramble off the rooftops of Saigon.

Bill Clinton recently said that we cannot just walk away at this point no matter how much we would like to.

Yes, we should leave, but Iraq must be ready to take our place when we do. I am not one of those who say that we have done a good job preparing Iraq to take power. So far, it looks pretty sloppy. But maybe we can simply learn from our mistakes and do what it takes to excute the transfer of power and end the loss of American life in Iraq. Sadly this is not likely to end the loss of Iraqi life.

I agree that the U.S. must not just pull out of Iraq. While I think it was a bad idea to go into Iraq, it would be a much worse idea to pull out without first stabilizing the country.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
This forum does not loath restricting MY freedom to express my disgust for certain semi religious political powers, oh no.......

You have expressed your disgust quite freely and clearly.

However when you express your disgust in EVERY post on just about every subject it gets pretty annoying. You begin to sound like a nutcase and no better than the religious fanatics you hold in disdain.

I suggest you drop the issue and move on. You are a heartbeat from being banned from here.

[Captain Zen]

This then should settle the matter of Bush bashing would you think?
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm
And by the way, I love every person when he is undressed from every dogma and belief, when he is as he was created, innocent, pure.
And thanks heaven, not every nutcase manages to live naked on a sweet tropical island in the Caribbean, but this one does.
See you at Orient Bay Nudist Club beach Saint Martin French West Indies any time, 15 minutes from where I reside.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by True Brit:
I think we all agree that the war in Afghanistan was a justified course of action by the west. We however beg to differ when Iraq is discussed, i do believe that Iraq would have become more of a rogue state with the Afghan insurgents fleeing there to set up training camps with Saddam & whoever joining forces to take on their common enemy, you & me.

Actually the Afgan insurgents went to Pakistan where they had Pakistan military help to reconstitute. Pakstan helped Al-Queda as well. Now those peole are in Iraq killing Americans and Iraqis.

What has the US done about that? We give them 100 million dollars a month, we're giving them a destroyer, and are selling 1.5 billion dollars worth of military hardware to them. (done with incentives so we are actually footing the bill for Pakistan)

Pakistan has WMDs, has sold nuclear tecnology to Iran, has, and continues to, help terrorists, and we are giving them money and weapons. Does anyone else find this incredibly idiotic?

Iraq may not have had nuclear material but they certainly had the best brains in the world when it came to chemical & biological weaponary.

Brains they were not using to make any weapons. Having knowledge is not a crime, nor a terrorist act.

The West has sat back too long and allowed others first strike, we can no longer stand by and allow this ever to happen again, I am glad the world has a tough US President who is willing to stand up to those who wish to destroy our freedoms & democracy.

I agree that we cannot sit back, however the fight in Iraq is just creating more terrorists, not less.

As for freedoms & democracy, well they are becoming less and less over here. Debate gets stiffled because this administration just says "we're at war", and if you disagree you are called a "traitor", "Anti-American", "you do not support the soldiers", etc... The administration does not only say this, but many pro-Bush people say it all over the place. You've even seen it here on these forums.

Of course for every innocent and soldier killed is one too many, we are facing great evils that need to be confronted, mistakes will be made and history will eventually prove if the war in Iraq was justified.

History will prove it, but that does not mean we have to wait until the future to act or believe what is going on.

I can understand mistakes happening, innocents will suffer, but the amount of mistakes coming out of Iraq, and with no change in policy is just stupid. Its a breeding ground of mistakes, from the 'reconstruction', to the whole battle against 'insurgents'.

As much as i admired Bill Clinton as being a great President, i do believe he underestimated the ever growing power of Al-Quida during the 90's, we all knew about the training camps in Afghanistan but did nothing, we knew about the young men who where training there, again we did nothing!

Actually not true. And when Clinton left office he told Bush that terrorism, and Al Queda specifically, should be the first priority, but Bush disagreed.

They are now living amongst us armed & dangerous ready to strike, if we cannot defeat them today with their crudely made bombs how will we defeat them when they launch a chemical or biological attack tomorrow! imagine your food and water being contaminated by a fanatic at a supermarket or food processing factory, it will happen if these fanatics are not defeated around the world, how do you defeat an enemy who wishes to meet his God and be welcomed by 70 virgins!

This is just more scare mongering. Yes it is a threat, and yes its happened, but we have to trust our government is on the track to get them. Running around scared that something will happen allows the terrorists to win.

Our troops from around the world are doing a great job in extremely difficult circumstances i wish them all a safe return to their families.

I hoe they all get home safe too, but with the permanent bases being built in Iraq, that the Bush administration is silent on, I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon.

Qikdraw

[jon71]

I want our troops home as soon as possible. Every day good Americans die for a pack of lies. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism or our national security. Frankly whether Iraq is "stable" or not simply isn't an American concern.

[Trailscout]

Jon, until Europe and the US are no longer dependent on mid-eastern oil, we have an economic stake in peace throughout the region. Iran has already threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

As Christians, we have a moral imperative to be prayerfully concerned about peace and stability anywhere in the world. That does not translate to a national imperative, but certainly charitable groups have an on-going interest in Iraq.

[jon71]

Our oil supply wasn't threatened. As far as charitable aid, that's fine but a seperate issue from military involvement. Granted it's not safe but that still comes short of national interest. Also we have oil we produce ourselves as well as from places like Nigeria and Brazil, both of which are much larger suppliers than people imagine. Hopefully we'll begin moving towards solar too, a lot more practical than what many believe. The technology is here now.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by jon71:
We did take action namely sending missiles after Bin Laden. Unfortunately he moved but some of his accomplices were killed. The idea we just decided not to take him is false, no one ever had him in custody at any time.


The following is an excerpt from Richard Miniter's book -- Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror.

"President Clinton's first opportunity to defeat Osama bin Laden came late in the afternoon of March 3, 1996, in an Arlington, Virginia, hotel suite. It was the first attempt by the Clinton Administration to deal decisively with the arch-terrorist. It lasted less than 30 minutes.

Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa flew in for a secret meeting with Timothy M. Carney, the U.S. ambassador to Sudan, and David Shinn, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department. Both Carney and Shinn were State Department veterans. Also present was a middle-aged man who was a member of the CIA's Directorate of Operations (Africa division) at the time and is still active with the agency today. . . The CIA believed, and its representative told Erwa at the time, that some 200 al-Qaeda terrorists were holed up in Sudan. (The actual number, the author learned in Khartoum in 2002, was as high as 583. . . .)

Five days later, Erwa again met with the CIA operative. This time, the two State Department officials were not present. Erwa and the CIA officer were alone as they decided the fate of Osama bin Laden.

Sudan offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden at this meeting, according to Erwa. He brought up bin Laden directly. "Where should we send him?" he asked. This was the key question. When Sudan turned over the infamous Carlos the Jackal to French intelligence in 1994, the CIA covertly provided satellite intelligence that allowed Sudanese intelligence to capture him on a pretext and escort him to the VIP lounge at the Khartoum airport. There, he was met by armed members of French intelligence and flown to Paris in a special plane. Would the CIA pick up bin Laden in Khartoum and fly him back to Washington,D.C.? Or would bin Laden go to a third country?

The CIA officer was silent. It was obvious to Erwa that a decision had not yet been made. Or perhaps his offer was not quite believed. Yet, the Sudanese official was still hoping for a repeat of the French scenario. Finally, the CIA official spoke. "We have nothing we can hold him on," he carefully said. Erwa was surprised by this, but he didn't let on. He was still hoping for a repeat of the French scenario, a silent and quick operation to seize bin Laden and bring him to justice. . . .

Sudan's files on bin Laden and his network were extensive. Sudan had dossiers on all of bin Laden's financial transactions, every fax he sent (the Mukhabarat had even bugged his fax machines), and every one of bin Laden's terrorist associates and his dubious visitors. If Sudan's surveillance was as good as Erwa claimed, bin Laden's entire global terrorist network would be laid bare. And the CIA would be able to track the movements of his foot soldiers and lieutenants across the Middle East.

There were good reasons to believe that Sudan was serious about taking action against bin Laden. . . His terrorist activities had isolated Sudan from the United States and much of the developed world. Sudan's internal politics were moving against the terror master, too. President Bashir was in the midst of a power struggle against Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist leader. Bin Laden supported Turabi with cash and a potential armed cadre of Muslim militants. If Bashir could rid himself of bin Laden, he could simultaneously restart Sudan's relationship with the United States and vanquish his chief internal political rival.

Over the next few months and years, Sudan would repeatedly try to provide its voluminous intelligence files on bin Laden to the CIA, the FBI, and senior Clinton Administration officials — and would be repeatedly rebuffed through both formal and informal channels. This was one of the greatest intelligence failures of the Clinton years — the result of orders that came from the Clinton White House.

As the Clinton Administration was weighing whether to seize bin Laden or take the opportunity to obtain valuable intelligence on his global network, the CIA's own intelligence on bin Laden was shockingly poor.

Human intelligence on al-Qaeda was virtually nonexistent. Washington Times investigative reporter Bill Gertz uncovered a memo written only a few months after Sudan offered its intelligence on bin Laden. The July 1, 1996, CIA memo was marked "TOP SECRET UMBRA," meaning only the case officers, analysts, and officials specifically cleared to read the documents marked "UMBRA" could have access to this sensitive document. The July 1996 memo reveals how ignorant America was about its emerging nemesis. "We have no unilateral sources close to bin Laden, nor any reliable way of intercepting his communications," the report said. "We must rely on foreign intelligence services to confirm his movements and activities."

This frank report reveals that as early as 1996 — five years before the September 11 attacks — the CIA and other senior policymakers knew about bin Laden-related intelligence failures. When it came to rectifying the cause of these failures, however, little was done."

[jon71]

The missile launch came after the Cole bombing, the first time we had a reason to go after him. Try to keep the timeline straight.

[smoothm]

"The following is an excerpt from Richard Miniter's book -- Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. "

And if it's print, it must be true. The Bush concervatives sure have spent a lot of effort in trying to blame everything on Clinton. It is a concerted effort to discredit everything his administration accomplished in hopes that GW won't look so bad.

[Captain Zen]

One just wonders how the author can know all these facts, names, places, dates. Almost like the Bible, divinely inspired!?

[hm0504]

I think it is important that conservatives regurgitate the failings of the Clinton administration wrt bin Laden (though Clinton in his post-9/11 interviews openly expressed his regret at not having done more).

Anyway, t is important to regurgitate past failures of past Presidents so that people are distracted from thinking too much about the current failures of the current President.

Imagine, for example, if Americans were to recall stories like this from 2003 June 3 (shortly after "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq):


...
Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.

"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."

Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki.
...
[1]

...they might start worrying about the credibility of the present White House administration and that would not be a good thing, would it.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm

[hm0504]

Originally posted by jon71:
I want our troops home as soon as possible. Every day good Americans die for a pack of lies. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism or our national security. Frankly whether Iraq is "stable" or not simply isn't an American concern.

Correction, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the 2003 invasion, now it has very much to do with terrorism. If the U.S. cannot stabilize Iraq, it is very possible that Islamists, supported heavily by Iran, will gain control over much of the country.

The U.S. has to either recognize that General Shinseki words of 2003 June (before he was axed by the White House, see previous post by me) about what it will take to win in Iraq are true, or come up with BOTH an Iraq pullout plan and a rock solid let's-be-independent-of-foreign-oil-in-ten-years plan.

And whether the U.S. stays in Iraq or not, it (along with the rest of the world) now needs a real plan to deal with Iran which has for years been 1000X more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

[Captain Zen]

It is impossible to stop Bush Bashing; it will go on for ever. His' misdeeds are too many.
However, you can find peace away from all this:

Hidden birds sing as cool and clear
As a bamboo forest.
Between swinging willows sun beams glimmer
Like golden threads.
Clouds return to this calm valley.
The winds carry the fragrance of almonds.
By sitting alone all day long
I clear my mind of a thousand thoughts.
To speak of this is beyond our words;
Only by sitting under the quiet forest
Can we ever understand.

- Fa Yen (885-958)

[hm0504]

Originally posted by NudeAl:
...
The federal government and it's powers over the individual states did grow exponentially durring this time (Civil War) though. In fact if memory serves this was the begining of federal income taxes. ...

NudeAl, I'd thought the U.S. federal tax was introduced in World War I, but indeed your memory is correct -- I checked!

The kicker is that though the U.S. federal personal income tax was introduced for the Civil War, it was abolished in 1872, then restarted in 1913. Full details are at:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

It is particularly interesting how in the early days, personal income tax was directed at the higher income earners, and how that approach has changed through time.

[NudeAl]

Correction, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the 2003 invasion, now it has very much to do with terrorism. If the U.S. cannot stabilize Iraq, it is very possible that Islamists, supported heavily by Iran, will gain control over much of the country.

The U.S. has to either recognize that General Shinseki words of 2003 June (before he was axed by the White House, see previous post by me) about what it will take to win in Iraq are true, or come up with BOTH an Iraq pullout plan and a rock solid let's-be-independent-of-foreign-oil-in-ten-years plan.

And whether the U.S. stays in Iraq or not, it (along with the rest of the world) now needs a real plan to deal with Iran which has for years been 1000X more dangerous than Iraq ever was.


Very true I agree. I think Iran feels somewhat emboldened now. They are definatly supplying the terrorists with these new and powerful shape charge bombs capable of destroying anything we could put on the road, IED's are nothing compared to these things. That and their decision to go ahead with their nuclear program raises some scarry senarios, in my mind at least. They more than any other nation have been at the heart of this Islamic fundamentalism for more than 25 years. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of the terrorists we are looking for in Pakistan are in Iran. But I have no proof just my own opinion. It is funny how the world seems to have turned a blind eye to this rogue state. Perhaps they feel if we just look the other way they will be nice to us? Not bloody likely! They will feel empowered by any of our perceived failures. C'est la vie, C'est la guerre.

[Captain Zen]

August 10, 2005 -- U.S. prepared to grab Iran's southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. According to sources within the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst - BND), the Bush administration has drawn up plans to hit Iran's nuclear, other WMD, and military sites with heavy saturation bombing using bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons. The attack will be coordinated with urban and rural critical infrastructure sabotage carried out by elements of the People's Mujaheddin (MEK), Pentagon Special Operations units, and other Iranian dissident groups. The German intelligence comes from classified briefings provided by elements within the CIA that are concerned the neocons in the Bush administration will, in attacking Iran, set off a chain of events that will lead to world war. Intelligence on U.S. plans to attack Iran has also been passed by CIA agents to counterparts in France, Britain, Canada, and Australia. The Bush war plans for Iran also entail quickly seizing Iran's southwestern Khuzestan Province, where most of Iran's oil reserves and refineries are located. Khuzestan has a majority Shia Arab population that has close links with their ethnic and religious brethren in Iraq. The Bush plans call for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi border and from naval forces in the Persian Gulf in answer to an appeal for assistance from the Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front and Liberation Organization rebel forces in Khuzestan, which will declare an independent Arab state of the Democratic Republic of Ahwaz and receive diplomatic recognition from the United States and a few close U.S. allies. After World War I, Khuzestan was annexed by Iran, then called Persia. There are also plans to incite rebellions among Iran's other minorities, including Azeris and Turkmenis in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Other minorities targeted by the neo-con planners are Iranian Kurds along the Iraqi and Turkish borders and Baluchis along the border with Pakistan. The neo-con plan seeks to separate Iran from its oil resources and create an "Irani triangle" centered around Teheran, Isfahan, Qom, and other historically Persian centers. In anticipation of the U.S. attack, the spy sub USS Jimmy Carter has placed taps on undersea communications cables in the Persian Gulf that carry Iranian commercial, diplomatic, and military traffic. In addition, Task Force 121 covert paramilitary forces have scouted Iran using the cover of journalists and businessmen to pinpoint military targets.


MY COMMENT___________________

It looks like Iran goes all the way. As USA has never attacked a country that [they thought] couls hit back, it is curious to see how long this will last. At the first sign of attack Iran will sink every ship in the Persian Gulf, that is a given. Against the improved Yakhont and Sunburn missiles the navy has NO defense... And most possibly Iran will then launch missiles at Israel, the Green Zone in Iraq and wherever it has aimed its Russian war rockets.
The plans of Rumsfeld to saturation bomb Iran may launch a devastating response, and that is why I know Iran will continue to play its own nuclear game, just like Israel, Korea, Pakistan, India and the oldies........
Resulting in a more stable Middle East.

[hm0504]

Two additional recnt things about Iran:

1) It appears their new President, a strong Islamist, may have been on of those who took American embassy personnel hostage in Iran back in 1979

2) Iran waited until the International Atomic Energy Agency installed its cameras in the proscribed sites before going in and breaking the seals. Seems to me Iran was attempting to send a bold message.

The big question to me is that if Iran is now reactivating its nuclear industry, how long until Islamist terrorists get hold of enough radioactive material with which to build a dirty bomb.

[NudeAl]

Another funny thing is there are quite a few more countries closer to this potential nuclear power than we are. Yet they are strangely silent on the matter. What's a'matter cat got your tongue? I would think those nations nearest this contry would be the ones most loudly protesting this move but that dosen't seem to be the case. Russia for instance, I guess since they seem to have their hands full with things in Chechniya (sp) they are being, "vewy, vewy, quiet: a'la Elmer Fudd."

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by hm0504:
I think it is important that conservatives regurgitate the failings of the Clinton administration wrt bin Laden (though Clinton in his post-9/11 interviews openly expressed his regret at not having done more).

Anyway, t is important to regurgitate past failures of past Presidents so that people are distracted from thinking too much about the current failures of the current President.

Imagine, for example, if Americans were to recall stories like this from 2003 June 3 (shortly after "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...
Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.

"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

The interview was White's first since leaving the Pentagon in May after a series of public feuds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led to his firing.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require "several hundred thousand troops." Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate "wildly off the mark."

Rumsfeld was furious with White when the Army secretary agreed with Shinseki.
...
[1]

...they might start worrying about the credibility of the present White House administration and that would not be a good thing, would it.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


When Bush's record is looked back upon in future years I believe his biggest failing will be not staying in Iraq 'til the end ('til things were stabilized). I think Clinton did some good things (he brokered an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians where the Palestinians got about 90% of what they wanted, but Arafat was never going to sign onto any agreement giving Israel a right to exist) and Reagan did some unfortunate things (not avenging the Marines who died in the truck bombing in Lebanon), but on the whole there's no way Clinton was a better president than Reagan.

I agree that Shinseki was railroaded out of the service by the present administration for daring to point out that it would take several hundred thousand troops to win the peace there.

[hm0504]

What is public about Russian-Iranian nuclear co-operation is not very encouraging:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7035496/

Let's keep in mind that the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb sold designs, materials, and know-how to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by smoothm:
"The following is an excerpt from Richard Miniter's book -- Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. "

And if it's print, it must be true. The Bush concervatives sure have spent a lot of effort in trying to blame everything on Clinton. It is a concerted effort to discredit everything his administration accomplished in hopes that GW won't look so bad.

I just put this out there...if you can refute the author's research -- do so.

[hm0504]

"The following is an excerpt from Richard Miniter's book -- Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. "

Is the idea that there wasn't global terror before Clinton? If the definition of "global terror" is attacks by terrorists on Americans on American soil, then I guess the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993 would count as the first (please mention any other contenders I've failed to recall). The 1993 WTC attack was planned by Kuwaiti Ramzi Yousef in 1991 during President George Bush I's presidency so I guess, using the above logic, that "global terror" is all Bush senior's fault.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The following is an excerpt from Richard Miniter's book -- Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. "

Is the idea that there wasn't global terror before Clinton? If the definition of "global terror" is attacks by terrorists on Americans on American soil, then I guess the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993 would count as the first (please mention any other contenders I've failed to recall). The 1993 WTC attack was planned by Kuwaiti Ramzi Yousef in 1991 during President George Bush I's presidency so I guess, using the above logic, that "global terror" is all Bush senior's fault. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't read the book in it's entirety yet...I'll let you know what the author's feelings on the 93 WTC bombing were. I believe the book deals mainly with president Clinton's handling of terrorism issues.

[smoothm]

" I just put this out there...if you can refute the author's research -- do so."

May as well refute creationism while I'm at it. The author is obviously writing to put all the blame for global terrorism on Clinton. He apparently dismisses any idea that terrorism was alive and well before that, and concervatives will all agree. Who am I to refute such blather?

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by hm0504:
1) It appears their new President, a strong Islamist, may have been on of those who took American embassy personnel hostage in Iran back in 1979

If I remember correctly the race was very close between the radical and a moderate, at least until this administration opened its mouth. (Condi & Bush both said something if memory serves) Iranians heard what they said, and decided they didn't like what the US said and went with a guy who would stand up to the US.

2) Iran waited until the International Atomic Energy Agency installed its cameras in the proscribed sites before going in and breaking the seals. Seems to me Iran was attempting to send a bold message.

I think the message is that Iran is an idependant state and the US has no right to tell them what to do.

The big question to me is that if Iran is now reactivating its nuclear industry, how long until Islamist terrorists get hold of enough radioactive material with which to build a dirty bomb.

There is no guarentee that this is going to happen. I'd be more concerned that Pakistan is going to give it to them. Both Pakistan and Iran have long histories of helping terrorists, but Pakistan has the bomb already.

Let's keep in mind that the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb sold designs, materials, and know-how to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

From what I remember his story is that the Pakistani government forced him to go to Iran and give them the information.

I said this ina previous post, but I'll quote it here again.

Actually the Afgan insurgents went to Pakistan where they had Pakistan military help to reconstitute. Pakstan helped Al-Queda as well. Now those peole are in Iraq killing Americans and Iraqis.

What has the US done about that? We give them 100 million dollars a month, we're giving them a destroyer, and are selling 1.5 billion dollars worth of military hardware to them. (done with incentives so we are actually footing the bill for Pakistan)

Pakistan has WMDs, has sold nuclear tecnology to Iran, has, and continues to, help terrorists, and we are giving them money and weapons. Does anyone else find this incredibly idiotic?

Quite honestly I find Pakistan a greater threat than Iran.

Qikdraw

[hm0504]

In reference to QikDraw's post:

1. The International Atomic Energy Agency is a UN agency not a U.S. agency.

2. In the early 1980s, the West helped grow Islamists into a force that eventually dealt the final blow to the Soviet Union -- that and modern technology is really what help spur "global (Islamist) terrorism". It would be great if Bill Clinton could be blamed for all the pain and suffering in the world, but alas, it cannot all be pinned on him.

3. The U.S. is supporting Pakistan, specifically Musharraf, because he is our buddy now. Of course, tomorrow there could be a coup, and someone not so friendly could be in power and all that money and weaponry could then be used against the West but its not like that could ever happen (please don't re-read point 2! and please don't do any searches about how the U.S. has provided massive security aid to Uzbekistan in the past few years and now is being kicked out [1] [2] ).

Seems to me the U.S. (and other Western countries) have very poor luck when it comes to providing "security assistance" (eg. providing WMDs to Iraq in the early 1980s). I think it might be time for a new strategy.

[1] http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav071305.shtml
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2005072902038.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072902038.html)

[Bob S.]

"1) It appears their new President, a strong Islamist, may have been on of those who took American embassy personnel hostage in Iran back in 1979"

After the US made that accusation, hm, they went back and made some more comparisons between the pictures and the now President. They then did a 180 and now do not believe he was who they thought he was.

As for staying in Iraq, we are bound by the Geneva Convention, if I remember correctly. I believe it states that an occupying power must stay in a country until that country can sustain and defend itself from outside forces.

Anyone who thought Iraq was going to be in and out, which a lot of protestors want, are not thinking right. When we invaded Iraq, I figured we would be over there, helping to put the country back together for about 10 years minimum.

And I believe that is why there is no "exit strategy" created by Bush yet. He has no plans to exit so soon. What leader in their right mind would plan on leaving so soon?

Bob S.

[jon71]

Don't forget that Musharif is an unelected general who overthrew a democratically elected leader. Furthermore Musharif has led troops against India, and both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers. It would not require a coup for Pakistan to become a nightmare. Yes, they are our ally now (Musharif has done far more to combat terrorism than Bush ever has) but can we rely on that lasting indefinitely?

[hm0504]

I agree with you about the Geneva Conventions regarding a duty of care by the occupier to the occupyee. (Of course, the new White House Chief Counsel regards the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete".)

Despite my occasional "Bush bashing", I do think that if the White House is serious about bringing democracy and human rights to Iraq, then I say let's go for it, for the sake of Iraqis and ourselves.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The following is an excerpt from Richard Miniter's book -- Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. "

Is the idea that there wasn't global terror before Clinton? If the definition of "global terror" is attacks by terrorists on Americans on American soil, then I guess the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 1993 would count as the first (please mention any other contenders I've failed to recall). The 1993 WTC attack was planned by Kuwaiti Ramzi Yousef in 1991 during President George Bush I's presidency so I guess, using the above logic, that "global terror" is all Bush senior's fault. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a good read on early America's first brush with terroristic activity... Barbary Coast Pirates (http://earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm)

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by smoothm:
" I just put this out there...if you can refute the author's research -- do so."

May as well refute creationism while I'm at it. The author is obviously writing to put all the blame for global terrorism on Clinton. He apparently dismisses any idea that terrorism was alive and well before that, and concervatives will all agree. Who am I to refute such blather?

The author does not blame Clinton for the rise of global terrorism, he goes through Clinton's responses to it. I would have expected a more stirring defense of Clinton than just refusing to challenge a few facts presented... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[hm0504]

But just how does Minter define "global terrorism"?

[hm0504]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smoothm:
" I just put this out there...if you can refute the author's research -- do so."

May as well refute creationism while I'm at it. The author is obviously writing to put all the blame for global terrorism on Clinton. He apparently dismisses any idea that terrorism was alive and well before that, and concervatives will all agree. Who am I to refute such blather?

The author does not blame Clinton for the rise of global terrorism, he goes through Clinton's responses to it. I would have expected a more stirring defense of Clinton than just refusing to challenge a few facts presented... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton has already said, after 9/11, that he should have acted more determinedly on bin Laden and I think he also advised Bush, when giving Bush the keys to the White House, to make hunting down bin Laden a priority. Before 9/11, Bush wasn't overly concerned about terrorism either; it was, as it has long been, just one of those things that come up now and then.

Let's face it, politicians in the U.S. and the rest of the world, from the beginning of time, are not overly pro-active; they only deal with a problem once that problem has become too big to ignore. No news there.

[Captain Zen]

How pathetic all these dealings with Muselmen! First instruct Usame Bin Laden how to fight the Russians and then wait 'till he bites the hand that helped him.
Did the Bush cabal ever study the Muslim mentality? It is as bad as, or worse than the Jewish Zionists! Every Muslem has the right, no, the duty to lie, cheat and steal from any unbeliever. Just wait and see, what the US did with Noriega in small, (20 years employing him and then overtake his country and put him away) Pakistan may do just that with USA, only a little bigger......
I have lived over a year between Muslems in North Africa and Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan in the 1970's as a hippy, declaring I was a Muslem everywhere. Spoken to the common folks and the immans, I know the mentality from the lowest to the highest levels.

[Captain Zen]

The USA will stay in Iraq until the very last drop of oil has been pumped out. You can take that to the nudist bank.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by hm0504:
In reference to QikDraw's post:

1. The International Atomic Energy Agency is a UN agency not a U.S. agency.

But the US likes to make sound bites and make comments about Iran and make thinly veiled threats as well. If a country did that to the US, we'd tell em to go to hell too.

2. In the early 1980s, the West helped grow Islamists into a force that eventually dealt the final blow to the Soviet Union -- that and modern technology is really what help spur "global (Islamist) terrorism". It would be great if Bill Clinton could be blamed for all the pain and suffering in the world, but alas, it cannot all be pinned on him.

That certainly started a problem, but I think what really made some of these people mad at the US, was when we abandoned them after making promises. We got what we wanted and then left. Not a good way to make lasting friends.

3. The U.S. is supporting Pakistan, specifically Musharraf, because he is our buddy now. Of course, tomorrow there could be a coup, and someone not so friendly could be in power and all that money and weaponry could then be used against the West but its not like that could ever happen (please don't re-read point 2! and please don't do any searches about how the U.S. has provided massive security aid to Uzbekistan in the past few years and now is being kicked out [1] [2] ).

The problem is Pakistan says its our ally, but is it really? Everything the Bush administration said about Iraq before the war is true about Pakistan, and continues to be so. Sure we catch a few low end terrorists, but any time we narrow in on a big name, he gets away.

We are again dealing with the devil when we are using, and giving massive aid to countries with human rights abuses, dictators, and supporters of terrorism. (Uzbekistan & Pakistan) As you said we are getting kicked out of Uzbekistan, but that could hardly be surprising. We knew who we were dealing with when this administration made the deals with him. We also knew who we were dealing with when we made deals, and continue to, with Pakistan.

Seems to me the U.S. (and other Western countries) have very poor luck when it comes to providing "security assistance" (eg. providing WMDs to Iraq in the early 1980s). I think it might be time for a new strategy.

I don't think its poor luck, but in how we deal with other countries, that effect our relationship with them later on. We cannot ignore history in trying to understand todays problems.

As for Iraq, we have to be there for the long haul, we broke it, its our duty to fix it. However we should change the policy because its simply not working at all.

Qikdraw

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smoothm:
" I just put this out there...if you can refute the author's research -- do so."

May as well refute creationism while I'm at it. The author is obviously writing to put all the blame for global terrorism on Clinton. He apparently dismisses any idea that terrorism was alive and well before that, and concervatives will all agree. Who am I to refute such blather?

The author does not blame Clinton for the rise of global terrorism, he goes through Clinton's responses to it. I would have expected a more stirring defense of Clinton than just refusing to challenge a few facts presented... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton has already said, after 9/11, that he should have acted more determinedly on bin Laden and I think he also advised Bush, when giving Bush the keys to the White House, to make hunting down bin Laden a priority. Before 9/11, Bush wasn't overly concerned about terrorism either; it was, as it has long been, just one of those things that come up now and then.

Let's face it, politicians in the U.S. and the rest of the world, from the beginning of time, are not overly pro-active; they only deal with a problem once that problem has become too big to ignore. No news there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you on that last statement...I'm not great fan of Bush, even though I voted for him. He doesn't do a good job of explaining any of his policies. What got me going is all this talk of Clinton being a "great" president...great for what? Arriving at the Oval Office unzipped and ready for action? As far as I can see, we've already sown the seeds for our own destruction...we're too reliant on oil and beholden to the big oil companies...all that money is propping up our enemies (and Saudi Arabia is foremost among them). Democracy isn't succeeding in Iraq because the countries in the Middle East don't want it to succeed. Another good read on the terrorist agenda... What the terrorists are saying (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/hanson/hanson200508120813.asp)
I don't know...maybe I read too much!

[Unwired]

Pay attention, folks...

...this is what a civilized debate looks like! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Un

[KirkOntario]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn14.html

So much for Clinton's legacy. Now the 9/11 Commissions entire work is being thrown into doubt because they suppressed and lied about knowing about the Able-Danger evidence showing Mohamed Atta and the 3 hijackers identified by military intellegence 1 year before the 9/11 attacks. But Clinton people blocked passing on the info to the FBI. All of the findings of the 9/11 commission now need to be questioned and looked at again. It may well be that Clinton's wall between intelligence and law enforcement that allowed a known Al Quaeda cell operating IN the United States to go on without action to stop them.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
Clinton did not lie about Oxford, Jennifer Flowers, Marijuana, or tax cuts. Conservatives made accusations they couldn't back up. Not the same thing.

Say again? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[KirkOntario]

I love all these naive folks who repeat the empty dogma that "Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism."

[Captain Zen]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by smoothm:
Odd, a man who all the media hyped as a Rhodes Scholar lied about going to Oxford? How did I miss that? As for the others, I guess we should hold Clinton to a much higher standard than we do Dubya. It's perfectly excuseable to lie about WMD's, yellow cake, and .... well the list is way too long.

Clinton suggested that he had wanted to serve in Vietnam when he was running for the Democratic nomination. He lied in suggesting he would have liked to have gone to Vietnam. When the facts came out he was trying to get out of it as other young men his age were also trying to do.

[Bob S.]

"(Of course, the new White House Chief Counsel regards the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete".)"

Not knowing the full quote or the context of that, I cannot comment, hm. But in regards to the people we are fighting in Iraq, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. They are not a uniformed army nor do they target only unifomed enemies.

"Let's face it, politicians in the U.S. and the rest of the world, from the beginning of time, are not overly pro-active; they only deal with a problem once that problem has become too big to ignore."

And therein lies the conundrum. If you wait too long, you are attacked and are criticized for waiting. If you attack, you are criticized for being too aggressive.

Bush and the US leaders were not being pro-active enough with terrorists which led to 9/11. Bush is now accused of being too pro-active with Iraq. Where is the happy medium?

"The USA will stay in Iraq until the very last drop of oil has been pumped out."

How much oil do they have under them anyway? I have always wondered about two things, that and what happens to the geology underneath them when they are take the oil? It took up some space, so that space needs to be filled with something else.

But to get back on track, How long have we been in Germany, Zen? The US has bases all around the world from WWII. I can't see us totally leaving Iraq ever. That region is just too volatile and has been for millenia. Now if the Jews, Arabs, and Christians can all come together over there and all crowd around a campfire singing "Kumbaya" after having given up all arms to live in a peaceful, Edenesque society, then we could leave. That or I should stop taking my LSD. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bob S.

[Captain Zen]

How much oil do they have under them anyway? I have always wondered about two things, that and what happens to the geology underneath them when they are take the oil? It took up some space, so that space needs to be filled with something else.

Gas fills up the empty space or water from the two famous rivers , it is heavier and helps the oil come up, and why should it not stay empty? Then one day the hole rigmarole caves in, baddies and goodies back down to earth, and we trippin and dancing on top! Naked of course.......
BTW why can I not see my own post, when obviously diamond Bob can?

[smoothm]

"Clinton suggested that he had wanted to serve in Vietnam when he was running for the Democratic nomination. He lied in suggesting he would have liked to have gone to Vietnam."

Sounds like the same logic used by the concervatives to defend Carl Rove. Clinton suggesting is a lie, Rove not actually saying Plame's name is a defense.

[Captain Zen]

If you by now are still not convinced that the political top of the USA is made up of a bunch of lying, stealing, murdering fanatics, it is time you begin to smell the coffee. And do not waste your precious time with it, time you could be having naked fun in the sun.......

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"(Of course, the new White House Chief Counsel regards the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete".)"

Not knowing the full quote or the context of that, I cannot comment, hm. But in regards to the people we are fighting in Iraq, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. They are not a uniformed army nor do they target only unifomed enemies.


The focus of the my comment was on the Iraqi citizenry, not the insurgents or Islamists.

Originally posted by Bob S.:

"Let's face it, politicians in the U.S. and the rest of the world, from the beginning of time, are not overly pro-active; they only deal with a problem once that problem has become too big to ignore."

And therein lies the conundrum. If you wait too long, you are attacked and are criticized for waiting. If you attack, you are criticized for being too aggressive.

Bush and the US leaders were not being pro-active enough with terrorists which led to 9/11. Bush is now accused of being too pro-active with Iraq. Where is the happy medium?


The argument is made that Clinton did not focus enough on terrorism by which I'm specifically meaning, in the context, Islamism.

When Bush came to power, he also did not focus enough on terrorism. Why? Because before 9/11, there was no successful, large attack on American soil though it does appear at least one (the Millenium attack) was thwarted (under Clinton's watch I may add).

Bush did not focus on terrorism, because he realized the real problem was Iraq which was undoubtedly harbouring huge amounts of oil, oops I mean WMDs, and also that taking it over would be as easy as pie -- less than $2 Billion in cost, one hundred thousand troops over there for a few months, put in Chalabi, have a big "Mission Accomplished" ceremony, no problem.

Of course, now that Iraq didn't quite go to plan, and though that is 90% because of secular insurgents who do NOT want an Islamic state, not the 10% who want an Islamist one, the word "terrorism" is very useful now.

And you know what, despite the mockery which got the U.S. into Iraq, I strongly support the vision of Iraq as a secular democracy with strong womens' rights. Why? Because it at least was secular and had equal, though dismal, rights before. There's a chance it might work but that is going to take a lot more commitment from both the White House and the American people.

[hm0504]

I'm not sure that I am in agreement with this writer's conclusions but I appreciate his analysis:
http://www.iht.com/protected/articles/2005/08/14/news/edrich.php

[Bob S.]

"BTW why can I not see my own post, when obviously diamond Bob can?"

Zen, you can't see your previous post? How about now? I don't know why.

"before 9/11, there was no successful, large attack on American soil"

Albinus, US got lucky in the early 90s when WTC-I wasn't successful. The bombers merely underestimated the amount of explosives it would take to cause major damage.

We did have some government positions attacked in the two countries in Africa and in Saudia Arabia as well as the USS Cole. Those attacks were all declarations of war against the US and little was done.

"Bush did not focus on terrorism, because he realized the real problem was Iraq"

Iraq was a target especially after the link between Saddam and the suicide bombers. Bush probably saw that country as a way to protect Israel as well as establishing an American foorhold in the region, something which we had never had.

The fact that Iraq was still under post war sanctions and failure of those sanctions could result in military action, Bush did see a great pass.

"that is 90% because of secular insurgents who do NOT want an Islamic state, not the 10% who want an Islamist one, the word "terrorism" is very useful now."

Those who are fighting were allies of the old regime. They are now having to deal with a complete loss of power to the majority sects over in Iraq.

Bob S.

[P.J.]

Almost 10 days ago, I submitted a poll, consisting of one simple multiple-choice question.

So far, 8 pages of responses have been generated by this poll yet only 20 have actually answered my question.

I realize that we don't all agree on many of the current issues and I respect the views of others, even the views which conflict with mine, provided that there is thought and not blind and ignorant rage behind those same views (and that includes conservative opinions).

Whether you wish to wave the flag and sing patriotic songs or quote the Communist Manifesto in its entirety, please participate in the poll and answer the question!

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Iraq was a target especially after the link between Saddam and the suicide bombers.

The link to that, while there, is far less than that of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, etc... Two of those countries are our "allies", yet they have strong ties to terrorists that have harmed, and wish to harm the US.

Iraq was the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong information.

Bush probably saw that country as a way to protect Israel

A new reason for the war in Iraq? And should we not be more concerned with protecting the US? Attacking Iraq has increased the danger to the US, not decreased it.

as well as establishing an American foorhold in the region, something which we had never had.

Ahhh... Going back to 2000 and the "Rebuilding America's Defences" document by PNAC, which talked about establishing a foothold in the region as strengthening the US. It seems to be working eh? How many Americans are dead now?

So are you now saying that the Iraq war was planned even before 9/11? I mean that document talks about that in 2000, and you are now saying that was a good reason to attack Iraq. So the whole story of WMDs, brining democracy, freeing the Iraqi people, etc... is all just a shame to get a US foothold into the Middle East?

The fact that Iraq was still under post war sanctions and failure of those sanctions could result in military action, Bush did see a great pass.

What was the failure of those sanctions? Other than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died from it I mean... Saddam did not have any WMDs, was not trying to rebuild what he had before either. Or are you talking about the failure that was the amount of corruption that was involved in the sanctions. Involving over 100 American companies. And the current US witchhunt against the UN in trying to cover up the American involvment in it?
There is so much that was a failure I'm not sure which part you mean.

Those who are fighting were allies of the old regime. They are now having to deal with a complete loss of power to the majority sects over in Iraq.

A nice catch phrase right from the Republican propoganda machine, which has little basis in turth. But of course the best lies have a little bit of truth in them, which this does. Sure some of them are former Bathists who want a return to power, or at least to kill off Americans, but to simply lump all of them into the same category is just plain lying. Saddam had no "allies" in terrorism, he was a secular ruler hated by extremists. He paid the families of suicide bombers, but he had no allies. There is simply zero proof of that. There is more proof the US has ties to terrorism and supporters of terrorism than Saddam did.

Do a search for "School of the Americas".

Qikdraw

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by P.J.:
Almost 10 days ago, I submitted a poll, consisting of one simple multiple-choice question.

So far, 8 pages of responses have been generated by this poll yet only 20 have actually answered my question.
I realize that we don't all agree on many of the current issues and I respect the views of others, even the views which conflict with mine, provided that there is thought and not blind and ignorant rage behind those same views (and that includes conservative opinions).

Whether you wish to wave the flag and sing patriotic songs or quote the Communist Manifesto in its entirety, please participate in the poll and answer the question!

My situation was not there to vote, so I clicked the last one; I was in the army , realised that I did not want to be gunfodder, applied for the rank of general, which they refused and from then on I played madman, idiot, mental case, and got discharged after 6 weeks. This was in times that draft existed, btw, not in USA, but in a country then and now affiliated with the same stupid politics.

[Captain Zen]

See this
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp

The top 40 lies
about war and terorism
BRING EM ON!

By Steve Perry
editor's note: In the interest of relative brevity I've stinted on citing and quoting sources in some of the items below. You can find links to news stories that elaborate on each of these items at my online Bush Wars column, http://www.bushwarsblog.com.
1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.

Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "**** Saddam. We're taking him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.

Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency. Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the U.S. Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.

After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left him casting around for a foreign policy plan.

2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.

Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."



3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.

Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way: "Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."



4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.

The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges." [emphasis added]



5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.

Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.



6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.

Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken the fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."

In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted Bush's State of the Union yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on it again.



7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.

Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.



8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11.

One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs, this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar U.S. military inspectors conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence accounts of a 1991 meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden emissary and officers from Saddam's intelligence service, which did not lead to any subsequent contact that U.S. or UK spies have ever managed to turn up. According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."



9) The U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.

Democracy is the last thing the U.S. can afford in Iraq, as anyone who has paid attention to the state of Arab popular sentiment already realizes. Representative government in Iraq would mean the rapid expulsion of U.S. interests. Rather, the U.S. wants westernized, secular leadership regimes that will stay in pocket and work to neutralize the politically ambitious anti-Western religious sects popping up everywhere. If a little brutality and graft are required to do the job, it has never troubled the U.S. in the past. Ironically, these standards describe someone more or less like Saddam Hussein. Judging from the state of civil affairs in Iraq now, the Bush administration will no doubt be looking for a strongman again, if and when they are finally compelled to install anyone at all.



10) Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress are a homegrown Iraqi political force, not a U.S.-sponsored front.

Chalabi is a more important bit player in the Iraq war than most people realize, and not because he was the U.S.'s failed choice to lead a post-Saddam government. It was Chalabi and his INC that funneled compliant defectors to the Bush administration, where they attested to everything the Bushmen wanted to believe about Saddam and Iraq (meaning, mainly, al Qaeda connections and WMD programs). The administration proceeded to take their dubious word over that of the combined intelligence of the CIA and DIA, which indicated that Saddam was not in the business of sponsoring foreign terrorism and posed no imminent threat to anyone.

Naturally Chalabi is despised nowadays round the halls of Langley, but it wasn't always so. The CIA built the Iraqi National Congress and installed Chalabi at the helm back in the days following Gulf War I, when the thought was to topple Saddam by whipping up and sponsoring an internal opposition. It didn't work; from the start Iraqis have disliked and distrusted Chalabi. Moreover, his erratic and duplicitous ways have alienated practically everyone in the U.S. foreign policy establishment as well--except for Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, and therefore the White House.



11) The United States is waging a war on terror.

Practically any school child could recite the terms of the Bush Doctrine, and may have to before the Ashcroft Justice Department is finished: The global war on terror is about confronting terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. The United States does not make deals with terrorists or nations where they find safe lodging.

Leave aside the blind eye that the U.S. has always cast toward Israel's actions in the territories. How are the Bushmen doing elsewhere vis-à-vis their announced principles? We can start with their fabrications and manipulations of Iraqi WMD evidence--which, in the eyes of weapons inspectors, the UN Security Council, American intelligence analysts, and the world at large, did not pose any imminent threat.

The events of recent months have underscored a couple more gaping violations of W's cardinal anti-terror rules. In April the Pentagon made a cooperation pact with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, American intelligence blamed it for the death of several U.S. nationals in Iran.

Most glaring of all is the Bush administration's remarkable treatment of Saudi Arabia. Consider: Eleven of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The ruling House of Saud has longstanding and well-known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits, which it funds (read protection money) to keep them from making mischief at home. The May issue of Atlantic Monthly had a nice piece on the House of Saud that recounts these connections.

Yet the Bush government has never said boo regarding the Saudis and international terrorism. In fact, when terror bombers struck Riyadh in May, hitting compounds that housed American workers as well, Colin Powell went out of his way to avoid tarring the House of Saud: "Terrorism strikes everywhere and everyone. It is a threat to the civilized world. We will commit ourselves again to redouble our efforts to work closely with our Saudi friends and friends all around the world to go after al Qaeda." Later it was alleged that the Riyadh bombers purchased some of their ordnance from the Saudi National Guard, but neither Powell nor anyone else saw fit to revise their statements about "our Saudi friends."

Why do the Bushmen give a pass to the Saudi terror hotbed? Because the House of Saud controls a lot of oil, and they are still (however tenuously) on our side. And that, not terrorism, is what matters most in Bush's foreign policy calculus.

While the bomb craters in Riyadh were still smoking, W held a meeting with Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Speaking publicly afterward, he outlined a deal for U.S. military aid to the Philippines in exchange for greater "cooperation" in getting American hands round the throats of Filipino terrorists. He mentioned in particular the U.S.'s longtime nemesis Abu Sayyaf--and he also singled out the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a small faction based on Mindanao, the southernmost big island in the Philippine chain.

Of course it's by purest coincidence that Mindanao is the location of Asia's richest oil reserves.



12) The U.S. has made progress against world terrorist elements, in particular by crippling al Qaeda.

A resurgent al Qaeda has been making international news since around the time of the Saudi Arabia bombings in May. The best coverage by far is that of Asia Times correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad. According to Shahzad's detailed accounts, al Qaeda has reorganized itself along leaner, more diffuse lines, effectively dissolving itself into a coalition of localized units that mean to strike frequently, on a small scale, and in multiple locales around the world. Since claiming responsibility for the May Riyadh bombings, alleged al Qaeda communiqués have also claimed credit for some of the strikes at U.S. troops in Iraq.



13) The Bush administration has made Americans safer from terror on U.S. soil.

Like the Pentagon "plan" for occupying postwar Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security is mainly a Bush administration PR dirigible untethered to anything of substance. It's a scandal waiting to happen, and the only good news for W is that it's near the back of a fairly long line of scandals waiting to happen.

On May 26 the trade magazine Federal Computer Week published a report on DHS's first 100 days. At that point the nerve center of Bush's domestic war on terror had only recently gotten e-mail service. As for the larger matter of creating a functioning organizational grid and, more important, a software architecture plan for integrating the enormous mass of data that DHS is supposed to process--nada. In the nearly two years since the administration announced its intention to create a cabinet-level homeland security office, nothing meaningful has been accomplished. And there are no funds to implement a network plan if they had one. According to the magazine, "Robert David Steele, an author and former intelligence officer, points out that there are at least 30 separate intelligence systems [theoretically feeding into DHS] and no money to connect them to one another or make them interoperable. 'There is nothing in the president's homeland security program that makes America safer,' he said."



14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide concerning the events of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence collected prior to that day.

First Dick Cheney personally intervened to scuttle a broad congressional investigation of the day's events and their origins. And for the past several months the administration has fought a quiet rear-guard action culminating in last week's delayed release of Congress's more modest 9/11 report. The White House even went so far as to classify after the fact materials that had already been presented in public hearing.

What were they trying to keep under wraps? The Saudi connection, mostly, and though 27 pages of the details have been excised from the public report, there is still plenty of evidence lurking in its extensively massaged text. (When you see the phrase "foreign nation" substituted in brackets, it's nearly always Saudi Arabia.) The report documents repeated signs that there was a major attack in the works with extensive help from Saudi nationals and apparently also at least one member of the government. It also suggests that is one reason intel operatives didn't chase the story harder: Saudi Arabia was by policy fiat a "friendly" nation and therefore no threat. The report does not explore the administration's response to the intelligence briefings it got; its purview is strictly the performance of intelligence agencies. All other questions now fall to the independent 9/11 commission, whose work is presently being slowed by the White House's foot-dragging in turning over evidence.



15) U.S. air defenses functioned according to protocols on September 11, 2001.

Old questions abound here. The central mystery, of how U.S. air defenses could have responded so poorly on that day, is fairly easy to grasp. A cursory look at that morning's timeline of events is enough. In very short strokes:


8:13 Flight 11 disobeys air traffic instructions and turns off its transponder.
8:40 NORAD command center claims first notification of likely Flight 11 hijacking.
8:42 Flight 175 veers off course and shuts down its transponder.
8:43 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 175 hijacking.
8:46 Flight 11 hits the World Trade Center north tower.
8:46 Flight 77 goes off course.
9:03 Flight 175 hits the WTC south tower.
9:16 Flight 93 goes off course.
9:16 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 93 hijacking.
9:24 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 77 hijacking.
9:37 Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.
10:06 Flight 93 crashes in a Pennsylvania field.

The open secret here is that stateside U.S. air defenses had been reduced to paltry levels since the end of the Cold War. According to a report by Paul Thompson published at the endlessly informative Center for Cooperative Research website (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org), "[O]nly two air force bases in the Northeast region... were formally part of NORAD's defensive system. One was Otis Air National Guard Base, on Massachusetts's Cape Cod peninsula and about 188 miles east of New York City. The other was Langley Air Force Base near Norfolk, Virginia, and about 129 miles south of Washington. During the Cold War, the U.S. had literally thousands of fighters on alert. But as the Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it reached only 14 fighters in the continental U.S. by 9/11."

But even an underpowered air defense system on slow-response status (15 minutes, officially, on 9/11) does not explain the magnitude of NORAD's apparent failures that day. Start with the discrepancy in the times at which NORAD commanders claim to have learned of the various hijackings. By 8:43 a.m., NORAD had been notified of two probable hijackings in the previous five minutes. If there was such a thing as a system-wide air defense crisis plan, it should have kicked in at that moment. Three minutes later, at 8:46, Flight 11 crashed into the first WTC tower. By then alerts should have been going out to all regional air traffic centers of apparent coordinated hijackings in progress. Yet when Flight 77, which eventually crashed into the Pentagon, was hijacked three minutes later, at 8:46, NORAD claims not to have learned of it until 9:24, 38 minutes after the fact and just 13 minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon.

The professed lag in reacting to the hijacking of Flight 93 is just as striking. NORAD acknowledged learning of the hijacking at 9:16, yet the Pentagon's position is that it had not yet intercepted the plane when it crashed in a Pennsylvania field just minutes away from Washington, D.C. at 10:06, a full 50 minutes later.

In fact, there are a couple of other circumstantial details of the crash, discussed mostly in Pennsylvania newspapers and barely noted in national wire stories, that suggest Flight 93 may have been shot down after all. First, officials never disputed reports that there was a secondary debris field six miles from the main crash site, and a few press accounts said that it included one of the plane's engines. A secondary debris field points to an explosion on board, from one of two probable causes--a terrorist bomb carried on board or an Air Force missile. And no investigation has ever intimated that any of the four terror crews were toting explosives. They kept to simple tools like the box cutters, for ease in passing security. Second, a handful of eyewitnesses in the rural area around the crash site did report seeing low-flying U.S. military jets around the time of the crash.

Which only raises another question. Shooting down Flight 93 would have been incontestably the right thing to do under the circumstances. More than that, it would have constituted the only evidence of anything NORAD and the Pentagon had done right that whole morning. So why deny it? Conversely, if fighter jets really were not on the scene when 93 crashed, why weren't they? How could that possibly be?




16) The Bush administration had a plan for restoring essential services and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure after the shooting war ended.

The question of what the U.S. would do to rebuild Iraq was raised before the shooting started. I remember reading a press briefing in which a Pentagon official boasted that at the time, the American reconstruction team had already spent three weeks planning the postwar world! The Pentagon's first word was that the essentials of rebuilding the country would take about $10 billion and three months; this stood in fairly stark contrast to UN estimates that an aggressive rebuilding program could cost up to $100 billion a year for a minimum of three years.

After the shooting stopped it was evident the U.S. had no plan for keeping order in the streets, much less commencing to rebuild. (They are upgrading certain oil facilities, but that's another matter.) There are two ways to read this. The popular version is that it proves what bumblers Bush and his crew really are. And it's certainly true that where the details of their grand designs are concerned, the administration tends to have postures rather than plans. But this ignores the strategic advantages the U.S. stands to reap by leaving Iraqi domestic affairs in a chronic state of (managed, they hope) chaos. Most important, it provides an excuse for the continued presence of a large U.S. force, which ensures that America will call the shots in putting Iraqi oil back on the world market and seeing to it that the Iraqis don't fall in with the wrong sort of oil company partners. A long military occupation is also a practical means of accomplishing something the U.S. cannot do officially, which is to maintain air bases in Iraq indefinitely. (This became necessary after the U.S. agreed to vacate its bases in Saudi Arabia earlier this year to try to defuse anti-U.S. political tensions there.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. plans to pay for whatever rebuilding it gets around to doing with the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales, an enormous cash box the U.S. will oversee for the good of the Iraqi people.

In other words, "no plan" may have been the plan the Bushmen were intent on pursuing all along.



17) The U.S. has made a good-faith effort at peacekeeping in Iraq during the postwar period.

"Some [looters] shot big grins at American soldiers and Marines or put down their prizes to offer a thumbs-up or a quick finger across the throat and a whispered word--Saddam--before grabbing their loot and vanishing."

--Robert Fisk, London Independent, 4/11/03

Despite the many clashes between U.S. troops and Iraqis in the three months since the heavy artillery fell silent, the postwar performance of U.S. forces has been more remarkable for the things they have not done--their failure to intervene in civil chaos or to begin reestablishing basic civil procedures. It isn't the soldiers' fault. Traditionally an occupation force is headed up by military police units schooled to interact with the natives and oversee the restoration of goods and services. But Rumsfeld has repeatedly declined advice to rotate out the combat troops sooner rather than later and replace some of them with an MP force. Lately this has been a source of escalating criticism within military ranks.



18) Despite vocal international opposition, the U.S. was backed by most of the world, as evidenced by the 40-plus-member Coalition of the Willing.

When the whole world opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the outcry was so loud that it briefly pierced the slumber of the American public, which poured out its angst in poll numbers that bespoke little taste for a war without the UN's blessing. So it became necessary to assure the folks at home that the whole world was in fact for the invasion. Thus was born the Coalition of the Willing, consisting of the U.S. and UK, with Australia caddying--and 40-some additional co-champions of U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East, whose ranks included such titans of diplomacy and pillars of representative government as Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Eritrea, and Micronesia. If the American public noticed the ruse, all was nonetheless forgotten when Baghdad fell. Everybody loves a winner.



19) This war was notable for its protection of civilians.

This from the Herald of Scotland, May 23: "American guns, bombs, and missiles killed more civilians in the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid agencies, and independent study groups. Despite U.S. boasts this was the fastest, most clinical campaign in military history, a first snapshot of 'collateral damage' indicates that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants died in the course of the hi-tech blitzkrieg."



20) The looting of archaeological and historic sites in Baghdad was unanticipated.

General Jay Garner himself, then the head man for postwar Iraq, told the Washington Times that he had put the Iraqi National Museum second on a list of sites requiring protection after the fall of the Saddam government, and he had no idea why the recommendation was ignored. It's also a matter of record that the administration had met in January with a group of U.S. scholars concerned with the preservation of Iraq's fabulous Sumerian antiquities. So the war planners were aware of the riches at stake. According to Scotland's Sunday Herald, the Pentagon took at least one other meeting as well: "[A] coalition of antiquities collectors and arts lawyers, calling itself the American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP), met with U.S. Defense and State department officials prior to the start of military action to offer its assistance.... The group is known to consist of a number of influential dealers who favor a relaxation of Iraq's tight restrictions on the ownership and export of antiquities.... [Archaeological Institute of America] president Patty Gerstenblith said: 'The ACCP's agenda is to encourage the collecting of antiquities through weakening the laws of archaeologically rich nations and eliminate national ownership of antiquities to allow for easier export.'"



21) Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist groups.

This is very concisely debunked in Walter Pincus's July 21 Washington Post story, so I'll quote him: "'Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,' President Bush said in Cincinnati on October 7.... But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating October 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States."



22) Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes.

Again the WashPost wraps it up nicely: "The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public 'dossier' on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair--and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable."



23) The Bush administration is seeking to create a viable Palestinian state.

The interests of the U.S. toward the Palestinians have not changed--not yet, at least. Israel's "security needs" are still the U.S.'s sturdiest pretext for its military role in policing the Middle East and arming its Israeli proxies. But the U.S.'s immediate needs have tilted since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the Bushmen need a fig leaf--to confuse, if not exactly cover, their designs, and to give shaky pro-U.S. governments in the region some scrap to hold out to their own restive peoples. Bush's roadmap has scared the hell out of the Israeli right, but they have little reason to worry. Press reports in the U.S. and Israel have repeatedly telegraphed the assurance that Bush won't try to push Ariel Sharon any further than he's comfortable going.



24) People detained by the U.S. after 9/11 were legitimate terror suspects.

Quite the contrary, as disclosed officially in last month's critical report on U.S. detainees from the Justice Department's own Office of Inspector General. A summary analysis of post-9/11 detentions posted at the UC-Davis website states, "None of the 1,200 foreigners arrested and detained in secret after September 11 was charged with an act of terrorism. Instead, after periods of detention that ranged from weeks to months, most were deported for violating immigration laws. The government said that 752 of 1,200 foreigners arrested after September 11 were in custody in May 2002, but only 81 were still in custody in September 2002."



25) The U.S. is obeying the Geneva conventions in its treatment of terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.

The entire mumbo-jumbo about "unlawful combatants" was conceived to skirt the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners by making them out to be something other than POWs. Here is the actual wording of Donald Rumsfeld's pledge, freighted with enough qualifiers to make it absolutely meaningless: "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions to the extent they are appropriate." Meanwhile the administration has treated its prisoners--many of whom, as we are now seeing confirmed in legal hearings, have no plausible connection to terrorist enterprises--in a manner that blatantly violates several key Geneva provisions regarding humane treatment and housing.



26) Shots rang out from the Palestine hotel, directed at U.S. soldiers, just before a U.S. tank fired on the hotel, killing two journalists.

Eyewitnesses to the April 8 attack uniformly denied any gunfire from the hotel. And just two hours prior to firing on the hotel, U.S. forces had bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing a Jordanian reporter. Taken together, and considering the timing, they were deemed a warning to unembedded journalists covering the fall of Baghdad around them. The day's events seem to have been an extreme instance of a more surreptitious pattern of hostility demonstrated by U.S. and UK forces toward foreign journalists and those non-attached Western reporters who moved around the country at will. (One of them, Terry Lloyd of Britain's ITN, was shot to death by UK troops at a checkpoint in late March under circumstances the British government has refused to disclose.)

Some days after firing on the Palestine Hotel, the U.S. sent in a commando unit to raid select floors of the hotel that were known to be occupied by journalists, and the news gatherers were held on the floor at gunpoint while their rooms were searched. A Centcom spokesman later explained cryptically that intelligence reports suggested there were people "not friendly to the U.S." staying at the hotel. Allied forces also bombed the headquarters of Abu Dhabi TV, injuring several.




The president instructs naval planners in the finer points of three-card monte


PHOTO BY TYLER J. CLEMENTS

27) U.S. troops "rescued" Private Jessica Lynch from an Iraqi hospital.

If I had wanted to run up the tally of administration lies, the Lynch episode alone could be parsed into several more. Officials claimed that Lynch and her comrades were taken after a firefight in which Lynch battled back bravely. Later they announced with great fanfare that U.S. Special Forces had rescued Lynch from her captors. They reported that she had been shot and stabbed. Later yet, they reported that the recuperating Lynch had no memory of the events.

Bit by bit it all proved false. Lynch's injuries occurred when the vehicle she was riding in crashed. She did not fire on anybody and she was not shot or stabbed. The Iraqi soldiers who had been holding her had abandoned the hospital where she was staying the night before U.S. troops came to get her--a development her "rescuers" were aware of. In fact her doctor had tried to return her to the Americans the previous evening after the Iraqi soldiers left. But he was forced to turn back when U.S. troops fired on the approaching ambulance. As for Lynch's amnesia, her family has told reporters her memory is perfectly fine.



28) The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq generally turned out en masse to greet U.S. troops as liberators.

There were indeed scattered expressions of thanks when U.S. divisions rolled in, but they were neither as extensive nor as enthusiastic as Bush image-makers pretended. Within a day or two of the Saddam government's fall, the scene in the Baghdad streets turned to wholesale ransacking and vandalism. Within the week, large-scale protests of the U.S. occupation had already begun occurring in every major Iraqi city.



29) A spontaneous crowd of cheering Iraqis showed up in a Baghdad square to celebrate the toppling of Saddam's statue.

A long-distance shot of the same scene that was widely posted on the internet shows that the teeming mob consisted of only one or two hundred souls, contrary to the impression given by all the close-up TV news shots of what appeared to be a massive gathering. It was later reported that members of Ahmed Chalabi's local entourage made up most of the throng.



30) No major figure in the Bush administration said that the Iraqi populace would turn out en masse to welcome the U.S. military as liberators.

When confronted with--oh, call them reality deficits--one habit of the Bushmen is to deny that they made erroneous or misleading statements to begin with, secure in the knowledge that the media will rarely muster the energy to look it up and call them on it. They did it when their bold prewar WMD predictions failed to pan out (We never said it would be easy! No, they only implied it), and they did it when the "jubilant Iraqis" who took to the streets after the fall of Saddam turned out to be anything but (We never promised they would welcome us with open arms!).

But they did. March 16, Dick Cheney, Meet the Press: The Iraqis are desperate "to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.... [T]he vast majority of them would turn on [Saddam] in a minute if, in fact, they thought they could do so safely").



31) The U.S. achieved its stated objectives in Afghanistan, and vanquished the Taliban.

According to accounts in the Asia Times of Hong Kong, the U.S. held a secret meeting earlier this year with Taliban leaders and Pakistani intelligence officials to offer a deal to the Taliban for inclusion in the Afghan government. (Main condition: Dump Mullah Omar.) As Michael Tomasky commented in The American Prospect, "The first thing you may be wondering: Why is there a possible role for the Taliban in a future government? Isn't that fellow Hamid Karzai running things, and isn't it all going basically okay? As it turns out, not really and not at all.... The reality... is an escalating guerilla war in which 'small hit-and-run attacks are a daily feature in most parts of the country, while face-to-face skirmishes are common in the former Taliban stronghold around Kandahar in the south.'"



32) Careful science demonstrates that depleted uranium is no big risk to the population.

Pure nonsense. While the government has trotted out expert after expert to debunk the dangers of depleted uranium, DU has been implicated in health troubles experienced both by Iraqis and by U.S. and allied soldiers in the first Gulf War. Unexploded DU shells are not a grave danger, but detonated ones release particles that eventually find their way into air, soil, water, and food.

While we're on the subject, the BBC reported a couple of months ago that recent tests of Afghani civilians have turned up with unusually high concentrations of non-depleted uranium isotopes in their urine. International monitors have called it almost conclusive evidence that the U.S. used a new kind of uranium-laced bomb in the Afghan war.



33) The looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities presented no big risk to the population.

Commanders on the scene, and Rumsfeld back in Washington, immediately assured everyone that the looting of a facility where raw uranium powder (so-called "yellowcake") and several other radioactive isotopes were stored was no serious danger to the populace--yet the looting of the facility came to light in part because, as the Washington Times noted, "U.S. and British newspaper reports have suggested that residents of the area were suffering from severe ill health after tipping out yellowcake powder from barrels and using them to store food."



34) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon a crowd of civilian protesters in Mosul.

April 15: U.S. troops fire into a crowd of protesters when it grows angry at the pro-Western speech being given by the town's new mayor, Mashaan al-Juburi. Seven are killed and dozens injured. Eyewitness accounts say the soldiers spirit Juburi away as he is pelted with objects by the crowd, then take sniper positions and begin firing on the crowd.



35) U.S. troops were under attack when they fired upon two separate crowds of civilian protesters in Fallujah.

April 28: American troops fire into a crowd of demonstrators gathered on Saddam's birthday, killing 13 and injuring 75. U.S. commanders claim the troops had come under fire, but eyewitnesses contradict the account, saying the troops started shooting after they were spooked by warning shots fired over the crowd by one of the Americans' own Humvees. Two days later U.S. soldiers fired on another crowd in Fallujah, killing three more.



36) The Iraqis fighting occupation forces consist almost entirely of "Saddam supporters" or "Ba'ath remnants."

This has been the subject of considerable spin on the Bushmen's part in the past month, since they launched Operation Sidewinder to capture or kill remaining opponents of the U.S. occupation. It's true that the most fierce (but by no means all) of the recent guerrilla opposition has been concentrated in the Sunni-dominated areas that were Saddam's stronghold, and there is no question that Saddam partisans are numerous there. But, perhaps for that reason, many other guerrilla fighters have flocked there to wage jihad, both from within and without Iraq. Around the time of the U.S. invasion, some 10,000 or so foreign fighters had crossed into Iraq, and I've seen no informed estimate of how many more may have joined them since.

(No room here, but if you check the online version of this story, there's a footnote regarding one less-than-obvious reason former Republican Guard personnel may be fighting mad at this point.)




37) The bidding process for Iraq rebuilding contracts displayed no favoritism toward Bush and Cheney's oil/gas cronies.

Most notoriously, Dick Cheney's former energy-sector employer, Halliburton, was all over the press dispatches about the first round of rebuilding contracts. So much so that they were eventually obliged to bow out of the running for a $1 billion reconstruction contract for the sake of their own PR profile. But Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root still received the first major plum in the form of a $7 billion contract to tend to oil field fires and (the real purpose) to do any retooling necessary to get the oil pumping at a decent rate, a deal that allows them a cool $500 million in profit. The fact that Dick Cheney's office is still fighting tooth and nail to block any disclosure of the individuals and companies with whom his energy task force consulted tells everything you need to know.



38) "We found the WMDs!"

There have been at least half a dozen junctures at which the Bushmen have breathlessly informed the press that allied troops had found the WMD smoking gun, including the president himself, who on June 1 told reporters, "For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Shouldn't these quickly falsified statements be counted as errors rather than lies? Under the circumstances, no. First, there is just too voluminous a record of the administration going on the media offensive to tout lines they know to be flimsy. This appears to be more of same. Second, if the great genius Karl Rove and the rest of the Bushmen have demonstrated that they understand anything about the propaganda potential of the historical moment they've inherited, they surely understand that repetition is everything. Get your message out regularly, and even if it's false a good many people will believe it.

Finally, we don't have to speculate about whether the administration would really plant bogus WMD evidence in the American media, because they have already done it, most visibly in the case of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the Iraqi defector "scientist" she wrote about at the military's behest on April 21. Miller did not even get to speak with the purported scientist, but she graciously passed on several things American commanders claimed he said: that Iraq only destroyed its chemical weapons days before the war, that WMD materiel had been shipped to Syria, and that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. As Slate media critic Jack Shafer told WNYC Radio's On the Media program, "When you... look at [her story], you find that it's gas, it's air. There's no way to judge the value of her information, because it comes from an unnamed source that won't let her verify any aspect of it. And if you dig into the story... you'll find out that the only thing that Miller has independently observed is a man that the military says is the scientist, wearing a baseball cap, pointing at mounds in the dirt."



39) "The Iraqi people are now free."

So says the current U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, in a recent New York Times op-ed. He failed to add that disagreeing can get you shot or arrested under the terms of the Pentagon's latest plan for pacifying Iraq, Operation Sidewinder (see #36), a military op launched last month to wipe out all remaining Ba'athists and Saddam partisans--meaning, in practice, anyone who resists the U.S. occupation too zealously.



40) God told Bush to invade Iraq.

Not long after the September 11 attacks, neoconservative high priest Norman Podhoretz wrote: "One hears that Bush, who entered the White House without a clear sense of what he wanted to do there, now feels there was a purpose behind his election all along; as a born-again Christian, it is said, he believes he was chosen by God to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world."

No, he really believes it, or so he would like us to think. The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that Bush made the following pronouncement during a recent meeting between the two: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

Oddly, it never got much play back home.

[Captain Zen]

DEar moderator,
You most possibly will not post this one as it goes against your "belief".
However, why would you deny this information to so many people who lack these insights and informations that are not easy to find, and let the people decide what to do with it instead of deciding for them?
Are you the all "knowing-what's-good-for-you" to decide what can be posted and what not?

http://www.savethemales.ca/000889.html

[smoothm]

Originally posted by P.J.:
Almost 10 days ago, I submitted a poll, consisting of one simple multiple-choice question.

Simple yes, but many people wrote to ask you to clearly define the purpose of the pole and the terms used. So far, you have not done so.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Bob S.:

"before 9/11, there was no successful, large attack on American soil"

Albinus, US got lucky in the early 90s when WTC-I wasn't successful. The bombers merely underestimated the amount of explosives it would take to cause major damage.

We did have some government positions attacked in the two countries in Africa and in Saudia Arabia as well as the USS Cole. Those attacks were all declarations of war against the US and little was done.

Bob S.

I considered the WTC 1993 attack when writing that statement which is why I used both words "large" and "successful". My point is that no American President, if he/she is a typical politician, is going to do something that is not

a) on his/her ideological agenda
b) isn't a pressing issue for the public

WRT point b, because there was no large, successful attack on Americans on American soil, the public didn't give much of a hoot about terrorism. And wrt point a), Iraq was clearly the focus of the current Administration from day 1, not terrorism. Hence, before 9/11, neither Bush II nor Clinton nor Bush I nor Reagan had terrorist attacks on American soil as a priority. Yes, there were attacks on Americans overseas but that started well before the 90s.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by smoothm:
Originally posted by P.J.:
Almost 10 days ago, I submitted a poll, consisting of one simple multiple-choice question.

Simple yes, but many people wrote to ask you to clearly define the purpose of the pole and the terms used. So far, you have not done so.

The US army has no lessons to teach about democracy. The way they threat homosexuals is pure fascism.

[hm0504]

Can't remember where I heard it, but I did hear recently that in order to help its membership drive, the U.S. military is, quietly, softening its anti-homosexual stance.

[hm0504]

Well, I've heard kids being referred to as little terrors...but this is ridiculous!

Ahh, the joys of well-intentioned bureaucracy...
"'No-fly list' keeps infants off planes ":
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Can't remember where I heard it, but I did hear recently that in order to help its membership drive, the U.S. military is, quietly, softening its anti-homosexual stance.

They have quietly relaxed many of its former standards. Such as drugs. Being a drug addict, or using drugs, is no longer a reason to be seperated from the services, and they'll take you even if you test positive for drugs during recruiting.

Qikdraw

[Captain Zen]

What I like on this forum is that I, as multi national world citizen, without any fixed religion or creed, can see the mindset of the average American: for instance it looks like that most still believe the "official" story of 9/11. Dozens of websites with scientists, CIA members and firemen, videos and photos all show clearly that it was an inside job, ataged to enrage the American public into supporting the planned wars in the Middle East.
Here again follows a good scenario, hard to reject or deny:
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm
Wake up America, take charge of your country, defend your founding father's principles! Impeach Bush and his cabal! Don't let a small group of fanatics unleash world war III.........

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Can't remember where I heard it, but I did hear recently that in order to help its membership drive, the U.S. military is, quietly, softening its anti-homosexual stance. Gay soldiers discharged for having an online ad (http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/08/04/1)


Not only they have not "relax" their standards for gays, they even "witch hunt" them on gay websites.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
What I like on this forum is that I, as multi national world citizen, without any fixed religion or creed, can see the mindset of the average American: for instance it looks like that most still believe the "official" story of 9/11. Dozens of websites with scientists, CIA members and firemen, videos and photos all show clearly that it was an inside job, ataged to enrage the American public into supporting the planned wars in the Middle East.
Here again follows a good scenario, hard to reject or deny:
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm
Wake up America, take charge of your country, defend your founding father's principles! Impeach Bush and his cabal! Don't let a small group of fanatics unleash world war III.........

Do not forget that more than 90% of people do not "believe" in chemtrails even if they could see them most days by just look up at the sky.
Art Bell speak about chemtrails non stop for months, not to mention researchers like CarnicomCarnicom, chemtrails, aerosol sprays (http://www.carnicom.com).

What is said on Fox News is more real for most people than what their eyes can see or their logics.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0816/p01s04-uspo.html


Some "dictatorship" eh? LOL

[KirkOntario]

More Clinton "half truths" usually called 'baloney' or 'lies': This time he seeks to re-write history.

"Bill Clinton Rewrites History On Al-Qaeda
Bill Clinton tells New York magazine that he desperately wishes that the FBI had been able to "prove" that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda had masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 so that he could have attacked Afghanistan instead of George Bush (Newsmax also reports this here):

"I desperately wish that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole," Clinton tells New York magazine this week. "Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early."
"I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11," he added. "But it certainly would have complicated it.” ...

"I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did."


Clinton has tried on more than one occasion to adapt history to make his eight-year turn in the White House something more than a paean to lost time while Islamofascists gained ground. This particular effort fails miserably, mostly due to the efforts of the 9/11 Commission, which detailed exactly when the FBI and CIA made their determination that al-Qaeda had executed the attack on the Cole. "

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

[Captain Zen]

But the Turkish inteligence boys who have their ear a bit closer to the ground in the M East, say this:
Turkish Intelligence: Al-Qaeda a U.S. Covert Operation

By Kurt Nimmo

08/15/05 "Another Day In The Empire" -- -- Consider the following, published in Zaman, the fifth largest newspaper in Turkey: “Amid the smoke from the fortuitous fire [i.e., the capture of Louai Sakra, said to be the al-CIA-duh regional boss in Turkey] emerged the possibility that al-Qaeda may not be, strictly speaking, an organization but an element of an intelligence agency operation. Turkish intelligence specialists agree that there is no such organization as al-Qaeda. Rather, Al-Qaeda is the name of a secret service operation. The concept ‘fighting terror’ is the background of the ‘low-intensity-warfare’ conducted in the mono-polar world order. The subject of this strategy of tension is named as ‘al-Qaeda.’” Note the use of the phrase “strategy of tension,” an obvious reference to Gladio, the state-sponsored terrorist operation in Italy (basically a series of fascist false flag operations, or “low intensity warfare,” blamed on leftists). It is interesting that Turkish intelligence would admit that the neocon “war against terrorism” is an entirely artificial construct.

Moreover, according to Turkish intelligence, “Sakra has been sought by the secret services since 2000. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogated him twice before. Following the interrogation CIA offered him employment. He also received a large sum of money by CIA. However the CIA eventually lost contact with him.” It is curious how alleged key people in the al-CIA-duh network end up working for the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

For instance, Abdurahman Khadr, who (according to ABC News Online) “lived side-by-side with Osama bin Laden,” was a “double agent, sent to spy on Al Qaeda fighters at Guantanamo Bay and in Bosnia.” Ali Mohamed, a former U.S. Army sergeant who trained Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards and helped plan the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, worked for the FBI (Mohamed, obviously with the grace of the feds, brought Ayman al-Zawahiri to San Francisco on a covert fund-raising mission), according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Hamid Reza Zakeri claimed (during the trial of Abdelghani Mzoudi, a Moroccan accused of helping the nine eleven hijackers) that “Iran’s secret service had contacts with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network ahead of the September 11 attacks,” according to Reuters. It just so happens Zakeri claims the CIA owes him $1.2 for services rendered as a double agent. Mullah Krekar, the leader of Ansar al-Islam, told al-Hayat newspaper in 2003 he had “a meeting with a CIA representative and someone from the American army in the town of Sulaymaniya (Iraqi Kurdistan) at the end of 2000. They asked us to collaborate with them,” an offer Krekar said he refused. Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, aka Abu Omar, “a dangerous terrorist who once plotted to kill the Egyptian foreign minister,” according to the Chicago Tribune, was such a valued CIA asset it was deemed necessary to kidnap him off the streets of Milan after he had second thoughts about his work. And then there was Muhammad Naeem Noor Khanm, the al-Qaeda “computer engineer” who “became part of a sting operation organized by the CIA,” according to the Washington Post.

Of course, all of this CIA funny business is coincidental. Remember, the CIA is ineffectual, even if it did create Islamic terrorism—the agency actually boasts about this, says the Afghan Mujahideen (aka “al-Qaeda”) was its most successful operation to date—and it was “intelligence failures” that caused nine eleven.

Copyright: Kurt Nimmo - Visit his blog - http://kurtnimmo.com

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
What I like on this forum is that I, as multi national world citizen, without any fixed religion or creed, can see the mindset of the average American: for instance it looks like that most still believe the "official" story of 9/11. Dozens of websites with scientists, CIA members and firemen, videos and photos all show clearly that it was an inside job, ataged to enrage the American public into supporting the planned wars in the Middle East.
Here again follows a good scenario, hard to reject or deny:
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm
Wake up America, take charge of your country, defend your founding father's principles! Impeach Bush and his cabal! Don't let a small group of fanatics unleash world war III.........

I like this theory of the 9/11 attacks being an inside job...did you know that the US DID NOT drop atomic bombs on Japan? It was an inside job...the Japanese dropped the atomic bombs on themselves to make the US feel guilty enough to rebuilb their country...oh, that and buy all their future cars....

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by P.J.:
Almost 10 days ago, I submitted a poll, consisting of one simple multiple-choice question.

So far, 8 pages of responses have been generated by this poll yet only 20 have actually answered my question.

I realize that we don't all agree on many of the current issues and I respect the views of others, even the views which conflict with mine, provided that there is thought and not blind and ignorant rage behind those same views (and that includes conservative opinions).

Whether you wish to wave the flag and sing patriotic songs or quote the Communist Manifesto in its entirety, please participate in the poll and answer the question!

Just to let you know...I already voted. Didn't see no harm in it...LOL.

[Captain Zen]

Yea cool, and the Germans themself bombed Dresden for sure.
And of course these US physisists who opened their own investigation must all be "mad scientists".
http://physics911.net/
I can't believe it, because FOX and CNN did say nothing like that.

[Captain Zen]

Here is a list of mad scientists who ALL question the official 9/11 version, and their findings are on the site http://physics911.net

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
Members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven come from a variety of professional backgrounds. Some investigate aspects of the 9/11 attacks, others search the web for useful information, and some write up new material. We have tried to maintain professional standards in both the analysis and presentation of the evidence we have assembled, as well as in the scenarios we have constructed.

General Statement by the Panel:

"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."

Panel members are scientists, engineers, and other professionals. All contribute through search and research. Members of S.P.I.N.E. may be contacted by clicking here and entering the name of the member you'd like to contact, along with a brief message.

Members:

Robert Ballan
Norwood, NY, USA

MSc & JD: Clarkson College
Chemistry & Law

Walter Davis
Kent, OH, USA

PhD: U of Connecticut
Kinesiology
A. K. Dewdney
London, Canada

PhD: U of Waterloo
Mathematics
Derrick Grimmer
Ames, IA, USA

PhD: Washington University
Physics
Timothy P. Howell
Upsala, Sweden

PhD: U. of Edinburgh
Computer Science
Joseph M. Keith
Tustin, CA, USA

BSE: California State University at LA
Aerospace engineer
Peter J. Kirsch
Western Cape, South Africa

MD: University of Witwatersrand
Forensic pathology
Jerry Longspaugh
Fort Worth, TX, USA

MSc: Brooklyn Polytechnic
Aerospace engineer
Brad Mayeaux
Kenner, LA, USA

Electr. &Tech. Inst. of New Orleans
Cellphone engineer
George F. Nelson
Huntsville, AL, USA

US Air Force
Colonel (ret.)
Ralph W. Omholt
Kirkland, WA, USA

AAPP University of Alaska
Professional Airline Pilot
Morgan Reynolds
Arkansas, USA PhD: U of Wisconsin
former Chief Economist,
United States Department of Labor



Helen Stace
Perth, Australia

PhD: U of Sydney
Biology

Bernard Windham
Tallahassee, FL, USA MS Florida State
MS Louisiana State
Statistician
Gregory Zeigler
Santa Fe, NM, USA PhD: U of California at Los Angeles
Military Intelligence


Associate Members

John DiNardo
Towaco, NJ, USA

BA: Kean University
Science Education
Patrick Dority
San Diego, CA, USA

U of California San Diego
Software Engineer
Donald Eckhoff
Morgan Hill CA, USA

Drexel Institute of Technology
Engineer & manufacturer
Eric Hufschmid
Goleta, CA, USA

CAD/CAM Software Developer
Kenyon Gibson
London, England

USC @ Santa Barbara
US Naval Intelligence
Leland Lehrman
Santa Fe, NM, USA
+1.505.982.3609

Webmaster
Radio Show Host
Activist
Frank Levi
Dromara, N. Ireland

BSc (Hons) Queens University of Belfast
IT Manager
Don Paul
San Francisco, CA, USA

Stegner Fellow: Stanford University
author/activist
Martha Rush
Auburn Hills, MI, USA

Oxford High School
Certified Respiratory Therapist & private pilot

Jonah Winters
Vancouver, Canada MA: U of Toronto
Web designer

[Captain Zen]

"Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond, or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure."
--Francis Bacon

And here dear naked poster, or should I say imposter?, is the Pearl that Nessie dug up for you from the deep: "Operation Pearl"
http://physics911.net/pearl.htm

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Here is a list of mad scientists who ALL question the official 9/11 version, and their findings are on the site http://physics911.net

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
Members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven come from a variety of professional backgrounds. Some investigate aspects of the 9/11 attacks, others search the web for useful information, and some write up new material. We have tried to maintain professional standards in both the analysis and presentation of the evidence we have assembled, as well as in the scenarios we have constructed.

General Statement by the Panel:

"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."

Panel members are scientists, engineers, and other professionals. All contribute through search and research. Members of S.P.I.N.E. may be contacted by clicking here and entering the name of the member you'd like to contact, along with a brief message.

Members:

Robert Ballan
Norwood, NY, USA

MSc & JD: Clarkson College
Chemistry & Law

Walter Davis
Kent, OH, USA

PhD: U of Connecticut
Kinesiology
A. K. Dewdney
London, Canada

PhD: U of Waterloo
Mathematics
Derrick Grimmer
Ames, IA, USA

PhD: Washington University
Physics
Timothy P. Howell
Upsala, Sweden

PhD: U. of Edinburgh
Computer Science
Joseph M. Keith
Tustin, CA, USA

BSE: California State University at LA
Aerospace engineer
Peter J. Kirsch
Western Cape, South Africa

MD: University of Witwatersrand
Forensic pathology
Jerry Longspaugh
Fort Worth, TX, USA

MSc: Brooklyn Polytechnic
Aerospace engineer
Brad Mayeaux
Kenner, LA, USA

Electr. &Tech. Inst. of New Orleans
Cellphone engineer
George F. Nelson
Huntsville, AL, USA

US Air Force
Colonel (ret.)
Ralph W. Omholt
Kirkland, WA, USA

AAPP University of Alaska
Professional Airline Pilot
Morgan Reynolds
Arkansas, USA PhD: U of Wisconsin
former Chief Economist,
United States Department of Labor



Helen Stace
Perth, Australia

PhD: U of Sydney
Biology

Bernard Windham
Tallahassee, FL, USA MS Florida State
MS Louisiana State
Statistician
Gregory Zeigler
Santa Fe, NM, USA PhD: U of California at Los Angeles
Military Intelligence


Associate Members

John DiNardo
Towaco, NJ, USA

BA: Kean University
Science Education
Patrick Dority
San Diego, CA, USA

U of California San Diego
Software Engineer
Donald Eckhoff
Morgan Hill CA, USA

Drexel Institute of Technology
Engineer & manufacturer
Eric Hufschmid
Goleta, CA, USA

CAD/CAM Software Developer
Kenyon Gibson
London, England

USC @ Santa Barbara
US Naval Intelligence
Leland Lehrman
Santa Fe, NM, USA
+1.505.982.3609

Webmaster
Radio Show Host
Activist
Frank Levi
Dromara, N. Ireland

BSc (Hons) Queens University of Belfast
IT Manager
Don Paul
San Francisco, CA, USA

Stegner Fellow: Stanford University
author/activist
Martha Rush
Auburn Hills, MI, USA

Oxford High School
Certified Respiratory Therapist & private pilot

Jonah Winters
Vancouver, Canada MA: U of Toronto
Web designer

This website...physics911...must be for those who are convinced there was no moon landing. The contents of this site, and similar sites, have been been thoroughly critiqued by a wide variety of folks (in most cases all you need is some decent analytical skills, a cynical eye for the tricks a photographer can play on you, and perhaps some experience investigating aviation crash sites).

I'll point to just a few of the sites which point out how ridiculous this stuff is:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

It's also worth mentioning that there several scientific groups have run simulations on the events of 9/11 and found them entirely consistent with the facts we have.

[Bob S.]

"The link to that, while there, is far less than that of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, etc..."

Qikdraw,

The problem is that Iraq was still under UN sanctions, having lost to allied forces a decade earlier. Had they not attacked Kuwait and forced a war with the US and our allies, Saddam would still be in power because Bush would not have had a reason to go in there. The UN's sanctions were his ticket in.

"Attacking Iraq has increased the danger to the US, not decreased it."

I disagree. We are in no worse shape in threats than we were between 9/11 and Iraq.

"So are you now saying that the Iraq war was planned even before 9/11?"

I am sure that there have been plans for invading Iraq since Gulf War I ended.

"So the whole story of WMDs, brining democracy, freeing the Iraqi people, etc... is all just a shame to get a US foothold into the Middle East?"

No, not a sham (I believe that is the wrod you meant). Many people had thought Iraq had WMDs. Bush and administration felt that Saddam was hiding them from inspectors and trying to smuggle them out of the country. That was what he used to attack Iraq using the very UN sanctions that were in effect.

The US has wanted a foothold in the area for a long time. This was perfect for that purpose. And since, for some reason, we want to bring democracies to all countries (something I don't necessarily agree with), that was the planned result of the ensuing government and freeing the people from a murderous tyrant would be very good as well.

"Saddam had no "allies" in terrorism"

He was a terrorist. Ask the Iraqis who live in the north. I know he had no links to any terrorist organization. He had no need to be, he was the head of his own.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

b) isn't a pressing issue for the public

"WRT point b, because there was no large, successful attack on Americans on American soil, the public didn't give much of a hoot about terrorism."

So what if the public didn't care about terrorism? Albinus, the job of a president is not to care what the public thinks, but to protect the US from all attacks. We were attacked by Osama and all we did was to launch a few missles into Afghanistan and convict one of the main perpetrators. It didn't work.

Zen, do you think the US government is that powerful? Do you think they could have pulled off such a covert, secret, and successful operation with absolutely no leaks to the media or anyone who is willing to bring it into the light through any legitimate news organization?

This is what the "X-Files" was about. The idea that the government cannot be as inept as we think and is capable of extremely secret operations that would make every world citizen question anything.

So was there a UFO crash in Roswell as well?

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
b) isn't a pressing issue for the public

"WRT point b, because there was no large, successful attack on Americans on American soil, the public didn't give much of a hoot about terrorism."

So what if the public didn't care about terrorism? Albinus, the job of a president is not to care what the public thinks, but to protect the US from all attacks. We were attacked by Osama and all we did was to launch a few missles into Afghanistan and convict one of the main perpetrators. It didn't work.

Zen, do you think the US government is that powerful? Do you think they could have pulled off such a covert, secret, and successful operation with absolutely no leaks to the media or anyone who is willing to bring it into the light through any legitimate news organization?

This is what the "X-Files" was about. The idea that the government cannot be as inept as we think and is capable of extremely secret operations that would make every world citizen question anything.

So was there a UFO crash in Roswell as well?

Bob S.
Best just to ignore the posts. You cannot argue with a conspiracy theorist.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17...=rssuserland&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?ex=1281931200&en=2b945263d3848ee1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

More on Clinton and Osama Bin Laden:
State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

Skip to next paragraph

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the
long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan. "

[Captain Zen]

respected golden Kirk, what karat are you?
First, I am not arguing, I only show you what I found, as I said in posts before, Bob S., every angle, not only yours, before you can form a balanced, scientific meaning, based on deep and honest research. YOUR meaning is based on what exactly? FOX, CNN and the "9/11 Commission"?
And YES, I believe that the Busch cabal was/is capable of organising such tremendous operation, for sure.
About Roswell I have no information, as I said before, Google your quest, don't ask me to find out all there is to find.......... This topic is Busch Basching, not Roswell...
And see, 7 month ago Busch had the military plan the attack on Iran allready, but nobody knew yet: http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/

[Captain Zen]

Asking ME if the bushwacker planned the Iraq war long before 9/11, I found almost 4 million replies on google, this is just one:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html

And therefore Yes Bob, I say so, based upon the Googled results of typing 'bush planned war' in the search bar

And again, I keep telling you guys to use Google search engine if you want to know something, why ask ME, I have no fixed meaning except that I detest all violence and conspiracies that lead to physical violence.

[smoothm]

Very interesting how the conservatives have managed to take a thread about BUSH BASHING and turn it into one about CLINTON BASHING. Typical of how they deflect. I just wonder how many administrations will have to come and go before we can start to actually blame the current one for any misgivings?

[missouriboy]

Originally posted by P.J.:
Almost 10 days ago, I submitted a poll, consisting of one simple multiple-choice question.

So far, 8 pages of responses have been generated by this poll yet only 20 have actually answered my question. Well, not all of us are qualified to respond, per the stipulation... This question is for those who make political statements and comments concerning our military. ...so I didn't vote. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[hm0504]

Originally posted by smoothm:
Very interesting how the conservatives have managed to take a thread about BUSH BASHING and turn it into one about CLINTON BASHING. Typical of how they deflect. I just wonder how many administrations will have to come and go before we can start to actually blame the current one for any misgivings?

I think the neo-conservatives are concerned that a massive popular massive shift to sensibility is beginning to happen and are terrified of that. They know Iraq is a huge mess and they need to put the blame squarely on Clinton.

Here's the general rule: anything good that happens during a Democrat administration is due to the actions of the prior Republican one; anything bad that happens during a Republican administration is due to the faults of the prior Democrat one.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
b) isn't a pressing issue for the public

"WRT point b, because there was no large, successful attack on Americans on American soil, the public didn't give much of a hoot about terrorism."

So what if the public didn't care about terrorism? Albinus, the job of a president is not to care what the public thinks, but to protect the US from all attacks. We were attacked by Osama and all we did was to launch a few missles into Afghanistan and convict one of the main perpetrators. It didn't work.
...
Bob S.

I certainly agree that ideally a responsible President and a responsible public would think deeply about a variety of serious issues no matter how apparently immediate they were or not, and would take appropriate action. In practice, politics doesn't often work that way.

I recall the immortal words sang by the Texas Governor

"I'll continue to stand tall,
You can trust me,
For I promise,
I shall keep a watchful eye upon ya'll,
Ooo I love to dance a little sidestep,
Now they see me, now they don't,
I've come and gone,
AND Oooo I love to sweep around the wide step,
Cut a little swathe and lead the people on."

("The Sidestep") in the movie "The Best Little *****house in Texas"

[Captain Zen]

Blaming The Anti-War Messengers
Norman Solomon
August 17, 2005


This article is adapted from Norman Solomon’s new book, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: http://www.WarMadeEasy.com

The surge of antiwar voices in U.S. media this month has coincided with new lows in public approval for what pollsters call President Bush’s “handling” of the Iraq war. After more than two years of a military occupation that was supposed to be a breeze after a cakewalk into Baghdad, the war has become a clear PR loser. But an unpopular war can continue for a long time—and one big reason is that the military-industrial-media complex often finds ways to blunt the effectiveness of its most prominent opponents.

Right now, the pro-war propaganda arsenal of the world’s only superpower is drawing a bead on Cindy Sheehan, who now symbolizes the United States' anti-war grief. She is a moving target, very difficult to hit. But right-wing media sharpshooters are sure to keep trying.

The Bush administration’s top officials must be counting the days until the end of the presidential vacation brings to a close the Crawford standoff between Camp Casey and Camp Carnage. But media assaults on Cindy Sheehan are just in early stages.

While the president mouths respectful platitudes about the grieving mother, his henchmen are sharpening their media knives and starting to slash. Pro-Bush media hit squads are busily spreading the notions that Sheehan is a dupe of radicals, naïve and/or nutty. But the most promising avenue of attack is likely to be the one sketched out by Fox News Channel eminence Bill O’Reilly on Aug. 9, 2005, when he declared that Cindy Sheehan bears some responsibility for “other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.”

That sort of demagoguery is on tap for the duration of the war. Military families will be recruited for media appearances to dispute the patriotism of anti-war activists—especially those who speak as relatives of American soldiers and shatter media stereotypes by publicly urging withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

So far, during this war, President Bush is leaving the defamation chores to his surrogate media fighters. But loud noises coming from the right wing today are echoes of key themes that other presidents eagerly voiced.

During the mid-1960s, as President Lyndon Johnson escalated the Vietnam War, he grew accustomed to trashing Americans who expressed opposition. They were prone to be shaky and irresolute, he explained—and might even betray the nation’s servicemen. “There will be some Nervous Nellies,” he predicted on May 17, 1966, “and some who will become frustrated and bothered and break ranks under the strain. And some will turn on their leaders and on their country and on our fighting men.”

Delivering a speech in mid-March 1968, President Johnson contended that as long as the foe in Vietnam “feels that he can win something by propaganda in the country—that he can undermine the leadership—that he can bring down the government—that he can get something in the Capital that he can’t get from our men out there—he is going to keep on trying.”

LBJ’s successor Richard Nixon was quick to brandish similar innuendos. “Let us be united for peace,” Nixon said early in his presidency. “Let us be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.”

Martin Luther King Jr. found that former allies could become incensed when he went out of his way to challenge the war. In his “Beyond Vietnam” speech delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, King called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, he said, the United States was “on the wrong side of a world revolution.” King asked why America was suppressing revolutions “of the shirtless and barefoot people” in the Third World, instead of supporting them.

That kind of talk drew barbs and denunciations from media quarters that had applauded his efforts to end racial segregation. Time magazine called the speech “demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” The Washington Post warned that “King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.”

When the Gulf War began, snappy phrases like “blame America first” were a popular way to vilify dissenters. “What we cannot be proud of, Mr. Speaker, is the unshaven, shaggy-haired, drug culture, poor excuses for Americans, wearing their tiny, round wire-rim glasses, a protester’s symbol of the blame-America-first crowd, out in front of the White House burning the American flag,” Rep. Gerald B. H. Solomon said on Jan. 17, 1991.

During a typical outburst in early 2003 before the Iraq invasion, Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience: “I want to say something about these anti-war demonstrators. No, let’s not mince words, let’s call them what they are—anti-American demonstrators.” Weeks later, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, a Republican rising through the ranks of national TV hosts, said on MSNBC: “These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass. Isn’t it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views, which could hurt American troop morale?”

Such poisonous sludge is now pouring out of some mass media—and we should expect plenty more in response to a growing anti-war movement.





Debugging The E-vote August 17, 2005
The Middle East And The Middle Kingdom August 17, 2005
Stem-Cell Alarmists August 16, 2005
How To Get Out Of Iraq August 16, 2005
More Than Minority Blues August 16, 2005
ARCHIVES





Sign up for our free daily dispatch.
Privacy Policy











© 2005 TomPaine.com ( A Project of The Institute for America's Future ) | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | About Us |

[Captain Zen]

Get Ready for World War III

By Paul Craig Roberts

08/17/05 "LewRockwell" -- -- With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush’s war against Iraq and convinced that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the US Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

Bush refuses to meet with Cindy Sheehan, instead using his vacation time at the Crawford ranch to talk war with Israeli television. In a recent interview with Israeli TV, Bush said: "All options are on the table" with regard to Iran.

Israel’s Likud government is Bush’s last remaining ally in his war against "Islamic terrorism." Israel, which is loaded with nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the nuclear pacts, is the accuser against Iran, asserting that Iran’s nuclear energy program is just a veil behind which to produce weapons. Iran, however, has signed the nonproliferation pact and is willing for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the nuclear energy program.

Bush, however, dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but paranoia.

Bush can ignore the American public, because the Democrats, like the Tory Party in the UK, have completely collapsed as an opposition party.

The only check on Bush is the lack of US troops. Bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, US commanders are stating that a third rotation of our exhausted and demoralized troops in Iraq can be avoided only by troop withdrawals by next spring.

However, on August 11 Bush nixed the military’s talk of reducing US troops in Iraq. The next day the commander of US logistics in Iraq announced that the number of insurgent attacks on US forces along supply routes has doubled in the last year, making it clear that far from winning, the US is not even holding its own.

Cindy Sheehan has the right question for Bush: What noble cause is being served by all this suffering and destruction?

Bush is in hiding from Mrs. Sheehan, because he knows only ignoble causes are being served. According to the CIA, the main beneficiary of the war is Osama bin Laden’s recruitment drives. While America’s military recruitment falters and US generals announce that the war has broken the Reserves and National Guard, the cause of Islamic extremism basks in the Iraqi war.

Gentle reader, do you realize the danger of having a president so disconnected from reality that he plots to attack Iran – a country three times the size of Iraq – when he lacks sufficient forces to occupy Baghdad and to protect the road from Baghdad to the airport?

Despite all the high profile "sweeps" of US forces through insurgent strongholds, US commanders report a doubling of insurgent attacks.

The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush’s impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon. This may please some Christian evangelicals conned by Rapture predictions, but World War III will please no one else.

Dr. Roberts <mailto:paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com> is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Copyright © 2005 Creators Syndicate

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by smoothm:
Very interesting how the conservatives have managed to take a thread about BUSH BASHING and turn it into one about CLINTON BASHING. Typical of how they deflect. I just wonder how many administrations will have to come and go before we can start to actually blame the current one for any misgivings?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about this?


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html

Goodbye Clinton legacy.

"State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

Skip to next paragraph

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan. "
_________________

[KirkOntario]

YOu know if you google "Captain Zen" and "Loch Ness Monster" you get 875 hits. Am I on to something??? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Captain Zen]

938 hits for Captain Zen monster of loch ness, you missed a few. You are onto something, keep googling yourself and see, just a poor 93 results, far behind.
Captain Zen alone has 495,000 hits! And growing.

[Bob S.]

"Very interesting how the conservatives have managed to take a thread about BUSH BASHING and turn it into one about CLINTON BASHING."

But the problem is bashing Bush about Iraq and the war on terrorism is just part of it, Albinus. GW Bush was not our first president. You could say that the problems with the war on terrorism began with the US policy to oppose all communism in the world.

The Cold War led to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. During its fall, the Soviets lost many countries that it had previously held. Among them was Afganistan. The US made a huge mistake there by abandoning them after the Soviets left.

That was left to fester for years while we went on to other things, namely defending Kuwait during the early 90s. Clinton inhereited that situation, which involved NFZ patrols, occasional bombings, UN sanctions and inspectors, etc. Meanwhile Osama was in a rage that westerners (The Great Satan) was based in the holiest of holy lands, Saudi Arabia. As Kirk has mentioned, Clintion's administration was repeatedly warned about Osama and the bombings that all occured were all traced back to Al Qaeda.

So who is directly resposnible for Osama bin Laden's organization eventually pulling off 9/11? Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. All of them ignored Afganistan and/or Osama at our own peril.

Who is responsible for Iraq the Iraq war? The same four presidents at least.

Bush is not operating in a vacuum. The country has a past. No one president can claim victory or defeat by himself. Other administrations are always involved in the past.

"I only show you what I found, as I said in posts before, Bob S., every angle, not only yours, before you can form a balanced, scientific meaning, based on deep and honest research."

Not every angle should be shown Zen. Especially not the angles that are so far off in left field that they are ridiculous.

Bob S.

[Captain Zen]

WHAT YOU CALL RIDICULOUS, OBVIOUSLY NOT SO THOSE WHO POSTED THOSE LEFTIST SITES, I AM JUST OBSERVING, I HAVE NO FIXED MEANING, MY MIND IS NAKED, I SUPPORT NO GROUP OR POLITICS, I AM NAKED, MY MIND IS EMPTY, AND I AMUSE MYSELF WITH YOUR STUBBORNESS AND FIXED MEANINGS. I AM FREE OF EVERY IDEA, EXCEPT THAT I AM AGAINST ALL AND EVERY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION. AMEN

[PascoDoug]

Zen, it helps if you quote the person you are replying to.. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Captain Zen]

I was replying to the post just before me, see Bob S's last word .......

[Captain Zen]

And now that we are so full of eager interest as to what all those dressed ups are doing, see this and give me your biased meanings, bussiness as usual, cordially naked,
Zen
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cowards_in_congress.html

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Very interesting how the conservatives have managed to take a thread about BUSH BASHING and turn it into one about CLINTON BASHING."

But the problem is bashing Bush about Iraq and the war on terrorism is just part of it, Albinus. GW Bush was not our first president. You could say that the problems with the war on terrorism began with the US policy to oppose all communism in the world.

The Cold War led to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. During its fall, the Soviets lost many countries that it had previously held. Among them was Afganistan. The US made a huge mistake there by abandoning them after the Soviets left.

That was left to fester for years while we went on to other things, namely defending Kuwait during the early 90s. Clinton inhereited that situation, which involved NFZ patrols, occasional bombings, UN sanctions and inspectors, etc. Meanwhile Osama was in a rage that westerners (The Great Satan) was based in the holiest of holy lands, Saudi Arabia. As Kirk has mentioned, Clintion's administration was repeatedly warned about Osama and the bombings that all occured were all traced back to Al Qaeda.

So who is directly resposnible for Osama bin Laden's organization eventually pulling off 9/11? Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. All of them ignored Afganistan and/or Osama at our own peril.

Who is responsible for Iraq the Iraq war? The same four presidents at least.

Bush is not operating in a vacuum. The country has a past. No one president can claim victory or defeat by himself. Other administrations are always involved in the past.

"I only show you what I found, as I said in posts before, Bob S., every angle, not only yours, before you can form a balanced, scientific meaning, based on deep and honest research."

Not every angle should be shown Zen. Especially not the angles that are so far off in left field that they are ridiculous.

Bob S.

The above post made by Bob S. starts with a quotation and then a remark addressed to me -- I thus assume that Bob S. thinks I made that quotation when actually I did not.

That said, Bob's response could be a response to other things I have written so I'll respond to that. In the context of this discussion, I am using the word "terrorism" only in relation to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism -- Islamism. As history shows, any religion, pretty much from its inception, can spawn violent extremism.

However, inter alia, the power of modern Islamism primarily stems from the great funding it received from the West in order that the Soviet-sponsored secular regime in Afghanistan could be overthrown. I'm not saying that the West should not have done that back in the early 80s, but simply that is the history.

Where I disagree with Bob S. is that all the Presidents since and including Reagan are responsible for the current war in Iraq. Sorry, but the justification given for the current war in Iraq was that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could conceivably be launched against the U.S.. Both President Bush Senior and then President Clinton had a strong containment policy for Iraq that was successful. President Bush Junior thought invading Iraq would be a mere triviality and has, unfortunately, been proven quite wrong.

The current Iraq war has replaced a secular regime (Saddam's) that was the enemy of Islamists with a state of chaos in which Islamists could gain significantly. That is squarely the result of President Bush Junior's actions and his alone.

[P.J.]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Now you see the real reason behind the war(s) the Bush cabal is waging. My question is only why don't they say the truth about it? If it is to save the world domination of the useless dollar versus the strong real valued Euro, SAY SO! The truth shall set you free....................


I do not think that the us dollar is weak because Saddam wanted to sell its oil in euros. I think the dollar is weak because G.W. Bush is in power. If a genius like Bill Clinton would still be in power, today, you would have two euros for your dollar. That is the result of replacing a genius having compassion with a complete idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In my travels overseas, I have seen the dollar at its strongest when President Ronald Reagan was our Commander-in-Chief. Our dollar was weak when stacked against the Italian Lira until shortly after President Jimmy Carter was defeated and Ronald Reagan took over.

Our dollar was also stronger in other countries during the Reagan years.

I do not wish to debate the pro's and con's of President Reagan's leadership, but I will say that those who were exchanging dollars for foreign currency probably never had it so good!

[P.J.]

Originally posted by jon71:
People tried that and basically embarrassed themselves. Clinton didn't serve in the military as is true of about half our presidents. The previous best commander in chief was F.D.R. who also never served. Others like Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and the first Bush served honorably. Bush 2 however went A.W.O.L which is dishonorable. Pretty simple matter.


Right now, I don't wish to argue, but the charges that G.W. Bush was AWOL are based on some questionable sources.

If there is, indeed sufficient evidence, President Bush is entitled to fair trial and a jury of his peers.

Your anti-Bush rages are getting old.

And by the way, if you wish to bring up Presidents who served in the military, why haven't you mentioned President Harry S Truman??? He served during the First World War.
FDR did serve in the military. Although he never wore a military uniform, he served as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the First World War.

Speaking as Conservative, a lot of us have great respect for some of great Democrats such as FDR and Truman.

Although I'm no fan of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, I feel duty-bound to point out that during the Second World War, LBJ resigned his seat in Congress to serve in the Navy as a LtCmdr.

Another famous LtCmdr who also served during WW2 was none other than Richard M. Nixon.

As for the draft dodgers who later served in the White House, Bill Clinton isn't alone. Grover Cleveland allegedly hired someone to take his place during the Civil War.

We don't have to be in 100% agreement to learn from one another.

[P.J.]

Originally posted by smoothm:
Originally posted by P.J.:
Almost 10 days ago, I submitted a poll, consisting of one simple multiple-choice question.

Simple yes, but many people wrote to ask you to clearly define the purpose of the pole and the terms used. So far, you have not done so.



You, along with some others asked simple and reasonable questions. Sorry for not responding sooner!!!

The purpose of the poll was simply to ask who served in the military and who did not. I wish that I provided more choices.

Whether or not you served in the military does not determine whether or not you are free to support or criticize the President.

I submitted the poll because I was curious. Of course, I'm curious about the military service of those who engage in Bush Bashing.

I'm also curious about the military service of the supporters of G. W. Bush.

I should've used a different wording for the subject.

Perhaps Bush Bashers/Bush Supporters.

[P.J.]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Can't remember where I heard it, but I did hear recently that in order to help its membership drive, the U.S. military is, quietly, softening its anti-homosexual stance.

They have quietly relaxed many of its former standards. Such as drugs. Being a drug addict, or using drugs, is no longer a reason to be seperated from the services, and they'll take you even if you test positive for drugs during recruiting.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Last I've heard about the Armed Forces drug policy, "Zero-tolerance" was still the rule. A urinalysis which comes back "positive" for any use of drugs such as "ecstacy," cocaine or marijuana results in punishment followed by discharge.
As for policy towards homosexuals, most of those on active duty (along with those of us who are veterans and retirees) do not want to serve with those who are active homosexuals.
However, of those of us who do not approve of homosexuality, most of us really do not want to know what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
"Don't ask...Don't tell," is the policy of the Department of Defense.
Many of us could sum up our views as "Don't tell...We won't ask."

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Now you see the real reason behind the war(s) the Bush cabal is waging. My question is only why don't they say the truth about it? If it is to save the world domination of the useless dollar versus the strong real valued Euro, SAY SO! The truth shall set you free....................


I do not think that the us dollar is weak because Saddam wanted to sell its oil in euros. I think the dollar is weak because G.W. Bush is in power. If a genius like Bill Clinton would still be in power, today, you would have two euros for your dollar. That is the result of replacing a genius having compassion with a complete idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In my travels overseas, I have seen the dollar at its strongest when President Ronald Reagan was our Commander-in-Chief. Our dollar was weak when stacked against the Italian Lira until shortly after President Jimmy Carter was defeated and Ronald Reagan took over.

Our dollar was also stronger in other countries during the Reagan years.

I do not wish to debate the pro's and con's of President Reagan's leadership, but I will say that those who were exchanging dollars for foreign currency probably never had it so good! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reagan also took the largest creditor nation (the US) and turned it into the largest debtor nation. However as that massive debt was spent on the Cold War, and it most certainly helped speed up the fall of the Soviet Union I can't say it was a bad thing exactly. Although it has created a habit of massive military spending when it doesn't need to be.

One thing has changed in US history and that is that war no longer ensures a good economy. There is simply no reason to have one of the poorest paid soldiers amongst the industrial nations of the world, yet spend more than the top ten nations combined on defence.

With Bush in charge we have record deficit levels, we have record trade deficits, we have roughly 25% of our GDP going specifically to pay off our debt, and thats just the interest, and it keeps getting worse. Bush is bankrupting this country.

What is worse is that China, who is becoming our next biggest adversary, holds massive amounts of US debt. What happens if they decide to call in that debt? Or even sell off that debt for peanuts? It will crush the US economy. It is not in our national defence interest to depend so much on foriegn resources. Bush is acting like a 15 year old with a credit card.

Qikdraw

As for policy towards homosexuals, most of those on active duty (along with those of us who are veterans and retirees) do not want to serve with those who are active homosexuals.


Could you tell me where you got your figures from that support this statement?

[Captain Zen]

I like you to explainwhat you mean with a "strong" or "weak" dollar? IMO it is the World Bank or the IMF that determines how much other countries currency is worth against the dollar. I was in Venezuela when that country decided to 'nationalize' read confiscate, (1987) all foreign oil instalations. The Bolivar went from 4 for a dollar to 40 for a dollar overnight! All the rich Venezuelans saw their dollar savings gone in a day!
When China wants goods for its dollars you say the USA will be gone, what about all the trillions of oil dollars in Arab accounts?

[Captain Zen]

Some where in the days past the argument came up where I said that the Afghan invasion was about a gas pipeline. That was immidiately denied by the 9/11 followers who said it was to finish the terrorists... Well, I found something that looks like proof of what I thought then:


(*Editors Note | Since September 11th, 2001, there has been intense speculation regarding Bush administration negotiations with the Taliban regarding this very project prior to the attacks. American petroleum giant Unocal very much wanted this project for years, but it was stymied in 1998 after bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa, causing the Taliban to be diplomatically isolated. There are a number of reports that describe a reinvigoration of this pipeline plan after Bush took office, and further describe the Bush administration's negotiations with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. Some say these threats, in the name of the pipeline, triggered the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is gone, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant, and the pipeline deal is finally done. - wrp)

Go To Original

Agreement On US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed
PakNews.com

December 28, 2002

Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries.

The ceremony was held at the Presidential Palace with the three leaders, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signing the document.

The framework agreement defines legal mechanism for setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline.

According to a study by Asian Development Bank (ADB), the 1460 km pipeline would use gas reserves at Dauletabad fields in Turkmenistan, which has world's fifth largest reserves, while passing through Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The three countries had earlier signed a trilateral agreement to develop a natural gas and oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan in May this year, during the first trilateral summit in Islamabad.

The three countries are laying great importance on the project as it could provide much needed boost to their economies.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by P.J.:

Right now, I don't wish to argue, but the charges that G.W. Bush was AWOL are based on some questionable sources.

If there is, indeed sufficient evidence, President Bush is entitled to fair trial and a jury of his peers.

.
I doubt they can prosecute anyone who is no longer a member of the armed forces nor did they ever do anything about it because there was basically acquiecence to it. 35 years ago it was not a big deal and there was a different mentality.

[Bob S.]

"The above post made by Bob S. starts with a quotation and then a remark addressed to me -- I thus assume that Bob S. thinks I made that quotation when actually I did not."

I'm sorry Albinus. The post was from smoothm. Just got confused.

"Sorry, but the justification given for the current war in Iraq was that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could conceivably be launched against the U.S."

OK, this is what you wrote Albinus. Yes, the reasons for goinf back into Iraq were done by the current administration, we would have not gone in had there been no previous "war". WMD, terrorism links, etc. all worked because there were the sanctions that made military intervention possible. Without those, which started in Bush I, there would have been no reasons to go into Iraq. Also, had the mission in the Clintion years been successful, Saddam would have been toppled from within and this current invasion would have not occurred.

"The current Iraq war has replaced a secular regime (Saddam's) that was the enemy of Islamists with a state of chaos in which Islamists could gain significantly."

As I have said before, Saddam was a terrorist. He terrorized all of his political enemies, spiritual enemies, and anyone that made Iraq look bad on the international scene. That is why no other terrorist cells existed in his country. He controlled everyone with threat of violence and raping the wives of those who dared to fall out of line.

What is going on in Iraq today is akin to what occured in Afghanistan in the late 80s. Only this time, we are involved in everything. The fighting is related to trying to gain control of the country.

By the way, my sister is going over there around mid September as a Marine who is part of a Heuy squadron. I hope she is stationed away from the Baghdad area.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"WHAT YOU CALL RIDICULOUS, OBVIOUSLY NOT SO THOSE WHO POSTED THOSE LEFTIST SITES"

Obviously, but I can still call their theories ridculous.

"I AM JUST OBSERVING"

Fine, Zen. So why are you so angry? Why hurt my eyes by shouting?

"I SUPPORT NO GROUP OR POLITICS, I AM NAKED, MY MIND IS EMPTY"

A wise man knows when not to make a snide comment. That and one who doesn't want to get into trouble http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

So why do you post conspiratorial theory websites? Is it just to show the other side? I suspect it may be deeper.

"I AM FREE OF EVERY IDEA"

When you are willing to believe in everything, you'll fall for anything.

And you don't seem to be free of every idea. Why not support Bush or everything non-violent? Can you accept that 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists? Can you accept that Jews do not want to control the financial world? Or are those ideas that you are too free of?

Bob S.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
By the way, my sister is going over there around mid September as a Marine who is part of a Heuy squadron. I hope she is stationed away from the Baghdad area.

Bob, we may not agree on some things politically, but I too hope your sister stays safe.

Qikdraw

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"WHAT YOU CALL RIDICULOUS, OBVIOUSLY NOT SO THOSE WHO POSTED THOSE LEFTIST SITES"

Obviously, but I can still call their theories ridculous.

"I AM JUST OBSERVING"

Fine, Zen. So why are you so angry? Why hurt my eyes by shouting?

"I SUPPORT NO GROUP OR POLITICS, I AM NAKED, MY MIND IS EMPTY"

A wise man knows when not to make a snide comment. That and one who doesn't want to get into trouble http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

So why do you post conspiratorial theory websites? Is it just to show the other side? I suspect it may be deeper.

"I AM FREE OF EVERY IDEA"

When you are willing to believe in everything, you'll fall for anything.

And you don't seem to be free of every idea. Why not support Bush or everything non-violent? Can you accept that 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists? Can you accept that Jews do not want to control the financial world? Or are those ideas that you are too free of?

Bob S.

Sorry my caps lock was on, not intended to shout...
Bush is very violent
100.000 Iraqi civilians he killed
and 2000 US boys and girls
you want me to support that?
And I do not believe anything, especially not that 9/11 was an Arab thing.
As a foreigner, I can see things that are outside your scope, but as I was also In the USA, I can see your stubborn believe in your government. It is allright, stay with your people, otherwise they may call you a nutcase. And that would not be possible he?
To be independent like me, are not many people who dare to denounce all authority. You see, my real name is Alexander, and I studied the works of the Great Alexander, the general, and so I understand the politics of war. How to launch a war, how to instigate hate and violence, how to operate fals flag operations, to get the people to follow me, I know how easy it is to make destruction and death. But in the end, Alexander was in India and he discovered meditation, and he saw the errors of violence and causing pain and suffering. If a situation can not be solved with diplomacy there is madness at play. Utter madness. All violence is lack of intelligence. How many young people have lost limbs and are invalide for life from this war?
You can support that sure as long as you have all your limbs still. Count me out, I am a peacfull man and will never support violence.

[P.J.]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for policy towards homosexuals, most of those on active duty (along with those of us who are veterans and retirees) do not want to serve with those who are active homosexuals.


Could you tell me where you got your figures from that support this statement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dear Cyndiannaked,
Whether or not we are in 100% agreement on issues, there's certainly nothing wrong with asking questions. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
There's nothing wrong with cordial disgreements either! (Sometimes the CFF reminds me of a foodfight in some elementary school cafeteria.) http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
In my 20 years of active duty in the Navy, I have encountered plenty of first-hand knowledge of matters concerning the U.S. Armed Forces. I've also spoken with personnel of the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and the RN Reserves. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When it comes to legitimate enquiries, such as your question, I sometimes find myself wishing that I took a poll(!!!) so that I could provide an undisputable answer! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
But as I've said before, many of us who strongly disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle strongly respect the right to privacy, especially in matters which do not jeopardize our state of readiness (i.e., the use of illicit narcotics). http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Those who have served aboard ships have a special appreciation of the simple pleasures of life, such as privacy. In close quarters, whether it's a berthing space shared with 100 Sailors or an officer's stateroom (with one occupant), privacy is precious. We too often don't enough of it! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I admit that when it comes to the assorted matters discussed, there is not 100% agreement among those on active duty, in the reserve components, the veteran population or even the Boy Scouts of America!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Maybe we all should start taking polls next time we discuss any controversial subjects!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[P.J.]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:

Right now, I don't wish to argue, but the charges that G.W. Bush was AWOL are based on some questionable sources.

If there is, indeed sufficient evidence, President Bush is entitled to fair trial and a jury of his peers.

.
I doubt they can prosecute anyone who is no longer a member of the armed forces nor did they ever do anything about it because there was basically acquiecence to it. 35 years ago it was not a big deal and there was a different mentality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey KirkOntario...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the judicial system that governs those in the U.S. military, has a statute of limitations, like its civilian counterpart. Although the UCMJ is not the cold and merciless judicial system which consists of drum head court martials followed by executions at sunrise on the following morning, it does have long arms and sharp teeth when certain offences are concerned, even when the accused has left military jurisdiction.
Recently, a Soldier who deserted back in the 1960's and has since resided in North Korea, has been brought to a military court. He was found guilty and turned loose.
Back in 1979, a Marine who deserted and collaborated with the North Vietnamese, returned to the U.S., faced a court-martial and was turned loose after being found guilty.
The patriarch of a family of spies, was a retired Navy chief warrant officer. He was punished under federal court. Soon after, his military retirement pay was terminated.
For the most part, you are right. Some retirees along with some deserters can still be prosecuted and punished under the UCMJ.
If you are interested in judicial matters, the UCMJ is worth studying.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for policy towards homosexuals, most of those on active duty (along with those of us who are veterans and retirees) do not want to serve with those who are active homosexuals.


Could you tell me where you got your figures from that support this statement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dear Cyndiannaked,
Whether or not we are in 100% agreement on issues, there's certainly nothing wrong with asking questions. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
There's nothing wrong with cordial disgreements either! (Sometimes the CFF reminds me of a foodfight in some elementary school cafeteria.) http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
In my 20 years of active duty in the Navy, I have encountered plenty of first-hand knowledge of matters concerning the U.S. Armed Forces. I've also spoken with personnel of the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and the RN Reserves. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When it comes to legitimate enquiries, such as your question, I sometimes find myself wishing that I took a poll(!!!) so that I could provide an undisputable answer! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
But as I've said before, many of us who strongly disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle strongly respect the right to privacy, especially in matters which do not jeopardize our state of readiness (i.e., the use of illicit narcotics). http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Those who have served aboard ships have a special appreciation of the simple pleasures of life, such as privacy. In close quarters, whether it's a berthing space shared with 100 Sailors or an officer's stateroom (with one occupant), privacy is precious. We too often don't enough of it! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I admit that when it comes to the assorted matters discussed, there is not 100% agreement among those on active duty, in the reserve components, the veteran population or even the Boy Scouts of America!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Maybe we all should start taking polls next time we discuss any controversial subjects!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------------------------------------
PJ, you are just so intellectually dishonest that it is amusing.

You totally missed the point of Cyndiannaked's question.

Your total hatered and disapproval for non-heterosexuals didn't allow you to see the point that she was making.

If you had said that as a member of the armed services you didn't want homosexuals to serve with you that statement, while unfortunate, would be unquestionable. It is impossible to question a statement of opinion.

However, once you said that "As for policy towards homosexuals, most of those on active duty (along with those of us who are veterans and retirees) do not want to serve with those who are active homosexual" it implies that studies have been done that have reached that conclusion. In your reply you totally admit that there is no basis in fact for your statement outside of some chats that you may have had with others of you ilk. Not exactly fact laden. Intellectualy dishonest!

Your constant intellectual dishonest must be why the majority of your posts state that you do not wish to further discuss the topic, or the points made therein, after you post them. You are unable to substantiate what you claim as facts therefore after your spurt them you wish to keep them at arm's length!

If we follow your logic, the U.S. Armed Forces would still not be integrated. There was a time when black and white soldiers were not allowed to serve in the same units; the logic being no different then your wish not to fight alonside those of other sexualities.

Most people that I have spoken to regarding the armed forces believe that the Isreal's forces are the best trained, best equipped, and most feared-even surpassing that of the United States. Funny, they have no problem allowing non-heterosexuals serve. I suppose that they are more concered with the efficiency of the army, and having the best fighting machine then caring about sexuality.

No, PJ, we don't need to take polls before making a post. But, we do need to know the difference between fact and feeling.

Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for policy towards homosexuals, most of those on active duty (along with those of us who are veterans and retirees) do not want to serve with those who are active homosexuals.


Could you tell me where you got your figures from that support this statement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dear Cyndiannaked,
Whether or not we are in 100% agreement on issues, there's certainly nothing wrong with asking questions. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
There's nothing wrong with cordial disgreements either! (Sometimes the CFF reminds me of a foodfight in some elementary school cafeteria.) http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
In my 20 years of active duty in the Navy, I have encountered plenty of first-hand knowledge of matters concerning the U.S. Armed Forces. I've also spoken with personnel of the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and the RN Reserves. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When it comes to legitimate enquiries, such as your question, I sometimes find myself wishing that I took a poll(!!!) so that I could provide an undisputable answer! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
But as I've said before, many of us who strongly disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle strongly respect the right to privacy, especially in matters which do not jeopardize our state of readiness (i.e., the use of illicit narcotics). http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Those who have served aboard ships have a special appreciation of the simple pleasures of life, such as privacy. In close quarters, whether it's a berthing space shared with 100 Sailors or an officer's stateroom (with one occupant), privacy is precious. We too often don't enough of it! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I admit that when it comes to the assorted matters discussed, there is not 100% agreement among those on active duty, in the reserve components, the veteran population or even the Boy Scouts of America!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Maybe we all should start taking polls next time we discuss any controversial subjects!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that and basicly all you said was you are going on hearsay. Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:


All that and basicly all you said was you are going on hearsay. Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.

I'm surprised Cyndiannaked. I would have known that by now, when it comes to the ntellectually dishonest Rapture Right, that facts are based on beliefs, and since beliefs don't require varification or proof...there is no difference between a fact or belief. It eliminates the need for pesky subjects like science and math. Got it? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Qikdraw]

You see, my real name is Alexander, and I studied the works of the Great Alexander, the general, and so I understand the politics of war. How to launch a war, how to instigate hate and violence, how to operate fals flag operations, to get the people to follow me, I know how easy it is to make destruction and death. But in the end, Alexander was in India and he discovered meditation, and he saw the errors of violence and causing pain and suffering.

Zen

Did you just equate yourself with Alexander the Great? Because you both have the same name, you've studied him a bit, which could mean you've read a book, or seen the Colin Farrell movie "Alexander", and because you meditate and you say he did too?

Sorry doode, but thats just plain out crazy wacky.

Besides looking at how Alexander lead will not help you today. One of the main reasons Alexander's soldiers followed him was because he fought beside them, and in many cases was the fist over the wall into the cities. He had many injuries from battle. Soldiers respect that. That kind of thing just would not happen now.

If you really want to see how to get people behind you these days do research into how Hilter got into power and lead Germany. A crazy nutcase he was, but he, and his followers, understood how to get people to follow them. Look at how the Republicans & Carl Rove have done it. They are following many of the same examples the Nazis used. And no, I'm not equating Bush & Co with Nazis, just the way the use misinformation, buzz words, and media control. They've also found the "boogy man", for Hitler is was the Jews, for Bush it was Saddam and now terrorists. This allows him to get policy that would not normally have gotten through without the use of a "boogy man".

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Joseph Goebbels

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Hermann Goering

Qikdraw

[Bob S.]

"I too hope your sister stays safe."

Thanks Qikdraw.

"Sorry my caps lock was on, not intended to shout..."

Apology accepted Zen.

"Bush is very violent
100.000 Iraqi civilians he killed
and 2000 US boys and girls
you want me to support that?"

No. I don't care if you support it or not. I respect your abhorrence to violence. I share that same philosophy, but sometimes, it is necessary. Real world vs. Ideal world, unfortunately the real world wins every time.

"I can see your stubborn believe in your government."

In regards to 9/11, it is just the opposite. I can't see that they could covertly put together that large of an operation without any leaks prior to the operation. And I do take a lot of offense for you calling my government murderers. The CIA is manned by moral people, many of which would have come forward if they knew theie bosses were planning to murder thousands of innocent American civilians in order to go to war.

"It is allright, stay with your people, otherwise they may call you a nutcase."

I'm a nudist. I'm already considered a nutcase http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"All violence is lack of intelligence."

So I can't kill someone who is trying to kill me? Would you allow someone to kill you? After all, to fight back would be to use violence.

"As a foreigner, I can see things that are outside your scope"

And as a philosopher, I can see many things just as well as you. You have a different scope, not a better one. There are anti-war, anti-Bush protestors here in the US. How can that be if they don't have the foreign scope that you have?

And would you please stop using your religion (or lack thereof) as a sign of yout supposed superiority? You are no better than I am. Your philosophies of life are no better than mine. And that goes vice versa. I have a similar spiritual path as you but my destination, if you could call it that, is different.

Bob S.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
No. I don't care if you support it or not. I respect your abhorrence to violence. I share that same philosophy, but sometimes, it is necessary. Real world vs. Ideal world, unfortunately the real world wins every time.

Well as someone who is against the Iraq war I agree that violence is sometimes neccesary. I agreed with Afganistan, it was the right response for the right reasons. I just happen to disagree with Iraq.

In regards to 9/11, it is just the opposite. I can't see that they could covertly put together that large of an operation without any leaks prior to the operation.

Well to give the devil his due, the Gulf of TOnkin, Iran/Contra, Watergate are 3 quick examples of the governemnt doing bad things. One even got the US into a war. (A democrat no less)

The CIA is manned by moral people, many of which would have come forward if they knew theie bosses were planning to murder thousands of innocent American civilians in order to go to war.

They did, and have, and continue to do so, yet they are nmot listened to, nor believed. Many people that are ex-CIA have come forth and said that they saw the worst case scenario being the one pushed, even though the CIA didn't believe it at all. They also said that many of the sources the government used were known to be questionable at best. So we have had people speaking out, its just that its not getting heard, and if it is, they get smeared right away.

I'm a nudist. I'm already considered a nutcase http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Just a happy nakid nutcase. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So I can't kill someone who is trying to kill me? Would you allow someone to kill you? After all, to fight back would be to use violence.

I would not allow anyone to harm me, or the ones I love without a fight. To do so means you allow evil to win. To step aside and let evil happen, means you accept it.

"As a foreigner, I can see things that are outside your scope"

And as a philosopher, I can see many things just as well as you. You have a different scope, not a better one. There are anti-war, anti-Bush protestors here in the US. How can that be if they don't have the foreign scope that you have?

I think that forigners do have a different perspective on some things. Not better or worse, just different. Different cultures will do that to you. Culturally I grew up very similar to the US, (I'm Canadian) I just didn't have the pro-US propoganda shoved down my throat at every corner. I've never seen so many things that are sold using a country's flag as here in the US. The American flag is in a ton of advertisments and its on many labels. I don't think its to remind you that you're in the US, but to make you think you're patriotic for buying that brand of toothpaste, or listening to that radio station, or watching that tv station.

I just think its a little overboard on that. There is a point where patriotism becomes nationalism and that just takes it too far.

Qikdraw

[Captain Zen]

There is something called a "spiritual inheritage", that is attached to every name, and helps when one is very sensitive, it connects with past events and especially feelings, knowledge, drifting over from the Universe to the one who opens up as receiver. Then I traveled over land around 1964-5, hitch hiking, slowly, working my way on, starting from Stocholm Sweden, through Europe, South and East, trough Greece where the feeling of Alekaki (little Alexander they called me in Greek) began, through Athens, to Istanbul, through Turkey, Ankara, then south and then East, intt Iran, in the days of the Shah, to Tabriz and Theheran, Isphahan, back to Teheran, through the enormous desert to Meshed, over the border to Herat, Kandahar, Kabul, into Pakistan, which I did not like at all, so I returned and travelled the whole way back to Europe, again slowly overland, as slow as the cargo hauling trucks go. And everywhere they knew the story of Iskandar, Alexander, Yalisanda, and all the other names by which he is known.
On another level, I was very often in places where high political decisions where taken, where was Breshnev and De Gaulle, and many others. I met Princess Beatrix before she was Queen, and later when I was main supplier for Hotel Marti for a year, at the Turkish riviera, I shared the dinner table with Manager Hussein Bey scores of times with all the ambassadors and consuls of foreign countries to Turkey who held meetings and conferencees there...
I do not equate myself with Alexander the Great, however, through having that name I understand the politics of war, and have a good idea about population control through false flag operations and media control. These things are as old as my name giver, and older still. I refused to serve as gunfodder when I was drafted and got away with playing the fool.
I hope you see that I have done my home work.
Any way I am a nudist so it is OK if you see me as a nutcase.

[Captain Zen]

When I say that all violence is lack of intelligence, I mean it. Also the one who violently attacks you lacks intelligence. And you who think you must violently respond lacks the same intelligence. It takes two to tango and somthing [stupid] must have provoked that attack. Being intelligent means preventing violence, and that is the higher form of politics which I adhere to.
Sorry to say, but the USA is build upon violence, war and destruction, not on constructive wisdom. No country in the world fabricates and promotes, exports more weaponry than the USA. Millions of people are engaged in the militairy industry, and that is what it is, an industry of death and suffering, not of intelligence and peace. Difficult or impossible to change, I do not agree with it, I don't.
And fact remains that even those morally correct people in the CIA do not want to lose their well paid jobs, and loyal to their bosses they can and will cover up and do anything what is asked of them. If one whistle blower cannot take it anymore, he commits suicide before he gets out of the closet, or he is eliminated quickly, or just played down and declared mad.
I think, but do not believe unless proven by courts and such, that 9/11 was a false flag operation and that one day not too distant that will come to light. Too many anomalies and unanswered questions, just too many...
And for American behavior to be morally correct, you only have to choose sides, which I don't.
I can not be a member of any party, group or religion, lest it takes away my freedom. Most all memberships of organisations exclude other's meanings, and that I can not afford. All religions have in common that they do not tolerate other religions, therefore I cannot be a member of any. Even here on this forum, I am not a member, I only take part.

[CharlieMike]

Captain Zen

I assume you think that the Dutch and the rest of Europe would prefer to be speaking German. Or how about my Philapino friends, I am not sure they would prefer speaking Japanesse but you seem to think they would.

Nice thing about this country and all its, violence, it allows me to say what I think.

[Captain Zen]

I rather not have you assume anything about me or the rest of Europe, keep with what you KNOW. When you are not sure about something, as you say, hold your tongue, lest you talk nonsense. What did I say that makes you "think" I "seem" to know what your friends prefer to speak Japanese??? Welcome to Zen buddy...........
I prefer to speak the language that everybody I communicate with understands, I am master of 6 and can make myself understood in a few more. By picking up 5 words a day from any unknown lingo I can soon say the basics.
English is one of the simplest primitive languages in the world, and that is why so many people can use it. Look up for instance "virtue" in a FRench, German or Dutch dictionary and you will find many meanings, depending on the context of the subject or sentence.
If English is your mother tongue, you are restricted to that one simple way of expressing yourself, and I see you are a bit incoherent, get your facts straight next time.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Captain Zen: 100.000 Iraqi civilians he killed.

Just an example of your argument here. That statement is false.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by P.J.:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by In my 20 years of active duty in the Navy, I have encountered plenty of first-hand knowledge of matters concerning the U.S. Armed Forces. I've also spoken with personnel of the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and the RN Reserves. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When it comes to legitimate enquiries, such as your question, I sometimes find myself wishing that I took a poll(!!!) so that I could provide an undisputable answer! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
But as I've said before, many of us who strongly disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle strongly respect the right to privacy, especially in matters which do not jeopardize our state of readiness (i.e., the use of illicit narcotics). http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Those who have served aboard ships have a special appreciation of the simple pleasures of life, such as privacy. In close quarters, whether it's a berthing space shared with 100 Sailors or an officer's stateroom (with one occupant), privacy is precious. We too often don't enough of it! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I admit that when it comes to the assorted matters discussed, there is not 100% agreement among those on active duty, in the reserve components, the veteran population or even the Boy Scouts of America!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Maybe we all should start taking polls next time we discuss any controversial subjects!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

PJ your statements are reasonable and based on your experience in the armed forces. There has always been a tension between the good of the army and private attachments which is why no army can afford them. An army must function as one unit and there can be no personal hanky panky amongst its members which is why a co-ed armed forces was see as a very bad idea: it still is. Nor has the integration of male and female worked out very well. Armies are needed to win wars and preserve the nation: they are not laboratories for social experimentation.

Homophobic content removed

[Captain Zen]

Tthen will you please ask Nessie what is the right number please??????

[jon71]

Integration is succeeding. We would unreasonably weaken ourselves if we were to not use half of our potential best soldiers. Yes there is some adjustments necessary but in the long run that is the best. I won't claim not a single bump along the road but that's always true of progress.

[Bob S.]

"Well to give the devil his due, the Gulf of TOnkin, Iran/Contra, Watergate are 3 quick examples of the governemnt doing bad things."

Qickdraw, can you or Zen give any real life examples of government covert military activity that entailed the mass murder of even hundreds of American citizens?

And this 9/11 conspiracy was meant to do what Zen? Bush was supposed to have had a plan for war in Iraq. Why then, would the govt have blamed it on Al Qaeda? What was the point of going into Afghanistan? And why did Al Qaeda claoim responsibility for it? Or are they just another part of the US military? If so, we need to tell the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq to quit killing our soldiers. Or is it just a huge staged war?

"There is a point where patriotism becomes nationalism and that just takes it too far."

It isn't nationalism, in the cases of using the flag in advertisements, it becomes more materialism and capitalism. The selling of an image rather than a reverence if it. And that type of thing is somewhat controversial here.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"There is something called a "spiritual inheritage", that is attached to every name, and helps when one is very sensitive, it connects with past events and especially feelings, knowledge, drifting over from the Universe to the one who opens up as receiver."

OK, I believe people can grow into their names, but that is taking it steps beyind that Zen. You chose Alexander the Great to discover more about as you are a namesake of his. What would have happened to you if your parents named you Adolph?

"And you who think you must violently respond lacks the same intelligence."

So what do you do when you come home to find a man is in your house, your wife and daughter tied up, naked, and he is in the midle of raping your daughter? Violence is appropriate in that situation. Or would you just let him continue, gently asking him to stop? Self defense is a legitimate excuse for violence.

Or what about a nation that has been attacked? As CharlieMike was eluding to, had there been no resistence to the invading Germans, all of Europe would have been under the Nazi flag. Nations who are pacifistic are under constant threat of invasion. As I said, in an ideal world, all violence is bad. But in the real world, violence sometimes needs to be met with violence, especially when the violence is an immediate threat.

Bob S.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:

PJ your statements are reasonable and based on your experience in the armed forces.
------------------------------------------------
Only you Kirk, only you could say that PJ's statements are reasonable.

Virtually all of PJ's posts include a comment about those of whom he does not approve. Usually, this group is homosexuals. Obviously, you two are quite similar in your beliefs.

[Captain Zen]

Of course, every argument you have is valid Bob. Still, do not come to me with all those "what ifs" They make me sick.
The purpose of the 9/11 false flag was to enrage the American citizens so they would support the (by all international standards) illegal wars Bush was planning. Why ask me, are you not intelligent enough to figure it out?
Always after an attack, ask QUI BONO?
Who profits from it? Did Al Queda profit from it? Not at all! And do you realy believe that a bunch of Arabs are clever enough to pull such a stunt? Explosives brought the towers down, not jet fuel. Read ALL the evidence on all the 9/11 sites before you "believe" anything.
QUI BONO?

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Well to give the devil his due, the Gulf of TOnkin, Iran/Contra, Watergate are 3 quick examples of the governemnt doing bad things."

Qickdraw, can you or Zen give any real life examples of government covert military activity that entailed the mass murder of even hundreds of American citizens?

Gulf of Tonkin, started the US's involvement in Vietnam. It was a lie told by the US government, which killed how many thousands of Americans?

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Still, do not come to me with all those "what ifs" They make me sick.

Thats because you can't answer Bob's question without making yourself look worse. His points are very valid.

If, in Bob's scenario you come home to find your daughter being raped, and you stand by and do nothing, who benifits? You who see your daughter being raped? Your daughter being raped? Or the person who rapes your daughter? Your standing by goes against the good of the community by allowing evil to endure.

I don't believe in violence in all matters, I hope there would be peace in the world, but I'm a realist enough to understand that human nature is basically violent and that sometimes violence against violence is for the greater good. And for me, standing by and allowing evil to happen means that you stand by what that evil is, and allow it to exist.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
[QUOTE]


Virtually all of PJ's posts include a comment about those of whom he does not approve. Usually, this group is homosexuals. Obviously, you two are quite similar in your beliefs.

Your posts are almost always about those of whom you do not approve either. You detest Repubicans, me, Bush, the religious right. He does not approve of homosexuals serving in the military. I happen to agree with him. What's the problem?

[Unwired]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Your posts are almost always about those of whom you do not approve either.

And your posts aren't?

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Your posts are almost always about those of whom you do not approve either.

And your posts aren't? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, I don't mind it but to suggest there's something wrong with PJ having an opinion on the controversial 'gays in the military' issue is the issue here. Christopher suggested there was something wrong with passing judgment. Christoper is constanting passing judgment and did so about PJ and about me. Just pointing that out.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
... to suggest there's something wrong with PJ having an opinion on the controversial 'gays in the military' issue is the issue here. Christopher suggested there was something wrong with passing judgment. Christoper is constanting passing judgment and did so about PJ and about me. Just pointing that out.

There's nothing wrong with PJ, you, or anyone else having or even stating an opinion about gays in the military or any other controversial issue, but if the basis for such an opinion is fatuous claims, hearsay or personal bias then there's nothing wrong with pointing that out either. And your assertion that Christopher was suggesting that it was improper for P.J. to pass judgement is inaccurate; he said no such thing. Kindly stick to the facts. Thank you for your cooperation.



Unwired

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
... to suggest there's something wrong with PJ having an opinion on the controversial 'gays in the military' issue is the issue here. Christopher suggested there was something wrong with passing judgment. Christoper is constanting passing judgment and did so about PJ and about me. Just pointing that out.

There's nothing wrong with PJ, you, or anyone else having or even stating an opinion about gays in the military or any other controversial issue, but if the basis for such an opinion is fatuous claims, hearsay or personal bias then there's nothing wrong with pointing that out either. And your assertion that Christopher was suggesting that it was improper for P.J. to pass judgement is inaccurate; he said no such thing. Kindly stick to the facts. Thank you for your cooperation.



Unwired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Christopher never dealt with the substance of PJ's arguments. This is what he said. It's no more than ad hominem. Doesn't get anyone anywhere.

"Virtually all of PJ's posts include a comment about those of whom he does not approve. Usually, this group is homosexuals. Obviously, you two are quite similar in your beliefs."

[Unwired]

He did indeed deal with the substance of the arguments on page 11. Did you miss that post?

[Unwired]

In addition, you still haven't demonstrated how that or any other statement is tantamount to suggesting that someone isn't allowed to pass judgement. Back up your assertion.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Unwired:
He did indeed deal with the substance of the arguments on page 11. Did you miss that post?

Let's review it shall we:

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5080062463/r/4930014763#4930014763

I lost count of the number of personal attacks in his argument. He then made a false analogy between race and sexual orientation. Then after lambasting PJ for not providing stats and going on feeling he reported "most people I've talked to...". Very scientific indeed. An almost laughable piece of self contradiction I'm sorry to say.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

I lost count of the number of personal attacks in his argument. He then made a false analogy between race and sexual orientation. Then after lambasting PJ for not providing stats and going on feeling he reported "most people I've talked to...". Very scientific indeed. An almost laughable piece of self contradiction I'm sorry to say.

So one opinion based on feelings, not facts is "reasonable", but an opposing one is a "laughable piece of self contradiction"...

Your personal attacks against/preoccupation with Christopher is getting very tiresome indeed. I would strongly suggest that you discontinue it at once before further action is taken.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

I lost count of the number of personal attacks in his argument. He then made a false analogy between race and sexual orientation. Then after lambasting PJ for not providing stats and going on feeling he reported "most people I've talked to...". Very scientific indeed. An almost laughable piece of self contradiction I'm sorry to say.

So one opinion based on feelings, not facts is "reasonable", but an opposing one is a "laughable piece of self contradiction"...

Your personal attacks against/preoccupation with Christopher is getting very tiresome indeed. I would strongly suggest that you discontinue it at once before further action is taken. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry you brought up the discussion of his post. He repeatedly accuses PJ of being 'dishonest'. If you scroll back you will find Christopher has tried to personalize this discussion in terms of both PJ and myself rather than just discussing this issue. I'm merely pointing out his contradictions and those attacks when they are made. I have no opinion about Christopher other than that he appears to be accusing PJ of what he also does and that IS worth noting.

Could you at least shrink Kirk's picture so his responses aren't way over off screen?

[Unwired]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Sorry you brought up the discussion of his post.

Actually, you did, Kirk. Scroll up.

I will warn you a second time. If you find Christopher so objectionable then stop bringing him up.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Sorry you brought up the discussion of his post.

Actually, you did, Kirk. Scroll up.

I will warn you a second time. If you find Christopher so objectionable then stop bringing him up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I guess you did not go back to his 2:38pm post. I don't find Christopher objectionable in the least. I may disagree with him on a topic. That's all. Isn't that what these forums usually involve?

Here's his post for your convenience:



Edited by moderator. There is no need to repost something that appears on the previous page of this thread.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Still, do not come to me with all those "what ifs" They make me sick.

Thats because you can't answer Bob's question without making yourself look worse. His points are very valid.

If, in Bob's scenario you come home to find your daughter being raped, and you stand by and do nothing, who benifits? You who see your daughter being raped? Your daughter being raped? Or the person who rapes your daughter? Your standing by goes against the good of the community by allowing evil to endure.

I don't believe in violence in all matters, I hope there would be peace in the world, but I'm a realist enough to understand that human nature is basically violent and that sometimes violence against violence is for the greater good. And for me, standing by and allowing evil to happen means that you stand by what that evil is, and allow it to exist.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now YOU come with the same "ifs". It is not that I can not answer, it is because of that one single event you describe did not happen [to me], and I can not look into the future "if" that will happen and what I will do at that given situation.
How can you suggest I would stand by?
Are you a psychic to know what I would do in any given situation?
I am against any sort of violence. That does not mean that I can not be violent. You may be against car accidents, but still you may bump into another, or be against getting sick and still catch a cold, and so on and so forth.....ad infinitum.
Anyway, the topic here is Bush bashing and I bash Bush for being violent and promoting war in order to get his oil.
In case you don't understand, just ask again, if google can not help.

[Unwired]

You're unable to back up your assertion, Kirk.

[Captain Zen]

Why don't we stick to the topic and bash Bush instead of each other?????????????????

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Unwired:
You're unable to back up your assertion, Kirk.

At this point i don't know if you are going back to PJ's original assertion or a subsequent one about your pal. I'd rather keep it on the topic rather than discuss other posters here if at all possible which is the mistake I made in defending PJ against an unfair personal attack.