| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Mission Creep Bush's perversion of the "war on terror." By William Saletan Posted Monday, September 8, 2003, at 1:54 PM PT A $87 billion misrepresentation For more than a year, President Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. In his address to the nation Sunday night, Bush offered two new arguments for declaring Iraq "the central front" in the war on terror. If you buy those arguments, he's right. But before you buy them, stop and think about how far afield they would take us from the war we embarked on two years ago. Bush wants us to support his postwar Iraq policy as reflexively as we supported the war on al-Qaida in Afghanistan. That's why he delivered this speech just before the anniversary of 9/11. "Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism," he recalled in his opening remarks. "America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan … and we acted in Iraq." How was our action in Iraq part of the campaign against terrorism? The old argument, which Bush repeated Sunday, was that Saddam "sponsored terrorism." But again, Bush offered no evidence that Saddam had done so in a way different from Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia. Instead, Bush argued that regardless of whether terrorists in Iraq were at war with us two years ago, they are today. As Bush put it, Five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos. … Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. … The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken. ... We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror. Second, Bush argued that ousting Arab tyrants is inherently necessary to the war on terror: The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace. Think for a minute about what these two arguments entail. The first justifies any war in which, as a result of our actions, terrorists attack our troops. Imagine an invasion of Cuba, whose dictator has long rankled Bush and would be easier to topple than Saddam was. No doubt al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would send agents to try to kill the occupying troops. Bush could then defend the occupation as part of the "war on terror." The second argument is equally fraught with implications. Yes, tyranny breeds terrorism. But if the "war on terror" requires us to overthrow tyrants just because they're tyrants, we'll be at war for the rest of your life. If you opposed the Iraq war because you saw no connection to 9/11 or because you didn't trust Bush, his creepy redefinition of the "war on terror" vindicates your suspicions. But if, like me, you supported the Iraq war for other reasons, Bush's linguistic revisionism still matters. I supported the Iraq war because Saddam repeatedly violated the disarmament and inspection agreements that constituted his probation after the Persian Gulf War, and because the U.N. Security Council showed no willingness, even at the brink of a U.S. invasion, to embrace a serious timetable for enforcing those agreements. We did what had to be done. But it didn't have to be done to protect the United States from an imminent threat. It had to be done to preserve the credibility of international law enforcement, such as it is. An invasion undertaken for that reason entails a postwar policy very different from the one Bush has pursued. Having done the part of the job others refused to do—ousting Saddam—we should return the rest of the job to the Security Council. That means surrendering authority as well as responsibility, which Bush has refused to do. Instead, he drags his heels on relinquishing to our allies the influence they demand in exchange for sending troops and other resources. In their absence, the burden falls to us, in the form of more dead soldiers and Bush's request for another $87 billion in deficit spending. To justify this burden, Bush tells us it's still about 9/11. He tells us terrorists are trying to "inflict harm on Americans" to make us "run from a challenge" in Iraq. He tells us we must be "resolute in our own defense." He tells us we must "spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror." He conflates enemies. He spins circular logic. He appeals to our pride. He continues to misrepresent the terrorist connections on the basis of which he justified the Iraq invasion, and he expands the definition of the "war on terror" so that Iraq can be crammed into it anyway, along with dozens of other countries. Two years after 9/11, he has so thoroughly twisted the meaning of what happened that day that, in effect, he has forgotten what it was. |
We need to do what we're doing in Iraq. I don't think it's being managed well, but what do I know about managing a country? Just about diddly shit. But I do know that lying to the country and manipulating public opinion by deception is wrong. FLAT WRONG. And for that Bush and his deceptive administration have to go. |
yeah us! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry about voting for him, J. You can join the ranks of the Nader folks who wish they hadn't voted for Nader. There's probably people who are regretting voting for Gore as well. Not that regretting your vote means much when he lost the popular vote by quite a lot. |
its amazing how quickly forget or become to lazy to care. if Clinton was the standard why isnt applied to Dumbass? |
i hear Noah Adams cite the Santa Cruz story as an opener to the 8:309 news. funny. |
its fun |
|
And why is it that all these privitization of voting records and production of electronic voting machines go to republicans? Makes you think that maybe the idea that a takeover and subversion of democracy isn't so crazy after all... |
|
they got another..... It's a madhouse, a god damned madhouse! You damn dirty apes! |
Text from the story: "On Democracy Now Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting fame, disclosed (near the end of the transcript) that in the compromised 1.8Gigs off Diebold's FTP site they uncovered "an actual election file containing actual votes on election day from San Luis Obispo County, California". Problem is, the date stamp was 3:31pm - during voting hours! The Diebold system uses a wireless network card. Worse: "So that means if they can pull the information in, they can also send information back into those machines. "" |
if thats no longer true, where, or should I ask, who, are the oil revenues going to? last night Dennis Miller was on Leno and I was so unlucky to see him. What a cock. Wrapping up idiotic ideas with pages from a thesaurus. he suggested noone should care about the defecit getting larger because the answer is to simply not pay whoever is owed the money. Well if thats such a great idea, why don't they raise it even more for social programs? Why not give welfare for everyone so they can quit their jobs, stay home, then every night go out for dinner and buy more stuff manufactured by slave labor? I mean, if this deficit doesn't mean anything, go nuts! |
|
check out "Mess o potamia" and hopefully they'll upload the Al Franken interview from last night soon to, that was a riot. |
Leno was on immediately after... thing about Miller, he doesnt 'interview', he just does his act... sooooooo.......... Patriot Act II announced today. you're all fucked. move to Canada. |
|
...or most likely, sit and let them get away with it, like you let your politicians get away with everything else... this week: Bush asks for more sacrifice, billions of dollars, new laws. At the same time, representatives get a pay increase. Tomorrow, as you're remembering the deaths of 3000 people, also remember that while it was happening, Bush continued to sit and read to kids. the leader of your country just sat there. and then later, he said he saw the first plane hit on TV. he lied. all this trauma and death and he makes up some crazy lie.. why? I'm sorry... just seeing this 'libbie conspiracy theorists made this up' legislation come to pass... I don't think even the first shock and awe images of the Iraq war made me this angry. |
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?storyID=16332 |
capitalize the S in "Story" |
Them's fightin' words, bitch. What could we do, hm? This is a democracy, despite what our unelected president is doing. Many people in this country favor the fucked up situation, but they are a majority at the moment. We must fight to change that, but there's no quick fix. |
all anyone can do is sit back and hope their government does the right thing. Or get a whole riot going untill they declare mob rule. ouch. I'm suddenly all freaked-out. |
|
"what could we do" vote. the US has the lowest voter turnout in the world. so fucking vote, and get everyone you know to vote. make 900 friends in Florida and get them to vote, just to cover the spread. and you can send donations to my "sterilize the South" organization. south of Tennessee no child for thee. a couple generations will pass, the idiot gene pool is wiped out and you can get a fresh start on America II. and lets try to get your goddamn liberal media back. but really, the trick to get people thinking bout whats going on is to be a loud obnoxious asshole who simplifies the agenda to what it means to them personally. don't try to tell them what it means 'to America' because America ends at most peoples' yards, tell them what it means to them, they, themselves, and dont be nice about it or apologize because thats why any of the wacky lefty views don't get any coverage anymore, because unlike the neocons, most modern libs will just agree to disagree. I dont know, hell, make up some elaborate story about how it means they'll take your gun away and raise taxes. could be true anyways.... okay then... enough with that. wade through the sarcasm and hate and maybe theres a good idea in there. on a lighter note... I'm in a library at the moment, and some guy came to the librarian and just yelled to her his question... "Ummm... ADULT VIDEOS?" of course he means something else... but hey, its funny. |
If there has to be a riot, I hope its the minorities that do it, overthrow and fix everything. I think they'd do a better job. I'll watch that show. So much hate. Have I broken myself? Is it insanity or a supersanity? |
i take offense to your sterilize the south nonsense, but thats ok. i don't know if you ever been to south, there's certainly plenty of reason to why you might desire such an outcome, but just as a counterpoint, next time you're stateside, visit New Jersey or the California desert and revist the idea. god my weed is stinking up my office. |
whats going on.....ohh whats going on.... |
I love Tennessee... I loved parts of Georgia... Florida was tacky. meh, but I live near Niagara Falls so I'm used to that... its a joke. most else was terribly depressing... the lowest point being inside an Arby's at Macon. bare feet. everyone in sweat pants. The most body hair i've ever seen on a man. A family with 12 kids. All in one place. I thought I was in a stereotype theme park. but seriously, I love Tennessee to death. Its awesome, to me once you get south of Tennessee, that accent goes from cheerful and friendly to threatening and unintelligible. But as for the worst of the States, I still believe I'll never be in a worse city than Buffalo, NY. |
Right. You've seen how well that's worked with spunky, right? |
|
how bout we just hire strippers to do the campaigning? Dems, Greens, Libertarians and Reps alike, NOBODY turns down Titsy. |
you have to approach them backstage when no one is looking. they arent comfortable admitting anal turns them on. rowlf, i too, upon my recent visit was a bit startled. stopping for lunch at a wendys in Augusta, GA i was terrified at what i saw. going into a waffle house in rural SC for coffee, i felt like i steppped into banjo dual in progress. it was fucking scary, but at the same, there's a beauty to the rest of it. i know you're joshing. i just wish, for once, people would pick on Hoboken, or Jersery City first. |
I also secretly hope that anarchy breaks out in CA 7 October. I think we are going to have lawsuits out the wazoo no matter what happens. |
have to say i really really really don't want to ever have to... |
It's the gay marriage issue of course, thats really getting me off my ass. I may even take the whole day off at work, just to bask in my sence of public duty. and sleep in. Because i deserve it, good citizen that i am. I'm voting NDP because they're fucking crazy. None of your namby-pamby 'just ever so slightly left of centre' shit here. And they could win, too. Check out the 'no star wars' graphic on their front page! sometimes they go too far, but.... |
still news.. bleh.. Bush approval rating falls to 52% http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030912.asp |
Also, notice how that graph is shaped kind of like a huge penis... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
my head will explode. i prefer nice graphics like this showing the path of the hijacked planes on 9/11 and the dozens of military bases they flew over or very near, but drew no response. fine. i admit it. that plane in PA was not shot down. its becoming more and more clear the FAA, NORAD and the White House sat on their collective asses. |
|
granted its an editorial cartoon, but i want to know if you remembered some of the points brought to light? because the "pros" don't want us to remember certain matters, and well, Im wondering if the "pros" have cleared your memory bank, of if you remember. |
|
Bush accuses Syria of harboring WMD's, Iraqi leaders President Assad holds talks with British, Saudi envoys;Foreign Ministry denies administration's claims 2003-04-15 / Agencies / President Bush Sunday accused Syria of having weapons of mass destruction and of harboring fleeing Iraqi leaders, raising questions about whether that country might be the next target for the U.S. military. "We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria," Bush said. "Each situation will require a different response and, of course ... first things first. We're in Iraq now, and the second thing about Syria is that we expect cooperation." He also said he expects Syria to stop harboring cronies of Saddam Hussein believed to have fled there as their government in Iraq collapsed. "The Syrian government needs to cooperate with the United States and our coalition partners and not harbor any Baathists, any military officials, any people who need to be held to account for their tenure" in Iraq, Bush told reporters Sunday. Bush, appearing in an expansive mood on the day that seven American prisoners of war were recovered in good health, sidestepped a question about whether the United States might threaten war against Syria if it did not cooperate with U.S. demands. "They just need to cooperate," he said in response. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also brushed aside questions about war against Syria. "That's above my pay grade," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "Those are the kinds of things that countries and presidents decide. That's broad national policy. I am a participant, but I am certainly not a decider." Rumsfeld said senior Iraqi leaders have fled to Syria, and some have continued on to other unnamed countries. He did not identify any, but The Washington Times quoted anonymous U.S. government officials as saying that two Iraqi biological weapons scientists were among those making it to Damascus, Syria. They were identified as Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, described by U.S. officials as "Mrs. Anthrax," and Rihab Taha, known as "Dr. Germ." Syrian officials denied that Iraqi officials had escaped to their country. Syria's president held talks yesterday with British and Saudi envoys while the Foreign Ministry flatly denied the American charges. ``Of course Syria has no chemical weapons. They (Americans) have been talking for years about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But so far, the presence of these weapons has not been confirmed,'' said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bouthayna Shaaban. ``I would like to say that there are biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East region. They are in Israel, not in Syria,'' she said in a telephone interview with Lebanon's Al-Hayat-LBC satellite channel late Sunday. Syrian President Bashar Assad met yesterday with British Junior Foreign Minister Mike O'Brien, who arrived in Damascus as part of a tour that would also take him to Iraq. O'Brien said he briefed Assad on ``coalition proposals now that Saddam Hussein's regime has gone.'' A British Embassy statement quoted O'Brien as saying, ``Saddam Hussein is finished. The coalition will go home as soon as the Iraqi people have an elected government.'' A British Embassy official said O'Brien's visit was ``part of ongoing dialogue between Syria and Britain,'' adding that the United Kingdom was interested in conducting consulations on post-Saddam Iraq with all the countries neighboring Iraq. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, speaking to reporters in Bahrain yesterday, said Syria was not the next coalition target after the war on Iraq but added that it needed to answer questions. In an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio yesterday, Straw said the United States and Britain would be looking for Syrian cooperation regarding ``some fugitives from Iraq (who) may well have fled to Syria, and other matters, including whether they have in fact been developing any kind of illegal or illegitimate chemical or biological programs.'' Asked whether he believed the Syrians had weapons of mass destruction, Straw replied: "I'm not sure, and that's why we need to talk to them about it." meanwhile, the CIA is already saying "nuh uh" CIA: Assessment of Syria's WMD exaggerated By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data, the CIA and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration assessment of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill. After the objections, the planned testimony by Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until September. U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that Bolton was prepared to tell members of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the region. The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was exaggerated. Syria has come under increasing U.S. pressure during and after the Iraq war for allegedly giving refuge to members of Saddam Hussein's regime, allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq to attack U.S. troops and for backing Palestinian militant groups that were conducting terrorist strikes on Israel. After Saddam's government fell, some Bush aides hinted that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus might be the next U.S. target. The objections by the intelligence community come as the Bush administration is defending itself over complaints that it embellished intelligence secrets to justify the war against Iraq. Bolton's planned remarks caused a "revolt" among intelligence experts who thought they inflated the progress Syria has made in its weapons programs, said a U.S. official who isn't from the CIA, but was involved in the dispute. He and other officials who provided similar accounts spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity and because they aren't authorized government spokesmen. The CIA's objections and comments alone ran to 35 to 40 pages, the official said. Officials declined to provide more details of the disputes over the testimony, some of which was secret and scheduled to be delivered in closed session. The House panel is considering a bill that would toughen trade and diplomatic sanctions against Syria, which is on the U.S. list of terrorist-sponsoring nations. Officials provided conflicting explanations of why the hearing was canceled. A Bolton aide said it was because of a scheduling conflict - Bolton was called to a White House meeting Tuesday afternoon - and that the hearing had been reset for September. Others said it was because the bitter dispute couldn't be immediately resolved. A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the issue. But other officials in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill said the White House Office of Management and Budget, which coordinates government officials' public statements, wouldn't give final approval to the planned testimony. The conflict appears to illustrate how battles over prewar intelligence on Iraq have spread to other issues and have heightened sensitivity among Bush aides about public descriptions of threats to the United States. The White House acknowledged last week that it shouldn't have included in President Bush's January State of the Union address a dramatic contention that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa. Other administration claims about Iraq's banned weapons program and alleged ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network are now in question. Several officials said another reason for the cancellation of Bolton's testimony was that he might have been subjected to sharp questioning about Iraq intelligence, a controversy the White House is trying to lay to rest. There is more attention to "dotting I's and crossing T's," said a State Department official, adding that Bolton's draft statement was the subject of "extensive edits." Bolton set off a controversy in May 2002 when he asserted in a speech that Cuba has a biological warfare program. A State Department intelligence expert, Christian Westermann, recently told a closed-door Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that available intelligence data don't support that assertion, U.S. officials have said. The first U.S. official said that after months of complaining about pressure to skew their analyses, rank-and-file intelligence officials "have become emboldened" by the recent public debate over Iraq. "People are fed up," he said. Another official confirmed that the CIA had "a good deal of concern" over the classified portion of Bolton's testimony. In speeches and congressional testimony over the past year, Bolton has identified Syria among a handful of countries whose alleged pursuit of biological and chemical weapons makes them threats to international stability. His assessments attached more gravity to the danger that Syria poses than did a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment that covered the first six months of 2002. In testimony in June before the House International Relations Committee, Bolton said U.S. officials are "looking at Syria's nuclear program with growing concern and continue to monitor it for any signs of nuclear weapons intent." A CIA report submitted to Congress in April contained more cautionary language. Noting that Syria and Russia have reached preliminary agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, the CIA report said only, "In principal, broader access to Russian expertise provides opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons." In his June testimony, Bolton asserted that U.S. officials "know that Syria is pursuing the development of biological weapons." The CIA report said only that it's "highly probable that Syria is also continuing to develop an offensive BW (biological weapons) capability." Finally, Bolton told the congressional committee that "North Korean entities have been involved in aiding Syria's ballistic missile development." The CIA reported that Syria was trying to build Scud-C ballistic missiles "probably with North Korean assistance." CIA Director George Tenet, in an annual worldwide assessment of threats against the United States that he presented to Congress in February, referred to Syria by name only once, and that was in connection with its support for Palestinian extremist groups. |
The Occupation Runs Out of Gas It Was the Oil and It Is Like Vietnam By STAN GOFF Apologists for Bush's little war in Iraq, whose numbers are diminishing in the face of relentless reality, have invested a mighty labor in dismissing two claims; that the war in Iraq is about oil, and that there is a comparison to be made between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. The war was never intended as a liberation, the bullshit story that went center stage when the weapons lies fell apart . It was always a re-colonization, now euphemized even by many Democrats as "re-construction." Nonetheless, the Bush administration believed they would be welcomed as liberators, because Bush has surrounded himself with people whose principle skill is self-delusion, and whose principle aversion is hearing anything that doesn't conform to their preconceptions. If Daddy supervised the tragedy, Junior is supervising the deadly farce. People who only want to hear good news from their own perspective are easily taken in by con men, and the con man this time was Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate facing 22 years at hard labor in Jordan for embezzlement. This is the character upon whom Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz--themselves (neo)con men--relied for insight into Iraq, and who told them they'd be welcomed by cheering, flower-bearing, confetti-slinging crowds not unlike Parisians in 1945. That Chalabi hadn't been in Iraq for decades hasn't deterred our intrepid neo-con ideologues. They still want to make Chalabi the Quisling leader of Iraq, under the Kissinger-tutored Viceroy Paul Bremer's. Neither were the neocons deterred by intelligence summaries that told them there was no threat from Iraq. They just made shit up, repeated it five million times to a credulous, tele-hypnotic American majority, and we swallowed it whole... sugar provided by the ersatz journalism of America's entertainment media. Hearing only what we want is a generalized cultural characteristic shared by leaders and followers alike. If, as a child, I had told lies as transparent as this administration's, Mother would have sent me out to the privet hedge to get her a switch. But white America (Let's be clear here. The Republican Party's single unifying principle is white supremacy.) finds the real world just too much to bear, and so clings desperately to the skirts of its simplified, racialized world view . That's why even "liberal" white America finds itself incapable of perceiving the Iraqis as capable of self-governance, and now calls for a UN occupation, imagined under the direction of European-extracted officials bearing the white man's burden now recoded as "democratization. In the real world, Bush's little junta wanted control of the oil, and that was always the reason, and it never changed. If Iraq's principle resource had been chick peas, our troops wouldn't be there. There were never any mushroom cloud ready to bloom over New York, and never any connection between September 11th and Iraq. The only mushroom cloud was the smoke blown straight up America's ass by these shameless thugs. It was oil. It still is oil. They are waging economic war on Europe and Asia, and oil is the lever. And so they repeat the word "liberation, liberation, liberation" like a mantra. The repetition of words like 'remnants' and 'foreigners' is another childish cover story (It's a good thing my Mom isn't in DC, or she'd tear that ass up.) to conceal the fact that the Iraqis are not conforming to the neo-con script. In Vietnam, there was a huge effort, once the US military was entrenched, to convince the American public that foreigners were the aggressors, and that the resistance to military occupation was not indigenous. But it was. The resistance in Iraqi is indigenous, too. Operations like the ones being conducted by Iraqi guerrillas can not happen without roots in the local populations. In Vietnam, troop morale plummeted as the lies about the reasons for war became ever more apparent. The morale of the troops in Iraq began to fall as soon as the reality that they weren't liberating anything sank in. Most troops are prepared to face danger and hardship. They just don't like facing them for lies. Since the political decision in August to cut US casualties, the US has minimized operations and largely drawn the troops back inside the concertina wire. They were tangled up with pinprick strikes, and the slow, steady stream of US casualties was harming Bush politically. It still isn't working. Fixed installations need logistical support, and that means convoys, so the Iraqi resistance is schooling itself on the art of ambush. From an operational tempo that was lethally strenuous, American troops are now subjected to mind-numbing boredom, where they can concentrate on how slowly the calendar pages turn, how hot it is, how bad the sand fleas are, how much they miss home-cooked meals and making love and air-conditioning. The occasional mortar attack gives them something to talk about. The US is stuck right now, having lost the battlefield initiative, and is losing the war. This is another parallel to Vietnam. Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board has usurped the Department of Defense, just like Lyndon Johnson's Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's "whiz kids" that oversaw the Vietnam defeat. If McNamara was Johnson's bad counsel, Rumsfeld appears to be Bush's Rasputin. Another flim-flam artist, with his silly robo-war doctrine. Even the generals despise this arrogant pretender. The generals apparently still remember Vietnam, about which Bush's cabinet has experienced a deep amnesia, but even they--especially they--will protect their careers and remain largely silent as they are led into the swamp. Perhaps we need to revisit some good advice from Vietnam. When asked how we could get out of Vietnam, one simple answer was tragically ignnored: With ships and airplanes. The Iraqis--a talented people with 5,000 years of experience in civilization--are more qualified to determine their own future, however painful that process may be, than Bush's cabinet, or the UN for that matter. End the occupation. Bring the troops home now. |
Syria better not cooperate! Remember what happened when Iraq cooperated? Shit, Syria better start shooting any american that comes within 50 feet of the border, and/or making vast threats of global destruction. Hey, it worked for North Korea. |
bada-bing! |
|
|
|
|
|
WHAT THE GOD DAMNED HELL! SON OF A FUCKING BITCH! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! :p |
no wait. no, yes. everything. |
|
K |
|
|
|
i think i've seen more naked sorabjiites than any other sorabjiite. |
|
I'd like to ask you to join me in a moment of silence in honour of those who died in the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon last September 11th. I would also like to ask you a moment of silence for all of those who have been harassed, imprisoned, disappeared, tortured, raped, or killed in retaliation for those strikes, for the victims in both Afghanistan and the U.S. And if I could just add one more thing... A full day of silence for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have died at the hands of U.S.-backed Israeli forces over decades of occupation. Six months of silence for the million and-a-half Iraqi people, mostly children, who have died of malnourishment or starvation as a result of an 11-year U.S. embargo against the country. Before I begin this poem: two months of silence for the Blacks under Apartheid in South Africa, where homeland security made them aliens in their own country. Nine months of silence for the dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where death rained down and peeled back every layer of concrete, steel, earth and skin and the survivors went on as if alive. A year of silence for the millions of dead in Vietnam--a people, not a war- for those who know a thing or two about the scent of burning fuel, their relatives' bones buried in it, their babies born of it. A year of silence for the dead in Cambodia and Laos, victims of a secret war ... ssssshhhhh .... Say nothing .. we don't want them to learn that they are dead. Two months of silence for the decades of dead in Colombia, whose names, like the corpses they once represented, have piled up and slipped off our tongues. Before I begin this poem, An hour of silence for El Salvador ... An afternoon of silence for Nicaragua ... Two days of silence for the Guatemaltecos ... None of whom ever knew a moment of peace 45 seconds of silence for the 45 dead at Acteal, Chiapas 25 years of silence for the hundred million Africans who found their graves far deeper in the ocean than any building could poke into the sky. There will be no DNA testing or dental records to identify their remains. And for those who were strung and swung from the heights of sycamore trees in the south, the north, the east, and the west... 100 years of silence... For the hundreds of millions of indigenous peoples from this half of right here, Whose land and lives were stolen, In postcard-perfect plots like Pine Ridge, Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Fallen Timbers, or the Trail of Tears. Names now reduced to innocuous magnetic poetry on the refrigerator of our consciousness ... So you want a moment of silence? And we are all left speechless Our tongues snatched from our mouths Our eyes stapled shut A moment of silence And the poets have all been laid to rest The drums disintegrating into dust Before I begin this poem, You want a moment of silence You mourn now as if the world will never be the same And the rest of us hope to hell it won't be. Not like it always has been Because this is not a 9-1-1 poem This is a 9/10 poem, It is a 9/9 poem, A 9/8 poem, A 9/7 poem This is a 1492 poem. This is a poem about what causes poems like this to be written And if this is a 9/11 poem, then This is a September 11th poem for Chile, 1971 This is a September 12th poem for Steven Biko in South Africa, 1977 This is a September 13th poem for the brothers at Attica Prison, New York, 1971. This is a September 14th poem for Somalia, 1992. This is a poem for every date that falls to the ground in ashes This is a poem for the 110 stories that were never told The 110 stories that history chose not to write in textbooks The 110 stories that CNN, BBC, The New York Times, and Newsweek ignored This is a poem for interrupting this program. And still you want a moment of silence for your dead? We could give you lifetimes of empty: The unmarked graves The lost languages The uprooted trees and histories The dead stares on the faces of nameless children Before I start this poem We could be silent forever Or just long enough to hunger, For the dust to bury us And you would still ask us For more of our silence. If you want a moment of silence Then stop the oil pumps Turn off the engines and the televisions Sink the cruise ships Crash the stock markets Unplug the marquee lights, Delete the instant messages, Derail the trains, the light rail transit If you want a moment of silence, put a brick through the window of Taco Bell, And pay the workers for wages lost Tear down the liquor stores, The townhouses, the White Houses, the jailhouses, the Penthouses and the Playboys. If you want a moment of silence, Then take it On Super Bowl Sunday, The Fourth of July During Dayton's 13 hour sale Or the next time your white guilt fills the room where my beautiful people have gathered You want a moment of silence Then take it Now, Before this poem begins. Here, in the echo of my voice, In the pause between goosesteps of the second hand In the space between bodies in embrace, Here is your silence. Take it. But take it all Don't cut in line. Let your silence begin at the beginning of crime. But we, Tonight we will keep right on singing For our dead. --Emmanuel Ortiz |
that's the secret. i think i've seen more naked sorabjiites than any other sorabjiite." Ok, I know niether one of those guys was patrick, pretty sure Nate was not in it either. I have never seen any pics of sem and tiggy.... Who are they? PS, tiggy, that article you posted about rummy suprised me. At least he was honest about his opinion on that subject, rather then going with the 70% that think there was a link. |
|
Iraq and al-queda, indirectly? Iraq and al-queda, directly? Iraq and bin laden, indirectly? Iraq and bin laden, directly? Iraq and 9/11, indirectly? Iraq and 9/11, directly? Hussein and al-queda, indirectly? Hussein and al-queda, directly? Hussein and bin laden, indirectly? Hussein and bin laden, directly? Hussein and 9/11, indirectly? Hussein and 9/11, directly? I can really go Bureaucrat on you if you like and REALLY muddy up the answer and the question. |
|
but you know, he wasn't honest when it counted spunk. you know....like....BEFORE we bombed the shit out of Iraq. BEFORE and tossed our global credibility to shit. |
Same goes for the administration. Personally, yes to all, except direct responsibility or action. |
you don't understand the english language. you cannot communicate in english. you read what you want to read. you argue over points that don't exist. |
|
So, you mean yes to all, except half of the options you listed? (you know, the ones that included the word "directly.") |
*** When corrections need correcting The Bush team has a clever ploy: Tell politically useful lies VERY LOUDLY, then whisper a correction. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Robert Scheer Sept. 17, 2003 | It's hard to believe that it was just a slip of the tongue rather than a calculated lie when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sullied the memory of those who died on 9/11 by exploiting their deaths for propaganda purposes. The brainwashing of Americans, two-thirds of whom believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks, is too effective a political ploy for the Bush regime to suddenly let the truth get in the way. "We know [Iraq] had a great deal to do with terrorism in general and with al-Qaida in particular, and we know a great many of [Osama] bin Laden's key lieutenants are now trying to organize in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime," Wolfowitz told ABC on this year's 9/11 anniversary. We know nothing of the sort, of course, and the next day Wolfowitz was forced to admit it. He told the Associated Press that his remarks referred not to a "great many" of bin Laden's lieutenants but rather to a single Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. "[I] should have been more precise," Wolfowitz admitted. Even if the leaders of the Bush team were half as smart as they think they are, it would be amazing that they "misspeak" as often as they have. This happened again Sunday when Tim Russert challenged Vice President Dick Cheney to defend his claim, made on "Meet the Press" before the war, that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. "Yeah, I did misspeak," Cheney admitted. "We never had any evidence that [Saddam] had acquired a nuclear weapon." The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness, and Wolfowitz's latest performance is a classic example: Even his correction needs correcting. The Zarqawi connection has been a red herring since Colin Powell emphasized it in his prewar presentation to the United Nations Security Council, telling the world how Zarqawi was running a chemical weapons lab. Problem was, the site was not in Iraqi control but was in the U.S.-patrolled no-fly zone, and when reporters visited it in the days immediately after Powell's speech they found nothing that indicated anything like a chemical weapons lab. The fundamentalist militia known as Ansar al Islam that controlled the area, meanwhile, was supported by Saddam's enemies in Iran. Nor has any evidence of connections between Ansar al Islam and Saddam's regime surfaced since the U.S. invasion, as Wolfowitz conceded in congressional testimony last Tuesday. At that same Senate hearing, Vincent Cannistraro, formerly the CIA's director of counter-terrorism operations and analysis, testified: "There was no substantive intelligence information linking Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack Americans." So, Wolfowitz and the administration might prove to be right after all. Not about Iraq's ties with bin Laden before the invasion. Nor about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction the president used to scare up support for war. But by turning its claim that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without this claim, the president's men would be revealed as imperial adventurers who wasted the lives and resources of this country to redraw the map of the world. That scheme, including "preemptive military intervention," can be traced to a "Defense Planning Guidance" document prepared by Wolfowitz in 1992 when he was Cheney's undersecretary of defense for policy. Thus, it was not too surprising that the bodies recovered after the 9/11 attacks were barely in the ground before Cheney and Wolfowitz were arguing that a proper response to 9/11 was to go after Iraq -- whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the plot. They were willing to say anything to convince us they were right, even trying to sell this as a war without cost. In March, one week into the war, Wolfowitz told Congress, "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Now we find that Iraq can't pay for its own reconstruction and since we went to war unilaterally, defying world opinion, we are unlikely to persuade anybody else to chip in. Last week, a Washington Post poll showed that 60 percent of the American people opposed the president's plan to throw $87 billion more into this quagmire, on top of the $79 billion budgeted already. Perhaps, like people blinking in the sun after a long hibernation, Americans are finally awakening to the stupid and craven things being done in the name of our protection. |
Do any of you actually think that there is EVER going to be a politician that NEVER lies? Seriously now. I am not saying anything about Bush here, but rather just asking if there is anyone who believes in honest politicians. |
back in June, Gen. Wesley Clark cites a concerted effort from the White House after 9/11 to make the connection. The White House pushed the Atta/Iraqi agent meeting in Prague. Last year Rumsfeld said they had bulletproof evidence of a link between al Qaida and Iraq. I realize that they arent saying there was a direct link between the acts of 9/11 and Saddam himself, but you realize that at the time they were saying statements they were selling the war to the masses in this country. And it worked. Its not a stretch for many American minds to hear these kinds of statements and fill in the last blank on their own. 70% + of Americans believed there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam as of last spring. There's a reason the American public thought that. Again, the administration is wiggling on semantics. Just like that bullshit about the British Intelligence and yellowcakes and Niger. Resorting to semantics to justify their bullshit half truth. |
If there are honest people, then there are honest politicians. I won't speculate as to ratios, however. But I think there is a limit which people find the lies told to them acceptable. And I think after CLinton, the public tolerance for lies is dropping. There still seems to be a time lag between the exposure of the lie and the public getting around to being pissed about it though. |
******** As to his [Clinton's] misdeeds, [...], I have no need to "write them off", as it were. I could shine a 1000 watt bulb on his misdeeds, writ in bright red 48 pt text, with bold, underline, and italics, described in the most lurid terms possible, I could hear them sung by the mighty Mormon Tabernacle Choir, I could hear them solemnly intoned by James Earl Jones, and not a one would inspire in me anything more dramatic than a shrug. I am under no illusions about policians as a class, and Bill's misdeeds simply pale into nothingness when held up against the felonious transgressions and villainy that so many of his predecessors were guilty of, not to mention the rap sheet His Awfulness is adding to by the hour. Unlike yourself, for instance, I can rest easy in the blissful certitude that his misdeeds are confined to those sometimes embarassing, occasionally shameful, rarely shocking and altogther negligible screwups and bad choices we all have full knowledge of, courtesy of the ever-hatin' GOP itself, who, despite digging, rooting, praying, bribing, lying, implying and shoving their collective nose up the mans ass from the day he took office til the day he left and refusing to let him pass wind without issuing subpeonas demanding testimony as to the composition and quality of his effluvia, still couldn't come up with anything more horrible than a rather sad and pathetic little sexual misadventure. (The poor guy spent his life aspiring to be the next JFK, Lotharian adventures and all...Monroe, for god's sake!...and all he ends up with is a little coatroom fumbling. Poor shmuck.) So it's one of two things: either what we know is everything there is to know (yawn), or the entire Republican leadership, press and party are a passle of incompetent boobs without the wit of a 12 year old girl between them. You pick. ************* |
Honest politician is an oxymoron...at least where politicians who have attained a modicum of power are concerned. I am not stating this as "fact" merely being assertive about my inability to concieve of honesty within the system. Of course, there are the kinds of lies and the motivations behind the lies and the implications of the lies, but in the end, they all suck. That's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
A link between Al-Queda and Iraq, absolutely. A link between Iraq and 9/11? Direct involvement would include: 1. Material Support or contribution (issued box knives, explosives, false pilot licenses, airline uniforms, blue prints of the WTC, etc.) . 2. Financial Support or Money specifically earmarked for the 911 operation. 3. Direction of oppperation. 4. Issuance of false passports or identification specifically for the 911 operation Indirect link could mean training for this type of operation, general financial contributions, housing, issuance of false identification for general purposes, any type of support that did not specifically support 911 actions. And the links are: 1. Al Qaeda and Saddam reached a non-aggression agreement in 1993 2. An Al Qaeda operative—a native-born Iraqi who goes by the name Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi—was dispatched by bin Laden to ask the Iraqis for help in poison-gas training. 3. An Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists. 4. Another Al Qaeda operative, the Iraqi-born Mamdouh Salim, who goes by the name Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, also served as a liaison in the mid-nineteen-nineties to Iraqi intelligence. Salimwas bin Laden's chief procurer of weapons of mass destruction, and was involved in the early nineties in chemical-weapons development in Sudan. Salim was arrested in Germany in 1998 and was extradited to the United States. He is awaiting trial in New York on charges related to the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings; he was convicted last April of stabbing a Manhattan prison guard in the eye with a sharpened comb. 5. Both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996 bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. 6. Iraq provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al-Qa'ida. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al-Qa'ida associates; one of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. 7. Ramzi Yousef, leader of both the 1993 New York bombing and a failed attempt two years later to down 12 American airliners over the Pacific, was an Iraqi intelligence officer. 8. Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah met Mukhabarat officers in the months before 9/11 in the United Arab Emirates. Ignoring Iraq's support for terror is a seductive proposition, which fits pleasingly with democracies' natural reluctance to wage war. But if we are serious about winning the war on terror, self-delusion is not an option. An attempt to achieve regime change in Iraq would not be a distraction, but an integral part of the struggle. As far as what damage clinton's crap did to the nation being confined to asthetics, you could not be further from the truth. The man HATED the military, and HATED the intel community. He ruined them, he passed over the chance to nab bin laden AT LEAST TWICE. Don't give me your tired line about his presidency being over, and to move on, because we are where we are EXACTLY because he fucked thing ups because a BJ in the whitehouse and chasing skirts was more important then national defense. When are you going to get that through your head? We were weak. We looked weak. We ran with our tails between our legs from Bin Laden in Mogadeshu, we showed we have not the guts nor the courage nor the will power to stick to it, we set a precendence that if you kill one or two troops a day, eventually the americans would loose heart, and loose focus, and tear themselves apart and ultimately with draw. This is what we got our selves into. This is why we are where we are. "Just like that bullshit about the British Intelligence and yellowcakes and Niger. Resorting to semantics to justify their bullshit half truth." What half truth? British intelligence still to this day backs up their claim, and the president said exactly that. The brits have said that iraq attempted to purchase uranium from africa. Give it a rest. This is a war on terror. We are currently killing terrorists by the handfuls in Iraq as we speak. No, the war should never have been based on WMD crap, but for some unknown reason, this admin chose that as thier avenue. But it was justified, and is being more and more justified every day. Regardless of the media's constant hem hawing and second guessing, it is working. We have whiped out 7/10ths of al-queda's leadership, we are fighting them every day. We cannot afford to give up in Iraq, or the consequences will be far worse then Mogedeshu. Please understand that. And putting more troops on the ground in Iraq only creates more targets for the terrorists. Mass numbers are not going to make the difference. Pursaverance and dedication will. |
My mom had sent that poem to me this morning.....she just emailed me and said that she had also sent it to all of her colleagues, and she got this message in reply: ******** Christina, This is the most anti-Semitic piece I have ever had e-mailed to me. I'm sorry that you feel a need to perpetuate the view that dead Jews don't even deserve to be counted or even mentioned. It is convenient to leave out the centuries of pogroms and holocausts and dead Israeli children. As I leave tomorrow to go to Israel for my son's Bar Mitzvah I will be sure I don't get on any buses or sit at any cafes so I don't get blown to bits - even though you seem to think I would deserve to. I will take my children to Yad Vashem where my grandparents are memorialized from dying at Auschwitz. I'm sure they deserved that too. I actually agree with the sentiments of the poem but it all turns to ashes due to the bigotry and prejudice it displays. ********** This pisses me off, and I hope my mom replies with more compassion than I would. The fucking point of the poem is that people who think 9/11 is the blackest day in world history have their heads up their asses and need their eyes opened. That this woman can't handle the fact that Israel is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Palestinians because it clashes with her political views and loses sight of the point, and that she brings up the unimpeachable memories of her dead relatives as support for her anger, and accuses my mom of anti-Semitism...God, that makes me want to spit nails. |
|
So, you're saying that the US Government is linked with Al-Queda, and therefore indirectly responsible for 9/11? Bin Laden, while a "freedom fighter" against the Russians in Afghanistan, was given $6 billion by the US Government and trained by the CIA. We also supported Saddam with foreign aid and business contracts up until we declared war against Iraq...the first time. A few of those business contracts helped him create that stockpile of chemical weapons we were so worried about. So, if there's a Saddam->Al-Queda link, then by the same token there's a US Government->Saddam->Al-Queda link. Gee. Looks like there's a double indirect link between the US Government and Al-Queda. Thanks for the logic lesson, spunky! |
New York History? DC History? Pensylvania History? Probably. US History? Maybe. Depends on personal view. If you lost anyone in Pearl or lived near Pearl, but not in NY, I dare say you would feel Pearl was a lot worse. |
We did help them repell russia. We trained them. We do not hide that fact, nor do we appologize for it. At least not me. We did what was right. We trained them, rather then over there and fight for them, we trained them how to fight and protect themselves, so next time they would not need us. I do not appologize for nor regret that one bit. What they chose to do with knowledge after the war was over is on thier heads, not ours. I equate that to the "give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for life" parable. |
|
So then you're saying there's no "indirect" link between Saddam and Al-Queda? Yer confusin' me, son! |
Fitting though. The worste damage is the damage we inflict on ourselves. |
So then you're saying there's no "indirect" link between Saddam and Al-Queda? Yer confusin' me, son!" Concider the reasons, there buddy. Iraq-Al Queda. Hijack plane and kill innocents US-Afghanistan (note, afghanistan, NOT Taliban/Al-Queda). Repell invaders from your borders. |
how convenient. why do we have to be precise spunk? clearly the administration doesnt see the need to be precise except when it serves its own needs, otherwise it will propel half-truths exagerrations and even flat out lies to support its case. "We did what was right. We trained them, rather then over there and fight for them, we trained them how to fight and protect themselves, so next time they would not need us." you actually think we got involved so we could share some friendly self-defense skillz? god you so buy it..hook, line and sinker. |
US-Osama: $6 billion and training by the best covert ops organization (CIA) in the world. Iraq-Al Queda: A few meetings, common members, and bomb making training. |
Consider that you can't read people's minds, spunky. Given, for a moment, that all of that support actually happened, how do you know the Iraqis weren't giving Al-Quaeda support to fight in Chechnya or Kosovo? |
Yes. And that may not be only in the past. That's the point most of us here are trying to make. |
god you so buy it..hook, line and sinker" Now, it was a war by proxy with russia. Iraq and Iran was the same thing. Patrick, if you think I beleive no administration or world government has motives other then those announced, no wonder we have such problems communicating. That is a blatant fact that should not have to be pointed at someone so pointedly.... I ran out of adjectives. |
Yes. And that may not be only in the past. That's the point most of us here are trying to make." Kind of like when you go to pull a sliver out of your finger. You can either grimace and pull it out, or let it fester and puss up and eventually loose your entire finger. The civil war costly in terms of lives and property and money, but absolutely necessary. |
|
Or you can have the crazy hired gun you trained to kick your enemy's ass come and stab you in the back, all the while saying, "I NEVER SAW IT COMING, I SWEAR!" |
|
keeping the "i dont know why i didnt tell you this 6 months ago' train rolling |
|
Nice way to re-word the question. |
Remember Bush about 1-2 months ago saying that Iraq refused to let UN inspectors in, and thats why the US went to war? Next weeks headline "America never invaded Iraq" |
so Bush apologists are now differentiating between "iraq", "saddam" and "al qaeda", saying they're different, so when an administration honcho says one of these words, it doesnt have anything to do with the other, you cant go back at them for it. But didnt Bush say that Saddam sponsored training for terrorists to learn to hijack airliners? Doesnt THAT say to the public that theres a direct link to 9/11? What the fuck? |
you should read this, NewsMax, a radical right wing 'news' company, defending the 9/11-Iraq link, and saying that attempts to derail this link are the fault of the media, and that the public will not fall for it. |
|
while the Bush may have never said "saddam played a part in the 9/11 attacks" that practically said everything but that. implications were all over the god damn place and that was intentional, because they know that most of the headline reading public won't bother to actually check the details. they know this. they bank on this. i suspect they are only saying what they are saying not to prempt any criticism early on. semantics. it wasnt that long ago when you could say "terrorist" and be including Saddam, al Qaida, bin Laden. |
|
|
I just plain don't care right now. Don't pat yourself on the back, you had absolutely nothing to do with it. I just ran out of gas. Oh, and fuck you, you asses |
its a another beautiful day in Iraq |
This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 1,000 documents.* *to be fair, this is just from a general news (major papers) full text search. Not "same sentence" search. |
353 documents |
I saw this on the tv, and thought at the time, "he's lying about everything." |
|
heres a good idea. giving money to your enemies. thats neve backfired before! |
|
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - American soldiers handcuffed and firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man's mouth as they arrested him for speaking out against occupation troops. Asked why the man had been arrested on Tuesday and put into the back of a Humvee vehicle on Tahrir Square, the commanding officer told Reuters at the scene: "This man has been detained for making anti-coalition statements." He refused to say what the man said. A U.S. military spokesman said he had no immediate information on the incident. U.S. politicians and military commanders often say they toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein so that Iraqis can enjoy free speech and democracy after years of iron-fisted rule. Another U.S. soldier swore at Iraqis as he ordered them to move back. School teachers and young students looked on. The troops had earlier closed off the sprawling square with barbed wire to search for home-made bombs, which along with rocket-propelled grenades have killed 153 American soldiers since major combat was declared over on May 1." this aint good |
If the admin keeps wanting to make comparisons to post-war Germany, maybe they should realize the slight difference in troop levels (130,000 vs. 1 million). |
We promote a lie and say Elizabeth Smart was NOT raped when we know god damned well that she was, and say Jessica Lynch WAS raped when there is absolutely no proof that she was.... |
|
i bet the administration leaked the photos of lynch to hustler because she isn't cooperating with the hero story. |
I don't even know what station he is on out here, and I have never listened to him before. Drudge is subbing for Rush today! |
Because it was on clearance at Barnes And Noble, and I am lonely and bored as hell here in Alabama by myself..... And I wanted to see for myself just what all the hubub was about. I must confess to listening to the O'Riely Factor since I arrived down here. He comes on right after Hannity. I have also listened to Bork instead of Rush (or sub) as of late. |
|
Oh, we want proof now? Ya reap what ya sow, buddy. |
I listen to music on the way to work, and listen to talk shows the rest of the time. Why? I don't know, probably because I dont trust the 30 second news soundbytes that are played over the music stations, and politics are another one of my hobbies. |
|
|
|
whatever. tiggy has a funny point though. |
approximately 161 miles (3 hours) south of Atlanta. I am also about 165 miles north of Pensacola |
i just think it's noteworthy that i heard it on the radio yesterday and you show up today saying the same thing. that's why the conservatives are kicking ass lately. btw, i happened to agree with the sentiment o'reilly or whoever was trying to convey with that observation. but usually when i agree with one of those guys' criticisms, it's not for the same reason as them. do you really like hannity that much, spunk? i saw a couple hannity links on your webpage. y'know, i read buzzflash and some other sites for headlines and commentary but even though i tend to agree with their stance, i find the bias and palpable contempt dilutes the message. do you ever get that with hannity? |
|
come on spunk, you're smarter than that. |
dave, i know what you mean... With Rush, while I hate the man, I don't hate him as much as others cuz well, even if his facts or wrong and if he repeats lies or has malice or whatever, I really believe that he really believes in it. Savage I think is the worst of all of them, but again, I think he really believes it. Hannity comes across like a puppet, with nothing of his own to say. Hollow, soulless puppet. When he's lying or really going out on a limb with his spin, he KNOWS it. therefore, Hannity sucks Satans cock. He's a whore. O'Reilly? when O'Reilly is caught in lies, I think its for a different reason. While hannity is a whore, O'Reilly is just stubborn, he won't allow himself to appear wrong or confused on any issue, and its usually not when he makes an argument but when he retorts to someone elses argument that he makes shit up, completely, off the top of his head it would seem. I think it has caused him to take certain defensive stances against certain peoples (cough Franken cough), trying to take some fake moral high ground to avoid addressing their points. an 'ignore' policy that claims to be for one reason but its really another. totally paranoid and fragile. i dont hate O'Reilly. He's more a pity case. |
I mean, you're doing you're job, people are dying at a high rate recently, you get attacked as you do every day, and then the media comes rushing in asking questions or filming where you almost died... i know this would drive me crazy, and when its happening on a continuing basis, somethings gotta give. HOWEVER some of these examples of tactics the soldiers have used to intimidate journalists, if true, are absolutely "what the fuck" inducing.. and its not really smart to try and make the journalists hate you... it would probably be better to play up the human element and express to them that their lives are in danger and they need to do their job without the stress of also having to look out for their sorry camera toting ass. U.S. Troops More Hostile With Reporters 2 hours, 38 minutes ago By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq - With casualties mounting in Iraq (news - web sites), jumpy U.S. soldiers are becoming more aggressive in their treatment of journalists covering the conflict. Media people have been detained, news equipment has been confiscated and some journalists have suffered verbal and physical abuse while trying to report on events. Although the number of incidents involving soldiers and journalists is difficult to gauge, anecdotal evidence suggests it has risen sharply the past two months. In October, the Belgium-based International Federation of Journalists, which includes unions representing 500,000 journalists in more than 100 countries, complained of increased harassment of reporters, including beatings of some, since the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime. "Guidance has been passed to units throughout the coalition explicitly stating that reporters are not to be interfered with or cameras and films seized," said Maj. William Thurmond at the Coalition Press and Information Center. "Does that take place all the time? No." Thurmond said. "We are aware that individual soldiers have not followed those instructions." The military command says it's working to cut down on incidents by issuing credentials and badges to journalists. This system worked well with embedded reporters during the war, when confrontations were almost unheard of. But as coalition forces come under increasing pressure from guerrilla attacks — 37 American soldiers have died so far in November — signs of stress are evident. A number of journalists, particularly Iraqis and other Arabs working for foreign media organizations, say they are now routinely threatened at gunpoint if they try to film the aftermath of guerrilla attacks. Some have been arrested and held for short periods. Sami Awad, a Lebanese cameraman working as a freelancer for a German TV network, said that when his crew tried to check out a report Friday about hand grenades being thrown at a U.S. patrol in Baghdad, they encountered a roadblock at which soldiers told him to go ahead and film. But as the crew proceeded down the street, more soldiers appeared, threw them to the ground and pointed their weapons at their heads, Awad said. "They checked our identity badges and then let us go, saying they thought we were with Al-Jazeera," he said. "Each group of soldiers acts on its own, and most of them are very scared and inexperienced." Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based television network, has repeatedly been accused by U.S. officials of biased reporting, charges the station denies. Two weeks ago, coalition troops detained two Al-Jazeera staffers covering an explosion at a police station in western Baghdad on allegations they had prior knowledge of the car bombing. Al-Jazeera dismissed the charges as ridiculous, and the men were later freed. A TV news producer in Baghdad for a major U.S. television network said his crews had been threatened at least 10 times in recent weeks with confiscation of their equipment. He asked not to be quoted by name because of his company's policy against giving interviews to other media. Journalists have been shot at several times by U.S. troops, including an incident in August in which Reuters television cameraman Mazen Dana was killed while videotaping near a U.S.-run prison on the outskirts of Baghdad following a mortar attack. The military later said the troops had mistaken Dana's camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. An investigation concluded the soldiers "acted within the rules of engagement," although the U.S. Army has never publicly announced those rules, citing security reasons. In September, U.S. soldiers shot up the car of an Associated Press photographer in Khaldiyah after an American convoy was hit with a roadside bomb. The photographer, Karim Kadim, and his Iraqi driver jumped from the car and ran for cover when they saw a tank aim at them. They were shot at with a machine gun as they ran and the car was badly damaged. Neither man was hurt. In the same incident, a U.S. tank's .50-caliber machine gun fired at AP correspondent Tarek al-Issawi as he viewed the scene from a nearby rooftop. He also escaped injury. AP filed a protest and U.S. commanders promised to investigate, but no information on the results of the probe has been received. After a series of missile and rocket attacks in recent weeks on the so-called "Green Zone" in central Baghdad that houses the U.S.-led occupation administration, security precautions there have been tightened to unprecedented levels. As a result, journalists invited to cover news conferences at the press center are now required to arrive 90 minutes early to be frisked and have their equipment checked by sniffer dogs. But guards can announce without warning that the building is closed, blocking those still waiting in line outside from entering. "If you don't like the way the military works, I can't help you," Capt. William Pickett told a group of reporters left standing outside the gate after being invited to cover a briefing Monday with Australia's defense minister, Robert Hill. |
The main thing I disagree with Hannity on is Coulter. He really likes her, I think she is a hatefull, spite filled bitch. For a while, I thought maybe he was copying rush, but I no longer beleive that. I like his presentation a hell of a lot better then Rush. |
none in their right brain (no pun intended) likes her... only a few do, and then only on some ironic level for comedic purposes... like how Maher likes her... |
|
its scary. its a warzone. protocol easily goes to shit. accidents happen. policy doesn't keep sand out of your gun. if you are being targeted, in an easily identifiable uniform, by unknown assailants, you'd be jumpy too. |
is Bush losing the soldiers? Issue Date: November 10, 2003 Editorial No friends in high places “You not only have a former Guardsman in the White House, you have a friend,” President Bush declared during a 2001 visit to an Air National Guard base. But for 120,000 Guard and reserve members employed by the federal government, friendship seems to have its limits. The Bush administration last week persuaded Republican lawmakers to vote down a provision in the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan operations that would have given financial relief to federally employed reservists called to active duty. The provision, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., would have reimbursed those federal employees for any pay cut they suffer when mobilized. It was defeated on a party-line vote Oct. 28 during a House-Senate conference. About 14,000 reservists are now mobilized to assist with operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Durbin estimates that 23,000 federal employees in all would benefit from this sensible measure, at a relatively inexpensive cost of $80 million. The federal government — the largest single employer of reservists — has encouraged private employers to make up differences when mobilized reservists take pay cuts compared to their civilian wages. Indeed, about 200 companies and 50 state and local governments do just that — earning them high praise from, among others, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who wrote a September 2002 open letter of appreciation to employers that support their reservist workers. “During this period of mobilization, many of you did more than was required by law by voluntarily offering continued benefits, pay differentials, and additional, creative forms of family support which made the period of separation so much easier to bear,” Rumsfeld said. Yet again, Bush administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress have shown how cheap talk can be. |
|
be sure to check the guardian or other british papers on Nov 22... a large amount of British indie media outlets and websites are organizing "bare your bum at bush" for when GWB goes to Britain on the 21st.... Something tells me at least a few will succeed in getting close enough to moon the Prez. |
|
I understand security concerns, but making an effort to buffer the president from this kind of action, a freedom he claims so wholeheartedly to fight and protect is just pussy. |
|
heather-11/13, 05:37 pm-um thats not true either sorry TBone-11/13, 05:53 pm-...and theyll be shot in the ass. sarah-11/13, 06:18 pm- okay folks, how is this for fucking Stan Marsh-11/13, 09:10 pm-Will you help me find the Cliterus? kazu-11/14, 12:36 am-Is Hayley a teenager? Where have I Rowlf-11/13, 05:43 pm- TBone-11/13, 05:53 pm-...and theyll be shot in the ass. patrick-11/13, 07:28 pm-i think i read somewhere they are semillama-11/14, 10:07 am-gremlins! |
|
Bush's PR stunt will likely backfire: BUSH BASHED BY HERO'S WIFE Nov 15 2003 Reassure me Ian didn't die in vain, Mr Bush. Come up with the proof of WMD Exclusive By Lorraine Fisher, Brendon Williams And Geoff Lakeman THE widow of a British soldier killed in Iraq called yesterday for George Bush to tell her he did not die in vain - by proving Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lianne Seymour, whose 28-year-old husband Ian was one of eight Marines killed when their US helicopter crashed, is among relatives invited to meet Mr Bush on his state visit next week. Ian, Lianne and their baby Beck The president will tell them the men died for a "noble cause". But some relatives slammed the plan as a public relations exercise. Lianne, 27, of Poole, Dorset, who has a three-year-old son Beck, said: "If he wants to reassure me Ian did not die in vain he'll come up with the proof of weapons of mass destruction. I don't want him to say, 'Yes, it was worth it' because anyone can say that. I want him to mean it and back it up." Lance Bombadier Llywelyn Evans, 24, died in the same accident as Ian. His father Gordon, of Llandudno, Caernarfonshire, later asked Tony Blair to stay away from the national memorial service for the dead. He and wife Theresa have not been invited to meet Mr Bush but he said he wanted the president to explain to relatives why he went to war. Reg Keys said he was prepared to "walk from Wales to London" to tell Mr Bush he is responsible for the death of his son Thomas, 20, one of six Royal Military Police shot dead in Basra in June. He said: "I do not see a noble cause. I looked at my son's bullet riddled body and that did not seem very noble to me." But Mr Keys, 51, of Bala, Gwynedd, added: "I don't think a meeting will happen - people will be handpicked." Rob Kelly, 54, of Saltash, Cornwall, whose 18-year-old Paratrooper son Andrew was the youngest soldier killed in Iraq, said: "This is really a public relations exercise for President Bush. I don't believe he really cares, just as I don't believe Tony Blair really cares." He believes he was excluded from the meeting because he is a fierce critic of the war. But the widow of the first British soldier killed backed the meeting. Samantha Roberts, whose husband Sgt Steven Roberts, 33, of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, was shot trying to quell a riot, said: "It is ironic that Mr Bush is prepared to see the relatives but Mr Blair hasn't invited anybody." But Mrs Roberts, of Bradford, West Yorks, said she would still have some hard questions for the president if they met. "I would ask if it was an absolute necessity. I would also ask him to consider not to pull troops out. We need them there for at least six months." Former MP Tony Benn led Labour left-wingers urging Mr Bush to meet them to discuss the war. He said it could change the "whole tone" of the visit. "We are not here to wreck it, we are here to put a point of view." Organisers of a huge protest march said they hoped to reach agreement with police on the route. Stop the War Coalition wants to march past the Commons. One of the biggest ever security operations will protect Mr Bush. Scotland Yard plan an estimated £4million blitz involving all its armed units and up to 5,000 officers. Head Sir John Stevens said it would be "unprecedented". -A HOTLINE to tell the public of road closures and general information has been set up on 0207 593 7851. |
|
Study: No Sign Saddam Transferred WMD WASHINGTON - A new study by an independent military and intelligence expert who toured Iraq (news - web sites) recently found no evidence that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) tried to transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, met with top U.S. officials in Iraq, including David Kay, the CIA (news - web sites) representative leading the search for chemical, biological and other unconventional weapons. President Bush (news - web sites), in justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq, said he feared Saddam, then Iraq's authoritarian president, would supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida. "No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction technology or weapons to terrorists. Only possibility was Saddam's Fedayeen, and talk only," Cordesman wrote of his briefing with Kay. The Fedayeen is the deposed leader's former paramilitary force. Cordesman, who also met with L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, said foreign terrorists appear to be crossing the border from Syria, with some entering from Saudi Arabia and a few from Iran. He said that U.S. troops "still face major threats from criminal elements released at the end of the war." The report said Saddam appears to be cut off and isolated, constantly on the move with no real role in controlling the anti-American forces. Over the course of his Nov. 1-12 visit, Cordesman traveled to Baghdad, Babel, Tikrit and Kirkuk, among other areas, meeting with combat commanders and staff in high-threat areas. His report was released Friday. ___ On the Net: CSIS: http://www.csis.org |
