Let's Talk Sense Archives - August 10-20, 2003

Message board comments
from August 11 to August 20 2003

Date:: 08/01/03
Time:: 04:52 AM

Comments

Messages from August 1 through August 10, 2003 have been archived. To view these messages click here.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 04:20 AM

Comments

Excerpt of a speech by William Rivers Pitt:

" This is the Project for a New American Century, the product of a right-wing think tank that, in 1997, was considered so far out there that no one ever thought its members would ever come within ten miles of setting American policy. One broken election, however, vaulted these men into positions of unspeakable power. Their white papers, their dreams of empire at the point of the sword, have become our national nightmare, and the nightmare of the world. I speak of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Lewis Libby, and the rest of these New American Century men who have taken our beloved country and all it stands for it and thrown it down into the mud.

You will note that I did not name George W. Bush, for blaming Bush for the gross misadministration of this government is like blaming Mickey Mouse when Disney screws up. He is not in charge. Truman said "The buck stops here," and so we point to Bush as a symbol of all that has gone wrong. But he is not in charge. These other men, these New American Century men, have delivered us to this wretched estate, and by God in Heaven, there will be a reckoning for it."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081003A.shtml

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 05:39 AM

Comments

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,

'Bring us home': GIs flood US with war-weary emails

An unprecedented internet campaign waged on the frontline and in the US is exposing the real risks for troops in Iraq. Paul Harris and Jonathan Franklin report on rising fears that the conflict is now a desert Vietnam.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 05:51 AM

Comments

Defiant Soldiers Sending Dispatches from the Front.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0805-09.htm

The War According to David Hackworth The retired Colonel calls Donald Rumsfeld an "asshole" whose bad planning mired U.S. troops in an ugly guerrilla conflict in Iraq. His sources? Defiant soldiers sending dispatches from the front."

This eye-opening article will break your heart. Matilda

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 07:05 AM

Comments

Some heartening advice:

"Do not focus on what is wrong and unmended. We will meet great people who will hail us, love us and guide us. Ours is not the task of fixing the entire world all at once, but of stretching out to mend the part of the world that is within our reach. Any small, calm thing that one can do to help another, to assist some portion of this poor suffering world, will help immensely. It is not given to us to know which acts or by whom, will cause the critical mass to tip toward an enduring good. We know that it does not take "everyone on Earth" to bring justice and peace, but only a small, determined group who will not give up during the first, second or hundredth gale."

C. P. Estes

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 07:17 AM

Comments

Liberals on this page would gain credibility if they would quote other sources than the same tired radical left wing "Truth out" and the "Guardian" web pages. I'd stay away from the NY Times too.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 01:16 PM

Comments

a hammering i will go a hammering i will go to israel and back whack whack whack! a hammering i will go!

hey, good to see the trolls still snorting out lies from their fatty lips, using the bush techniques of repeated lies to try and fool the good readers of lets talk sense! why, how dare they! they don't know the meanings of basic political words like 'socialism', 'democracy', and they are so plain dumb they think the new york times is a liberal rag! what fun it is to read their rants....anyway, i love to be called antisemitic! yeah, throw me in that briar patch you evil ol troll! is that all you can think up?

hey, new book about the technique of attention diversion from Israeli and neo con crimes by the smear of 'antisemitic', it's here: The Politics Of Anti-Semitism by Alexander Cockburn (Editor), Jeffrey St. Clair (Editor) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1902593774/and more: A Trilogy of Dysfunction: When the Bully Whines By HANAN ASHRAWI Exclusion and a unique type of racism were recently exhibited by the Israeli Knesset in its mad drive to create a "Palestinian-free" society in Israel.

The Bill preventing Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens (mainly Arabs) from acquiring Israeli citizenship or permanent residency was passed by a majority of 53 votes to 25.

The tragic humanitarian consequences of such legislation would tear apart whole families and lead to tremendous hardships of displacement and loss of domicile.

More significantly, the mentality of racism and outright discrimination (the law does not apply to Israelis who marry non-Palestinians) is quite ominous for Israel as a state and for future relations between the two states: Israel and Palestine.

Along with the snaking path of the apartheid wall, the sinister plans of Effie Eitam, the Israeli minister of housing from the National Religious Party, to increase settlements in East Jerusalem and achieve a "demographic" shift in the occupied city complete the racist circle.

Had these phenomena taken place elsewhere, and had the "marriage bill" been passed by any other country to exclude a specific minority, the world would have been in an uproar. link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4386.htm

and more

Views of the Israeli Apartheid Wall http://www.pengon.org/wall/photos1a.html

great video

Q & A With CIA Analyst Stephen Pelletiere The coaltion: Exposing the lies: Who killed the Kurds? Israel's part in a US invasion of Iraq. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2098.htm

Has A Right-Wing Zionist Cabal Hijacked The White House? Is the tail wagging the dog? William Bowles 08/05/03. An essay by Stephen J. Sniegoski ‘The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel,' poses the idea that US foreign policy is controlled by a ‘cabal’ of right-wing Zionists, who have effectively hijacked the White House in pursuit of a ‘Greater Israel.’ The essay written in February 2003, before the invasion of Iraq proposes,

"[T]he idea of a Middle East war has been bandied about in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security, which revolves around an ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem."

It further proposes the idea that 9/11 was used as a pretext to launch a final onslaught on the Palestinians, the Arab nations of the Middle East plus Iran, and in doing so, produce a ‘final solution’ to the Palestinian question. This ‘solution’ could be effected if the Middle East entered what one Zionist ideologue refers to as "revolutionary times" such as that presented by the (fortuitous) attack on the WTC.

Sniegoski is proposing that the right-wing Zionist clique headed by Richard Perle, the ‘Prince of Darkness,’ have taken over the Bush administration, mainly because Dubya is too stupid to know any better:

"In order to directly influence White House policy, Wolfowitz and Perle managed to obtain leading roles on the Bush foreign policy/national security advisory team for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet specialist Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as "the Vulcans." Having no direct experience in foreign policy and little knowledge of the world, as illustrated by his notorious gaffes — confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring to Greeks as "Grecians," and failing a pop quiz on the names of four foreign leaders — George W. Bush would have to rely heavily on his advisors."

links: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc2.htm http

How neo-cons influence the Pentagon ... By Jim Lobe 08/08/03: (Asia Times) WASHINGTON - An ad hoc office under US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith appears to have acted as the key base for an informal network of mostly neo-conservative political appointees that circumvented normal inter-agency channels to lead the push for war against Iraq. links: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4392.htm http://www.ahherald.com/readers_write/2003/030807_anti_semitism.htm

and more:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1024.htm "Further, Zionist elements in the American ruling establishment have always sought to direct the United States against the ‘terrorist’ states, which are, not coincidentally, the enemies of Israel. Certainly, that - - which has had its tentacles in both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations - has long talked of taking a tougher line toward Iran and Iraq, as well as giving greater support to Israel’s war on ‘terrorists.’"

The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote,

It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state. [1] Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to get the United States to fight for their interests?

To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel.

and more

Reporting On Israel A comparison of how the New York Times and Le Monde reported the vote of the Knesset blocking citizenship for Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens By Mark Jensen http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4325.htm 08/02/03: It's interesting to compare how Le Monde and the New York Times reported the story about the Knesset voting on July 31, 2003, to make it impossible for Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens to obtain Israeli citizenship. (Both stories are appended below.)

more!

Our foppish self-righteousness By Shulamit Aloni http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4282.htm 07/30/03: (Haaretz.) Since the start of the intifada, more than 800 Israelis, mostly civilians, have been killed by Palestinians. We, justifiably, call it "murder." Some were killed by suicide bombers and the rest with other instruments of death. At the same time, more than 2,200 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis - some as armed suspects, and almost all from soldiers' fire. We don't call these casualties "murdered."

Or maybe we are a greedy occupier, looting their land (at least as far as they are concerned), uprooting, and demolishing, and expelling, and breaking into their homes. And still, we aren't an enemy; and still, we think it's an enlightened occupation; and our chief of staff is doing everything he can to sear into the consciousness of the occupied that they should love the occupier who holds them prisoners in their homes until they are hungry, until they are completely humiliated - and all for the sake of getting them to finally understand who are the masters of the land and who are the servants.

Everything I've written here is known by everyone, but forbidden to state aloud because it is not patriotic. After all, everything we are doing is so our enemies won't bring another Holocaust down upon us. That's how it is explained to us - over and over again.

more!!!!

'I can't imagine anyone who considers himself a human being can do this'

On Friday a four-year-old Palestinian boy was shot dead by a soldier - the most recent child victim of the Israeli army. Chris McGreal investigates a shocking series of deaths. By Chris McGreal http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4269.htm

and howard dean and the zionists!

A Tale of Two Democrats Dean Knows the Road to the Presidency Runs Through AIPAC HQ http://www.antiwar.com/gancarski/gan080803.html Many quotes in the Forward article are worthy of examination; here are a few. Howard Dean refers to himself as an "internationalist" who accepts "AIPAC's view" of foreign affairs. As President, Dean would endeavor to "bring democracy and freedom to Muslim nations". Those endeavors, one would expect, would be influenced greatly by "AIPAC's view", as Dean feels a "visceral" attachment to Israel.

"Dean spoke with the Forward shortly after naming Steven Grossman, a former head of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and ex-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to a top campaign fundraising post." Dean told the Forward that he was "traveling to Israel for a week at the end of [November] with the American Israel Educational Foundation, AIPAC's educational arm, to meet with Israeli officials and Arab leaders."

A cynic might suggest that former long shot candidate Dean's collaboration with AIPAC – indeed, his aggressive courting of the lobby's support – enhanced his national visibility more than any other position he's taken. "In order for him to be totally credible to the Jewish community in issues, people will want to see a well-developed foreign policy on Israel and the Middle East and be supportive of Israel's effort to maintain its qualitative edge," Grossman said to The Forward. "He will have to address this and no doubt will. Based on private conversations I am absolutely confident about where he is ideologically and substantively in bringing him to the American Jewish community."

and israeli connection with 911!!!!

Fox News Series on Israeli Spying in the US

Original Link: http://www.firefox.1accesshost.com/cameron.html

December 2001 In mid December, Fox News Channel ran a blockbuster series on Israeli spying in the US contending that Israeli intelligence had advanced information about the Sept. 11 attacks before the fact.

After significant pressure, Fox pulled the reports from their Website and went about deleting all references to the series of their's and other Websites. Fox has never given any explanation for this action.

The original transcripts which appeared on Fox's Website are reprinted here.

The series was presented the investigative reporter Carl Cameron and presented on Special Report with Brit Hume. In December of 2001, Fox News reporter Carl Cameron, who did a four-part series exposing the enormity of Israel's spy apparatus in the U.S., flatly stated:

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

http://propagandamatrix.com/fox_news_series_on_israeli_spying_in_the_us.html

Comments

I think we should give thanks to the Hummer for finally exposing his biases. He just treated us to several thousand words about how everything that happens in this world is as result of a massive Jewish plot – including killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds and blaming it on Saddam!

Is it no wonder that Hummer and Matilda find themselves to be kindred spirits?

Hummer, get back into the kitchen – the dishes are piling up.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 03:42 PM

Comments

Let me get this straight: When Pat Robertson prays for divine intervention to change the character of the Supreme Court – he’s a right wing fanatic. But when William Rivers Pitt calls for God in Heaven to deliver a reckoning – he’s a mainstream liberal?

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 03:50 PM

Comments

Earth to Matilda,

Like you, Colonel David Hackworth (retired) has both an inflated sense of his own intelligence and an uncontrollable animus towards Donald Rumsfeld.

In Hack’s case, it’s occasioned by professional jealousy – he’s been so wrong for so long (Hack’s actual combat experience was in Vietnam) that he can’t see straight. Hack was one of the nattering no-nothings predicting a quagmire in Iraq and is just fit to be tied about our sterling performance.

Hack also never made general officer – a defining mark in our military. Of course, he says he was cashiered for speaking his mind – just like the words he claims were spoken to him by our soldiers.

In your case, Matilda, I’m at a loss to explain it – most folks grow up by the time they reach seventy.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 03:53 PM

Comments

Hey Hummer, you forgot to cite the “Protocols of Zion”.

Is it any wonder that you can’t find a decent job? I know, the Jews are keeping you down. Poor puppy.

Date:: 08/11/03
Time:: 06:05 PM

Comments

From 8/11 Opinion Journal

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003872

BY JAMES TARANTO Monday, August 11, 2003 2:07 p.m.

Inventing a Quagmire We missed this last week, but it's so stunning that it's worth highlighting even a few days late. The corrections column of Thursday's New York Times carried the following "editor's note":

An article on Sunday about attacks on the American military in Iraq over the previous two days, attributed to military officials, included an erroneous account that quoted Pfc. Jose Belen of the First Armored Division. Private Belen, who is not a spokesman for the division, said that a homemade bomb exploded under a convoy on Saturday morning on the outskirts of Baghdad and killed two American soldiers and their interpreter. The American military's central command, which releases information on all American casualties in Iraq, said before the article was published that it could not confirm Private Belen's account. Later it said that no such attack had taken place and that no American soldiers were killed on Saturday.

Repeated efforts by The Times to reach Private Belen this week have been unsuccessful. The Times should not have attributed the account to "military officials," and should have reported that the command had not verified the attack.

Consider that: The New York Times is acknowledging that it published a fabricated account of American casualties in Iraq. There's no reason to doubt the Times' contention that its source, as opposed to its reporter, was behind the original fabrication, but it seems fair, based on the paper's account, to say that the Times "sexed up" its reporting by promoting a single private to "military officials" (plural) and by failing to note Centcom's doubts, much less wait for confirmation before running with the story. (The original article is no longer available free on the Times Web site, but here's a later version that appeared in the Tri-Valley Herald of Pleasanton, Calif.)

The Times, of course, used its news pages as well as its editorials to crusade against the liberation of Iraq, and it's hard not to interpret this latest foul-up as reflecting an unhealthy eagerness to believe Iraq is a quagmire producing large numbers of casualties. Anyway, remember this the next time some Times editorial or op-ed columnist raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's credibility.

Date:: 08/12/03
Time:: 06:54 PM

Comments

If you're thinking of a Christmas gift for Matilda ...

KB Toys has just the gift:

BBI proudly introduces the latest issue in its Elite Force series of authentic military 12- inch figures, President George W. Bush in naval aviator flight uniform. Exacting in detail and fully equipped with authentic gear, this limited-edition action figure is a meticulous 1:6 scale recreation of the Commander-in-Chief's appearance during his historic Aircraft Carrier landing. . . .

This fully poseable figure features a realistic head sculpt, fully detailed cloth flight suit, helmet with oxygen mask, survival vest, g-pants, parachute harness and much more.

Could anything be cooler than this? And it's only $39.95.

Date:: 08/12/03
Time:: 10:22 PM

Comments

Can Matilda (or her boys hummer and Kevin) tell us again what all the years of moral outrage of the democrats over soft money were about?

I'm referring to the new liberal political outfit dedicated to defeating President Bush next year - "Americans coming together" (ACT).

Sen McCain and his band of liberals pass campaign reforn to keep big money out of politics and hand a fund raising edge to incumbants.

ACt is beig finaced by a handful of rich folks - $10 million from George Soros and another $12 Million from 6 anonymous donors.

Instead of being routed though political parites that are publicly acountable, they will go to groups like ACT that can operate in the shadows with diffuse responsibility.

I won't hold my breath waiting to hear from the liberal hippocrates on this page.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 05:31 AM

Comments

The new George W. Bush Texas ANG Action Figure is on Ebay.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 07:16 AM

Comments

Why does the dimocrat double standard of campaign reform suprise you? The Clinton followers will do anything to win back the presidency. It doesn't matters who suffers as was seen when they stated they were in favor of allowing the California economy to tank to inprove their chances of winning.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 07:30 AM

Comments

Now this is a good idea:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?

All the freaks can live there.

Date:: 08/13/03
Time:: 11:02 PM

Comments

Why no comment on the Dimocrats switch on campaign finance? Surely you can spin it and blame it on the GOP. C'mon, give it a try.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 04:46 AM

Comments

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030

Preventive War 'the Supreme Crime' Iraq: invasion that will live in infamy

by NOAM CHOMSKY ; August 11, 2003

Excerpt;

"The Wall Street Journal recognised that Bush's carefully staged aircraft carrier extravaganza "marks the beginning of his 2004 re-election campaign" which the White House hopes "will be built as much as possible around national-security themes". The electoral campaign will focus on "the battle of Iraq , not the war", chief Republican political strategist Karl Rove explained : the war must continue, if only to control the population at home" (10).

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 07:21 AM

Comments

Earth to Matilda,

The endquote you placed after the excerpt from Chomsky's piece suggests that Rove stated a wish to "control" the population. If you're going to cite passages that contain quotations you should nest the inner quotations with single quotation marks so as to avoid confusion.

Of course, Rove said no such thing. You and Chomsky are entitled to your nutty ideas -- and you're entitled to express them. It's precisely for these reasons that your attempts to cast the Republicans as engaging in "mind control" are so absurd.

You Dims have lost the idea wars -- probably for all time -- because you have none. All you can do is to attempt to smear your betters as you try to regain the control of America you truly believe is your birthright.

Get a job.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 07:37 AM

Comments

This is a rather long but very thoughtful and complete rundown on Howard Dean as a candidate fo the presidency. I hope you will take the time to read it....You'll be glad you did. And forward it to other Americans who are still undecided about the presidential election next year. Matilda

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16592

The Progressive Case for Howard Dean

By Nico Pitney, AlterNet August 12, 2003

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 01:14 PM

Comments

Be sure to tell them how Dean will say anything to any group to be elected. As an example cite how he lied to the AFL when he said he never favored raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70.

Then just like Clinton, he said he "mispoke" when called on it.

Typical lying democrat.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 03:41 PM

Comments

Here's a reply to a post from 14/08/03 at 07:21 a.m. addressed Earth to Matilda. I just copied and pasted this from Google. You can look it up if you like, and I wish you would check things out before accusing me of lying. Matilda

Sorry, my copy and paste system didn't work, but you can go to www.google.com and type in Rove's quote. Chomsky, incidentally, is a distinguished professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 05:47 PM

Comments

Gentle Matilda,

Have you no counter to the accusation Dean is a liar and the Democrats are hippocritical when it comes to campaign finace reform?

Date:: 08/14/03
Time:: 10:23 PM

Comments

How about Kevin or Hummer. Don't leave them out.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 08:53 AM

Comments

Earth to Matilda,

No one accused you of "lying" when you posted an excerpt from:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4030

But what you did do was to enclose your excerpt within double quotes -- which you added. By so doing you made it appear that the words Chomsky added were actually spoken by Rove -- WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE.

Chomsky wrote, "chief Republican political strategist Karl Rove explained : the war must continue, if only to control the population at home" (10)"

Rove NEVER said, "the war must continue, if only to control the population at home"" -- these were Chomsky's words.

Do you get it now?

OBTW, thank you for acknowledging that you are the anonymous poster of the dim-witted liberal tripe that appears during the wee hours in America.

OBTW, what's "distinguished" about Chomsky is how far off the wall he's fallen. Here's an excerpt from a short bio on him from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Criticism of the United States He has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the United States government. In his book 9-11, a series of interviews about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, he claims -- as he has done before -- that the United States government is the leading terrorist state in modern times. He has criticized the US government for its involvement in the Vietnam War and the larger Indochina conflict; its interference in Central and South American countries, and its military support of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Chomsky focuses his most intense criticism on official friends of the United States government while criticizing official enemies like the former Soviet Union and the North Vietnamese Army only in passing. He explains this by the following principle: it is more important to evaluate actions which you have more possibility of affecting.

Chomsky has repeatedly emphasized his theory that much of the United States' foreign policy is based on the "threat of a good example" (which he says is another name for the domino theory). The "threat of a good example" is that a country could successfully develop independently from United States' influences, thus presenting a model for other countries, including countries in which the United States has strong economic interests. This, Chomsky says, has prompted the United States to repeatedly intervene to quell "socialist" or other "independence" movements in regions of the world where it has no significant economic or safety interests. In one of his most famous works, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chomsky uses this particular theory as an explantion for the United States' interventions in Guatemala, Laos, Nicaragua, and Grenada.

Chomsky believes the US government's Cold War policies were not shaped by anti-Soviet paranoia, but rather to preserve the United States' ideological dominance of the world. As he wrote in Uncle Sam: "...What the US wants is 'stability,' meaning security for the "upper classes and large foreign enterprises."

Chomsky and Socialism Chomsky is deeply opposed to the system of "corporate state capitalism" practiced by the United States and it's allies. Chomsky instead believes in the superiority of "control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions", what some call socialism. At the same time, he denounced the Soviet Union for running a brutal authoritarian police state, and viewed the evolution of the Soviet state as a natural growth of the Bolshevik ideology.

Instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, in Reasons for the State Chomsky advocates a society with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to persue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no "state" or "government" institutions.

One focus of his political work has been an analysis of mainstream media (especially in the United States), its structures and constraints, and its role in supporting ruling class interests. His book Manufacturing Consent -- The Political Economy of the Mass Media, co-authored with Edward Herman, explores this topic in depth, though most of his work incorporates some aspect of this analysis.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 09:48 AM

Comments

You conservative types just don't get it:

Matilda didn't "lie" when she used Chomsky's words to make it appear that Karl Rove admitted to trying to "control the American population". But GWB "lied" when he said (in his State of the Union address) that Great Britain claimed to have evidence that Saddam attempted to get uranium ore.

Lifelog (ex)patriots like Matilda are incapable of lying (they'd have to be able to distinguish truth from falsehoods).

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 12:11 PM

Comments

And Democratic front runner Dean doesn't lie. In his words, he "mis-spoke".

Ex-President Clinton would be proud.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 04:52 PM

Comments

Between Chirac and a hard place http://www.townhall.com/columnists/helledale/HD20030815.shtml

Trouble in paradise? Perhaps things aren't as nice in Nice as Matilda let's on?

ONO, Matilda will tell one and all how terrific are the benefits of living in France and how compassionate the French are.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 07:06 PM

Comments

The public sections of the official 9/11 report describe possible financial support by individuals in the Saudi government for some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudis (and NONE of whom were Iraqis). This article ("Bush Family Ties Keep American Focus Off Saudi Support of Terror") is about a year old, but it's worth a look in light of the "28 missing pages" (which further implicate the Saudis) in the 9/11 report that President Bush refuses to release. Note in particular the quote from a Rand Corporation analyst that starts the article. The Rand Corporation isn't exactly a bastion of liberalism--it's a conservative think tank that works closely with the Pentagon. I understand President Bush is a country fan. Unfortunately, that country is Saudi Arabia.

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher79.html

The findings of the 9/11 report mirror what I have been saying all along: (1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; (2) there is no evidence of any connection between al-Qaida and Iraq and (3) members of the Saudi government, including members of the Royal Family, supported and financed some of the 9/11 hijackers. If we really wanted to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, it would have made more sense to bomb Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. The fact is that Bush and his close chums the terrorist-supporting Saudis have more ties to 9/11 than Saddam Hussein.

Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who was a member of the joint congressional committee that produced the 9/11 report, had this to say about it: "The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends...The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out...Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."

Related article: "Saudi secrets are safe with Bush."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=

Please write to your representatives in Congress to demand the release of the 28 missing pages in the 9/11 report!

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 07:41 PM

Comments

Gentle readers,

We don't care if we see the missing pages. We did not invade Iraq because they helped with 9/11. We invaded them to rid Iraq of a murdering sadistic dictator that refused to comply with UN sanctions.

What don't you liberals understand? Stop saying we invaded them for ANY other reason, it's not true.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 08:24 PM

Comments

That's a bunch of crap, man. What primary justification did Gee Dubya give to the American people in OVER 200 SPEECHES prior to the war? WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Now that we have found exactly ZERO WMD, all you Republicans are saying, "Well, we were 'liberating the Iraqi people' and 'getting rid of a brutal dictator,' the SAME dictator we supported for many years, the SAME dictator who we sold WMDs to during the Reagan and Bush I Administrations, even after he gassed 5,000 Kurds to death in 1988. Man, some of you Republicans tend to conveniently ignore our recent history! If our mission is to rid the world of dictators, then why have we supported so many? The Shah of Iran, Saddam, Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, Diem...I could go on and on. You have to be really naive to think we care about "liberating" poor people of color in foreign countries. Of all the brutal dictatorships in the world, why do we intervene ONLY in Iraq? What about Communist China? Or the Central Asian republics? Or our ally Pakistan for that matter? Or Saudi Arabia, the REAL culprits in 9/11? We wouldn't be having this discussion if Iraq did not possess the world's second largest supply of oil reserves.

And BTW, you didn't even address one of the central themes of my comments (written on 8/15, 7:06 p.m.): the close ties between the Bush family and the Saudis. Oh, yeah, you Republicans just choose to ignore that, just like you ignore recent history. Hey, you can't criticize some liberal website for printing that. A RAND CORPORATION analyst strongly criticized Bush's ties to the Saudis.

Date:: 08/15/03
Time:: 10:15 PM

Comments

Good try but don't hold your breath.

Now it's time for someone to say, "Yeah, but what about Clinton?"

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 12:15 AM

Comments

Troops in Iraq face pay cut; Pentagon says tough duty pay is budget-buster.

This is despicable. Note how the Bush administration ducks the issue. This shows that Bush doesn't put his money where his mouth is when it comes to supporting the troops. What a hypocrite! Even the Army Times has blasted the Pentagon, the administration and Congress on this. This is another reason to write your Congressional representatives.

After the veterans benefits were slashed by this administration, Bush goes on the hunt for more slashing in the military. Does Bush really give a hoot about the po' folk in the armed forces? Just how much again is this occupation costing us? WWACS? (What would Ann Coulter say?) Treason? If we can't afford it, why are we there in the first place? And just where is Osama anyway?

The additional hazardous duty pay for our troops is a pittance when compared to all the profits Halliburton and company are going to make off this war. It's nothing sort of atrocious that this administration would consider cutting the pay of the men and women serving our country. Sadly, our armed forces personnel are puppets Bush is using to implement his misguided foreign policy. The least Bush could do is pay them fairly, and yet now he has the audacity to consider cutting their pay.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 06:37 AM

Comments

Wait...Democrats are complaining that Republicans are cutting the military?

They are doing it with a straight face?

What a bunch of hippocrites!!!!

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 04:13 PM

Comments

This is a very revealing and compelling article that should certainly interest every American. Please remember that the first sentence out of Bush's mouth that dreadful day was "I intend to call for a full-scale investigation of this." What is being kept from us????? Matilda

9/11 Commission: 'White House Cover-Up Exists' http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081603A.shtml

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 05:41 PM

Comments

What is being kept from us?????

Earth to Matilda,

If indeed GWB was trying to "keep the truth from the American people", why then isn't their public outrage?

Could it be that we simple folks see through the political gamesmanship perpetrated by the Dimocrats?

OBTW, neither your cite nor the underlying Newsday story provided links to the actual reports -- just their spin. This is significant because any congressional report issued by this Congress COULD NOT be so partisanly judgemental. The Republicans control both houses. Hence, the hatchet job by the rabidly partisan Newsday just makes wild charges with silly half-quotes.

What does the lefty press not want us to read????

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 06:17 PM

Comments

This is for the Republican who posted above who can't spell "hypocrite." BTW, both my brother and I are Democrats. Our father served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years. Both my brother and I attended the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. And both of us opposed the war on Iraq from the beginning. Enough of this crap that Democrats are "anti-military." "Supporting the troops" doesn't mean sending them in harm's way for TOTALLY FABRICATED AND BOGUS REASONS. And it sure as hell doesn't mean cutting their pay, especially when they are in a combat zone. But Bush and the other millionaire chickenhawks in his administration who did everything they could to avoid combat in Vietnam surely aren't very sympathetic because they don't know what it's like to serve in combat. After all, it's the poor and minorities (note the many immigrant Hispanic Marines and soldiers killed in the war) who are always disproportionately represented on the front lines when our nation goes to war. Rich white guys like Gee Dubya start wars; they and their children never fight wars.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-soldierpaycut1.htm

Date:: 08/16/03
Time:: 08:00 PM

Comments

To the Dimocrat and his brother -- who can spell hippocrTo the Dimocrat and his brother -- who can spell hypocrite but who can’t remember how much they applauded Clinton when he rained death on innocents in Belgrade and the Sudan.

Yeah, you and your brother (and the horse you both rode in on) “opposed this war” from the beginning – well aren’t you the morons? A fiendish tyrant who killed over a million of his own people is gone and you’re sorry?

OOOOOHHHH, but your upset that soldiers and sailors and airmen who aren’t actually stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan might not be able to draw hazardous duty pay? Yeah, right – Like I’d want you Dims to lead this country?

OBTW, you should address any spelling issues to Kevin – he ought to add a spell-checker.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 01:21 PM

Comments

The inquiry's report devotes 15 pages to describing a pattern of Bush administration denials and delaying tactics that prevented a fuller account of national failure before the attack. Last month the independent 9/11 commission still probing the attack issued a similar compendium of complaint.

Worry, if you will, about those 28 pages involving the Saudi sheiks. But a deeper, darker problem is our own government's refusal to fill in the blanks about itself.

Read full article: The inquiry's report devotes 15 pages to describing a pattern of Bush administration denials and delaying tactics that prevented a fuller account of national failure before the attack. Last month the independent 9/11 commission still probing the attack issued a similar compendium of complaint.

Worry, if you will, about those 28 pages involving the Saudi sheiks. But a deeper, darker problem is our own government's refusal to fill in the blanks about itself.

Read full article at:

9/11 Commission: 'White House Cover-Up Exists'

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081603A.shtml

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 01:27 PM

Comments

Ah yes, the non-partisan truth out webpage. You can always count on them for a fair and unbiased report.

and Bill Clinton "never had sex with that woman"

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 02:14 PM

Comments

As usual, you Dims are confused. There are two inquiries – the joint congressional one that just released it’s report and an ongoing independent commission that’s rife with partisanship (Max Cleveland’s on it).

The trouthout.org’s piece relies solely on an 8/7 article in Newsday.

If anyone is interested in what the Administration would or would not release to Congress, check out the full report at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

and the appendix detailing what access was delayed or denied to the commission:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/

A short reading of this ought to make it clear that the Administration was most likely protecting intelligence sources (most of which make regular reports to the appropriate subcommittees anyway) and internal deliberations, -- and the current prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui.

There are thirty-one pages in this appendix. Five pages are devoted to the negotiations with the DOJ, and four pages to information that the Administration deemed privileged, and three pages to information that was released after negotiations.

I guess you Dims can’t even count.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 02:30 PM

Comments

WEDNESDAY, AUG. 6, 2003

LIBERALISM BY WALTER CRONKITE

I hope we all get along as we go along. I expect that occasionally we'll have some differences of opinion. I expect to be provocative. After more than 60 years as a journalist, I have some ideas about the state of our nation, of our world, of our culture, and I wouldn't be true to the purpose of a column if I didn't vent them here.

My hope is that you will find my commentary interesting, informative, perhaps occasionally amusing (deliberately, that is), and, at all times, fair and as unbiased as it is possible for opinion to be.

You are going to disagree with me from time to time, and I'll be disappointed if you don't. That fulfills the provocative requirement of a column like this.

When the nation was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, we at CBS got a lot of mail complaining about our coverage. I was disturbed until we found out that the number of letters condemning us as being government lackeys in support of the war almost precisely balanced those condemning us as being sympathetic to the war protesters. I relaxed with the simple philosophy that if you are being shot at from both sides, you must be in the middle of the road.

Let's face this one down right now: I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I'm a registered independent because I find that I cast my votes not on the basis of party loyalty but on the issues of the moment and my assessment of the candidates.

Basically I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but those who rabidly support those positions will be more often disappointed in my views than otherwise.

I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier side of our cities -- the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.

We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of the inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality for all. So we are inclined to side with the powerless rather than the powerful. If that is what makes us liberals, so be it, just as long as in reporting the news we adhere to the first ideals of good journalism -- that news reports must be fair, accurate and unbiased. That clearly doesn't apply when one deserts the front page for the editorial page and the columns to which opinion should be isolated.

The perceived liberalism of television reporters, I am convinced, is a product of the limited time given for any particular item. The reporter desperately tries to get all the important facts and essential viewpoints into his or her piece but, against a fast-approaching deadline, he or she must summarize in a sentence the complicated story. That is where the slippage occurs and the summary too frequently, without intention, seems to emphasize one side or the other.

(The answer to that problem, as with much else in television news, is in more time for the dominant evening newscasts. In our ever more complicated and confusing world, those newscasts need an hour.)

Incidentally, I looked up the definition of "liberal" in a Random House dictionary. It gave the synonyms for "liberal" as "progressive," "broad-minded," "unprejudiced," "beneficent." The antonyms it offered: "reactionary" and "intolerant."

I've always suspected those fine folks at Random House of being liberals. You just can't trust anybody these days.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 03:44 PM

Comments

"...who can’t remember how much they applauded Clinton when he rained death on innocents in Belgrade and the Sudan."

What the hell makes you think every Democrat agreed with everything Clinton did? I sure as hell didn't. I didn't agree with his military actions in Somalia or his complete inaction in Rwanda in 1994 that resulted in the deaths of 800,000 innocent people.

"...well aren’t you the morons? A fiendish tyrant who killed over a million of his own people is gone and you’re sorry?"

No, you're the moron. Gee, if only the world were as simplistic as you Republicans seem to think it is. Saddam was a modern-day Hitler; therefore, we had to knock him off and "liberate" the Iraqi people (who are thanking us by welcoming their "liberators" with RPGs and sniper fire) by bombing them and killing untold thousands of them. As I previously stated, you Republicans tend to conveniently forget recent history. Please explain why for 12 years (during the Reagan and Bush I administrations) WE, the U.S., supported this "fiendish dictator" by providing him with military intelligence and selling him WMD, the very WMD we now complain about. And please explain why we kept supporting Saddam despite being fully aware that he used chemical weapons on the Iranians (in violation of international law) and on his own people, the Kurds. Those 5,000 innocent people (mainly women and children) that Saddam gassed to death in a Kurdish village in 1988 were killed with mustard gas Saddam bought from the U.S. WHY DIDN'T WE CALL SADDAM A "FIENDISH DICTATOR" BACK THEN WHEN HE WAS BUYING OUR WEAPONS AND USING THEM ILLEGALLY? How convenient it is for conservatives to say our main purpose for the war was "liberating the Iraqi people" from a "fiendish dictator" now that we can't find a single WMD in Iraq. And you conservatives can never answer the question I posed in a previous post: Of all the brutal dictatorships in the world, why do we intervene militarily ONLY in Iraq? Do you really believe that OIL had absolutely NOTHING to do with this invasion?

Iraq didn't want to be "liberated," yet we send troops. OTOH, Bush was indecisive about sending troops to Liberia, where they are wanted and desperately needed. Further, we didn't send troops to Congo and Rwanda, where millions have been killed in recent years. And we sure aren't sending troops to North Korea, even thought that's a far more dangerous country than Iraq, a country we know is developing its own nuclear program. For one thing, North Korea has no oil. Additionally, we know that unlike Iraq, North Korea has a strong military and could give us a REAL fight.

Here's an article to refresh the memory of blind Republicans who forget that we supported Iraq and Saddam during the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Note the picture at the beginning of the article. Rummy and Saddam, sittin' in a tree...Can any of you conservatives explain why Rummy would shake hands with a "fiendish dictator?"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

"OOOOOHHHH, but your (sic) upset that soldiers and sailors and airmen who aren’t actually stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan might not be able to draw hazardous duty pay?"

Read the article again, bonehead. Its title is "Troops IN IRAQ face pay cuts." Stop trying to make excuses for your chickenhawk, make-pretend war hero, combat-avoiding AWOL commander-in-chief and his VP, Dick "Four Draft Deferments" Cheney. For Bush to even consider a pay cut for our young men and women serving in Iraq is unconscionable. A village in Texas is most definitely missing an idiot.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 06:43 PM

Comments

"Iraq didn't want to be "liberated," yet we send troops. "

Oh, I'm sorry. I called you a moron. I should have called you a NAZI bastard (the baath's were basically a derivative of National Socialism -- but you knew that).

I'm glad to correspond with someone who can speak for Iraq. Tell me, did you enjoy having one to two million of your citizens tortured and murdered by Saddam?

Oh, you were really speaking for Saddam when you claimed Iraq didn't want to be liberated. Of course.

Just don't pretend you speak for Americans. Buddy, you don't. And you'll find out in spades a year from next November.

Date:: 08/17/03
Time:: 09:17 PM

Comments

No, the Democrats usually carry the spade vote.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 12:13 AM

Comments

So I've been told that in California we're losing around $30 million a day under the leadership of Gray Davis. Now, he's facing a recall that's going to cost probably three times that much.

What I'm wondering is: Where's the movement to recall GW Bush? Please, point me there, I will gladly go and sign up

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 01:32 AM

Comments

I would like to recommend an excellent book to the readers of this website. It's entitled Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. The author is William Blum, a former Foreign Service officer. Check it out here and read the customer comments:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567511945/

Here's part of what Blum had to say about Iraq. (I used this to substantiate my point with a conservative friend that we don't really care about "liberating" the Iraqi people; if we did, we wouldn't have abandoned the Kurds to a terrible fate like this. That was the end of the debate, as he had no response.) After we abandoned the Kurds, Saddam Hussein, who was in charge of Iraq's security forces back then, took great pleasure in torturing and murdering them as we stood idly by. Yeah, we sure helped the Kurds "fight for freedom," right? Note the quote by Henry Kissinger. That SOB should be charged with and convicted of war crimes!

As a favor to a very important ally, the Shah of Iran, President Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger provided military aid to the Kurds fighting for their autonomy in Iraq, Iran's perennial foe. Though the military aid was to total some $16 million, the object--unknown to the Kurds--was not to win them their autonomy, but to sap the Iraqi resources and distract them from Iran. Said a CIA memo of 1974: "Iran, like ourselves, has seen benefit in a stalemate situation...in which Iraq is intrinsically weakened by the Kurds' refusal to relinquish semi-autonomy. Neither Iran nor ourselves wish to see the matter resolved one way or another." The congressional Pike Committee later investigating the CIA, commented: "This policy was not imparted to [the Kurds], who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise."

In 1975, oil politics brought Iraq and Iran together, and the latter, along with the United States, abandoned the Kurds to a terrible fate. At a crucial point, the Kurds were begging Kissinger for help, but he completely ignored their pleas. Kurd forces were decimated; several hundred of their leaders were executed. Later, when questioned about this by the Pike Commission, Kissinger responded: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 01:56 AM

Comments

This is called "fun with conservatives" because you guys are so easy to slam dunk in a debate.

"Oh, I'm sorry. I called you a moron. I should have called you a NAZI bastard (the baath's were basically a derivative of National Socialism -- but you knew that)."

Ah, yes--the "Ann Coulter syndrome." Anyone who dares to oppose Gee Dubya's policies is a traitor, un-American, unpatriotic and/or a communist. "Nazi" is a new one to me, though. Seems to me that Bush, Ashcroft etc. are acting like Nazis by making our country more like a fascist state with the so-called "Patriot Act." I don't know about you, but I don't think the government has any right to find out what I'm checking out from the library or video store. Hey, aren't you Republicans supposed to be for "small government" and "minimum interference of government into our private lives?" Dubya also proposed a few months ago that Americans should spy on each other. Gee, who's the "Nazi" here? And finally, isn't dissent supposed to be a cornerstone of democracy? You wouldn't know that the way many Republicans talk. Dare to dissent and their response is, "Vee have vays of sealing vit you!"

"I'm glad to correspond with someone who can speak for Iraq. Tell me, did you enjoy having one to two million of your citizens tortured and murdered by Saddam?"

Typical conservative--you don't address any of the points I made above and simply respond with ad hominems. What's your response to the FACT I pointed out that our government under Reagan and Bush I supported Saddam and provided him with military intelligence as well as WMD which he used to kill his own people? You think we really cared about the "freedom" of the Iraqi people when we were assisting in their torture and murder by supporting Saddam? You act as if the U.S. had no responsibility whatsoever in bringing Saddam to power and in the deaths of these Iraqi civilians. And you provide no response to the picture of Rummy shaking hands with the "fiendish dictator" Saddam. Further, you don't answer the question I pose to all conservatives who debate me on this issue: If we're in the business of taking out dictators, why do we intervene ONLY in Iraq? Why not North Korea? And why don't we "off" the DICTATORS who happen to be our allies, such as the ones ruling Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

"Oh, you were really speaking for Saddam when you claimed Iraq didn't want to be liberated. Of course."

And you were speaking for the 6,000+ Iraqi civilians who said, "Bomb us and kill us, American liberators, then have Halliburton and Bush's other buddies get multi-million dollar contracts without competition to rebuild our country and take control of our oil, then try to replace Saddam with Chalabi, who was convicted of extortion and hasn't been in our country in four decades. Meanwhile, we will show our happiness to our great liberators by killing American soldiers and Marines every day." Yup, that's the kind of democracy we want there--put in a puppet friendly to U.S. interests (oil). Iraqi people be damned. This same scenario has happened many times in our history (Pinochet 1973, the Shah of Iran, 1953 for example). Oh, but historical facts are the inconvenient little things Republicans tend to conveniently ignore.

"Just don't pretend you speak for Americans. Buddy, you don't. And you'll find out in spades a year from next November."

You don't have a crystal ball, and neither do I, but I know one thing--Dubya's poll numbers have gone WAY down in the last few months. Ah, yes, Dubya's doing such a fine job on the economy by implementing tax cuts for the rich (Leave no millionaire behind!) and spending $4 billion in tax dollars per month in Iraq. Thousands of Americans have lost their jobs under Bush's watch. Dubya can be defeated just like his daddy, especially if the war on Iraq and the economy continue the way they have.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 02:05 AM

Comments

California:

Government employees in the Golden State earn more than the private sector workers who pay their salaries ....Economists refer to this backward ratio between public and private sector salaries as "France."

This is what happens when you let Democrats govern: You get a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $38 billion deficit, which is larger than the budgets of 48 states. There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 02:55 AM

Comments

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

"The common good comes before the private good."

Two similar quotes. The first came from the smartest woman on earth, Hillary Clinton. The second dates back to the 1930's from those other do-gooders, the Nazis.

For those who like to find similarities between history and our present day: ``The Fascist conception of life,stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.'' Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (Rome: Adrita Press, 1935), p. 10.

For the record, the classical liberalism above refers to the idea that individuals have natural rights that pre-exist government; that government derives its ``just powers'' only through the consent of the governed; and that the principal function of government is to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of its citizens, not to aggrandize the state - a far cry from what today's "liberals" believe in.

May God protect us from those who want to protect us.

Peter Newark

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 05:27 AM

Comments

"This is what happens when you let Democrats govern: You get a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $38 billion deficit, which is larger than the budgets of 48 states. There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation. "

This is why we can't allow liberals to win back the presidency and control congress. Imagine what they would do for the country. Vote Republican!

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 06:06 AM

Comments

Message to previous poster:

Are you for REAL??????? Have you been living on the MOON?????? Do you expect ANYONE to believe statements like that??????? Were you fully awake when you wrote that????? If it was simply an honest mistake, please feel free to use my message board to correct it. LET'S TALK SENSE.....please!! Matilda

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 06:51 AM

Comments

What are you talking about Matilda? California is a perfect example of what happens when a liberal government runs a state full of liberal programs.

I'd hate to see what they would do with the economy of the United States. Vote Republican!

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 07:00 AM

Comments

Hammerless, since you accuse the Israelis of racism, a few questions for you: How many Muslims are allowed to live in Israel, vs how many Jews are allowed to live under the Palestinian authority. You rail against the plight of Palestinians who marry Israelis and yet do not get residency or citizenship; Please tell us what happens to a Jew who marries a Palestinian; To an Israeli who would attempt to live independantly in the territory of the Palestinian authority. For that matter, are you aware of what happens to a Palestinian who sells property to an Israeli? How long do you think a lone unarmed Israeli or Jew would live in Arafat's land of freedom? As unofficial Minister of Propaganda for the Palestinian Authority, you must be trying to become the reincarnation of Joseph Goebbels.

PS Matilda, I think the comment about Argentina and the Congo was a Joke. I can't verify, but the deficit part is awfully closer to reality. BTW, is it really true that employees in France's public sector earn more than their private counterparts?

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 07:20 AM

Comments

“This is called "fun with conservatives" because you guys are so easy to slam dunk in a debate”

Really? But this wasn’t even a debate. I blew you away by jumping in your s**t over your stupid claim, "Iraq didn't want to be "liberated," yet we send troops." Guys like you can’t debate – all’s you do is demagogue and diatribe.

How can any man who pretends to reason claim that an oppressed people “didn’t want to be liberated”?

Oh, I get it. Your one of those “liberal Democrats” who are obliged to criticize EVERY action of our President because you lust for power – that’s yours by birthright, of course. No matter how manifest is the good – you poor bastards see the bad.

I’d feel sorry for you – but I’m too full of sorrow for Saddam’s victims – the list you wish he’d a be addin’ to.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 03:23 PM

Comments

To Saddam's appologists:

OBTW, there was never ANY substance to the Dim's wild charge that military pay for our soldiers and sailors and airmen in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN would be reduced:

Undersecretary Of Defense For Personnel And Readiness David Chu Confirms Compensation Will Not Be Reduced. "I'd just like very quickly to put to rest what I understand has been a burgeoning rumor that somehow we are going to reduce compensation for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not true. We are not going to reduce their compensation. · What I'm saying on the record for Iraq and Afghanistan, absolutely yes, we are going to continue compensation for those folks." (Department Of Defense, Press Conference, 8/15/03)

Even If Congress Allows Temporary Allowance Provisions To Expire In September, Defense Department Has More Effective Compensation Measures To Use. "The department has a variety of pay and allowance powers already with which it plans to maintain the compensation of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan should the current allowance provisions expire. · But actually we would prefer· to use those other compensation powers as our way of ensuring that we target these compensation benefits on the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. · We have hardship duty pay · we have some incentive pay with which we can compensate people in Iraq should these allowances fall back to levels prior to April of this year when Congress enacted new levels with which we can and will · maintain compensation in Iraq. " (Defense Undersecretary David Chu, Press Conference, 8/15/03)

Kerry, Lieberman And Gephardt Missed Vote Providing Temporary Allowances To Soldiers In Iraq And Afghanistan. (S.762, CQ Vote #125: Passed 93-0: R 48-0; D 44-0; I 1-0, 4/3/03, With Graham And Edwards Voting Yea And Kerry And Lieberman Not Voting; H.R.1559, CQ Vote #108: Passed 414-12: R 222-2; D 192-9; I 0-1, 4/3/03, With Gephardt Not Voting)

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 04:48 PM

Comments

Salt Lake Tribune

Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where is Bin Laden? Where is my 401K? How did a huge governmental surplus become a huge deficit in two years? During the campaign, why did George Bush say he was a great uniter? Why did the reasons we went to war with Iraq change after the troops landed? Where were President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft and members of Congress during the Vietnam War? Where are their kids during this war? Was there a plan for postwar Iraq, or is it trial and error? Where have 2 million jobs gone over the last two years? How many people died during Clinton's "lie?" How many have died during Bush's "truth?" How can they say they are for the military, yet cut veterans' benefits? Why were we told the 2003 tax cut would benefit all families, then find out -- after it is passed -- that 20 million would not benefit? If we are a democracy, a voice of truth and freedom, why isn't the full report released on the 9-11 attacks? Why aren't the names of those who sat on the Bush/Cheney Energy Panel released? Why is it wrong to ask questions? Why do I feel we have gone back to the 1950s' secret, paranoid, McCarthyism atmosphere? Why will I, a retired military vet with two boys serving overseas -- or any American -- be called an un-American, yellow-bellied liberal for asking these questions? Why?

Greg Dunn Tooele

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 05:14 PM

Comments

What Rush would say to Greg:

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Have patience, my friend. David Kay’s report will be out in September. Let me ask you a question: Were you asleep or not yet born in 1998? What did your favorite President and his administration and the leading democrats in Congress have to say about Saddam and his WMD programs and his refusal to abide by the treaties he signed back then?

Where is Bin Laden?

I have no idea? Do you know?

Where is my 401K?

I guess it’s in the dumpster. Is this supposed to be GWB’s fault? Did you allow greed to get in the way of your good sense? Did you lose your life savings chasing the internet bubble? If you did, why should any of us listen to what you have to say now?

How did a huge governmental surplus become a huge deficit in two years?

It’s called a recession and a war. How did a huge deficit turn into a huge surplus during the 90’s? Don’t tell me Clinton had anything to do with it. If you believe that – show me his hand.

During the campaign, why did George Bush say he was a great uniter?

Because he is. Do you see him responding to all of your ad homonym attacks?

Why did the reasons we went to war with Iraq change after the troops landed?

They didn’t, of course. Point to even one statement that GWB retracted.

Where were President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft and members of Congress during the Vietnam War?

Where were Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell during Vietnam? Name one Clinton cabinet member who served in Vietnam.

Where are their kids during this war?

Didn’t anyone tell you that we’ve gone to an all volunteer military? We ended the draft after Vietnam.

Was there a plan for postwar Iraq, or is it trial and error?

You ought to learn something about the troubles we had reconstructing Europe after the second World War. Check out the “Werewolves”.

Where have 2 million jobs gone over the last two years?

A lot of folks lost their jobs due to the Clinton recession. But GWB’s tax cuts are beginning to kick in and with any luck the economy will be growing nicely by November 2004.

How many people died during Clinton's "lie?"

Are you suggesting (by your “scare quotes” around the word, “lie”) that perjury by the chief executive officer of these United States is not lying?

How many have died during Bush's "truth?"

A lot fewer than would have been tortured and killed had we not taken out Al Quaida and Saddam.

How can they say they are for the military, yet cut veterans' benefits?

No veteran’s benefits have been cut.

Why were we told the 2003 tax cut would benefit all families, then find out -- after it is passed -- that 20 million would not benefit?

I assume that you are complaining that the folks who don’t pay federal income tax don’t now have to pay any less? What you’re asking for is more welfare. You must be a Democrat.

If we are a democracy, a voice of truth and freedom, why isn't the full report released on the 9-11 attacks?

If you’re referring to the sequestered 28 pages from the joint congressional report, I presume because the release might jeopardize ongoing intelligence operations.

Why aren't the names of those who sat on the Bush/Cheney Energy Panel released?

For the same reasons none of your favorite Senators and Congressman release their diaries and meeting minutes. Candid advice demands some privacy.

Why is it wrong to ask questions?

Is anyone stopping you – even though you don’t make a lot of sense?

Why do I feel we have gone back to the 1950s' secret, paranoid, McCarthyism atmosphere?

I’m not qualified to psychoanalyze you.

Why will I, a retired military vet with two boys serving overseas -- or any American -- be called an un-American, yellow-bellied liberal for asking these questions?

Dunno – I certainly haven’t called you any names. I don’t think you’re being honest, nor do I think you’re particularly smart – but I have’nt hurled any epithets.

Why?

Why indeed?

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 07:57 PM

Comments

Let's just say to conservatives who refuse to answer specific questions in a debate and whose only "strategy" is to counter with ad hominems that it's a moot point to have a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant.

Moving right along, I've been called unpatriotic, un-American, a moron and even a "Nazi" for opposing this war. I wonder what pro-war people call former American soldiers and highly decorated combat veterans (including Medal of Honor recipients Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii) who oppose the war? And what about the numerous military families who oppose the war? (http://www.mfso.com)

"Bring 'Em On?" Former Special Forces Soldier Responds to Bush's Invitation for Iraqis to Attack US Troops"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403A.shtml

I'll say it right now to save the conservatives some time: That biased website! You ought to get your news from 30-second soundbites on Fox News! At least they're "fair and biased!" And Fox is suing Al Franken to prove it! I'm sure the "biased website" is all many conservatives see; forget the message by this experienced, combat-tested and highly decorated former Special Forces soldier.

"Bring Them On?" Bring Them Home!"

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030818&s=kucinich

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 08:01 PM

Comments

Correct link to Military Families Speak Out

Sorry, I posted the wrong link for this group. Here's the correct link:

http://www.mfso.org/

Hmm, are members of this group unpatriotic, un-American, communists, Nazis, pro-terrorist, traitors, etc.? Or do they simply realize this war is unjust and unjustified and that it isn't worth the lives of our young men and women?

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 08:16 PM

Comments

Excellent commentary by Bill Maher. The part about Issa is no longer valid, as he has dropped out of the race, perhaps conceding that he couldn't beat The Terminator. But the rest of the commentary is right on the money. It's funny to me that many conservatives blame Gray Davis for the economic downturn in California, as if Bush's policies, especially the war on Iraq and tax cuts for the rich, had nothing to do with this. ====================================================

Recalls Are for Cars, Not California Governors

When did the Target parking lot replace the voting booth?

By Bill Maher Los Angeles Times

Thursday 24 July 2003

New rule: No do-overs. Once you elect an official, unless he runs off with public funds or gets caught with kiddie porn, you're stuck with him.

He's the governor, not some dude you married in Las Vegas.

What's going on here in California, if you're lucky enough to not have been following this, is that the economy turned, so we're getting rid of the governor. But what if we drive him out of office and the economy still doesn't get better? I guess we'll have to burn him. And if that doesn't work, we'll kill his dog.

Yes, in baseball when the team stinks, you fire the manager. But you don't fire him because it rains. And you don't let the opposing team choose a new manager for you.

And you don't fire him between innings. And replace him with a Viennese weightlifter.

Here's why the economy turned: The dot-com bubble burst. (Obviously on the orders of Gray Davis.) The airline industry collapsed. (Just as Gray Davis planned.) We fought two wars. (Playing right into Gray Davis' hands.) And Dick Cheney's friends at Enron "gamed" the energy market and ripped off the state for billions.

So you can see the problem: Gray Davis.

And the obvious solution: A Viennese weightlifter. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Finally, a candidate who can explain the Bush administration's positions on civil liberties in the original German.

But there are still a lot of Democrats with sour grapes over the last presidential election, and they're not collecting petitions to replace George Bush with Bernie Mac.

Now, I'm not saying that I like Davis. Being enthusiastic about Davis would be like saying your favorite food is straw. But he fought for his country in Vietnam and won a fair election, and he's entitled to his term.

Maybe he's a lousy governor, but he was the one elected by voters who bothered to show up at the polls. Their efforts shouldn't be undone by disgruntled shoppers signing a petition on their way out of Target.

Anyone who thinks this recall is some great affirmation of democracy should review early American history. This is precisely the kind of direct involvement by the howling masses that the framers wanted to avoid.

But, hey, let's have the recall. And then the people who voted for Davis can have a recall and put him back in. And then we can throw him out again. It works well in Italy.

And it'll really help the state economy, too, when investors realize our political system is on par with Belize.

Oh, and a recall election will cost the state up to $35 million. Money we would otherwise just waste on schools and roads. And we'll still have to have a regular election in March.

But this really isn't about elections at all. This is about a congressman named Darrell Issa, a Republican car alarm magnate who wants to be governor and has spent $1.5 million of his own money to fund the recall effort.

Think about that as the silver lining the next time a car alarm wakes you up in the middle of the night.

Bill Maher is host of HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."

----------------------------------------------------

Editors Note: There is no longer an issue concerning how the ballot will be constructed. On October 7th California residents will vote yes or no on the recall, and vote for a replacement in the event that the recall wins.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 08:42 PM

Comments

"Bring Them On?" Bring Them Home!"

Quick! Let’s give up and go home and turn a magnificent victory into ruin! Then let’s pretend the Democrats had a better idea to protect us – like paying blackmail to the PNK.

To the Saddam loving Nazi (apparently you still don’t understand the reference – Saddam’s baathist party IS a direct descendent of Hitler’s National Socialists – so much for your lack of education) – please tell us all how it is you can claim to speak for Iraq (Iraq didn't want to be "liberated,"),

I know, I know – you’d love to rant on as to how good a debater you are. So answer the question.

You see, in a real debate – when you’re caught making an indefensible statement – you take a deep breath and you gracefully withdraw. The more you caterwaul about how terrific you are and how stupid everyone who argues with really is – the lamer you appear.

It takes grace to gracefully withdraw.

On the other hand, this is fun. Tell us again how you know that the Iraqis loved being tortured and murdered by Saddam – how you wish it would have continued, rather than see GWB triumph.

OBTW, another poster gave the lie to your claims that the Administration favored cutting the pay of our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. I noticed you had no rebuttal. No surprise there either.

Quick, change the subject. Show us all how smart you think you are.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 09:34 PM

Comments

To the Editor:

Don’t let your biases get in the way of the facts.

Of course Bill Maher is an apologist for the left. But why complain about people exercising their constitutional rights?

You really think Gray “Skies” Davis is blameless? You think that the “Bush” recession caused all his problems?

Guess again! If you separate California’s numbers, the US never went into a recession – California did!

Davis – like Clinton – is a career politician. The only jobs he’s held have been in government “service”. He’s beholden to the special interests who’ve financed his quests for power.

The best Davis quote (during the famous rolling blackouts of the summer past), “If I wanted to raise [electrical] rates, I could solve this crisis in an hour”

Of course, he did eventually agree to lifting residential electrical rates – after he’d indebted California’s grandchildren to the tune of about thirteen billion bucks.

Date:: 08/18/03
Time:: 09:40 PM

Comments

“this war is unjust and unjustified and that it isn't worth the lives of our young men and women?”

I think the war ended about four months ago.

Ohh, you want to declare defeat and leave?

You’d rather the crazies would attack us on our soil?

Ohh, you can’t stand the sight of an effective President doing what he said he’d do.

Ahh, for the Clinton years.

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 03:11 AM

Comments

"I think the war ended about four months ago."

That's news to me. Only the Village Idiot from Texas thinks it's over. Tell that to the American families who have lost their sons since this war allegedly "ended." General Tommy Franks said we would be there "at least four years." It could be much longer. And I'll guarantee you this--Iraqis will be shooting at our troops the whole time. Gee, that sounds like "war" to me; specifically, a "guerilla war," but nobody at the Pentagon wants the American public to see it for what it is.

"You’d rather the crazies would attack us on our soil?"

They already did on 9/11/01. And a whopping total of ZERO attackers were Iraqis. Fifteen of the 19 were Saudis, but that's O.K.; Bush managed to convince over half the American public that they were Iraqi. BTW, exactly what evidence do you have that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

"effective president?" HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!! Two million jobs lost, corporate scandals, Bush's buddies at Enron ripping off the American people, working people getting screwed out of their retirement funds while executives laugh all the way to the bank, record deficits, a war against a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, ZERO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, absolutely no evidence of links to Al Qaeda, 6,000 Iraqi civilians and a couple hundred American servicemen killed (and counting) unilateralist foreign policy, a president that is despised by most of the rest of the world, the "Big Brother" Patriot Act, $4 BILLION spent monthly occupying Iraq while our public schools and libraries are crumbling...need I say more?

I will give Bush credit for being effective at passing tax cuts for the rich. As Dubya said, "Make the pie higher!" And when Bush, a supporter of the Vietnam War, had a chance to serve, I give him credit for protecting Texas from surprise attack by the Viet Cong and NVA. Great job, George! As far as I know, not a single Viet Cong or NVA soldier ever made it past the Rio Grande. Hey, even though he was and is a "hawk" (chickenhawk, that is), why risk fighting a fierce and determined enemy when we could draft all those poor black and Hispanic kids who couldn't afford college to do it for the rich and privileged white guys who started and supported the war? Better to have daddy use his connections to get cushy non-combat National Guard duty!

"Ahh, for the Clinton years."

You got that right. We had a huge surplus that Gee Dubya has ruined in just over two years. And this country experienced some of its best economic years ever under Clinton. Yeah, so Clinton had oral sex with some bimbo intern. That's been going on since Thomas Jefferson. Clinton's indescretions didn't harm anyone but his own family. Yet Bush supporters cheer a president responsible for the deaths of 200 servicemen (and counting) and thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians.

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 07:25 AM

Comments

"Ahh, for the Clinton years." -- You got that right. Great, we’ve exacted an admission from you as to your real motivations (and dispensed with your crocodile tears over the phony “pay cut” for our servicemen – true Clinton lovers hate our military). And, of course – this gives the lie to your previous denial that you disapproved of his decisions to bomb Serbia and Iraq and the Sudan.

You’ve yet to deal with your unbelievable gaffe (“Iraq didn’t want to be liberated”) – you’d like to move on – but of course we can’t let you do that. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you won’t withdraw an absurd statement? And, when you couple that with your need to proclaim how smart you are – Whoah!

As for your immediate silliness:

"I think the war ended about four months ago." -- That's news to me.

I expect it is. Here’s an assignment for you. Research the first year of the postwar period in Europe (1945-46). Find out how many US servicemen were assassinated by the German “Werewolves”. Then you play historian and tell the world that that war didn’t end until 1947, because there were still unreconstructed Nazis running around killing Americans.

You need to pretend that we’re still at war with Iraq so’s you can protest it.

What you miss is that we’re not at war with Iraq – we’re at war IN Iraq. And, we’re not fighting Iraqi’s – we’re fighting terrorists (Wahabists and baathists). And, if we give up and go home as you wish – they’ll just follow us and bring more destruction to our homeland.

All you Dimocrat’s miss this. You’re so filled with hatred for GWB (BECAUSE of his SUCCESSES), and you have such an emotional need to deny him credit – you fail to present a credible plan for dealing with world terrorism. What would Dean do differently? Why would any sane man vote for him.

Oh, now you’d like to change the subject and talk about the economy. Well tough darts there too. We’ve had a large infusion of stimuli in the last two years (tax and rate cuts) and – with the normal passage of time – the economy is likely to look a lot better in the fall of 2004 than you’d like. It must be tough – praying for a disaster and all.

If you insist on judging Presidents by the events on their watch:

Clinton inherited an economy booming out of recession (check his budgetary forecasts in his first two years) and delivered an economy plunging back into one. Clinton forced a massive tax increase upon us that killed the golden goose and signed the bill that penalized corporations for “excessive compensaton” that was the direct cause of the obscene executive options programs that fed the greed that Ebbers and Lay succumbed to.

As for your claim that GWB cut taxes for the rich:

We don’t tax the rich. We tax the poor SOB’s who are trying to become rich.

Who pays more taxes – the little old lady with a million bucks in CD’s or the lucky lotto winner who just won his million?

Oh, I forgot – you know all this. You’re SOOOO smart.

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 07:27 AM

Comments

"this country experienced some of its best economic years ever under Clinton"

You must be refering to the internet bubble. Could you remind us how Clinton effected this? Could it be that the economy was inflated with his hot air?

You are probably one of those who think Clinton's tax increase led the way to riches for the masses. You may want to look at some smarter Democrats who understand economics a bit better. JFK was one, and if you want to look at a more recent example, Bill Richardson. Please read this and tell us why this Democrat is wrong in his thinking:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-10-03.html

Peter

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 12:01 PM

Comments

I'll let a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor do the talking, Mr. Conservative. Note his discussion on our hypocrisy in Iraq. Of course, you have refused to answer my points about why for 12 years the Reagan and Bush I Administrations supported Saddam and supplied him with WMD because it blows away your contention that we actually cared about the "freedom" of the Iraqi people. Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds to death in 1988 and we didn't even bat an eye. Hey, he was a good weapons customer! We on the left recognize that Saddam is what he is--a brutal dictator. But the left was saying this way back in the '80s; we condemned U.S. support of Saddam. Our long history of support for this brutal dictator is why it is HYPOCRITICAL and LUDICROUS for anyone to think we care about the "freedom" of the Iraqi people. Hell, we helped kill untold thousands of them by supporting Saddam. "Liberating the Iraqi people" is merely a pretext for this war, just as the Tonkin Gulf incident was a pretext for the Vietnam War, as "Remember the Maine!" was a pretext for the Spanish-American War and as "protecting American lives" was a pretext for the Grenada invasion. You would have to be hopelessly naive to think that OIL is not a major factor in our occupation of Iraq. If Iraq didn't have the world's second largest oil reserves, we wouldn't be there. ===================================================

Congressional Medal of Honor recipient addresses U.S. forces in Iraq.

By Charlie Liteky May 7, 2003

By way of introduction, my name is Charlie Liteky, a U.S. citizen, a Vietnam Veteran, and a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient. However, I renounced the Medal of Honor on July 29,1986 in opposition to U.S foreign policy in Central America. What the U.S. was supporting in El Salvador and Nicaragua, namely the savagery and domination of the poor, reminded me of what I was a part of in Vietnam 15 years earlier.

I placed the medal at the apex of the Vietnam Memorial Wall into which are etched the names of 58 thousand young American men. In depth study of the Vietnam War revealed political and military liars insensitive to the value of human life, inclusive of their own countrymen. The biggest liar was the Commander in Chief of U.S. armed forces, President Lyndon Johnson, who lied to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was this lie that motivated Congress to vote the money for the war. As a veteran of an ill-fated war, in the waning years of my life, I’d like to share some reflections on my country’s attack on Iraq.

Once again, I find myself in protest of a U.S. military action that no court in the world will declare legal. The U.S. attack on the sovereign country of Iraq fails to meet any of the necessary provisions of a just war. Iraq on the other hand, met the most fundamental condition for a country to use military force against an adversary, namely the defense of its homeland against an unjust aggressor. But, because of the incredible superiority of the U.S. military, there was no possibility of a successful defense.

In its attack on Iraq, the U.S. violated the UN Charter, international law and universal standards of morality. This is borne out by the worldwide condemnation of the U.S. attack by mainstream religious denominations and spiritual leaders.

Claiming liberation of the Iraqi people as a just cause for a war that kills thousands of innocents is hypocrisy at its worst. If liberation of an oppressed people were the real motive behind the invasion of Iraq - why did the U.S. wait 25 years to act? Why did the U.S. refrain from condemning Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons in its war with Iran in the 80s? Why did the U.S. fail to prevent chemicals critical to the production of biological weapons from reaching Iraq? How is it that what we condemn today we approved yesterday?

Many Iraqi people rejoiced at the sight of their American/British liberators, but many more did not, because they had no legs to walk to the sites of celebration, no arms to wave in jubilation or they had no life left to celebrate. The sanitary military term for such people is “collateral damage.”

I first came to Iraq in November of 2002 in response to the bellicose words of war coming from the President of the U.S. and his staff. When I think of children, the most vulnerable of the innocents. In my imagination I could hear them crying, I could see the terror in their eyes and faces as they heard the planes overhead, followed by bombs exploding. I wanted to be with them to offer what small comfort I could.

This cartoon [of a sly, American eagle with its talons deeply planted in Iraqi earth] published in the Jordan Times on April 23, 2003 depicts what many Arab people believe is the U.S. motivation behind its attack on Iraq, namely, a deep-rooted, long-lasting presence. Recently, newspapers have reported that plans are underway to establish four military bases in Iraq.

What the cartoon does not include is the U.S. interest in and access to Iraq’s immense oil reserves. A two-time Medal of Honor recipient, General Smedley Butler, said that “War is a Racket” and that he spent his 33 year military career being a bodyguard for U.S. business interests. I submit that protecting U.S. business interests, sometimes referred to as “national interests” is still the primary mission of the U.S. military. Wartime profits go to a select few at the cost of many. Again to quote Gen. Smedley:

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

This letter containing some of my reflections is not meant to cast blame for an attack on Iraq on U.S. military personnel. I’m sure you believe that what you are a part of is right and just. I once believed the same of my participation in the Vietnam War. I share my thoughts and conclusions as gifts of truth revealed to me through years of studying U.S. foreign policy.

Sincerely,

Charlie Liteky, Vietnam Veteran

PS: God be with you in your search for truth, your quest for justice, and your efforts to help a beautiful people.

Charles Angelo J. Liteky was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for rescuing wounded soldiers under fire while serving as a chaplain with the 199th Light Infantry Brigade in Vietnam.

Note: For more on Liteky www.mishalov.com/Liteky.html

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 12:19 PM

Comments

Bed-time conversation between an inquisitive son and his dad in America

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, son. Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq? A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war, silly. Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with? A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. Q: And what was that? A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. Q: Kind of like what they do in China? A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? A: Right. Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured? A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is different. Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad. Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad? A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. Q: Like in Iraq? A: Exactly. Q: And like in China, too? A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not. Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us. Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists? A: Don't be a smart-ass. Q: I didn't think I was being one. A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba. Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement? A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway. Q: What's a military coup? A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup? A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend. Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate? A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate. Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader? A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan. Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan? A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th. Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th? A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men -- fifteen of them Saudi Arabians--hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans. Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that? A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban. Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands? A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too. Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001? A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs. Q: Fighting drugs? A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies. Q: How did they do such a good job? A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off. Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons? A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread. Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia? A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply. Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too? A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering. Q: What's the difference? A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name. A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends. Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia? A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan. Q: Who trained them? A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden. Q: Was he from Afghanistan? A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man. Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once. A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s. Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about? A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now. Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians, are now our friends? A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either. Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too? A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do? A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade. Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s? A: Well, yeah. For a while. Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then? A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily. Q: Why did that make him our friend? A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy. Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds? A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend. Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend? A: Most of the time, yes. Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy? A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better. Q: Why? A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq? Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right? A: Yes. Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq? A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do. Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head? A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night. Q: Good night, Daddy

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 01:01 PM

Comments

JEDDAH, 19 August 2003 — On July 25, President George W. Bush made a truly staggering statement to the press after a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan: “The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?

And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.”

This statement is worth reading carefully. The president of the United States has stated, in a public forum, that he invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors back into his country.

So far as I am aware, this statement has not been the subject of any serious critical analysis in the mainstream American media.

I will therefore provide my own brief analysis.

Assuming, as seems reasonable, that the president of the United States was neither drunk nor on LSD, there can be only two possible explanations for this statement:

Explanation 1: The president of the United States believed what he said. In this case, he is so dim-witted and/or totally divorced from reality as to be mentally unfit to hold his current job — or, indeed, any job — and should be taken into medical care.

Explanation 2: The president did not believe what he said but, rather, believes (unfortunately not without compelling post-Sept.11 evidence) that the vast majority of the American people are so dim-witted and/or uninformed and the vast majority of the American media is so sycophantic and/or terrified of being branded “unpatriotic” (or simply losing White House “access”) that he can now tell any lie, no matter how obvious and outrageous, and get away with it. In this case, he is morally unfit to hold his current job and should, by constitutional means, be forced to relinquish it as soon as possible.

Either explanation should scare the wits out of anyone who is not comatose.

When a single individual combines ignorance, immorality, dry-drunk syndrome, a publicly proclaimed commitment to perpetual military domination of the entire world by his country, a publicly expressed belief that God personally instructs him to make war on specific countries and a wildly irrational born-again brand of Christianity that views the Battle of Armageddon and the consequent end of life on earth as desirable developments and, at the same time, has command authority over an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction more than sufficient to achieve the end of life on earth, it is difficult to argue that this individual is not the most dangerous person who has ever lived.

When (if ever) will the American people wake up to the real threat facing America and the world?

— John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer.

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 01:14 PM

Comments

“I'll let a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor do the talking”

I guess this is your way of trying to beg off from a running argument after you’ve had all of your rehearsed rhetoric thoroughly debunked. So much for your vaunted (self-proclaimed) debating skills – and your claims to having “such a good time”.

As for your latest silliness: “for 12 years the Reagan and Bush I Administrations supported Saddam and supplied him with WMD”

What a hoot! Do you ever read back what you’ve written?

WHAT WMD WERE SUPPLIED TO SADDAM by the US of A? Answer: NONE!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is a categorization of chemical, biological, and atomic/nuclear weapons systems that are really designed to be used against civilian targets.

No administration has EVER supplied Saddam with these weapons systems.

(There’s some likelihood that a sample of the “Ames” strain of anthrax was given/sold to Iraqi scientists for research – but this was certainly not associated with any weapons programs)

OBTW, you’re delving back far enough into what you think was our history to demonstrate that you’re just another one of those poor sods who’s filled with self-loathing -- an American hater. You think America is the source of all evil in this world.

And you think this “platform” is gonna get your guy elected in ’04? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 01:23 PM

Comments

I think GWB really did say, “The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.”

And I have no problem with it – and I’m not drunk or on LSD and I don’t hate myself or my country.

Let me explain: You Dims get all hung up with two letter words. Like the definition of what “is”, is. Same thing here. GWB quite obviously meant “unfettered access and full cooperation” – whatever was required by the UN resolution – when he said “in”.

You see, GWB is a plain spoken sort of a guy – he says what he means (very UNCLINTONLIKE). And he’s resolute: he means what he says.

Gotta love a guy like that!

I mean, you wouldn’t want a guy like Gore – who’s still searching for a “controlling legal authority” – when the defense of our country is paramount?

Would you?

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 02:18 PM

Comments

"WHAT WMD WERE SUPPLIED TO SADDAM by the US of A? Answer: NONE!...No administration has EVER supplied Saddam with these weapons systems."

You sure about that, Mr. "In Denial" Republican? Not only is our history of selling biological/chemical weapons to Saddam in the Congressional Record, it was detailed in the Senate report "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq." Read about it here, then feel free to retract your unsubstantiated statement.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

"America hater," huh? I guess I was just a commie spy when I attended the U.S. Naval Academy and served my country. Anyone who dares to dissent and point out America's faults and mistakes is called an "America-hater" by you right-wingers. You tend to forget that dissenters, such as the Founding Fathers, advocates for women's right to vote and civil rights leaders such as MLK and Rosa Parks, made this country what it is today.

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 03:03 PM

Comments

“I was just a commie spy when I attended the U.S. Naval Academy and served my country”

Gee, I had no idea. I note that you don’t claim to have been graduated and commissioned – an oversight perhaps – or worse?

Think it’s unfair to pick out part of a sentence? Look below.

You would have us read the silly article in the Scotland Herald that claims the US of A was Saddam’s supplier.

Well, let’s look at the only citation in this article, “The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports.”

What’s wrong with this? Well, the only Senate report I could find with a similar name is,

The Riegle Report U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session May 25, 1994

Note, your dear friends at the Scotland Herald left off a few words in the title, “and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War”

Gee, I guess the focus of that hearing was the “Gulf War Syndrome” – a “former military man” like yourself should have known this – and not an investigation into weapons proliferation as they would like us to now believe.

And, if you actually read the transcripts of the hearing, http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/hearings.html

You’d discover this (from the PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. GORDON C. OEHLER Director, Nonproliferation Center, Central Intelligence Agency)

“I would like to give you a sense of Iraq's procurement efforts and patterns. The Iraqi program was developed gradually over the course of the 1980's. By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, it had become deeply entrenched, flexible, and well-orchestrated. Project managers for the weapons of mass destruction programs went directly to vetted European suppliers for the majority of their needs.

Throughout the 1980's, German companies headed the list of preferred suppliers for machinery, technology, and chemical precursors. German construction companies usually won the contracts to build the CW facilities in Iraq. And Iraqi procurement agents were sophisticated in exploiting inconsistencies in local export control laws by targeting countries for substances and technologies that were not locally controlled.

In the pre-war years, the dual-use nature of many of these facilities made it easier for Iraq to claim that chemical precursors, for example, were intended for agricultural industries. European firms, arguing that the facilities in Iraq were for the production of insecticides, built the Samarra chemical plant, including six separate chemical weapons manufacturing lines, between 1983 0986.

European middlemen broke red chemical precursor deals for Iraq under the pretext that the materials were intended for pesticide plants. A Dutch firm purchased supplies from major chemical firms around the world, supplying the Chemical Importation and Distribution State Enterprise in Baghdad in the late 1970's, and in the 1980's supplying the Iraqi State Establishment for Pesticide Production -- cover names for the CW program. The middleman supplied dual-use chemical precursors including monochlorobenzene, ethyl alcohol, and thiodiglycol. When the Iraqis requested phosphorus oxychloride -- a nerve agent precursor banned for export under Dutch law without explicit permission -- the supplier balked and drew this request to the attention of Dutch authorities. Subsequent Dutch investigations found that two other Dutch firms were involved in brokering purchases of chemical precursors.

Iraq exploited businessmen and consortia willing to violate the export laws of their own countries. As has been indicated in press and television reports, The Consen Group -- a consortium of European missile engineers and businessmen established a network of front companies to cover its role as project director of an Argentine-Egyptian-Iraqi sponsored Condor II ballistic missile program.

Iraqi procurement officers, knowing full well the licensing thresholds, requested items that fell just under the denial thresholds -- but nonetheless would suffice. Prior to Desert Storm, U.S. regulations on the export of these technologies were drafted to meet U.S. technical specifications and standards.

Technologies of a lower standard worked just as well, and permitted Iraq to obtain the goods and technology consistent with Commerce Department regulations.

Let me turn to the question of the involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's proliferation programs. We were watching these programs very carefully, and it was clear that the major players assisting Saddam's effort were NOT (emphasis added) American firms -- they were principally European. We saw little involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.”

So, dear friend, where’s your refutation of my assertion that NO ADMINISTRATION of these United States EVER supplied WMD’s to Saddam?

And why do I call you an America hater? Because you automatically assume the worst of and for our country.

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 07:19 PM

Comments

I guess you shut that boy's mouph!

It sounds like he and his bro both washed out of the Naval Acadamy and now their both America haters. And their dad's a 20 year man in the Navy!

No wonder they've turned on America

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 08:26 PM

Comments

Shut my "mouph?" Hardly. Yes, I'm aware that European companies also sold biological/chemical materials to Iraq. But it's undeniable that the U.S. did, too. This article specifically lists all the American companies that sold biological/chemical materials and weapons technology to Iraq. But I'm sure you guys won't believe it despite the evidence. How ironic, considering that you believe totally unsubstantiated claims about WMD now allegedly in Iraq and bogus assertions by Gee Dubya that there are links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

By the way, every administration from Carter to Dubya is to blame for this. So don't think I'm just raggin' on Dubya. Carter started the whole thing.

Of course the focus of the Senate report was Gulf War Syndrome. That's because a couple of dozen American veterans sued these companies for providing the biological/chemical agents to Iraq that were used against them in the 1991 Gulf War!

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547.php

Hey, you guys never explained why Rummy was so chummy with Saddam in 1983, so chummy that he shook hands with the "fiendish dictator." Since you ignored this picture and the documentation of our support of Iraq back in the '80s, I'll list it for you once again. We knew Saddam was a "fiendish dictator" back then, but still supported him, just like we supported Diem, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Somoza, Marcos, the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Guatemala...oh, wait, am I an "America hater" for daring to mention historical facts about U.S. support of dictators?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

And BTW, unlike Gee Dubya who went AWOL during his cushy non-combat National Guard duty, my brother and I both actually reported for duty, completed our military duty and both received honorable discharges after our terms were finished.

Ah, yes, because we oppose this war, my brother and I are "America haters" just like Medal of Honor recipients Charlie Lieky and Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who both oppose the war as well. You guys don't realize how fascist and ignorant you are by calling anyone with dissenting views "America haters."

Here are a couple of "America hater" websites for your perusal. Do you dare call these American veterans (many of them combat veterans) "America haters?" One thing I've noticed about anti-war rallies in my city is that Vietnam combat veterans tend to be among the most outspoken citizens against this war. Perhaps it's because they know a little something about the horrors of war. And unlike oil millionaire "chickenhawk" Bush, they see the injustice in the fact that that the poor, the working class and people of color are disproportionately represented on the front lines whenever our nation goes to war. Rich white folks and their children never go to war. If Bush's daughters had to be the first in line to charge Saddam's bunkers, perhaps Bush would have thought twice about going to war with Iraq and leading our nation into another Vietnam-type quagmire that could last many, many years.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

Date:: 08/19/03
Time:: 10:23 PM

Comments

Shut my "mouph?" Hardly.

Are you still having fun? Both you and the article you cited pretended there was a Senate report entitled, "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq." This was a LIE! There is no such report.

There IS a report, which I cited above – and won’t repeat – entitled, The Riegle Report: U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War. It was NOT an investigation into US involvement in arming Saddam. You and your America hating friends tried to suggest that it was.

OBTW, this report DID contain detailed findings on Saddam’s suppliers: It says, “it was clear that the major players assisting Saddam's effort were NOT (emphasis added) American firms -- they were principally European. We saw little involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Now you “respond” with “Yes, I'm aware that European companies also sold biological/chemical materials to Iraq.” ALSO SUPPLIED? ALSO SUPPLIED? Read the report you cited!

“it was clear that the major players assisting Saddam's effort were NOT (emphasis added) American firms – THEY WERE PRINCIPALLY EUROPEAN. We saw LITTLE involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Now, my challenge to you was to back up your claim that the US of A supplied Saddam with WMD. NOT SOME AMERICAN COMPANIES SELLING SOME SMALL AMOUNT OF SUPPLIES! THE US GOVERNMENT! And this is all you’ve got? Where’s the evidence that any Administration was complicit? There isn’t any! It never happened.

And you wonder why I have you tagged as an America hater? Where’s your evidence to back up your claims? Where is it? You have none! Just lies from you and your European friends – from the same countries that WERE SADDAM’s suppliers – the ENABLERS of his murderous regime.

Now let’s quickly dispense with the rest of your silliness:

“Hey, you guys never explained why Rummy was so chummy with Saddam in 1983, so chummy that he shook hands with the "fiendish dictator."

Benjamin Disraeli famously said, “Nations don’t have friends, they have interests”.

You obviously don’t remember that in 1983 there was going on a thing called, “The Cold War” – which was finally won by the US of A due to the perseverance of Ronald Reagan. Yeah, we got some s**t on our hands. But the evil empire fell in 1989.

Oh, but you and some honorable veterans oppose “this” war.

Well, the only war going on is our war against terror. The war WITH Iraq ended about four months ago. Right now we’re fighting the war on terror IN Iraq. Are you against the war on terror? Of course you are. You hate America.

“And BTW, unlike Gee Dubya who went AWOL during his cushy non-combat National Guard duty, my brother and I both actually reported for duty, completed our military duty and both received honorable discharges after our terms were finished.”

If GWB was AWOL, why wasn’t he charged?

What choice did you have except to serve out your terms? You both washed out of the Naval Academy. You had to complete your terms as ordinary seamen – or whatever grade you made – or you would have been prosecuted!

Are you still having fun?

Date:: 08/20/03
Time:: 06:54 AM

Comments

"You guys don't realize how fascist and ignorant you are by calling anyone with dissenting views "America haters."

Interesting. You complain of being called America haters by those who disagree with you, yet in the same sentence call those who disagree with you fascist. Is anyone else overcome with the stench of hypocrisy?

Peter Newark

Date:: 08/20/03
Time:: 07:11 AM

Comments

Speaking of liberal hypocrisy, The New York Times believes in freedom of speech only for themselves. They fire a 25 year employee for making an non politically correct statement. This was off air and to a friend at a party.

Hope he has a good lawyer.

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/3203.htm

Date:: 08/20/03
Time:: 07:12 AM

Comments

The lead editorial from today's WSJ -- available free from the Opinion Journal (registration required):

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110003911

"What's that about no link between Saddam and terrorism?"

"Yesterday's bombing at the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad is a bloody reminder that the epicenter of the global war on terror is now Iraq. This isn't new, but it's taken on new meaning as increasingly desperate terrorists realize just what's at stake."

Date:: 08/20/03
Time:: 08:23 AM

Comments

All the Rage

From the August 19, 2003 Dallas Morning News: The Democratic presidential contenders--and the Democratis base--are putting out a message of empty fury. by Terry Eastland

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/025lxsqg.asp

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

11:24 AM

Comments

Kevin,

Just a suggestion: When you move older messages to archive -- don't move ALL the messages -- leave the last few days' traffic on the current page

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

11:47 AM

Comments

Thanks for the suggestion. However, this message board has become very busy and, with all of the long posts, it takes forever to load. Therefore, I have to archive every ten days or so. If I were to leave several days of messages on the board it would fill up even faster :( Unfortunately, I don't have much time to spend on the management of this site.

Regards, Kevin

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

02:20 PM

Comments

"War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, who was awarded the Medal of Honor TWICE. Gee, how did General Butler become a Marine Corps legend when he was such an "American-hater?" Maybe Chickenhawk Dubya should take back his medals.

BTW, this website is run by a former U.S. Marine. How do all these American-hating commies get into the Marine Corps?

http://www.anti-sheep.com/articles/smedley_butler.php

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

03:11 PM

Comments

"If GWB was AWOL, why wasn't he charged?"

For the same reason he and other sons of the privileged were able to vault to the top of a list of hundreds to join the National Guard in the first place--the wealth and connections of their daddies.

Note Colin Powell's quote at the end of this article. Yes, the general indeed has some excellent anger management skills!

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

03:45 PM

Comments

The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)--U.S. Policy Issues

I see our conservative friends don't want to believe that we sold ANY weapons to Iraq. And they simply dismiss our support of "fiendish dictator" Saddam as a necessity of the Cold War.

Here's more info. on our sale of chemical/biological weapons and weapons technology to Iraq during the 1980s. Hmm, is Princeton University a credible academic source? Please refresh my memory, Republicans. Or is it one of those pinko commie, America-hating schools that "blames America first?" I guess ABC journalist Ted Koppel of "Nightline" must be an American-hating commie, too, as he documented one of these shipments of mustard gas to Iraq on one of his programs.

Note in particular the following points:

*Early in the war, Iraq began using chemical weapons, especially mustard gas. Iran attempted unsuccessfully to induce the US and the UN to apply pressure on Iraq to withdraw and to cease using chemical weapons.

*It was widely known in the United States that Iraq was gassing Iranians on an almost daily basis. By the end of the war, Iraq had gassed tens of thousands of Iranians.

*Reagan issued a secret directive ordering American officials to do whatever was necessary to prevent the Iraqis from losing the war.

*The US sold the Iraqis cluster bombs through a Chilean front, which were used on Iran.

*US officials authorized American companies (like Dow Jones) to sell Iraq compounds that were known to be used to produce Anthrax.

*The US gave the Iraqis several billion dollars in debt-forgiveness and credits, even though it was known that these funds had been recently used to procure weapons.

*Reagan had Iraq removed from the Department of State’s list of terrorist states.

*After the Gulf War, many of the weapons Iraq was to be stripped of turned out to have been manufactured by American companies, such as Union Carbide and Honeywell.

*The Reagan administration never issued a public condemnation of either the invasion of Iran or of the use of mustard gas.

*At various points, members of Congress suggested sanctions or severing ties with Iraq, however none of these suggestions generated much enthusiasm, and the White House repeatedly urged Congressional leaders not to act.

http://www.princeton.edu/~dmoller/Gulf%20war%20issues.pdf

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

04:47 PM

Comments

Are we done with your claims that these United States provided Saddam with WMD?

As to your latest nonsense: Once again you post lies

General Butler DID NOT SAY “WAR IS A RACKET.”

This is what General Butler had to say, (clipped from your own cite!)

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."

So it would seem that even an America-Firster like General Butler would whole-heartedly approve of this, our war against terror. Were we not attacked on our own soil on 9/11? Of course, you America haters think we deserved it.

Are you still having fun?

"If Bill Clinton was AWOL, why wasn't he charged?"

A very detailed analysis of Big Bill’s draft dodging – including his infamous ROTC letter and a NOTARIZED statement from Colonel Eugene Holmes (ret) – the man Clinton duped.

GWB, on the other hand, joined the Air National Guard and served his term. The Boston Globe article about his supposed absence was the usual attempt by the Dims at a campaign smear, but went nowhere because there wasn’t a paper trail – the Guard unit in Alabama had lost all of its records for those years.

Now a man as fair-minded as you pretend to be ought to be horrified by Clinton’s antics, and for sure you’d cut GWB some slack because there simply isn’t any evidence to back your case (I think the folks interviewed by the Boston Globe REFUSED to sign notarized statements).

And yeah, I can understand why Powell would have an animus for Bill Clinton – but he does hide it well.

Are you still having fun?

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

04:55 PM

Comments

I guess you haven’t given up on your baseless charges that an American President provided WMD to Saddam.

You claim to provide the “latest info. on our sale of chemical/biological weapons and weapons technology to Iraq during the 1980s “

1. “OUR” sale? No – you hate “us”. You don’t speak for me or for most Americans. And you’ll find this out again November next.

2. The URL you provided is not working – there ain’t no such page at PU.

But, because I’m such a nice guy (and I AM having fun), I looked up some references.

As far as I can tell, the only source material any of these America haters have relied upon is the Reigle report we talked about yesterday – you have NO NEW SOURCES – just more “opinions”.

The Riegle report –FOUND THAT LITTLE OF SADDAM’s SUPPLIES CAME FROM THE US, and THAT IT WAS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PREVENT THESE TRANSFERS.

And, the Riegle report correctly points out that it was the COMMERCE Dept, NOT THE CIA, which provided export licenses for the small amounts of dual use chemicals that Saddam’s agents slipped by us.

Indeed, The Baltimore company Alcolac was convicted of illegally selling thiodiglycol—a chemical precursor used in the production of mustard gas—for use in Iraq’s chemical warfare program. IT WAS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PREVENT THESE TRANSFERS.

Do some homework and find some evidence that ANY US Administration provided Saddam with WMD.

But if you actually had the ability to do your homework -- you wouldn't have washed out of the Naval Acadamy.

Are you still having fun?

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

05:00 PM

Comments

Sorry, I omitted the URL for Big Bill's draft dodging:

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/clintonholmes.html

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

05:34 PM

Comments

"Why the Right Hates America"

Good rebuttal for those who always contend that liberals "hate America."

http://www.counterpunch.org/zepezauer02282003.html

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

05:43 PM

Comments

The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) – US Policy Issues (Princeton University)

Here is some background that is important to understanding American policy during the Iran-Iraq war.

• In 1953, the CIA overthrew the elected premier, Mossadeq, after he had begun to nationalize the British oil operations in Iran and made clear his left-leaning inclinations. (Cp. the US overthrow of the leftist Arbenz regime in Guatemala around the same time, at the instigation of the United Fruit Company.) • In Mossadeq’s place, the US installed the shah as supreme ruler • After the CIA-led coup, American oil companies which had previously held no concessions in Iran obtained 40% of the oil business, and the shah pursued America-friendly right-leaning policies • The shah’s regime was extremely unpopular and was considered brutally oppressive. Torture was practiced on a routine basis by the secret police unit, SAVAK • In 1979 the shah fled the country amid rioting and general chaos, and the Shiite religious leader Khomeini returned from exile to lead the country. Though parliamentary democracy continued, ultimate (though not sole) power was vested in a circle of clerics, led by Khomeini, who had shah-sympathizers executed and gradually banned most opposition parties • Also in 1979, the shah, who suffered from cancer, was granted asylum by the US, with American officials citing medical and humanitarian reasons • When this news broke in Iran, the American embassy was stormed and hostages were taken. The hostage crisis lasted until 1981, when all were released unharmed. (It is important to note that these hostages were not the same hostages as those involved in the Reagan-era Iran-Contra/arms-for-hostages scandal—see below.)

In 1980, then, intense anti-Americanism prevailed in Iran, largely due to (a) the overthrow of Mossadeq, (b) the support for the shah, (c) the sense of exploitation at the hands of American businesses in collaboration with US-appointed leaders, and (d) US support for Israel. In the US, deep hostility toward Iran was caused mainly by, (a) the hostage crisis, (b) the general anti-American policies of the Khomeini regime, (c) a fear of the spread of Khomeini-style radical-Islam, and (d) the anti-Israeli policies of Iran. (The usual cold-war worries, however, did not apply—Iran’s new theocracy wasn’t sympathetic to Soviet communism.)

Here are some important facets of the Iran-Iraq war and US policy.

• Though there had been minor territorial disputes between Iran and Iraq, the main cause of the war was probably Hussein’s fear of the Iraqi Shiite majority revolting—the dreaded “exporting of the revolution.” Khomeini did in fact call on Shiites to revolt, and there were assassination attempts on Iraqi officials. The invasion, however, was militarily unprovoked and unilateral. • Other ME nations supported Iraq heavily with money and weapons. They too feared the spread of Shiite/Islamic unrest. It is also important to remember that the Iranians aren’t Arab, and so presented the triple-threat of (a) subversive revolutionary Islam, (b) Shiite heterodoxy, and (c) non-Arabism. • After initial Iraqi gains, the war settled into a bloody stalemate, though there were times when Iran seemed to be close to a decisive victory. The war ended with the borders virtually unchanged. Casualties were in the hundreds of thousands. • Officially, the US was neutral between the two parties. • Many nations, including the US, Israel, and the Germans profited from selling weapons to one or both sides. • Early in the war, Iraq began using chemical weapons, especially mustard gas. Iran attempted unsuccessfully to induce the US and the UN to apply pressure on Iraq to withdraw and to cease using chemical weapons. • It was widely known in the United States that Iraq was gassing Iranians on an almost daily basis. By the end of the war, Iraq had gassed tens of thousands of Iranians. • In 1983 Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld, visited Hussein on a good-will visit. According to Rumsfeld, he “cautioned” Hussein about the use of chemical weapons. According to the Washington Post, the Department of State has clarified this claim, saying that the caution was issued to a lesser official and was mentioned “in passing.” • Reagan issued a secret directive ordering American officials to do whatever was necessary to prevent the Iraqis from losing the war. • Reagan officials approved giving the Iraqis information about Iranian troop-movements • The US sold the Iraqis cluster bombs through a Chilean front, which were used on Iran • US officials authorized American companies (like Dow Jones) to sell Iraq compounds that were known to be used to produce Anthrax • The US gave the Iraqis several billion dollars in debt-forgiveness and credits, even though it was known that these funds had been recently used to procure weapons. • Reagan had Iraq removed from the Department of State’s list of terrorist states • After the Gulf War, many of the weapons Iraq was to be stripped of turned out to have been manufactured by American companies, such as Union Carbide and Honeywell • The Reagan administration never issued a public condemnation of either the invasion of Iran or of the use of mustard gas. • At various points, members of Congress suggested sanctions or severing ties with Iraq, however none of these suggestions generated much enthusiasm, and the White House repeatedly urged Congressional leaders not to act

The events dubbed the Iran-contra scandal occurred during the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan officials sold weapons systems to the Iranians in exchange for their using their influence to have hostages taken in Lebanon released. The funds thus obtained were used to fund the Contras, who were right-leaning rebels fighting the elected leftist government in Nicaragua (the Sandinistas). This was questionable, inter alia, because Congress had passed laws forbidding such funding at various points. (The UN World Court later found the US guilty of state-sponsored terrorism in this connection and ordered a large indemnity paid, though the US refused to comply.)

Several of the major Reagan officials never were tried because Bush Sr. pardoned them “pre-emptively” before trial. (Bush would have been called to testify under oath had these trials occurred.) It is also worth noting that a Reagan official, Abrams, who was convicted of perjury and pardoned by Bush Sr. was recently appointed to an important post on the NSC overseeing Middle East strategy by Bush Jr. Nations in the Middle East have raised questions about why convicted criminals are being appointed to important government posts.

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

06:09 PM

Comments

Why the Right Hates America If They Love America So Much, Why Are They Working Overtime to Destroy It?

Huh? Who's doing what to "try to destroy America"?

Oh, the author thinks "the right" hates rock and roll. Of course, this author would never have listened to the foremost conservative radio personality, Rush Limbaugh -- WHO INTRODUCES EACH OF HIS SEGMENTS WITH HIS FAVORITE TUNES.

What a bunch of morons!

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

06:12 PM

Comments

"Why the Right Hates America"

Clearly neither you nor the author of this piece gets it.

Conservatives accuse those who blame America first of hating America. And it's a fair assessment. You Dims loathe the US of A and wish you could just be appointed kings for life to control all of us.

What does this piece have to say? That "the right hates Rock&Roll? What silliness!

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

06:39 PM

Comments

To the sailor who’s looking for a good time:

“is Princeton University a credible academic source?” Yeah, but the pdf you got from a student’s web site sure isn’t.

Here’s how Dan J. Moller (enrolled in the graduate school for Philosophy) describes this tract:

Here are some handouts from classes I have precepted for (Philosophy Descartes-Kant, Moral Philosophy, Middle-Eastern Politics). Precepting at Princeton involves instructing several small classes of students who also attend lectures given by regular faculty.”

Here’s the real URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~dmoller/Gulf%20war%20issues.pdf

Now what’s wrong with this picture:

1. This is not an academic paper. It’s a handout for an American hating history course – and there’s lots of those in the Ivy league.

2. There’s no bibliography – no recitation of sources. These are just the professor’s opinions.

3. The only official findings of fact were done by the Riegle commission. We’ve discussed this. Do you have anything more to add?

Buddy, you have yet to demonstrate conscious thought. You mindlessly repeat the rantings of other America haters and you can’t back up the bile you spew.

I repeat: NO US ADMINISTRATION EVER PROVIDED SADDAM WITH WMD.

Prove me a liar. At least demonstrate some ability to marshal facts and make cogent arguments.

Are you still having a good time?

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

06:57 PM

Comments

Got this off of the website of Col. David Hackworth, U.S. Army (ret.), a legendary, highly decorated battlefield commander in the Vietnam War. Dammit, how are all these American-hating commies able to join the U.S. military without being detected?

Protecting U.S. Oil Interests in Iraq

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

07:13 PM

Comments

"What's Happened to America?"

A concise, lucid and thought-provoking article. I think the answer to the question posed by the title can be summarized in a few quotes from this article: "Americans have been schooled into compliance and complacency." And "Years of incessant propaganda have led to this sorry state. The people have let themselves be reduced from citizens to subjects. Independent thought, rigorous questioning, and rational skepticism - the marks of free people - now indicate a lack of patriotism, even 'treason.' In their place we find obeisance, obedience, and fear."

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0307g.asp

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

07:28 PM

Comments

How dare these Gulf War veterans accuse the U.S. of supplying chemical weapons to Iraq! They must be America-hating pinko commies! They must have studied under America-hating professors at Princeton! We need to raise Joseph McCarthy from the dead to rid the military of all these America-hating communists! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

http://www.rense.com/general29/chenam.htm

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

08:07 PM

Comments

I appreciate your humor, but we know the real America haters are liberals.

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

08:09 PM

Comments

Why do you think Hack’s a commie? For sure he’s disgruntled and went WAY out on a limb criticizing Rumsfeld. And Hack is WAY out of date on the modern military. And Hack never made general officer (boy that ticks him off).

But for sure he’s a patriot.

Of course, that doesn’t make him any smarter than the moronic libs who hate America.

Anyway … you should read the cites you proffer to all of us.

As I read the one you provided, “Instead of bailing-out the Iraqi people, new debt for Iraq’s people will formally accrue through the program that President Bush pledged would "benefit the people of Iraq."

It makes sense to me. Why should I as an American pay to rebuild Iraq? Shouldn’t Iraq use its vast oil wealth to finance its own reconstruction? How can anyone object to this – unless they hate America?

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

08:16 PM

Comments

A concise, lucid and thought-provoking article.?

I can understand that you felt “moved” by this silliness – but I think it was your bowels and not your brains. On second thought …

Seriously, what’s lucid – or concise – about ‘Americans have been schooled into compliance and complacency." And "Years of incessant propaganda have led to this sorry state. The people have let themselves be reduced from citizens to subjects. Independent thought, rigorous questioning, and rational skepticism - the marks of free people - now indicate a lack of patriotism, even 'treason.' In their place we find obeisance, obedience, and fear."

If your going to make a case, then cite some evidence. This moron publishes pure bullcr*p and you fall for it.

Show me an example of this “incessant propaganda”

Tell me how you measure how “compliant” Americans have become.

Oh, but it sounds right to you.

Why? Because America isn’t buying the liberal line of crap anymore. Therefore we must be “damaged”

Date:

08/20/03

Time:

08:26 PM

Comments

To our navy guy:

“How dare these Gulf War veterans accuse the U.S. of supplying chemical weapons to Iraq!”

I’m sorry, I’m stupid. I read your cite and I can’t find any such reference. Yeah, the piece is titled and sub-titled, “US Supplies, Calibrates And Endorses Use Of Chemical Weapons In Iraq“, and it is just another diatribe without citations -- but I can’t find any claims within the document that the US supplied Iraq with Chemical weapons.

Don’t you think you ought to read your tripe before posting it? Oh, wait -- that's why you washed out of the Naval Acadamy.

Oh, now you’re raising the aegis of “McCarthyism” to defend yourself. Good Luck. Read Ann Coulter’s new book.

Are you still having fun?

Go to top of the page

Go to current Message Board

Last updated on 09/19/10