Why Bush Should be Impeached

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Don't make fun of skeptic's post like that! It ain't easy having to make up so much bull droppings. :) You may not want to believe what I post, but I challenge you to present hard empirical evidence to support your position. So far, I have seen no hard evidence for Bush's original justification for his preemptive invasion. If Bush had not lied about WMD and the alleged threat posed by Iraq, but had simply justified the invasion by telling everyone that war was necessary because Saddam was such a bad guy, even though he posed no serious threat to America, Bush would never have gotten Congress or the American people to go along with it.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You may not want to believe what I post, but I challenge you to present hard empirical evidence to support your position. So far, I have seen no hard evidence for Bush's original justification for his preemptive invasion. If Bush had not lied about WMD and the alleged threat posed by Iraq, but had simply justified the invasion by telling everyone that war was necessary because Saddam was such a bad guy, even though he posed no serious threat to America, Bush would never have gotten Congress or the American people to go along with it.

Bottom line, what we did in Iraq was a good thing.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Bottom line, what we did in Iraq was a good thing. And, as I'm sure you're aware, no good deed goes unpunished.

Am I cynical or what?:cool:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
And, as I'm sure you're aware, no good deed goes unpunished.

Am I cynical or what?:cool:

Compared to Septic? You're extremely optimistic! :D

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Bottom line, what we did in Iraq was a good thing. No, the bottom line is, what we did in Iraq (unnecessarily kill thousands of people and destroy their infrastructure) was unjustified and WRONG!

More and more people are coming to realize this! :thumb:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, the bottom line is, what we did in Iraq (unnecessarily kill thousands of people and destroy their infrastructure) was unjustified and WRONG!

More and more people are coming to realize this! :thumb:

No, bottom line is, what terrorists did in the USA (unnecessarily kill thousands of people and completely destroy two magnificent buildings and attempted to destroy another) was unjustified and WRONG!

More and more people don't have to realize this because most reasonable people already did.

No 9/11, no attack on Iraq.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You may not want to believe what I post, but I challenge you to present hard empirical evidence to support your position. So far, I have seen no hard evidence for Bush's original justification for his preemptive invasion. If Bush had not lied about WMD and the alleged threat posed by Iraq, but had simply justified the invasion by telling everyone that war was necessary because Saddam was such a bad guy, even though he posed no serious threat to America, Bush would never have gotten Congress or the American people to go along with it.

Pssst...Skeptic...shh....don't tell nobody, but....
I have slight qualms about whether or not Bush's war is justified. Sometimes, I am all for it. Sometimes, I forget how its justified, and rethink the whole thing. My conservative buddies seem to all think that this war is beyond reproach, and that those who try to protest this war are a disgrace to all war protesters. Ne modo. All I know is that Saddam isn't in power any more. And we can't change the past.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
No 9/11, no attack on Iraq. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq is purely psychological, due to the Bush propaganda machine. Again, there is no hard evidence linking the events on 9/11 and any actions on the part of Iraq!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Compared to Septic? You're extremely optimistic! :D If the certainty that something bad will happen = extreme optimism, then you're right...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
All I know is that Saddam isn't in power any more. And we can't change the past. But, we CAN change the future by not allowing such an unjustified preemptive invasion of a country again! One way to change the future is to get rid of Bush, and restore integrity and trust to the White House!!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But, we CAN change the future by not allowing such an unjustified preemptive invasion of a country again! One way to change the future is to get rid of Bush, and restore integrity and trust to the White House!! Noble old thoughts, but I wouldn't be surprised if BushCo moved to suspend the '04 election, if they believe they're in real danger of losing...

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The connection between 9/11 and Iraq is purely psychological, due to the Bush propaganda machine. Again, there is no hard evidence linking the events on 9/11 and any actions on the part of Iraq!

In fact...if 9/11 had not happened, the US would not have attacked Iraq regardless of what the real reasons may have been.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
In fact...if 9/11 had not happened, the US would not have attacked Iraq regardless of what the real reasons may have been. If 9/11 hadn't happened, BushCo would've come up with some other reason to attack Iraq.

After all, they are "swimming in oil"...

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But, we CAN change the future by not allowing such an unjustified preemptive invasion of a country again! One way to change the future is to get rid of Bush, and restore integrity and trust to the White House!! as Iv'e said you are right when you say some of the jusification he gave was pretty lame, but "if you support terrorism you are a terrorist was right on target with Saddam" The correct answer is SADDAM NEEDED KILLING!!! Also among the really good reasons for the "preemptive invasion " was to send a messeage to Korea.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
If 9/11 hadn't happened, BushCo would've come up with some other reason to attack Iraq.

After all, they are "swimming in oil"... plus that whole Saddam needs killing thing

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
If 9/11 hadn't happened, BushCo would've come up with some other reason to attack Iraq.


You don't know that for sure. No one does.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
You don't know that for sure. No one does. Considering how "ends justify means" the Bushies are, I'm convinced they're capable of anything...including suspending the '04 election if it is to their advantage to do so...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
plus that whole Saddam needs killing thing So, does Kim Jong Il "need killing"?

Or is that too risky?

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
So, does Kim Jong Il "need killing"?

Or is that too risky? he does need killing but yes it would be too risky because our government both D and R lacked the wisdom to keep him from persuing Nukes

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
he does need killing but yes it would be too risky because our government both D and R lacked the wisdom to keep him from persuing Nukes Coward. What are a few cities going up in smoke? Small price to pay to defeat a tyrant, says I.

Anyway, NK doesn't have the means to hit the continental US; their newest missile might hit Alaska if it was aimed really well and had a strong tail wind.

And even if they could hit the West Coast, most of the posters here don't consider that much of a loss. If this bunch of Good Christians™ are willing to accept that kind of a write-off, why aren't you?

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But, we CAN change the future by not allowing such an unjustified preemptive invasion of a country again! One way to change the future is to get rid of Bush, and restore integrity and trust to the White House!!
Okay then, since the Republicans don't have integrity, and the Democrats certainly don't have integrity, let's quit the two-choices-only democracy and vote for a third-party candidate.

Vote Libertarian, Win A Free Country!
www.lp.org

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
Coward. What are a few cities going up in smoke? Small price to pay to defeat a tyrant, says I.

Anyway, NK doesn't have the means to hit the continental US; their newest missile might hit Alaska if it was aimed really well and had a strong tail wind.

And even if they could hit the West Coast, most of the posters here don't consider that much of a loss. If this bunch of Good Christians™ are willing to accept that kind of a write-off, why aren't you? The West coast? hmmm that wouldn't be so bad but I'm not willing to risk Japan

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
So far, I have seen no hard evidence for Bush's original justification for his preemptive invasion.

Billy;
Sure you have, you just prefer to ignore it to perpetuate your commie agenda.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
The West coast? hmmm that wouldn't be so bad but I'm not willing to risk Japan They'd be one of the first ones hit and you know it; Korean animosity towards the Japanese goes back centuries.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
In fact...if 9/11 had not happened, the US would not have attacked Iraq regardless of what the real reasons may have been. What's your point? Yes, Bush used the psychological impact of 9/11 to win support for his unnecessary invasion of Iraq, even though the invasion had ZERO to do with the "war on terrorism." But, because Bush said so, and keeps saying so (have you heard him lately? he can't mention Iraq without saying the word "terrorism" in the same sentence), gullible Americans believe there is a connection.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
as Iv'e said you are right when you say some of the jusification he gave was pretty lame, but "if you support terrorism you are a terrorist was right on target with Saddam" The correct answer is SADDAM NEEDED KILLING!!! We sure did a good job of killing Saddam, didn't we? Yes siree BillyBob!! The job we did was analogous to using a giant fly swatter to kill one fly in a swarm of flies sitting on a table - only when we swat the mass of flies, we kill thousands, but the one we really wanted to kill flew away as the swatter came down. Nice job, Bush!! :kookoo:

Also among the really good reasons for the "preemptive invasion " was to send a message to Korea. Yea, and the message was: You'd better finish building those nukes quick, because if you don't, you won't have anything to deter an invasion by the U.S.

I think N. Korea got the message before the preemptive invasion of Iraq. Nice job, Bush!! :kookoo:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Vote Libertarian, Win A Free Country! Libertarians don't have a clue about human nature. They, more than most R and Ds, are under the illusion that freedom means exercise of some mythical "free will." Dems, more than Reps, understand that humans are significantly influenced by other people and surrounding environments and are not individual autonomous islands free to choose as if in some barrier-free vacuum. The sooner we recognize that we are all biological robots programed by the complex interaction of our environment, history, and genes, the sooner we can make rational scientific choices about how we can peacefully coexist on this planet.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What's your point? Yes, Bush used the psychological impact of 9/11 to win support for his unnecessary invasion of Iraq, even though the invasion had ZERO to do with the "war on terrorism." But, because Bush said so, and keeps saying so (have you heard him lately? he can't mention Iraq without saying the word "terrorism" in the same sentence), gullible Americans believe there is a connection.

Why should I repeat what my point is when it was right there in front of your face?

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The sooner we recognize that we are all biological robots programed by the complex interaction of our environment, history, and genes, the sooner we can make rational scientific choices about how we can peacefully coexist on this planet.
That sounds exactly like something an extra-terrestrial would say meeting his first earthling, right before the earthling would turn the alien into swiss cheese with a 12-guage. I am convinced Skeptic is from a far distant galaxy. Rational science will NOT create true peace. If you know human nature so well, you should know better than to say we can create peaceful coexistence, through science of all things! Human Nature 101 -- A Human is not a Biological Robot!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
So far, I have seen no hard evidence for Bush's original justification for his preemptive invasion.

Billy;
Sure you have, you just prefer to ignore it to perpetuate your commie agenda. List your hard evidence right now!

Remember, hard evidence is not "Bush said this", "Clinton believed that", "the CIA or the Pentagon said whatever." No more he-said/she-said. Bring on your hard evidence that Iraq was a significant enough threat to America that Bush had to launch a preemptive invasion, killing thousands of people in the process. What hard evidence do you have that America would certainly have been attacked if the U.S. had not massively invaded Iraq when it did? Is your evidence some alleged abandoned terrorist training camp? Is your evidence some alleged Iraqi financial support to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Is your evidence some trailer that has turned out to be something other than a biochem mobile weapons lab? Is your evidence about some Niger-yellowcake uranium? Is your evidence about Iraq's pre-1991 WMD? :chuckle:

And if Bush and the Pentagon were so certain Iraq was a threat, then why have they not repeatedly come on national television and list all of the hard evidence they had before they preemptively invaded Iraq? All I ever hear from Bush and his cronies is "... and Iraq WAS about the war on terrorism." Yet, he does not support his statements with hard empirical evidence. It's all just rhetoric to win support of gullible Americans.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Human Nature 101 -- A Human is not a Biological Robot! Humans are indeed highly sophisticated biological robots - far more complex than any non-biological robot you've ever seen. This is true as evidenced by the LACK of evidence for ANY other rational explanation for what we are made of and how we work! The "soul" theory is totally nonsensical. That leaves us with only a brain and body interacting in very complex ways with our environment. We are all composed of atoms, molecules, cells, and organs - nothing else. That makes us purely physical beings. That makes us biological robots governed by the laws of physics.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Humans are indeed highly sophisticated biological robots - far more complex than any non-biological robot you've ever seen. This is true as evidenced by the LACK of evidence for ANY other rational explanation for what we are made of and how we work! The "soul" theory is totally nonsensical. That leaves us with only a brain and body interacting in very complex ways with our environment. We are all composed of atoms, molecules, cells, and organs - nothing else. That makes us purely physical beings. That makes us biological robots governed by the laws of physics.

Speak for yourself, Septic.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Speak for yourself, Septic. This is not just my perspective. It is scientific fact.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
We sure did a good job of killing Saddam, didn't we? Yes siree BillyBob!! The job we did was analogous to using a giant fly swatter to kill one fly in a swarm of flies sitting on a table - only when we swat the mass of flies, we kill thousands, but the one we really wanted to kill flew away as the swatter came down. Nice job, Bush!! :kookoo:

Yea, and the message was: You'd better finish building those nukes quick, because if you don't, you won't have anything to deter an invasion by the U.S.

I think N. Korea got the message before the preemptive invasion of Iraq. Nice job, Bush!! :kookoo: So are you saying that missing the target makes it a bad idea? No we didn't get kill saddam yet but we sure got his boys we've got him hideing in a cave somewhere ( and we will get him) and if bush has the wisdom to finish the job a distroy the will of the enemy completely then Iraq will become our alli just as Japan has.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
They'd be one of the first ones hit and you know it; Korean animosity towards the Japanese goes back centuries. yup that was my point

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is not just my perspective. It is scientific fact.

:rolleyes:Right... The day you can disprove the spirit is the day you can claim this. Good luck with that, numnutz.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by philosophizer
:rolleyes:Right... The day you can disprove the spirit is the day you can claim this. Good luck with that, numnutz. You're in the same boat, friend. The existence of any kind of non-corporeal "spirit" has yet to be conclusively demonstrated.

If it had, the demonstrator would be 1.1 million dollars richer...

[philosophizer]

But Skeptic is the one with the religious commitment to "empirical evidence." Just seems like a substitute for knowledge to me. But then again, Skeptic is just a biological robot.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by philosophizer
But Skeptic is the one with the religious commitment to "empirical evidence." Just seems like a substitute for knowledge to me. But then again, Skeptic is just a biological robot. Empirical evidence is a substitute for knowledge? I don't know about you, but empirical evidence is all I have to go on when looking at the world.

To remain true to your belief in a non-corporeal spirit (and, I presume, non-corporeal beings like angels and demons), you have no choice but to consider both material and non-material causes for events.

For example, if I fall down the stairs, it is either because I'm clumsy or some invisible being made me fall. Do you entertain both possibilities? If you believe in non-corporeal "spirits" that regularly interact with the material world, you must!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by philosophizer
:rolleyes:Right... The day you can disprove the spirit is the day you can claim this. Good luck with that, numnutz. I don't have to prove anything, if I don't make the claim. It is YOU who makes the claim that spirits exist. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

If I claim leprechauns exist, then it is up to me to prove it. It is not up to you to prove leprechauns don't exist. The burden of proof is on the claimant, buddy. Didn't you learn that in Philosophy 101?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is not just my perspective. It is scientific fact.

When are you going to ask Knight to change your username to Septic since that's where what you spew out belongs, in a septic tank.

That way, all the people that know the truth at TOL could be antiseptic. :chuckle:

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I don't have to prove anything, if I don't make the claim. It is YOU who makes the claim that spirits exist. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

If I claim leprechauns exist, then it is up to me to prove it. It is not up to you to prove leprechauns don't exist. The burden of proof is on the claimant, buddy. Didn't you learn that in Philosophy 101?

Oh, but you did make a claim.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Humans are indeed highly sophisticated biological robots - far more complex than any non-biological robot you've ever seen. This is true as evidenced by the LACK of evidence for ANY other rational explanation for what we are made of and how we work! The "soul" theory is totally nonsensical. That leaves us with only a brain and body interacting in very complex ways with our environment. We are all composed of atoms, molecules, cells, and organs - nothing else. That makes us purely physical beings. That makes us biological robots governed by the laws of physics.
Originally posted by Skeptic
This is not just my perspective. It is scientific fact.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
List your hard evidence right now!

Billy;
I have done so countless times, you choose to ignore it and the reality that you are just a liberal partisan hack who would, rather that look at things objectively, prefer to deride and berate a President who is trying to save your Silly NEOCOM @$$!

Go vote for Hillary Clinton and see where that gets ya.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
List your hard evidence right now!

billy;
I have done so countless times, you choose to ignore it and the reality that you are just a liberal partisan hack who would, rather that look at things objectively, prefer to deride and berate a President who is trying to save you Silly NEOCOM @$$!

Go vote for Hillary Clinton and see where that gets ya.

I'll second that!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
...you are just a liberal partisan hack who would, rather that look at things objectively, prefer to deride and berate a President who is trying to save you Silly NEOCOM @$$!Well, I'm no liberal hack, but I do enjoy deriding and berating the President.

But that's 'cause he invites abuse, and it would be rude to not provide it...
:cool:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
Well, I'm no liberal hack, but I do enjoy deriding and berating the President.

But that's 'cause he invites abuse, and it would be rude to not provide it...
:cool:

Which President hasn't?

[BillyBob]

Clinton.

[philosophizer]

Clinton didn't invite abuse? Well then, consider it charity. :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

:D

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Clinton. Oh really?

Remind me to tell you one day about some of my Clinton commentary (though I suspect that lurid descriptions of bizarre acts involving farm animals and certain vegetables and fruits would be less than welcome on these boards...).

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Oh, but you did make a claim. No, you said: "The day you can disprove the spirit is the day you can claim this." It is YOU who are claiming the existence of a spirit, not me. Therefore, it is up to you to prove the existence of a spirit.

I claim that humans are biological robots. I have already proven this by citing the total lack of any empirical evidence for anything but physical constituents of humans. Since there is no empirical evidence for a soul or anything spiritual, what are we left with? The natural material world. It is no problem for me to prove the natural. It is a BIG problem for you to scientifically prove the supernatural. And, since all life exists as material entities in a material world, humans are biological robots, as are all living things.

As for spirits, the burden of proof is still on you!

[Lucky]

Originally posted by wholearmor
When are you going to ask Knight to change your username to Septic since that's where what you spew out belongs, in a septic tank.

That way, all the people that know the truth at TOL could be antiseptic. :chuckle:
That really cracked me up w.a. :thumb:

Since Septic's philosophy seems to be bound by the laws of the Evolutionism faith and religion, I feel sorry for the guy. He thinks all that there is is eighty-or-so bio-robotic years to roam the planet earth. If I put my faith in that empty cup, I would probably have drank the Koolaid a long time ago. But there is hope for him. The Christians who are best at apologetics are usually former-skeptics. At least, I have concluded that after much observation, but we all know how limited human observation is, even with Ph.D. for glasses.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
No, you said: "The day you can disprove the spirit is the day you can claim this." It is YOU who are claiming the existence of a spirit, not me. Therefore, it is up to you to prove the existence of a spirit.

Billy;
OK, as much as I hate to do it, I'm gonna have to agree with Skeptic here. Logic dictates that it is impossible to prove a negative, therefore, Skeptic could never be able to prove that the Spirit doesn't exist.

OK, so as it stands now:
Skeptic 1
The rest of us 35,473

[Tye Porter]

Originally posted by Skeptic
:yawn:

Anybody else smell smoke?
Or is that lighter fluid?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Lucky8
Since Septic's philosophy seems to be bound by the laws of the Evolutionism faith and religion, I feel sorry for the guy. He thinks all that there is is eighty-or-so bio-robotic years to roam the planet earth. If I put my faith in that empty cup, I would probably have drank the Koolaid a long time ago.And the world would have been made brighter thereby...:rolleyes:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
And the world would have been made brighter thereby...:rolleyes:

You just made it darker with that comment. :down:

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Gerald
And the world would have been made brighter thereby...:rolleyes:

Bite your tongue Lucky, just bite your tongue. :shut:

[Behira]

America is a soverign nation.....is it?

Give your definition of "soverign nation" and list five pieces of varifiable data (varifiable by any common citizen) that proves that it is soverign.

[Tye Porter]

Originally posted by Behira
America is a soverign nation.....is it?

Give your definition of "soverign nation" and list five pieces of varifiable data (varifiable by any common citizen) that proves that it is soverign.

While he is doing that, provide the antithesis. But do not wait for him to post his, so you can simply debate the points.
PS. Don't be an idiot!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
You just made it darker with that comment. :down:
That's my job!

I'm Evil Incarnate™, remember?

:cool: :D :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
While he is doing that, provide the antithesis. But do not wait for him to post his, so you can simply debate the points.
PS. Don't be an idiot! Go away, TP. Go back to doing that thing you do...with the sheep and the Reddi-Whip...
:ha:

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by BillyBob
OK, as much as I hate to do it, I'm gonna have to agree with Skeptic here. Logic dictates that it is impossible to prove a negative, therefore, Skeptic could never be able to prove that the Spirit doesn't exist.

Yeah, but that was sorta my point.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
List your hard evidence right now!

Billy;
I have done so countless times, you choose to ignore it and the reality that you are just a liberal partisan hack who would, rather that look at things objectively, prefer to deride and berate a President who is trying to save your Silly NEOCOM @$$! The evidence you have presented is not HARD evidence, but either hearsay, suspicions, unsubstantiated claims, or insignificant claims. You have also listed a bunch of people who said they believed Iraq had WMD just before the invasion. Word and beliefs are not enough.

If Bush is trying to save our @$$es, he has failed miserably!! By invading Iraq, he did not show the Islamic terrorists around the world who's the boss. Rather, it simply motivated moderates to become more radical, and incited more hatred against America. The more Islamic terrorists we kill, without addressing the issues of the Islamic world, the more radical Islamic terrorists there will be!! This has made America less safe!! Bush will have to take some responsibility for any increase in terrorist attacks against America. The sooner Bush is gone, the sooner we can begin making America safer!

And because Bush unnecessarily invaded Iraq, killing thousands of people, without U.N. approval, Bush's recent pleas for military and other assistance from the U.N. are in vain. Therefore, there will be little help from other countries, and American troops will primarily be the ones to continue to die. Bush has made one bad decision after another, with regard to Iraq. Which is why his @$$ is going to be out of the White House in Nov '04.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Yeah, but that was sorta my point. So, one justification for your belief is that others cannot disprove that which is impossible to disprove? :kookoo:

Still waiting for you and your buddies to disprove leprechauns. :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
By invading Iraq, he did not show the Islamic terrorists around the world who's the boss. Rather, it simply motivated moderates to become more radical, and incited more hatred against America. The more Islamic terrorists we kill, without addressing the issues of the Islamic world, the more radical Islamic terrorists there will be!!I suspect the response to this will be "Good! We can kill that many more ragheads with a clear conscience!" or something to that effect...
Which is why his [Bush's] @$$ is going to be out of the White House in Nov '04. You hope. Me, I'm more concerned about a possible "State of Emergency" scenario...:noway:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Gerald
I suspect the response to this will be "Good! We can kill that many more ragheads with a clear conscience!" or something to that effect... I suspect you're right.

You hope. Me, I'm more concerned about a possible "State of Emergency" scenario...:noway: Thanks to Bush, before the elections, it is increasingly likely we will have another major terrorist attack against America. And I'm sure Bush and the neocons would reap the benefits. Maybe they should stage an attack, ... for the good of the party. Hey, they fabricated reasons to invade Iraq! I'm sure they can come up with a plan to instill more fear in voting Americans. Remember, "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
The evidence you have presented is not HARD evidence,

Billy;
If Osama detonated a nuclear bomb in the middle of LA, you would not consider that 'hard evidence' either. You would try to explain that it is the fault of the US and George Bush and if we had just stopped having freedom and prosperity, this never would have happened. Besides, how do we really know it was Osama? Maybe Dick Cheney was behind it to help his oil buddy stay in office. Maybe there never really was an LA!

Silly Neocom.

[mrsnacks]

Billy Bob said:
If Osama detonated a nuclear bomb in the middle of LA, you would not consider that 'hard evidence' either.
______________________________

If" wishes were fishes fallacy." Let's deal with the present not this if business. Can I particiipate too??
if President Bush vacated His presidency for a week and the country had to vote who would take his place and Samuel Jackson won . And by winning he first increased the size of big government ( because that's what the American people want ---bigger government ) and then he increased aid to Israel from the current 10 billion a year to 20 billion to make the dispensationalists happy . Then he sent his Hollywood friends over to entertain the troops in Iraq (if Cheney and the oil execs can make money over the rebuliding why can't his friends benefit also) and approved paying each entertainer 3 million a piece per show. Then he bought out all existing flag making companies so when he sent troops into war with N.Korea flag sales would soar. Then he raised gas prices for no reason (just temporarily ) and then lowered them for a few months just to give the people a short break without explaining to the public why he raised the prices in the first place ( American people don't care ). Then after a week Bush returned --- would Jackson have done a good job and now will you finally admit HE'S THE GREATEST AND NOT ALI ???????????????????:jump:

[BillyBob]

That was stupid and pointless.

[mrsnacks]

You are right. That was my point.
I was just mirroring your
" if wishes were fishes "
fallacy. Let's deal with now .

Plus lighten up. I get so upset at the politics and the way this country is going . I have come to realize it really doesn't matter what I think or what anyone thinks ---the government is gonna do whatever it's gonna do. And people will generally believe what they want. My frustration is that I feel powerless and insignificant in the scheme of things. That's what I have to deal with. Hopefully the Lord will teach me how to cope.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
My frustration is that I feel powerless and insignificant in the scheme of things. That's what I have to deal with. Hopefully the Lord will teach me how to cope. Newsflash: the only pattern there is to existence is what one perceives after staring at it for too long; the only meaning is what one chooses to impose.

Live with it.

[Skeptic]

My bold and color. My comments are in (parentheses) :

==============================
Many Americans, Iraqis unsure how road from Sept. 11 led to Baghdad

By D'arcy Doran
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:38 p.m. September 8, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq – When the picture of a jetliner slicing into the World Trade Center flashed on the television in their Baghdad apartment, Ahmed Khalid and his family split down the middle.

His mother and brother thought it was abhorrent. His father and uncle disagreed. He himself felt that while "It was terrible innocent people were killed," it was the right response to an America he held responsible for the crippling sanctions on his country and the plight of the Palestinians.

But the 24-year-old business student doesn't believe Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11, and thinks the United States used it as a pretext to attack his country.

A third of the world away, Daniel Salas sat in shock on Sept. 11, 2001, as the same news reached him in a high school art class in Kenedy, Texas. The classroom buzzed with talk of going to war. A television was wheeled in, playing the horrible images over and over.

Two years later, Salas, now a 19-year-old Army private, sits in a tank patrolling Baghdad. Does he see a Saddam connection to Sept. 11? "I don't know... maybe."

The Bush administration, in the months leading up to the war that began March 20, said Saddam had links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorists. But the administration has furnished no clear proof. Yet according to a new Washington Post poll, nearly seven in 10 Americans believe that Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. (just goes to show you how gullible most people really are)

But now nearly all sides in the continuing conflict agree that al-Qaeda fighters are in Iraq and preparing to join the fight, though it remains unclear whether any have joined the resistance in a major way.

In his speech to the nation this week, President Bush declared the United States was in Iraq for the long haul and would fight the global terror threat here to prevent it from reaching the streets of the United States again.

"We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power," the president said. (Because Iraq was not a terrorist threat to America, they were NOT our "enemy" in the "war on terrorism." Bush's preemptive invasion and current occupation of Iraq has actually INCREASED the "terrorist threat to civilization." Bush actually hopes that all of those gullible Americans will believe his rhetoric. :kookoo: )

Some of the soldiers patrolling to keep the peace in Baghdad buy that argument.

"I don't know, maybe if we hadn't come in here, Saddam Hussein would have attacked us," Salas said from the turret of his tank.

For Spc. Clint Brookins, the Iraq connection to the Sept. 11 attacks is clear.

"It was Saddam Hussein. Ever since the Gulf War, he's been trying to get back at us," said the 23-year-old soldier from Clio, Mich., now serving in Baghdad. "Maybe it was Osama bin Laden's people, but my feeling is it was Saddam Hussein behind it. He footed the money."

Staff Sgt. James Light, 26, of Holly Springs, Miss., says "Sept. 11 finally gave the United States a reason to take on problems overseas. It showed that if you don't take care of them, they will fester and blow up all over you."

He acknowledged though that he doesn't see a direct link between Sept. 11 and what he and his men are doing in Baghdad.

"It's kind of difficult to make a connection. I think there are similarities out there," Light said. "Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein was a terrorist in his own country."

Rabia Ibrahim, an Iraqi, says the Sept. 11 attacks were "horrible for the whole of humanity," but he sees no connection to Saddam, nor any evidence that the U.S. invasion has removed the terrorist threat.

He contends that four deadly car and truck bombings in Iraq last month – at the Jordanian embassy, the U.N. headquarters, the country's holiest shrine in Najaf and Baghdad's police headquarters – show that the U.S. military has created a terrorist problem rather than eliminated it.

"We did not have this kind of attacks before. America must recognize that they helped allow them to happen," said the 33-year-old electronics dealer. "They deliberately broke down our security forces and now the Iraqi police are not capable of protecting the people."
==============================

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
My bold and color. My comments are in (parentheses) :


I must REALLY be bored tonight. I actually read one of Septic's long, boring, meaningless posts. Actually, all I got through was what I posted above. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
I must REALLY be bored tonight. I actually read one of Septic's long, boring, meaningless posts. Actually, all I got through was what I posted above. :chuckle: If you choose to not read the latest news from the ASSOCIATED PRESS, then stop pretending like you want to carry on a meaningful intelligent discussion. That goes for you, too, BillyBob!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...then stop pretending like you want to carry on a meaningful intelligent discussion. That goes for you, too, BillyBob!

When have I ever pretended that? :confused:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
When have I ever pretended that? :confused: I'm sorry, I gave you too much credit. You aren't really interested in the published news of the day, or anything but your preconceived notions - regardless of whether they are supported by the evidence.

Now, anyone here care to have an informed intelligent discussion related to the topic of this thread?

[wholearmor]

Septic:
I'm sorry, I gave you too much credit.

WA:
Show me where you've ever given me any credit for anything.

Septic:
You aren't really interested in the published news of the day,

WA:
Bingo!

Septic:
or anything but your preconceived notions - regardless of whether they are supported by the evidence.

WA:
If mine are preconceived, what are yours?

Septic:
Now, anyone here care to have an informed intelligent discussion related to the topic of this thread?

WA:
With whom?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Septic:
I'm sorry, I gave you too much credit.

WA:
Show me where you've ever given me any credit for anything. I've given you enough credit to continue dialogging with you. But, now you're telling me you don't care to carry on an informed intelligent conversation.

Septic:
You aren't really interested in the published news of the day,

WA:
Bingo! So, you don't even care about staying informed about this issue? Or are you simply a ditto-head who worships whatever Rush says about Bush and Iraq?

Septic:
or anything but your preconceived notions - regardless of whether they are supported by the evidence.

WA:
If mine are preconceived, what are yours? We all have some preconceived notions. However, I at least try to gather information from various sources to minimize any self-delusional thinking (which is highly prevalent among fundies).

Septic:
Now, anyone here care to have an informed intelligent discussion related to the topic of this thread?

WA:
With whom? Whoever is willing to have an informed intelligent discussion.

[BillyBob]

I've tried that with you, Skeptic. You are not interested in anything other than perpetuating your liberal agenda and deriding the President. :sozo:

Get's old after a while.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I've tried that with you, Skeptic. You are not interested in anything other than perpetuating your liberal agenda and deriding the President. :sozo:

Get's old after a while. That's interesting; I deride the President and it doesn't bother you.

Perhaps that's because you cannot in good conscience call me a liberal...?
:chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Gerald
Perhaps that's because you cannot in good conscience call me a liberal...? You may not be a liberal, but there is nothing wrong with being called a liberal. I would rather be called a liberal than a conservative any day!! :thumb:

[ebenz47037]

Well, BillyBob and WA, I guess we Rednecks are too closed-minded for someone as open-minded as Septic! :chuckle: He doesn't realize that as conservatives, we look for many different sources of information. But, that's okay. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not looking for his approval. I know that if I wanted it, all I would have to do is talk about how bad republicans are and how good democrats are. :chuckle: (That's what I have to do to get my mom to listen to me anymore. She's about as hardcore a democrat as Septic is). :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic? Open minded? :shocked:

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
That's interesting; I deride the President and it doesn't bother you.

Perhaps that's because you cannot in good conscience call me a liberal...?

Billy;
No, it's because you are an equal opportunity derider! :chuckle:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
That's interesting; I deride the President and it doesn't bother you.

Perhaps that's because you cannot in good conscience call me a liberal...?
:chuckle:
I don't have a problem with calling you a liberal
liberal...liberal...liberal...

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic? Open minded? :shocked:

Shhh! :chuckle: He thinks he's open-minded compared to anyone on this board. :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

If he is open-minded, his brain must have fallen out of the hole!

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by BillyBob
If he is open-minded, his brain must have fallen out of the hole!

:chuckle: Be nice.

[BillyBob]

I don't have it in me. Not to Commies, anyway!

[Zimfan]

If he had to be nice he couldn't harass liberals anymore. Would you really want to take one of the few great joys from his life. :chuckle:

It would be like asking him to spit out beer.

:shocked: Ehh, that thought horrified even me.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Zimfan
If he had to be nice he couldn't harass liberals anymore. Would you really want to take one of the few great joys from his life. :chuckle:
I agree. And people tend to have fewer joys when they get as old as he is. :D

[BillyBob]

Hey, I'm not old! If you want old, check out WA!!!!!!!!!

[Skeptic]

I hope you are all starting to feel better, now. That's right, get that unresolved adolescent need to ridicule out of your system. Then, at least for a while, after you've had your fun, maybe you can return to address the issues instead of me. So far, you seem more interested in deriding the messenger than dealing with the message.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
I hope you are all starting to feel better, now.

Billy;
Heck yeah, we just watched the Democrat debate. :chuckle:

Skeptic;
That's right, get that unresolved adolescent need to ridicule out of your system.

Billy;
It never gets out of my system. I have a never ending supply, sort of like the oil in Alaska.

Skeptic;
Then, at least for a while, after you've had your fun, maybe you can return to address the issues instead of me.

Billy;
We have done that. At the end of the day, you are still a commie.

Skeptic;
So far, you seem more interested in deriding the messenger than dealing with the message.

Billy;
Both are equally stupid, misinformed, partisan and flat out hilarious.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So far, you seem more interested in deriding the messenger than dealing with the message.

Haven't you done the same thing with Jesus?

[Poly]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Haven't you done the same thing with Jesus?
Ouch!!

(He shoots, he scores!!)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Both are equally stupid, misinformed, partisan and flat out hilarious. Do you think that simply pronouncing this, rather than proving it, is more persuasive? Actually, I think that you and many of your buddies on tOL are probably fairly intelligent, informed (I'm not sure with regard to Iraq), partisan (I'm sure you agree), but not very hilarious (I'm sorry to say). Much of your humor is pretty lame, and yes, adolescent.

But, continue on as you will. I will continue addressing the issues as I see them. :thumb:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I will continue addressing the issues as I see them. :thumb:

We know...that's what we've been telling you all along.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Haven't you done the same thing with Jesus? I have nothing against Jesus. I'm sure he was a pretty nice guy. However, aspects of his message (or at least the reports of his message in the Bible) are nonsense.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I have nothing against Jesus. I'm sure he was a pretty nice guy.
Hey, no reason to get nasty!!!

[wholearmor]

Septic:
So far, you seem more interested in deriding the messenger than dealing with the message.

WA:
Haven't you done the same thing with Jesus?

Septic:
I have nothing against Jesus. I'm sure he was a pretty nice guy. However, aspects of his message (or at least the reports of his message in the Bible) are nonsense.

WA:
You just derided the Messenger without dealing with the Message.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Septic:
I have nothing against Jesus. I'm sure he was a pretty nice guy. However, aspects of his message (or at least the reports of his message in the Bible) are nonsense.

WA:
You just derided the Messenger without dealing with the Message. How did I deride the messenger, by not calling Jesus the Son of God? :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by deardelmar
I don't have a problem with calling you a liberal
liberal...liberal...liberal... Obviously you don't have a problem with making untrue statements, either.

Last I checked, lying was still a sin.

For shame...tsk, tsk, tsk...

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Do you think that simply pronouncing this, rather than proving it, is more persuasive?

Billy;
What's the difference between this and what you do?

Skeptic;
Actually, I think that you and many of your buddies on tOL are probably fairly intelligent, informed (I'm not sure with regard to Iraq),

Billy;
Some of us are very informed about politics.

Skeptic;
partisan (I'm sure you agree),

Billy;
Not as partisan as you are. I am a Conservative partisan, not a Republican partisan. Big difference.

Skeptic;
but not very hilarious (I'm sorry to say). Much of your humor is pretty lame, and yes, adolescent.

Billy;
OK, now I'm mad! :D

Skeptic;
But, continue on as you will. I will continue addressing the issues as I see them.

Billy;
And I will continue refuting you.

FYI, I like you, Skeptic. You and I NEVER agree politically, but you can take a lot of teasing and almost never get mad. Good for you. :up:

I will say, however, that I think you are politically misguided.

I also think you deliberately ignore obvious refutation of your points.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Skeptic
How did I deride the messenger, by not calling Jesus the Son of God? :chuckle:

Since He said He is and you say He isn't, you are deriding Him.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Since He said He is and you say He isn't, you are deriding Him. Deriding the dead is a pretty useless endeavour; I find deriding his followers to be much more amusing...

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
Deriding the dead is a pretty useless endeavour; I find deriding his followers to be much more amusing...

...except He isn't dead.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
...except He isn't dead. Oh right, he lives in you now...

[BillyBob]

C'mon, Gerald.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
Oh right, he lives in you now...

So you believe He's dead?

[mrsnacks]

Wow: You all sound like a bunch of old ladies under a hairdryer. After reading the past few pages - my head feels like there's a frenchman living in it. Come on --- it's not about labels. Classifying every idea as "conservative "and" liberal" saves one from doing the hard work of critical thinking through each issue or question on it's own. Is it true is the question ?


The Pharisees were the "right" of Jesus' time and the Sadducees were on the "left ." Jesus didn't buy into their little boxes. The world invented "left" and "right" -- God invented the real "Right" which is the truth. The conservatives sound like Bush's poop don't stink. Like if you're a Republican you can go on to heaven on your own steam.

The problem is that whoever is in the White House -- it's all about bigger government. The government is involved in education and everything else. I think small is better. The founding fathers thought so.

Skeptic had some good points. Yet I didn't hear a refutation of the points he made. All of you just defined him out of existence.

So as someone on the outside looking in -- to those who are members of Bush's fan club. I want to hear your solid evidence and explanation about some issues I have . I am not in those little boxes. If anything -I do see bad and good on both sides . Maybe I do lean to the conservative side a little more, but concerning this war-- I am into Jesus , not Bush. I don't trust man or our President. It is a fact he has lied and deceived the American people. It is a fact liberals -- that Clinton did the same.

I am one of the few if any minorities on this site . Maybe a little older
than some of you. Being a minority, I remember the 60's as a kid. I grew up at a time when the conservatives were for segregation. The conservative christians were saying a no- no to interacial dating and marriage . Here I was born from interracial parents and I was a mistake according to them. I rebelled against christianity because of that. Bob Jones University was protected by the conservative christians. i thought at the time true christians should've burned it down. Where was White America or conservative America during the marches of Martin Luther King ?? That's my taste in the past of conservatism.

Another thing Jerry Falwell may be a Christian.Does Jerry's views represent conservative Christians ?

Here it goes -- I want some explanations. That will help me in this dilemna.


1.The WMD point number 1.. Is your response as a Bush supporter going to be a blind leap of faith by saying the WMD are there some place ? Sadam hid them ? If so provide something solid and truth for me to bite into. Not a bunch of baloney. Even a few weeks ago there was an apology from Bush concerning misnformation he had received.

2. Is there evidence that Sadam was involved in 9 /11. Then his involvement justifies our war with Iraq right ?? Is it a fact that the terroists were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn't the US go after the Saudis' ??

3.Is an attack justified on Iraq being that they are a threat to the security of the US ?Can his missles reach us ? I don't know -- it seems they are a lesser threat then N.Korea but why haven't we attacked them ? I think that's a good question. Russia's missles were aimed at the US in the past. China's missles are aimed at us presently and even at Taiwan. Why didn't we attack Russia ? What are we doing about China ?

4. China is obviously an enemy. Clinton turned over military secrets to them .I read about that in Time magazine. They didn't side with the US . So my question is that many were slamming down on the French for backing the US yet i didn't hear of any criticism from the media or others concerning China . And everyone is still buying products made in China. WalMart is booming in sales. Where is the consistency? Where are all the Chinese jokes ?

5. Why is it that China or the US for that matter are allowed WMD ? I am glad we have them but -- China has them along with many other nations. I mean come on ,the US used them first in our war in Japan on civilians mind you.

6. There was an investigation that was
squashed stating the our government was fully aware of the 9/11 attack. This comes from a few FBI and CIA members who ratted on our government. Is this true ??? If so I want to hear the justification for why our government didn't do something about it ? Also what was FEMA doing setting up office in NYC days before 9/11. Is that true ??

7. If the US is so right -- why hasn't the world community backed the US in this effort ?? Is it that everbody else is wrong and we are
right ??

8. Is it about oil ??We bomb and then we rebuild . Should Cheney and others in
government benefit finacially from this. It's the taxpayers money . Did we rebuild Japan or Germany? Or Korea ?

9. Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor and before our war with Germany --many men went in the service with a desire to give their lives for this country -because they believed mind , body, and spirit , that the war with Japan and Germany was justified.They put their lives on the line . They weren't bystanders -- . Has any of you done the same thing concerning the war with Iraq ??

Any way I have a few more questions and comments , but I'll stop at these.

I'll be honest with you. After doing a lot of research -- I am not for this war. I support my country in this effort -- in fact all of us are paying taxes. And the taxes will go up believe me .

I think the money should be used elsewhere. But I do hope some of you will answer my questions and convince me why this war is justified. Why is it that you trust Bush . Talking to some fellow christians , it scares me to think some think he is a god .

As Christians what do you make of what our Lord said about this world ? He said my Kingdom is not of this world. Ours shouldn't be either. So is it right that we spend so much time with these political issues ?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
So you believe He's dead? I harbor doubts that he ever existed...at least in the way he is depicted now.

Legends have a way of growing over time...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
C'mon, Gerald.

What?

I'm just being an "equal-opportunity derider"...

[Skeptic]

Was It Worth It? The tide is turning:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/poll030908_iraq.html

[nomik]

Skeptic you said . . . "Evidence that falls short of 100 percent proof, presented in advance, doesn't pass the pre-empt test."
And your proof falls short of 100% "BY YOUR OWN WORDS YOU SHALL BE JUDGED"
"NEW YORK--George W. Bush told us that Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together. They weren't."<-- Yep thats clamed by what 100% proof,by that logic then Jimmy Hoffa wasn't murdered because there was no proof linking his disappearance to murder.
"George W. Bush, however, stands accused as the greatest mass murderer in American history." Haven't you heard you kill afew people & your a murder but if you kill thousands your a conqueror.
So that would make Honorable President George W. Bush a great leader

[Skeptic]

The tide is turning:

"I do think that this administration did a miserable job of planning in a post-Saddam Iraq."

-- Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

From: Seattle Times, 9/6/03

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The tide is turning:
"I do think that this administration did a miserable job of planning in a post-Saddam Iraq."

-- Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

From: Seattle Times, 9/6/03
[John Ashcroft]

Remind me to have him hauled up on charges of aiding terrorists...

[/John Ashcroft]
:chuckle:

[nomik]

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N. sanctions on Saddam Hussein: "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

. . .what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration."

The president's congressional loyalists stood behind him. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction," said a prominent senator, sounding a familiar theme, "but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."

Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war, perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry.

They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to "degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush administration.

I don't think I could have said it better

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Gerald
[John Ashcroft]

Remind me to have him hauled up on charges of aiding terrorists...

[/John Ashcroft]
:chuckle: :chuckle:

By bold:

==================
Rumsfeld Strikes Back at Critics of U.S. Effort on Terror
Mon Sep 8, 2:55 PM ET

By DOUGLAS JEHL, The New York Times

SHANNON, Ireland, Sept. 8 With costs and casualties rising in the war on terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld struck back today at the administration's widening circle of critics, saying they were complicating an already difficult task.

Mr. Rumsfeld did not mention any of the domestic critics by name. But he suggested that those who have been critical of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath might be encouraging American foes to believe that the United States might one day walk away from the effort, as it has in past conflicts.

"We know for a fact that terrorists studied Somalia, and they studied instances that the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in, and persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted to do," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

"The United States is not going to do that; President Bush is not going to do that," he said.

But, he went on: "To the extent that terrorists are given reason to believe he might, or, if he is not going to, that the opponents might prevail in some way, and they take heart in that, and that leads to more money going into these activities, or that leads to more recruits, or that leads to more encouragement, or that leads to more staying power, obviously that does make our task more difficult."

Similar points were made by President Bush in his address to the nation on Sunday night in regard to Somalia and an attack on a Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983. Mr. Bush said that terrorists had asserted "that that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge," adding, "In this, they are mistaken."

Mr. Rumsfeld was responding to questions aboard his aircraft as he flew home to Washington at the end of a six-day trip to the Middle East, with stops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While he was away, Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, called for the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld and that of the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, over what he called the dishonesty of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, particularly on the issue of what it would require from taxpayers and the military.

Throughout the trip, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to emphasize successes over setbacks, but he has sometimes bristled over criticism.

He has insisted that the administration's decision to seek a new United Nations mandate for operations in Iraq did not represent any kind of policy shift. He has said that there is no need for the United States to send more troops to Iraq, suggesting that such a step would only make more Americans targets and would delay a handover of responsibilities to Iraqis.

He had not previously suggested that the administration's critics might unwittingly be aiding the terrorist cause. He made that point in response to a question about criticism from Democratic presidential candidates and others, which Mr. Rumsfeld described as the "hits" that the administration was taking over issues related to costs and casualties, and whether the United States had enough troops in Iraq.

"There should be a debate and discussion on these things," he said. "We can live with that. We can live with a healthy debate as long as it is as elevated as possible, and as civil as possible."

But he said that his own experience, as a Middle East envoy in the Reagan administration after a bombing in Beirut killed 241 Americans, had persuaded him that the United States needed to have a higher tolerance for the costs of warfare.

He also cited as a mistake the American withdrawal from Somalia after the killing of 18 soldiers in a botched raid in 1993.

"It is hard to function in the world without there being losses," he said. "Any time an act of terrorism is rewarded, a lesson is learned by the terrorists. There are going to be losses if you do nothing, as we learned on Sept. 11, and there are going to be losses if you do something."

For particular criticism, Mr. Rumsfeld singled out Al Jazeera, the Arabic-language satellite television network based in Qatar, whose reports on the American-led occupation in Iraq have often been strongly critical.

"If you've got Al Jazeera, day after day after day, pounding the region with things that aren't true, that makes it difficult," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

One of the most sensitive issues still outstanding for the administration is the American failure to date to produce evidence that Iraq was producing illicit weapons, something that Mr. Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld and other top officials cited as one of the main reasons for going to war.

Mr. Rumsfeld met during his trip with David Kay, an American who is heading the Iraqi Survey Group, the team now charged with coordinating the search for evidence of that Iraqi weapons program. Mr. Kay has said little in public in the many weeks since he took on the task this summer, but is expected to produce his first report on the issue sometime later this month.

The military has played a leading role in the search, and the Defense Intelligence Agency has also been centrally involved. But Mr. Rumsfeld sought today to distance himself from that process. He said that he had not asked for and that Mr. Kay had not provided him with any update on what new evidence, if any, the United States might now have uncovered.

"I have so many things to do in the Department of Defense," Mr. Rumsfeld said, "and Kay reports to George Tenet," referring to the director of central intelligence.
==================

Maybe Rumsfeld should sick Ashcroft after those critics. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

========================
Published on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by the San Jose Mercury News
Santa Cruz Urges Probe into Bush Impeachment
by Ken McLaughlin

The Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday became the nation's first local government to ask Congress to look into impeaching President Bush on charges he deceived the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and has used the Sept. 11 attacks as an excuse to crush civil rights.

In a 6-1 vote, the council decided to send a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee asking the panel to investigate the president.

Santa Cruz Mayor Emily Reilly, at right, and Vice Mayor Scott Kennedy, left, conduct a meeting of the City Council in Santa Cruz, Calif., on Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2003. The Santa Cruz City Council is considering becoming the first local government in the country to ask Congress to look into impeaching President Bush.

Dozens of activists cheered the decision, even though the letter was a muted version of their proposal for a council resolution in favor of impeaching Bush and other top members of his administration.

``It's a courageous action,'' said Sherry Conable, leader of a coalition of 10 local groups that support impeachment of all top administration officials.

Conable held a sign saying: "Love your country and the world. Impeach Bush/Cheney.''

Activist John Jenkel, who traveled from Sebastopol to attend the council meeting, said he couldn't agree more. "This is a treasonous president,'' he said.

In September 2002, Santa Cruz became the first city council to oppose a war aimed at toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Although the council drew some ridicule at the time, 165 councils and boards of supervisors across the nation eventually passed nearly identical measures.

Santa Cruz council members said Tuesday they hoped their vote would trigger similar grass-roots actions by local governments.

The overwhelming majority of the 80 or so people who filled the council chamber Tuesday agreed with the council's letter to the House panel. But a handful of critics warned the council that it could make the city look foolish.

Local attorney Paul Sanford, who teaches constitutional law and "never leaves home'' without a copy of the U.S. Constitution, said he agreed the Bush policy in the Middle East was flawed. But to impeach a president, "high crimes and misdemeanors are required. Period.''

Nothing Bush has done would qualify, he said.

But Councilman Mike Rotkin said he considered the unjustified "murder of innocents'' a high crime.

Rotkin and other council members argued that the country deserved to find out whether the White House purposely lied to the people and Congress about Iraq's nuclear aspirations and the alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.

"It's time for us to open up this can of worms,'' Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice said.

Critic: Focus on home

Sylvia Mullen, on the other hand, argued it was time for the city council to start paying more attention to the city and less to foreign policy.

"The streets are full of potholes, weed-infested medians and circles that serve as trash receptacles,'' said Mullen, who has lived in Santa Cruz for 33 years.

"Even the downtown areas and streets in Buenos Aires and Zimbabwe were superior to ours,'' added Mullen, who in the past year and a half has visited South America, Europe, Africa, Australia and parts of the United States as a tourist and volunteer.

The Santa Cruz council has a history of tangling with the federal government. It has voted to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of patients who need medicinal marijuana. The action followed a September 2002 raid on a Davenport-area pot farm.

Soon afterward, council members thumbed their noses at the feds by allowing the cooperative -- the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana -- to pass out pot to sick people on the steps of City Hall.

Impeachment letter

The letter to the House Judiciary Committee broaching impeachment was put on the agenda by three council members -- Mayor Emily Reilly, Vice Mayor Scott Kennedy and Fitzmaurice.

It asks the panel to investigate whether Bush violated congressionally ratified international treaties and the Constitution by invading and occupying Iraq.

Two other questions asked in the letter: "Did false or misleading information exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq, and was this part of a conscious effort to mislead the American public? Did President Bush exploit the fear generated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks to erode or compromise our constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties?''

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said Tuesday that council members were free to send any letter they want but it would not change Bush's resolve, made clear in a prime-time speech on Sunday night.

"The president remains focused on doing the work of the American people -- strengthening the economy, winning the war on terrorism and defending the homeland,'' Lisaius said. "The people appreciate what he is doing.''

Misleading information

Top Bush administration officials in July apologized for allowing a British intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions into the president's State of the Union address in January. The report, which Bush cited, said Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Niger to use in building nuclear weapons. But officials from the CIA and the National Security Administration had previously deemed the report to be false.

But Bush and top White House officials have denied misleading the public on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. They say they still expect them to turn up.

The push toward the impeachment resolution began on July 22 when more than 100 activists packed the council chamber to urge that it pass a resolution asking the Republican-led Congress to impeach Bush, Ashcroft, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice for their roles in going to war and creating the USA Patriot Act.

The anti-terrorism legislation, passed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, has been widely criticized by civil libertarians.

Contending that the Patriot Act represents an unwarranted assault on civil rights, the Santa Cruz council in November 2002 unanimously passed a resolution urging the federal government to rescind parts of the law.

Congress had overwhelmingly passed the law after the Sept. 11 attacks, making it easier for police to eavesdrop on phone conversations, seize voice messages, track e-mail and obtain certain confidential records -- including books that people check out at libraries.

Last November, Santa Cruz became the 14th city in the country to come out against the Patriot Act.

Attorney General Ashcroft recently finished a tour aimed at defending the law, saying it has prevented terrorism and is necessary in a post-Sept. 11 world.

The only dissenting vote Tuesday was cast by Councilman Mark Primack, who argued that the council has enough city business to attend to without jumping into national and international debates.

He indicated he agreed with the council politically but said he wasn't elected because he was an expert on constitutional law or national policy.

"Every action we take like this weakens our ability to function as a city,'' Primack said.
========================

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Maybe Rumsfeld should sick Ashcroft after those critics. :chuckle: I expect the fun to start about the middle of next year...

[mrsnacks]

What happened to my questions earlier ? No one cared to answer ? :confused: Your silence speaks to me .

[Gerald]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
What happened to my questions earlier ? No one cared to answer ? :confused: Your silence speaks to me . Well, I'll take a stab at why we haven't attacked Saudi Arabia and China.

Saudi Arabia: Because dropping bombs on the traditional home of the Prophet Muhammad would create a bigger problem than it would solve. You do know what happens when you throw a brick at a hornets' nest, don't you...?

China: US corporations have far too much money invested in cheap Chinese labor to allow much in the way of "rocking the boat". That, and they can actually hit the US with nuclear missiles...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Gerald
Well, I'll take a stab at why we haven't attacked Saudi Arabia and China.

Saudi Arabia: Because dropping bombs on the traditional home of the Prophet Muhammad would create a bigger problem than it would solve. You do know what happens when you throw a brick at a hornets' nest, don't you...? Throwing a brick at a hornet's nest is exactly what Bush did in Iraq!!

China: US corporations have far too much money invested in cheap Chinese labor to allow much in the way of "rocking the boat". That, and they can actually hit the US with nuclear missiles... Good points!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Throwing a brick at a hornet's nest is exactly what Bush did in Iraq!!Ah, but if he had just cut to the chase and razed Mecca and Medina, the hornets would've come out much faster...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
========================
Published on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by the San Jose Mercury News
Santa Cruz Urges Probe into Bush Impeachment
by Ken McLaughlin

The Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday became the nation's first local government to ask Congress to look into impeaching President Bush on charges he deceived the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and has used the Sept. 11 attacks as an excuse to crush civil rights.

In a 6-1 vote, the council decided to send a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee asking the panel to investigate the president.Expect the members of the Santa Cruz City Council to soon come down with inexplicable "illnesses"...

I'm sure they're on somebody's, er, hit list now...
:noway:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Throwing a brick at a hornet's nest is exactly what Bush did in Iraq!!

Billy;
No junior, that is exactly what the Muslims did when they hijacked airplanes and flew them into OUR buildings.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Good points!

Billy;
Hey Gerald, I think you made a friend!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Good points!

Billy;
Hey Gerald, I think you made a friend!
Crap. Somebody else I'll have to alienate.

Hey Skeptic! You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

Seriously, though, are my comments re Saudi and China inaccurate?

[nomik]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Throwing a brick at a hornet's nest is exactly what Bush did in Iraq!!

Billy;
No junior, that is exactly what the Muslims did when they hijacked airplanes and flew them into OUR buildings.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:thumb: I got it & I still think we should have did more I would have i.e. when hamas supporters filled the streets when it happened. . .I would have dropped napalm on them,or I would have a lil' wetworks done.

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
Seriously, though, are my comments re Saudi and China inaccurate?

Billy;
I think you were probably right about China.

However, I don't think that because Mohamed is from Arabia is the reason we aren't bombing the Saudis. There is a whole lot going on with the Saudi's that we can only speculate about.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
:thumb: I got it & I still think we should have did more...
The most devastating thing we could possibly do has not yet been done: carpet bomb Mecca and Medina at the height of the pilgrimage season...
I would have i.e. when hamas supporters filled the streets...All, what, 200 of them...?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
However, I don't think that because Mohamed is from Arabia is the reason we aren't bombing the Saudis. There is a whole lot going on with the Saudi's that we can only speculate about. You realize, of course, that the House of Saud is playing both ends against the middle...?

The expedient thing to do would be to cut to the chase and wipe them all out, starting in the west and moving east...

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
The most devastating thing we could possibly do has not yet been done: carpet bomb Mecca and Medina at the height of the pilgrimage season...
All, what, 200 of them...?
Yep All 200+ & I had already suggested on another website that we Hi-jack a few of Saudi's plane & fly it into mecca & the dome of the rock during the hight of pilgrimage.All along claim no knowledge of said incident.:chuckle:

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
You realize, of course, that the House of Saud is playing both ends against the middle...?


That has been obvious that they have been playing the fence
. . .but what do they got on the US that they have been left alone?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
Yep All 200+...200 is a pretty pathetic showing for an occurence of the magnitude of 9/11. Now, if people by the thousands were dancing in the streets, from Algeria to Indonesia, you might have a case...
...I had already suggested on another website that we Hi-jack a few of Saudi's plane & fly it into mecca & the dome of the rock during the hight of pilgrimage.All along claim no knowledge of said incident.:chuckle: I gather then that you aren't man enough to do, much less take credit for, your own dirty work?
:rolleyes:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
That has been obvious that they have been playing the fence
. . .but what do they got on the US that they have been left alone? Perhaps family members of prominent Americans are being held hostage by Saudi agents...? :noway:

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
200 is a pretty pathetic showing for an occurence of the magnitude of 9/11. Now, if people by the thousands were dancing in the streets, from Algeria to Indonesia, you might have a case...
I gather then that you aren't man enough to do, much less take credit for, your own dirty work?
:rolleyes:
200 is not for the numbers but the principal of not standing by & watching such an enrageing act of celebration.
Oh I am Man enough if I didn't have such a criminal record I would have joined the armed services & went to Afgan. & Iraq I would have stayed from day one to until I was needed some where else.But I would also like to see them respond to there own tactics.
Of course they would blame us but there would be doubt about if it was them i.e. they are attacking there own mosque in Iraq.

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
Perhaps family members of prominent Americans are being held hostage by Saudi agents...? :noway:

:mad: They better not or I'll :think:. . .
. . . I don't know:doh:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
:mad: They better not or I'll :think:. . .
. . . I don't know:doh: So you agree that such a notion is not out of the question...?

It would make sense if such a thing were kept out of the news...

[nomik]

Originally posted by Is it possible?
Eireann,

First didn't Sadam help Osama? Second the trade towers were bomb I think in '93 by Osama. Third Clinton had a chance to extrdict Osama hence Clinton did get us in the mess we are in. he even promised the poor parents of the men killed on the 'Cole that I'll take care of it'. Osama was responsible for this as well. Yes Clinton was in charge. It was his watch. 9-11 happened 9 months after Bush got in office. Clinton left pooh-pooh everywhere and he let people pooh-pooh the white house which is MY house and your house. I don't like the man Eireann. He is immoral and not only that he exposed MY children to pooh-pooh. So you will not see me sing prasies of Mr. Clinton (don't even think he deserves the respect of the title of President). I will not talk about the gulf war because this was about oil. period. so what? Afgahnastan was about survival and just because they did not find anything does not mean there was not anything to find. I did hear that the Tigerous river was polluted with mustard gas, anthrax, botchelitum and also two mobile chemical vans were found and other things. I do not care Eireann how you feel about Bush. He did the right thing. You can not do nothing...the bully will still continue to punch your face...this is what Clinton did. Bush is trying to protect the country and you should be glad that he is....in the end though how can you protect yourself against terrorism?

p.s. Eireann I mischaracterized what Clinton did....He gave away the store.... there I like this better.

Also what Clinton did while he was in office will haunt every single American and your children. You can take this to the bank.
First thing first :thumb: you nailed it right on
You can forget about clinton trying to take away our guns.But :bannana: thank GOD :jump: clinton or gore was not in office on 9/11

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
So you agree that such a notion is not out of the question...?

It would make sense if such a thing were kept out of the news...
Yep I do agree.
It would not be to hard to keep out of the news if it was a. . .
. . .family members of prominent Americans. . .
But I don't think thats what it is I think it has more to do with MONEY & MONEY:madmad:

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by nomik
That has been obvious that they have been playing the fence
. . .but what do they got on the US that they have been left alone?

:doh: O-I-L

How much are you paying for a gallon of gas today?

[BillyBob]

Hey Gerald, I think Nomik wants your job!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Hey Gerald, I think Nomik wants your job!

Gerald is married AND has a job??

[BillyBob]

I think he is lying.

[wholearmor]

That's gotta' be it.

[Zimfan]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Gerald is married AND has a job??

And there's someone who wants it? :confused:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Hey Gerald, I think Nomik wants your job! Best of luck to him, but he's not nearly as vile and eeeeevil as I am...:devil:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Gerald is married AND has a job?? Yes to both questions. You are surprised, I gather?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
Throwing a brick at a hornet's nest is exactly what Bush did in Iraq!!

Billy;
No junior, that is exactly what the Muslims did when they hijacked airplanes and flew them into OUR buildings.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No Billy. You talks as if 9/11 was an attack perpetrated by the Muslim world against America. It was an attack by a relatively small number of particularly extreme terrorists who happened to hold a minority Islamic perspective. And it was not their Islamic religion that motivated them to do what they did. Rather, it was ultimately their hatred of those who support Israel over the Palestinians.

The hijackers may have thrown a brick at a hornet's nest in New York, but Bush unnecessarily threw a brick in the hornet's nest of Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or fighting international terrorism. Iraq was not a threat to America!

Have you seen the latest polls that show more Americans now believe Bush's invasion of Iraq has increased the risks of terrorist threats to America, than those who believe the reverse?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No Billy. You talks as if 9/11 was an attack perpetrated by the Muslim world against America.He believes that's what it was.
It was an attack by a relatively small number of particularly extreme terrorists who happened to hold a minority Islamic perspective.He believes every Muslim, man, woman and child is a potential terrorist.
And it was not their Islamic religion that motivated them to do what they did. Rather, it was ultimately their hatred of those who support Israel over the Palestinians.He believes otherwise: Muslims are eeeeevil, every last one of them!
The hijackers may have thrown a brick at a hornet's nest in New York, but Bush unnecessarily threw a brick in the hornet's nest of Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or fighting international terrorism. Iraq was not a threat to America!Oh, come on! You know full well that Saddam, OBL, and Mullah Omar planned the whole thing in some dark, hashish smoke-filled back room in Baghdad!:chuckle:
Have you seen the latest polls that show more Americans now believe Bush's invasion of Iraq has increased the risks of terrorist threats to America, than those who believe the reverse?It's all a big fat liberal lie!:chuckle:

[mrsnacks]

Gerald : Thanks for taking a stab and answering SOME of my questions. I wished some one would answer the rest. I'll explain.

I just have a bad taste in my mouth for our government. And I'm beginning to notice a lot of people at my wife's work and my own are very negative about Bush and the
government . There's a lost of trust and belief. Even the most conservatives are having their doubts. Bush has not addressed what he is doing or what he is going to do about the present economy. He says all this hype about creating more jobs in this country - yet we all know the jobs are on foreign soil. The big companies have moved to China and other parts of the world and set up housekeeping there. My aunt and friends went to China for a few weeks and came back blown away. They say the place looks like the US years ago in it's prime except better. Huge hotels ,casinos that dwarf Vegas and plenty of money. Many are getting laid off and the President and those in our government are living on Pluto. They ain't doing a D___ ( darn in Greek ) thing.

The gas prices are way up -- why ?? Has OPEC raised the prices on us ?

Plus it is obvious our freedoms are gradually disappearing in the name of security. Laws are being passed today faster than a one- eyed cat in a fish market.

Plus this war and the cost -- makes me wonder if the US is in it because of the very powerful Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill. I am not a dispensationalist so I don't agree with many of you on Israel is God's chosen and they can do no wrong. So let's send them billions of our tax dollars. Remember they as a people and nation are in rebellion against God. Those who reject the Son rejects the Father. They're no different in God's eyes than Japan or Indonesia.

Help me out fellas or ladies. I do want to believe that the US is doing the right thing-- but the governements track record isn't good at all.

Has any of you checked out infowars,com (Alex Jones site )What do you think of the stuff on that site ??

So I do agree that Sadam is an evil man if he in fact has done those terrible things our media has told us of. God in history has raised nations to defeat other nations as a form of judgment . Maybe from a Christian perspective that's what happened to Iraq. Will the US be around the corner ??

:confused:

[wholearmor]

Are you Mr. Snacks or Mrs. Nacks?

Either way, you said this:
"Bush has not addressed what he is doing or what he is going to do about the present economy. "

The President of the United States does not have enough of a say in the economy to make any material difference. Please do your research on Alan Greenspan and the Fed.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Has any of you checked out infowars,com (Alex Jones site )What do you think of the stuff on that site ??Alex Jones puts the "rank" in "crank".:kookoo:

If anything he churned out was even remotely true, he would have met with a "tragic accident" years ago.

I consider him about as credible as Texe Marrs, Al Cuppett or the late Bill Cooper.:kookoo: :kookoo: :kookoo:

[Skeptic]

======================
Published on Thursday, September 11, 2003 by the Boulder Daily Camera
Spinning Sept. 11 Into a Useful Political Ploy
by Ellen Goodman

There are dates that simply won't stay put. They leap off the calendar like a headline in the agate type of time. Dec. 7, 1941, is like that. So is Nov. 22, 1963. And of course, Sept. 11, 2001.

It's two years since we counted planes — one, two, three, four — as they crashed into one tower and then another, and then the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania soil. Two years since we stopped in our daily tracks, gasps replacing the ordinary hum of a back-to-school morning, shock trumping every other emotion except horror. And fear.

This morning, watching a 767 cross the city skyline, I remember my own raw, first impression tapped out within hours of this catastrophe: The world had changed. Our sense of safety evaporated; our vulnerability ratcheted up to new levels. Terror had become the new reality show. We knew we had enemies who did indeed hate America more than they loved life.

Of course, everything did not change. Eventually, we used up the duct tape, put away the gas masks and ate the emergency supply of granola bars. But we retained that muscle memory of the world as a dangerous place in which we are high-risk patients.

Last year, on the first anniversary, when 9/11 ran 24/7, I thought the media had turned a disaster into an industry. I worried that our emotions had been marketed into movies and books and T-shirts. Now, on the second anniversary, I am watching politicians take Sept. 11 out for a spin.

The day, with its emotional scars and lessons, is being manipulated, handcuffed to the "war on terrorism." Nearly every battle, every action, every foreign policy, every call to follow the leader, is justified — no, sanctified — in the name of Sept. 11.

Sunday night, we saw a sober president admitting that the scenario of swift victory in Iraq was far too rosy. This was no flight deck photo op. The "Mission Accomplished" speech of May has become the "Mission Prolonged" speech of September — with an $87 billion price tag.

But repeatedly, deliberately, the president connected the dots between Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq. Since "those deadly attacks on our country," he said, "we have carried the fight to the enemy." "For America," he said, "there will be no going back to the era before Sept. 11 — to false comfort in a dangerous world." And finally, he told Americans that we are fighting the enemy today, "so that we do not meet him again on our own streets in our own cities."

The trouble is that the dots he connected are cartoon bubbles drawn by the White House and its speechmakers.

Nevertheless, Americans have followed them. A Washington Post poll recently showed that 69 percent of Americans still believe it's likely or very likely Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.

The emotional link — bad guys do bad things, Saddam is bad, 9/11 is bad — has become a successful political link. Fifteen of 19 hijackers were suicidal Saudis, all were members of al-Qaida. There was no connection. Osama and Saddam, the religious fanatic and secular despot, are brethren only in brutality.

Nevertheless the Taliban and the Baath Party are portrayed as allies in terrorism. The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are conflated into a war on "terror."

Did you read the story about a young Florida woman who was determined to sew a quilt for the family of every American soldier who died in the Iraq War? As the death toll rose to over 300, she remained committed to her kindness and to the war. "We have to stay there as long as it takes and take care of it once and for all," she explained. "No one wants another Sept. 11."

When does the small, repeated exploitation of this belief become the big lie? What do we make of a patriotism of fear?

In my Cold War childhood, "godless communism" was the unifying all-purpose enemy that justified everything from an overkill arsenal of nuclear weapons to a host of unsavory allies. Sept. 11 not only ended the end of the Cold War, it ushered in a new all-purpose enemy: terrorism.

So this is how we commemorate Sept. 11, 2003. The pre-emptive, preventive war with Iraq has not made us safer. North Korea and Iran lurk in the nuclear imagination. Patriotism is calibrated by a willingness to follow the dots of propaganda.

On the calendar a sacred space has become a sacrilege. The White House has sent Sept. 11 spinning.
======================

[mrsnacks]

It's Mr. Snacks.

Whole Armor ;thanks for the info. The country looks to the President as the one responsible and to deal with the economic issues. He is the leader . Greenspan has nothing to do with the $85 billion Bush has proposed to keep us in Iraq. I think it should go elsewhere myself. Most of our tax dollars are going outside this country.

Gerald : So what I've read from Alex Jones seems pretty credible to me. Specifically what has he said that you can refute ? There is plenty of documentation backing his statements .

The thing is many here are pro - Bush. Nothing you can say or show will change your positive and God like view of the President. If the economy sinks into Depressionville- it's not Bush's fault. If we recover ( which is never gonna happen ) Bush did it !!!Skeptic brought up some interesting points , but like I said it doesn't matter. People see only what they want to see. I am just trying to get at the truth and have my questions answered.

[mrsnacks]

A friend e mailed me this for me to check out. What do you all think ?????Address some points please .


GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, USA
INTERNATIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT

* I attacked and occupied two countries.

* I am the first president in US history to order a military occupation of a
sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world
community.

* I withdrew from or abrogated more international treaties than any
president in US history.

* I refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court.

* I refuse to allow international or Red Cross access to US prisoners of
war; I no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

* I took the world's sympathy after 9-11 and in less than a year made the US
the most resented country in the world, possibly the biggest diplomatic
failure in US history.

* I am the first US president to have a majority of the people of EuropeGHi
(71%) view my presidency as the greatest threat to world peace and
stability.

* I am the first US president to have the people of South Korea feel more
threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

* I refused United Nations election inspectors acess during the 2002 US
elections.

* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove
the US from its Human Rights Commission.

* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove
the US from its Elections Monitoring Board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ECONOMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT

* I spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual
deficit in history.

* I set the all-time record for biggest annual spending increases, more than
any other president in US history.

* I set a record for the most private bankruptcies in any 12-month period.

* I set the all-time record for the most foreclosures in any 12-month
period.

* I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock
market.

* I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any country in
the history of the world.

* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over
the worst security failure in US history.

* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

* I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any
president in US history.

* I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to
intervene when corruption was revealed.

* I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to
use the national reserves as past presidents have.

* I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT

* I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

* In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history.

* I am the first US president to run and hide when the country came under
attack (and then lied, saying Air Force 1 was threatened).

* I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. My driving and
arrest record (including a rumored cocaine conviction) in Texas has been
erased and is not available. I refuse to take drug tests or to answer any
questions about drug use.

* I was AWOL from the National Guard for a year during time of war. For
anyone else, that would have triggered automatic active service and likely
duty in Vietnam; it did not for me. In fact, I sought, and received, early
discharge.

* All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been sent to my
father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

* All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt
companies are sealed and unavailable for public view.

* All minutes of meetings of any public corporation of which I was a
director are sealed and unavailable for public view.

* All records or minutes from meetings I or my Vice President attended
regarding public energy policy are sealed and unavailable for public review.


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

POLITICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT

* I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by any president in
US history.

* I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any
president in US history.

* I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who
violated USA law by not selling their investments in corporations bidding
for government contracts.

* I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government
contracts.

* I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since
the advent of TV.

* I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take
to the streets to protest against me -- 15 million, the most against any
person in the history of mankind.

* I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US
history.

* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history.

(The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker
named after her.)

* I have created the largest government bureaucracy in the history of the
United States (Homeland Security).

* I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign
donations.

* The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my
best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds
in world history: Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation.

* I spend more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
history.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Gerald : So what I've read from Alex Jones seems pretty credible to me. Specifically what has he said that you can refute ? There is plenty of documentation backing his statements.Two words: Bohemian Grove.

That particular gem inclines me to doubt anything he churns out; like I said, if any of it was remotely true, Jones would be pushing up daisies by now.

[mrsnacks]

Gerald : I have heard of Bohemian Grove .I can't recall the meaning behind it. What is it ? An organization ?

I didn't hear of any specific refutations of Alex Jones' material. It is possible that the government has chosen to ignore him being that he isn't a threat to the powers that be.Who is ?

I remember he had stated that mitary operations wer going on in the major cities in the US. You didn't hear that on the main stream media. One place mentioned was Greensboro , NC. I was there on a business trip and I asked the downtown hotel employees if that took place . They all said yes and that the military blocked off the streets and it looked like an exercise for a martial law setup of some kind. Then it was over in a day. No explanation given by the local authorities or the mayor.

Sounds strange.

[HerodionRomulus]

Bohemian Grove (http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html)

:confused:

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by mrsnacks


I remember he had stated that mitary operations wer going on in the major cities in the US. You didn't hear that on the main stream media. One place mentioned was Greensboro , NC. I was there on a business trip and I asked the downtown hotel employees if that took place . They all said yes and that the military blocked off the streets and it looked like an exercise for a martial law setup of some kind. Then it was over in a day. No explanation given by the local authorities or the mayor.

Sounds strange.

I understand from reliable sources that here, on a certain section of I-65 the cops, when stopping speeders will routinely search the entire vehicle. Tourists forced to open all their luggage, truckers having their load gone over etc.
Allegedly, they are looking for drugs, but since they are being stopped for vehicular speed, it all sounds illegal.

When I lived in CA, police would routinely roadblock certain major streets, and do the same, sometimes for drunks, sometimes to enforce the seatbelt law but always doing a whole search of the vehicle.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
It's Mr. Snacks.

Whole Armor ;thanks for the info. The country looks to the President as the one responsible and to deal with the economic issues. He is the leader . Greenspan has nothing to do with the $85 billion Bush has proposed to keep us in Iraq. I think it should go elsewhere myself. Most of our tax dollars are going outside this country.


Don't you believe it's unfortunate that the American people don't know more about what really goes on with the economy than blaming the President for it?

Bush has everything to do with the $85 Billion PROPOSAL, but it is just that, a PROPOSAL.

[Skeptic]

=====================
Bush Resignation Hailed by World Leaders
by Greg Palast

Sept 11, 2003

[Washington] The surprise resignation of the forty-third President of the United States, George W. Bush, on the second anniversary of the terrorist attack on America, was hailed by chiefs of state throughout the world. Mr.Bush announced that after, "two years of bloodshed, economic devastation, and spreading fear in America and abroad," he saw no choice but to accept that, "I have held a title which I did not win, and for which I have proven unqualified."

The text of the former President's September 11 address to the nation follows:

"My fellow Americans: I come to you tonight with a heavy heart. Two years ago today, thousands of innocent Americans were murdered by terrorist maniacs. In the script I've been handed, I'm now supposed to tell you that America is safer today, and that the world is kinder and nicer and happier, because of I'm such a brilliant general in the War on Terror.

But who are we kidding? Yesterday, Osama released his new hit video. The terrorists are having a picnic ever since I turned over our foreign policy to Saudi Arabia and Exxon-Mobil.

And here's the point in my speech where my handlers would have me tell you about how I've been praying hard, making it sound like I just got off the phone with the Lord. I don't know about you, but I find it pretty darn offensive, downright blasphemous, to drag the Lord's name into every cheap campaign speech and chest-pounding war threat. Osama says he talks to God too. Let's leave Him out of the politics from now on, OK?

Look, in my speech this past Sunday, I used the word "democracy" about 11 times when talking about Iraq. It's democracy Florida-style, I suppose. Except we're not fixing the vote this time . we aren't letting these people vote at all. "Iraqis aren't prepared for democracy." That's what Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein told me.

So we're blowing 100 billion bucks we don't have to colonize a country we don't want. Rummy tries to explain it to me each morning -- oil this and oil that -- but I just don't see it. And one of our kids dying there every day - where are their parents, anyway? My dad didn't let that happen - he got me out of the service. Didn't I look neat in that fly-boy suit?

And, let me tell you, I just looked at our nation's piggy bank. Uh-oh.

When I arrived, the last guy left me $4 trillion and said, "Be careful with all that cash in this neighborhood." Well, I have to level with you, America: it's all gone. The cupboard's bare and this year alone we blew half a trillion more dollars than we have in our bank account. Man, I can't believe I went through all that dough stone sober.

And what did we get for it? A Fatherland Security Department that's trying to read the labels on everyone's underpants. Think about it, all this Total Information Awareness KGB stuff: two years ago Americans were the victims - but my government has made Americans the suspects. I don't know about you, but this guy Ashcroft scares the bejeezus out of me.

And today I'm told that over nine million Americans are out of work. That's not so bad: I haven't done much work in my lifetime either. But my mama explained to me that not everyone's daddy can lend them an oil well to tide them over.

It's like I can't get anything right. The lights are going out in Ohio and the North Pole is melting. I don't get it. I appointed all those regulators that Ken Lay told me to, and I got rid of all the rules that got in the way of patriotic Polluter-Americans .. and what's the upshot? America the Beautiful is looking like she's had a pretty rough night. Won't be long before the whole country smells like Houston.

And now the stock market's floating face down in the swimming pool -- despite everything I've done for those guys on Wall Street. Even my plan to give every millionaire an extra million seems to have backfired. Greenspam says I've created "business risk." Says I spook investors. But when I asked Greenspam for a solution, all he did was hand me a bag of pretzels.

Hey, I can take a hint. OK, I'm over my head on this one. I look back over these last years, and what have I got to show you for it: two years of bloodshed, economic devastation, and spreading fear in America and abroad.

When I ran for this office, I said the issue was, "character." And just look at the characters around me. I've gotten all their resignations today. And while I've got some character left, here's my own good-bye note too. Let's face it: I have held a title which I did not win, and for which I have proven unqualified. You know it. And I know it.

It's at this point in the speech where I'm supposed to say, "And may God bless America." God better, because Dick Cheney won't. Don't panic: I'm not turning over this sacred office to Mr. Contracts-R-Us.

Instead, I've petitioned the United States Supreme Court to pick a President for us. Those guys picked the last one, why not the next one?

And so, my fellow Americans, you can take this job and .."

Here, Mr. Bush's words became unintelligible. As usual.
=====================

[Delmar]

Skeptic
Thanks for your latest submision from THE ONION. I didn't know you were a fan of satire.

[BillyBob]

Mr. Snacks:
* I attacked and occupied two countries.

Bush;
No, I retaliated against the terrorist occupation of Afghanistan which was responsible for the attacks on the US on 9-11, the USS Cole and others terrorist attacks. I swore to fight terrorists and any country that harbors terrorists. I gave the Taliban a chance to exit Afghanistan and I gave Saddam a chance to leave Iraq. Both declined. Oh well!!

Snacks;
* I am the first president in US history to order a military occupation of a
sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world
community.

Bush;
No, I am exercising my duty and authority under the Constitution of the US to defend my country and its citizens.

Snacks;
* I withdrew from or abrogated more international treaties than any
president in US history.

Bush;
Yep! If you would like to list the treaties, I will gladly give you the reason for each, especially the Kyoto Treaty, which was an unfair treaty designed to penalize the US and give exemptions to most other countries. I laugh at this accusation!

Snacks;
* I refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court.

Bush;
Hell Yes!!!!!! I will not subjugate the US Constitution to a bunch of American Hating Commies!

Snacks;
* I refuse to allow international or Red Cross access to US prisoners of
war; I no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Bush;
Uh, they are enemy combatants of the US and they are TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!! These guys do not abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention. These guys flew airplanes into our buildings. Why don't you ask THEM why they don't play fair?!!!!! Screw them!!!

Snacks;
* I took the world's sympathy after 9-11 and in less than a year made the US
the most resented country in the world, possibly the biggest diplomatic
failure in US history.

Bush;
That is a lie. First of all, the US has been hated for decades. Secondly, 2002 had the lowest incidence of terrorism in over 30 years. I would say that the US policies are working quite well!

Snacks;
* I am the first US president to have a majority of the people of EuropeGHi
(71%) view my presidency as the greatest threat to world peace and
stability.

Bush;
Good! The last thing I am supposed to concern myself with is how the Europeans 'feel'. I am the President of the USA, not Europe! Are you stupid??

Snacks;
* I am the first US president to have the people of South Korea feel more
threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Bush;
That is stupid. The US isn't going to attack S. Korea, N. Korea is. Thanks to Clinton and Carter, of course. What a bunch of liberal partisan crap!

[mrsnacks]

Billy Bob : Thanks for responding.
======================

nacks;
* I am the first US president to have the people of South Korea feel more
threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Bush;
That is stupid. The US isn't going to attack S. Korea, N. Korea is. Thanks to Clinton and Carter, of course. What a bunch of liberal partisan crap!
=============================
I disagree. This was on mainstream media. I was in Japan during that time on business when I heard that S Korea feared the Us more than they feared N Korea. I agree that it sounds illogical but that's what S Korea said.

[BillyBob]

Mainstream media is liberaly slanted. Also, if the S. Koreans are more afraid of the US than N Korea, it is only because they do not know the reality of the situation and have been propogandized against the US...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
...if the S. Koreans are more afraid of the US than N Korea, it is only because they do not know the reality of the situation and have been propogandized against the US... Must be those orbital mind control lasers that got lofted during the Clinton Administration...:chuckle:

[mrsnacks]

Billy Bob : Maybe this is a dumb question. You talk of propaganda elsewhere. Do you think the American people are being fed propaganda by the media and government or do you think we are being fed the real truth ? And if are getting the real truth -- how do you know ?

[BillyBob]

We are getting propaganda fed to us every day. How do you think Skeptic got so messed up?

[mrsnacks]

What can i say . You believe what the government tells . You believe Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if in your Bible it says " If you accept Bush in your life , you'll be saved.' There's nothing to discuss anymore. Bush , Powell , and Cheney, lied to the American people regarding WMD.But none of you supporters will admit the lies and cover - ups of the administration. You see you are so blinded by conservative propaganda you can't see straight.

You site that one of your interests is avoiding the IRS. Why ? You're not being a loyal Republican much less than an American. Support your government and troops by NOT AVOIDING THE IRS. Pay your taxes. Kind of hypocritical aren't you. I am afraid to ask what you think of minorities. I'm out of here.

[BillyBob]

Snacks;
What can i say .

Billy;
I dunno, but I'm sure you will say it.

Snacks;
You believe what the government tells .

Billy;
Nope. Not me.

Snacks;
You believe Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if in your Bible it says " If you accept Bush in your life , you'll be saved.'

Billy;
What are you talking about? My Bible?

Snacks;
There's nothing to discuss anymore.

Billy;
Then why have you written so much more?

Snacks;
Bush , Powell , and Cheney, lied to the American people regarding WMD.

Billy;
That has yet to be seen. I do not think they lied at all. Besides, WMD was only one of many reasons we went to Iraq.

Snacks;
But none of you supporters will admit the lies and cover - ups of the administration.

Billy;
I haven't seen any evidence of a cover-up.

Snacks;
You see you are so blinded by conservative propaganda you can't see straight.

Billy;
You commies are so blinded by the fact that the dems aren't in the White House that you will invent any collection of lies and propaganda to try to win the election in 2004 even if it means deception and derision. Typical neocom.

Snacks;
You site that one of your interests is avoiding the IRS. Why ?

Billy;
They are an illegal institution.

Snacks;
You're not being a loyal Republican

Billy;
When have I ever said that I was loyal to the Republican party?

Snacks;
much less than an American.

Billy;
:crackup:

Snacks;
Support your government and troops by NOT AVOIDING THE IRS.

Snacks:
:crackup:

Snacks;
Pay your taxes.

Billy;
I pay TONS of taxes!!!!!!!!!! See, more spin from the socialist left!

Snacks;
Kind of hypocritical aren't you.

Billy;
Not at all.

Snacks;
I am afraid to ask what you think of minorities.

Billy;
Oh, here we go. Now I'm gonna get the Trent Lott treatment. Instead of asking me a simple question, you are making a insinuation of racism. You guys only know one trick. Sad.

Snacks;
I'm out of here.

Billy;
Good, go back to Cuba and hang out with your communist buddies.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Snacks;
What can i say .

Billy;
I dunno, but I'm sure you will say it.

Snacks;
You believe what the government tells .

Billy;
Nope. Not me.

Snacks;
You believe Bush and I wouldn't be surprised if in your Bible it says " If you accept Bush in your life , you'll be saved.'

Billy;
What are you talking about? My Bible?

Snacks;
There's nothing to discuss anymore.

Billy;
Then why have you written so much more?

Snacks;
Bush , Powell , and Cheney, lied to the American people regarding WMD.

Billy;
That has yet to be seen. I do not think they lied at all. Besides, WMD was only one of many reasons we went to Iraq.

Snacks;
But none of you supporters will admit the lies and cover - ups of the administration.

Billy;
I haven't seen any evidence of a cover-up.

Snacks;
You see you are so blinded by conservative propaganda you can't see straight.

Billy;
You commies are so blinded by the fact that the dems aren't in the White House that you will invent any collection of lies and propaganda to try to win the election in 2004 even if it means deception and derision. Typical neocom.

Snacks;
You site that one of your interests is avoiding the IRS. Why ?

Billy;
They are an illegal institution.

Snacks;
You're not being a loyal Republican

Billy;
When have I ever said that I was loyal to the Republican party?

Snacks;
much less than an American.

Billy;
:crackup:

Snacks;
Support your government and troops by NOT AVOIDING THE IRS.

Snacks:
:crackup:

Snacks;
Pay your taxes.

Billy;
I pay TONS of taxes!!!!!!!!!! See, more spin from the socialist left!

Snacks;
Kind of hypocritical aren't you.

Billy;
Not at all.

Snacks;
I am afraid to ask what you think of minorities.

Billy;
Oh, here we go. Now I'm gonna get the Trent Lott treatment. Instead of asking me a simple question, you are making a insinuation of racism. You guys only know one trick. Sad.

Snacks;
I'm out of here.

Billy;
Good, go back to Cuba and hang out with your communist buddies.


:chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Oh, here we go. Now I'm gonna get the Trent Lott treatment. Instead of asking me a simple question, you are making a insinuation of racism. You guys only know one trick. Sad.
Come on, BB! I'm sure some of your best friends are minorities...:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Yes, patriots are a minority.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yes, patriots are a minority. Define "patriot".

[BillyBob]

Conservative Constitutionalist Americans

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Conservative Constitutionalist Americans So, Mercenary, Self-Interested Americans are not patriots...?

There's nothing wrong with doing well by doing good...or preferring to be on the side that's winning...

::waits for BillyBob to say "You'd sell your own mother if the price was right!"::

[mrsnacks]

Snacks;
You site that one of your interests is avoiding the IRS. Why ?

Billy;
They are an illegal institution.
=======================

Wow Billy ,Bush doesn't think so . I am not a commie. I'm a homie by the way.

I am not a Democrat nor Republican. I'm a Leo.
If it's an illegal institution why hasn't Bush, your hero, gotten rid of the IRS ?

Funny thing - I'm gonna get this dog as a
gift . I am going to name it Billy Bob Castro . He's a chihuahua by the way. What do you think ?






:chuckle:

[rfburnhertz]

Originally posted by Gerald
So, Mercenary, Self-Interested Americans are not patriots...?

There's nothing wrong with doing well by doing good...or preferring to be on the side that's winning...


There is nothing wrong with being on the side that is winning?

So, had you lived in Nazi Germany at it's peak you'd have goose stepped happily along because you were on the then winning side?

[BillyBob]

Snacks;
Wow Billy ,Bush doesn't think so .

Billy;
So?

Snacks;
I am not a commie.

Billy;
Sure you are.

Snacks;
I'm a homie by the way.

Billy;
Not so good looking, eh?

Snacks;
I am not a Democrat nor Republican.

Billy;
You are a commie.

Snacks;
I'm a Leo.

Billy;
That's gay.

Snacks;
If it's an illegal institution why hasn't Bush, your hero, gotten rid of the IRS ?

Billy;
He couldn't if he wanted to. He had to fight like hell just to give taxpayers a tax cut. He isn't my hero, by the way. I do support his decision to remove Saddam.

Snacks;
Funny thing - I'm gonna get this dog as a
gift .

Billy;
That's not funny.

Snacks;
I am going to name it Billy Bob Castro .

Billy;
After your 2 hero's.

Snacks;
He's a chihuahua by the way. What do you think ?

Billy;
Not much meat there. Maybe enough for a sandwich.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
There is nothing wrong with being on the side that is winning?

So, had you lived in Nazi Germany at it's peak you'd have goose stepped happily along because you were on the then winning side? That's what most good German citizens did at the time; those that didn't had a tendency to come down with a bad case of dead.

As I happen to prefer staying alive...well, you do the math...

[mrsnacks]

Hey Billy Bob : Bush said that Sadam was not linked to 9-11 ! Boy that's better late than never. Alex jones had been saying that since the 9-11 . So what do you think of Bush now ? Where's Skeptic ?
===========================

He isn't my hero, by the way.
========================
Well then who is your hero ? And don't say General Robert E Lee. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

My bold:

=========================
Published on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 by the Boston Globe
Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged
by Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

"There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof.

Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said.

Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda.

"The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said.

Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on , that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. [b]"The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."
=========================

This is an example of the ongoing effort by neocons to sway public opinion, not by presenting solid hard evidence, but by often repeating statements that initially sound plausible to the uninformed masses, but which are not supported by the evidence.

[Skeptic]

=========================
Published on Wednesday, September 17, 2003 by the Boston Globe
Cheney's Misspeaking Streak
by Derrick Z. Jackson

DICK CHENEY has lived off his press clippings far too long. In 2000, Cheney was the stealth vice presidential candidate whose image obliterated his radical associations with the far right and oil. Next to presidential candidate George W. Bush, who had little foreign experience. Cheney, a former defense secretary, White House chief of staff, and congressman, was described by both Republicans and Democrats as adding "gravitas," "weight," "heft," and "integrity" to the ticket.

His balding dome, round body, and soft voice led many to describe him as "grandfatherly." He was described by political analysts and journalists as a safe and even boring addition to the ticket who would "do no harm" to Bush's bid for the White House.

Three years later, the stealth grandfather is the hired gun. His harm to America's integrity is now incalculable.

On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Cheney claimed that the White House has "learned more and more that there was a relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. One of his pieces of "evidence" was the old report of a meeting in Prague in early 2001 between Mohamed Atta, one of the Sept. 11 airplane hijackers, and what Cheney described as "a senior Iraqi intelligence official."

The Czech government began backing away from the claim almost as soon as it was made. American and British intelligence agencies never found any hard evidence of a meeting. The claim became a dubious if not a dead issue in intelligence circles more than a year ago. The more likely possibility, according to intelligence records, was that Atta was in Virginia Beach, casing naval facilities.

Yet Cheney on his own brought it back up Sunday as if the meeting remains a real possibility, with an investigation still in progress. "With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack. But we've never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Cheney also made the claim that Al Qaeda "sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained" on biological and chemical weapons and bomb making. No such training sessions have ever been confirmed. Cheney offered no new evidence to substantiate his claim. The Globe, in a story yesterday, quoted a senior defense official as saying, "There isn't any new intelligence."

Cheney's claim that we have learned more when we have learned nothing more is one more lie in the chain of deception that convinced a critical number of Americans to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq -- at the loss of nearly 300 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. The fact that he dredged up the thinnest of alleged links between Iraq and Al Qaeda shocked his own intelligence officials. The fact that his own senior defense officials say there is no new intelligence is a dead giveaway that there never was a justification for this invasion.

It is fitting that Cheney is the man showing the White House's empty hand. It was he who said during the buildup:

"We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

"We know he's reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War."

"We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization."

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

The string of claims has finally reached the point where the media are challenging dear old granddad. On Sunday's "Meet the Press," NBC's Tim Russert replayed the quote about Saddam currently having reconstituted nuclear weapons. Russert said to Cheney, "You misspoke."

Cheney responded, "Yeah, I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show `weapons capability.' We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon."

Misspeak? In March, Russert asked Cheney, "What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?" Cheney responded, "Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons."

With no proof that Saddam had any of those weapons at the time of the invasion, Cheney's claim that he misspoke becomes yet another lie. Cheney once wowed the Washington elite with his gravitas. With so many soldiers and civilians dead, his gravitas now leads to the grave.
=========================

[BillyBob]

:crackup:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
:crackup: Here's what cracks me up: Bush's Approval Rating Down, Clark Rises - Poll (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3489075) :crackup:

More on your man, Cheney:

=====================
Published on Friday, September 19, 2003 by the Boston Globe
Cheney's Conflict With the Truth
by Derrick Z. Jackson

ON "MEET THE PRESS" last Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now, for over three years."

That is the latest White House lie.

Within 48 hours, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey pointed reporters toward Cheney's public financial disclosure sheets filed with the US Office of Government Ethics. The sheets show that in 2002, Cheney received $162,392 in deferred salary from Halliburton, the oil and military contracting company he ran before running for vice president. In 2001, Cheney received $205,298 in deferred salary from Halliburton.

The 2001 salary was more than Cheney's vice presidential salary of $198,600. Cheney also is still holding 433,333 stock options.

Flushed into the open, Cheney spokeswoman Catherine Martin said the vice president will continue to receive about $150,000 a year from Halliburton in 2003, 2004, and 2005. If President bush wins a second term, that means Cheney will make at least $800,000 from the company while sitting in office.

Martin said the payments did not represent a lie. She said Cheney had already earned that salary. She said Cheney took out an insurance policy that would guarantee the money would be paid to him no matter what happened to the company.

Five years ago, America was in a tizzy over President Clinton's "That depends on what the meaning of is, is." That was over lying about sex. For that, Clinton was impeached. Now, we have a vice president who tells America he has severed his ties even as his umbilical cord doubles his salary. To him, it depends what the meaning of i$, i$.

We know what the meaning of i$, i$ to Halliburton. It is by far the largest beneficiary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. With no-bid, no-ceiling contracts, the company has already amassed $2 billion in work. It is doing everything from restoring oil facilities to providing toilets for troops. A year ago Halliburton was staring at nearly a half-billion dollars in losses. In the second quarter of 2003 it posted a profit of $26 million.

No conflict of interest has been proven between Cheney's salary and Halliburton's Iraq work, but even before the invasion and occupation, Cheney's concern about the public's perception led to years of deception.

In the summer of 2000, he told Larry King that quitting Halliburton for the vice presidency means "I take a bath." He gave up a $1.3 million annual salary, but most people would have settled for mere shower droplets of his $33 million "retirement" package. By strange coincidence, at the time of the Republican National Convention, Halliburton gave about $280,000 to Republican candidates for office in the first half of 2000. It gave less than $10,000 to Democrats.

At the time, Cheney said: "I will take whatever steps I have to take to avoid any conflict of interest. That is to say, by the time I'm sworn in on January 20, I will have eliminated any possibility that I have a continuing financial interest in Halliburton stock or share price. . . . I will do whatever I have to do to guarantee that there's no conflict."

Cheney has set up the 433,333 stock options in a charitable trust. But his whole vice presidency has been a general conflict of interest, symbolized by his secret industrial society known as the Energy Task Force. Cheney has resisted all efforts by the General Accounting Office and advocacy groups to provide documents that detail the proceedings of the task force. In the two and a half years since the task force was convened, the White House has been on a rampage to slash or gut environmental measures.

Cheney's latest attempt to play Americans for fools came in the very same interview during which he was forced to say "I did misspeak" about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons, a falsehood that whipped up support for the invasion. The question is how many more misspeaks and lies Americans will tolerate. Back when Clinton was in trouble, Cheney's wife, Lynne, said, "The Clintons are very good at defining and creating new realities that are based not on absolute truths, but on what they believe to be true at any given moment."

Clinton will be forever tarnished for "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Dick Cheney's continuing salary from the top profiteer of an invasion fueled by his sexed-up claims of Saddam Hussein's weapons is the creation of a new, mad reality. Cheney has said in so many words, "I did not have financial relations with Halliburton." Americans must determine whether that lie is as sexy as lies about sex. With nearly 300 American soldiers dead, one would hope so.
=====================

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
If President bush wins a second term, that means Cheney will make at least $800,000 from the company while sitting in office.

Billy;
As opposed to the 20 Million a year he was making before he sacrificed a lucrative job for public service. He even dumped his holdings in Haliburton at the demand of the libs.

HE DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU PEOPLE DEMANDED AND YOU STILL TRY TO FIND FAULT WITH HIM.

Silly, partisan neocom.....

By the way, I will make more money in the 8 years that Bush is in office than Cheney will make from his deferred salary.

Point: IT'S NOT THAT MUCH MONEY YOU BIG DOPE!!!!!!!

[philosophizer]

Uh oh BB, now Skeptic's gonna come after you to pay a higher rate, off balance rich-person tax since you're making money and aren't on welfare.
:greedy:

[BillyBob]

Are you saying that I am 'off-balance'? :D

[Poly]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Are you saying that I am 'off-balance'? :D
I always thought that was a given. ;)

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Are you saying that I am 'off-balance'? :D

Sure. On the political scale you're conservative and not middle-of-the-road. I thought it was a compliment. :)

[BillyBob]

I take it as a compliment, Philo. Thanks.

I think that Conservatism is representative of Mainstream America and Liberalism is the extreme perspective. In fact, I will propose that liberalism is Anti-American. It's really no different than communism.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
In fact, I will propose that liberalism is Anti-American. It's really no different than communism. I propose that neoconservatism is similar to fascism!

Here is something from the June 30, 2003 issue of The American Conservative:

==========================
Flirting with Fascism

Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right.

By John Laughland

On the antiwar Right, it has been customary to attack the warmongering neoconservative clique for its Trotskyite origins. Certainly, the founding father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940. Other future leading lights of the neocon movement were also initially Trotskyites, like James Burnham and Max Kampelman—the latter a conscientious objector during the war against Hitler, a status that Evron Kirkpatrick, husband of Jeane, used his influence to obtain for him. But there is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review—and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran.

Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

This is not the first time Ledeen has written eloquently on his love for “the democratic revolution” and “creative destruction.” In 1996, he gave an extended account of his theory of revolution in his book, Freedom Betrayed — the title, one assumes, is a deliberate reference to Trotsky’s Revolution Betrayed. Ledeen explains that “America is a revolutionary force” because the American Revolution is the only revolution in history that has succeeded, the French and Russian revolutions having quickly collapsed into terror. Consequently, “[O]ur revolutionary values are part of our genetic make-up. … We drive the revolution because of what we represent: the most successful experiment in human freedom. … We are an ideological nation, and our most successful leaders are ideologues.” Denouncing Bill Clinton as a “counter-revolutionary” (!), Ledeen is especially eager to make one point: “Of all the myths that cloud our understanding, and therefore paralyze our will and action, the most pernicious is that only the Left has a legitimate claim to the revolutionary tradition.”

Ledeen’s conviction that the Right is as revolutionary as the Left derives from his youthful interest in Italian fascism. In 1975, Ledeen published an interview, in book form, with the Italian historian Renzo de Felice, a man he greatly admires. It caused a great controversy in Italy. Ledeen later made clear that he relished the ire of the left-wing establishment precisely because “De Felice was challenging the conventional wisdom of Italian Marxist historiography, which had always insisted that fascism was a reactionary movement.” What de Felice showed, by contrast, was that Italian fascism was both right-wing and revolutionary. Ledeen had himself argued this very point in his book, Universal Fascism, published in 1972. That work starts with the assertion that it is a mistake to explain the support of fascism by millions of Europeans “solely because they had been hypnotized by the rhetoric of gifted orators and manipulated by skilful propagandists.” “It seems more plausible,” Ledeen argued, “to attempt to explain their enthusiasm by treating them as believers in the rightness of the fascist cause, which had a coherent ideological appeal to a great many people.” For Ledeen, as for the lifelong fascist theoretician and practitioner, Giuseppe Bottai, that appeal lay in the fact that fascism was “the Revolution of the 20th century.”

Ledeen supports de Felice’s distinction between “fascism-movement” and “fascism-regime.” Mussolini’s regime, he says, was “authoritarian and reactionary”; by contrast, within “fascism-movement,” there were many who were animated by “a desire to renew.” These people wanted “something more revolutionary: the old ruling class had to be swept away so that newer, more dynamic elements—capable of effecting fundamental changes—could come to power.” Like his claim that the common ground between Nazism and Italian fascism was “exceedingly minimal”—Ledeen writes, “The fact of the Axis Pact should not be permitted to become the overriding consideration in this analysis”—Ledeen’s careful distinction between fascist “regime” and “movement” makes him a clear apologist for the latter. “While ‘fascism-movement’ was overcome and eventually suppressed by ‘fascism-regime,’” he explains, “fascism nevertheless constituted a political revolution in Italy. For the first time, there was an attempt to mobilize the masses and to involve them in the political life of the country.” Indeed, Ledeen criticizes Mussolini precisely for not being revolutionary enough. “He never had enough confidence in the Italian people to permit them a genuine participation in fascism.” Ledeen therefore concurs with the fascist intellectual, Camillo Pellizi, who argues—in a book Ledeen calls “a moving and fundamental work”—that Mussolini’s was “a failed revolution.” Pellizzi had hoped that “the new era was to be the era of youthful genius and creativity”: for him, Ledeen says, the fascist state was “a generator of energy and creativity.” The purest ideologues of fascism, in other words, wanted something very similar to that which Ledeen himself wants now, namely a “worldwide mass movement” enabling the peoples of the world, “liberated” by American militarism, to participate in the “greatest experiment in human freedom.” Ledeen wrote in 1996, “The people yearn for the real thing—revolution.”

Ledeen was especially interested in the role played by youth in Italian fascism. It was here that he detected the movement’s most exciting revolutionary potential. The young Ledeen wrote that those who exalted the position of youth in the fascist revolution—like those who argued in favor of his beloved “universal fascism”—were committed to exporting Italian fascism to the whole world, an idea in which Mussolini was initially uninterested. When he was later converted to it, Mussolini said that fascism drew on the universalist heritage of Rome, both ancient and Catholic. No doubt Ledeen thinks that the new Rome in Washington has the same universalist mission. He writes that people around Berto Ricci—the editor of the fascist newspaper L’Universale, and a man he calls “brilliant” and “an example of enthusiasm and independence”— “called for the formation of a new empire, an empire based not on military conquest but rather on Italy’s unique genius for civilization. … They intended to develop the traditions of their country and their civilization in such a manner as to make them the basic tenets of a new world order.” Ledeen adds, in a passage that anticipates his later love of creative destruction, “Clearly the act of destruction which would produce the flowering of the new fascist hegemony would sweep away the present generation of Italians, along with the rest.” And Giuseppe Bottai, to whom Ledeen attributes “considerable energy and autonomy,” was notable for his belief that “the infusion of the creative energies of a new generation was essential” for the fascist revolution. Bottai “implored the young … to found a new order arising from the spontaneous activity of their creation.”

One of the greatest exponents of such youthful vitalism was the high priest of fascism, the poet and adventurer Gabriele D’Annunzio, to whom Ledeen devoted an enthusiastic biography in 1977. Years ago, I visited D’Annunzio’s house on the shores of Lake Garda: there is a battleship in the garden and a Brenn gun in the sitting room. D’Annunzio was an eccentric and militaristic Italian Nietzschean who “eulogized rape and acts of savagery” committed by the people he called his spiritual ancestors. The poet was also an early prophet of military intervention and regime change: he invaded the Croatian city of Fiume (now Rijeka) in 1919 and held the city for a year, during which he put into practice his theories of “New Order.” In 1918, moreover, D’Annunzio had dropped propaganda leaflets over Vienna promising to liberate the Austrians from their own government, something Ledeen hails as “a glorious gesture.” D’Annunzio’s watchword was “the liberation of human personality.” “His heroism during the war made it possible,” Ledeen writes, “to bridge the chasm between intellectuals and the masses. … The revolt D’Annunzio led was directed against the old order of Western Europe, and was carried out in the name of youthful creativity and virility.”

As Ledeen shows, the Italian fascists expressed their desire “to tear down the old order” (his words from 2002) in terms that are curiously anticipatory of a famous statement in 2003 by the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. In 1932, Asvero Gravelli also divided Europe into “old” and “new” when he wrote, in Towards the Fascist International, “Either old Europe or young Europe. Fascism is the gravedigger of old Europe. Now the forces of the Fascist International are rising.” It all sounds rather prophetic.
==========================

[BillyBob]

Conservatism equals freedom, fascism does not. You guys love to make that comparison becuase you libs are all liars.

Liberlism equals communism. Liberals like to be called 'progressives', which, by their own definition is socialist. I saw Ed Asner on Hannity and Colmes just last week openly profess to being a socialist. Socialism and communism are the same thing.

You, my little red friend, are a

COMMIE!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You, my little red friend, are a

COMMIE! You, my redneck friend, are a

FASCIST!

[HerodionRomulus]

Communism and Socialism are not the same thing.

In simple terms, so the simple can understand, Socialism is what Marx proposed in Das Kapital.
Communism is the variant of Socialism instituted by Lenin and Trotsky and uses terror and autocracy to control.

Britain is a Socialist country. Uhhhhh What party is Blair leader of?

Most of Europe and Israel(think Ben-Gurion and Golda) are socialist with a representative form of government. They manage a very high standard of living with more personal freedom than most countries.

Conservatism is a bogus name. Most of what passes for convervatism does not wish to keep but rather to replace. How can Leeden be conservative when he wishes to continually change. His philosphy reminds me of Trotsky and his theory of perpetual revolution.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
You, my redneck friend, are a

FASCIST!

Billy;
I can prove you are a commie. I have done so plenty of times. This time, I will let you prove that I am a fascist.

Go for it, you silly neocom!

[BillyBob]

Herodipus;
Communism and Socialism are not the same thing.

Billy;
Of course they are. They are equally distant from the freedoms specified by the Constitution.

HerodItThroughThe GrapeVive;
In simple terms, so the simple can understand, Socialism is what Marx proposed in Das Kapital.
Communism is the variant of Socialism instituted by Lenin and Trotsky and uses terror and autocracy to control.

Billy;
In a simpler term that even commies can understand.
Socialism = communism = liberalism = democrat party.

Heroin;
Britain is a Socialist country. Uhhhhh What party is Blair leader of?

Billy;
So? All european countries are communist. What's your point?

HeroOfTheStupid;
Most of Europe and Israel(think Ben-Gurion and Golda) are socialist with a representative form of government. They manage a very high standard of living with more personal freedom than most countries.

Billy;
So???????????????????????????? We [US] maintain a higher standard of living than any other country in the history of mankind! It's easy to maintain a higher standard of living than most countries....what's your point???????? :doh:

HereWeGoAgain;
Conservatism is a bogus name.

Billy;
Wanna hear a bogus name? 'Progressive' :darwinsm:

HeeHaw;
Most of what passes for convervatism does not wish to keep but rather to replace. How can Leeden be conservative when he wishes to continually change. His philosphy reminds me of Trotsky and his theory of perpetual revolution.

Billy;
I refuse to let a commie like you define Conservatism. You obviously don't get it.

<ringggggggg>

Herod-'Hello'?

Hitler- 'So, how did we do'?

Herod-'Billy kicked my @$$ as usual'

Hitler-'I told you to talk about the Jews!!!!'

Herod-'I did'

Hitler-'You should have mentioned the Russians'

Herod-'I did'

Hitler-'You should just put a pistol in your mouth, pull the trigger and put you out of our misery.'

Herod-BLAM!

:dead:

[taxpayerslavery]

Government Socialism is Communism piecemeal, but they both force one person to work for another via government threat, intimidation and coercion. :eek:

Communism is just plain slavery. :doh:
Government Socialism is slavery accomplished via taxation = Taxpayer Slavery.:shocked:

Due to the realities of human nature, those who advocate socialism/communism are either naive or evil. :nono:

Find out more at http://www.taxpayerslavery.org/

Currently the U.S. Constitution outlaws government social/welfare/handout programs. :bannana:

I recommend that those of us who are freedom loving, exercise our 13th amendment rights by lodging a formal complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court. :thumb:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
You, my redneck friend, are a

FASCIST!

Billy;
I can prove you are a commie. I have done so plenty of times. This time, I will let you prove that I am a fascist.

Go for it, you silly neocom! I found something that might shed some light on the subject:

=======================
Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.


The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
=======================

Any of this sound familiar?

BillyBob, if you focus only on dictatorial or totalitarian aspects of Fascism, you are missing the point. The right-wing conservatives in America are much closer to a Fascist ideology than most people realize.

Do you see yourself in any of the above 14 tenants? :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Regarding Fascist tenant #3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause, see: The Right's Demonization of Muslims (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5005)

[taxpayerslavery]

Skeptic

Interesting list. I noticed how many things on the list apply to Democrats or even good government.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
The above would also apply to a country full of grateful freedom loving citizens. Interesting how this made the list obviously created by a Socialist/Communist professor. Socialists don't like symbols of freedom. :chuckle:
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
Like the Democrat/Socialist/Fascist party which excuses away the rights of the unborn for convenience. Interesting how they also didn't care that the Iraqi people were suffering all of the above. :nono: Don't forget about the right not to be put into the involuntary servitude of others which the Democrat's government social/welfare/handouts programs do to the taxpayers - Taxpayer Slavery.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
I noticed that capitalists and conservatives are missing from the above list. :rolleyes: How about the way Democrats lie about capitalists and conservatives in order to cause a unifying rally against the forces of freedom, i.e. capitalists and conservatives.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
This would also be true of any government which is engaged in a legitimate war. The socialist professor tips his hand by insinuating that the government is supposed to be spending money on a domestic agenda, although he might be able to claim he meant infrastructure expenses.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Such as the Democrats trying to force their version of national gender roles down everybody's throat with affirmative action quotas. The tendency of male dominated government is true of most forms of government world wide, so that counts for nothing. Opposition to abortion and homosexuality would be true of any God fearing moral people. :angel:
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
Those of us who are Conservatives know that the mainstream media has been controlled by the Democrat/Socialist/Fascists for a long time. Now that things are starting to change, it is fun to watch them squirm. We still aren't getting balanced reporting from Iraq. The Democrat controlled mass media are engaging in the lie of omission when they fail to report all of the success occurring in Iraq, but getting their guy elected is more important than the truth. :nono:
Interesting that the government radio, NPR, is almost communist. They should say the full name of their news casts "All things considered . . . from a liberal point of view." You will never hear these people talking about the virtues of eliminating all government social/welfare/handout programs, the center of the debate about how to help the needy.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Where is the proper balance between "obsession" and negligence when the world has many terrorist maniacs. I would say that the proper balance includes closing the borders.
Fear as a motivational tool? Such as Republicans want to starve your children, poison the air and water, take away your social security, wreck the economy. Since these are all lies, they are obviously being used as a motivational tool to control the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
You Democrats won't be able to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion, because there are too many different religions in this country and the Constitution protects us from you imposing a specific religion upon the rest of us. If you could, I'm sure it would be the atheist belief system. I have to admit that you have given it the old college try by intimidating any school which teaches creation while making sure every school teaches the atheist's myth of origins, called evolution, while leaving out evidence which makes it sound foolish. :shut:
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
No need to worry about that in this country, since people are put into power by voters.
I must say that the way Democrats raise the lion share of their campaign contributions from wealthy doners, is concerning. Yet, Republicans get the majority of their campaign contributions from individuals and they out fund raise the Democrats by a large margin, so the voice of the people is alive and well. :bannana:
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
They are also a threat to capitalist societies as can be seen in this country. If I want to work at a supermarket without being a union member forced to pay dues which get used to elect Democrats :mad:, I should be able to do so. As usual, it is the Democrat party which forces its ideas down the throats of average Americans while pretending it does not. :rolleyes:
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
This socialist professor tips his hand when he out rightly states that governments are supposed to be funding 'the arts'. If the government funds 'the arts', the taxpayer who doesn't like the art the government bought for him, is forced to support something for which he gets nothing in return. Art should be funded by those willing to fund it. Socialists also have a disdain for intellectuals, because their ideals fail the test of intellectual scrutiny. Socialist seem to have no concept of how human nature applies to reality. For example:
If I asked a socialist "Why should I work for a living when you are going to give me everything I need whether I work or not, and if I work, I will be the sap getting taxed to death to pay for everybody else who doesn't work so I'll never get anywhere financially anyway?"
I would expect the answer to be something like "ahh ba da da da huh?" :kookoo:
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
For the Democrats/socialists who let out a murderers time and again, causing more murders to occur, I bet anybody who actually advocates punishing criminals would appear to be obsessed with crime and punishment. How about the way Democrats put in judges which have almost limitless power to allow Democrats to force me into involuntary servitude, violating my civil liberties in the false name of compassion. :think:
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
For instance:
The Clintons accusing the people in the White House travel office of breaking the law, which they did not do, ruining their lives so that they could get their cronies from Arkansas into the job.
The Clintons personally knew over 45 people who died from strange circumstances. I would expect a mafia person to have such statistics.
How about the way Clinton pardoned all those criminals his last day in office. Some of them were to help get Hillary elected. One criminal helping out his buddies. :nono:
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Sounds like Chicago and Florida, as well as other places around the country, to me. If voter fraud is occurring in the U.S., you can bet that it is for the benefit of Democrats. Dead people voting in Chicago. An extraordinarily high number of ballots in Florida which had both Gore and Bush punched out in the Democrat controlled districts.
Gee, I wonder, with such a high number of double punched ballots, do you think that somebody could have been double punching them so that they would be disqualified? In Democrat controlled districts, do you think the Gore ballots would have been purposely double punch before they were counted, or do you think Bush ballots would have been double punched so that they wouldn't get counted? HMMM. We don't hear much about this from our Democrat controlled press. :think:

Well Skeptic, this has been quite illuminating. I would say that Socialists are quite close to Fascists. They both oppose freedom. Thank God we live in a country where these forms of government are outlawed by the Constitution. Now all we have to do is assert our rights and get these Socialists off our backs, i.e. end Taxpayer Slavery. :thumb:

[Skeptic]

taxpayerslavery,

Thanks for being a Fascist apologist. You've proven my point that fascism is alive and well in America. However, most people would never suspect. Even the fascists don't know they are fascists. :kookoo:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems,

Billy;
What domestic problems? People in this country have the highest standard of living of any country since the begining of time.

Skeptic;
the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding,

Billy;
Disproportionate? According to who? What scale are you using? Don't you realize that the protection of the US and it's citizens is the primary function of the Federal Government? [Ever read the Constitution?] How the heck are they going to do that without a military?

Skeptic;
and the domestic agenda is neglected.

Billy;
It IS NOT! Bush has proposed dumping tons of money into domestic programs. YOU ARE A LIAR, SKEPTIC!

Skeptic;
Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Billy;
SO? I know that you and your commie buddies hate the military and would prefer to ostracise soldiers. Our military is made up of men and women who make great sacrifices to YOU and the rest of us, sometimes the ultimate sacrifice. They serve freely, without coersion and should be held in the highest regard, YOU BIG COMMIE DOPE.

Silly Neocom....

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Billy;
You mean like how Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton all do?

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Thanks for being a Fascist apologist.

Billy;
You didn't even read what he wrote. You are a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!


Skeptic;
You've proven my point that fascism is alive and well in America.

Billy;
Yes, he proved that is alive and well in the Democrat party.

Skeptic;
However, most people would never suspect.

Billy;
especially you.

Skeptic;
Even the fascists don't know they are fascists.

Billy:
Yes, you don't know you are a fascist. You also deny being a commie. You are so confused.

Just read the Constitution, stop being a partisan hack, say "I Love George Bush" 3 times and become a Conservative.

Welcome Home, son!

[HerodionRomulus]

BigotBob

I'm not defining conservatism, that's already been done. I just commented on how far modern political conservatism has moved away from it's original intent and meaning.

When Newt Gingrich called for a 'revolution' in 96 that was hardly an appeal for preservation, it was radicalism.

Mirriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conservatism)

disposition in politics to preserve what is established

a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change


Since you can't find anything rational to say, you slink further into the gutter and utter insults.
But what does one expect from someone who probably voted twice for Sundquist.
:shocked: :kookoo:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus

Most of Europe and Israel(think Ben-Gurion and Golda) are socialist with a representative form of government. They manage a very high standard of living with more personal freedom than most countries.



The "poor" in America live better than Europe's middle class

[Delmar]

Skeptic

If you are going to claim that apposing the killing of unborn babys makes me a fascist you may feel free to call me a fascist

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
...say "I Love George Bush" 3 times and become a Conservative.
George W. Bush engages in bizarre practices involving farm animals and little boys.

George W. Bush engages in bizarre practices involving farm animals and little boys.

George W. Bush engages in bizarre practices involving farm animals and little boys.
:p

Got a problem with that, BB...?
:chuckle:

[HerodionRomulus]

Originally posted by deardelmar
The "poor" in America live better than Europe's middle class

Any posters here who are from the EU and wish to refute this absurdity?

Clearly you have never visited some of the slums, barrios or backhills of Appalachia I've seen.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by HerodionRomulus
Any posters here who are from the EU and wish to refute this absurdity?

Clearly you have never visited some of the slums, barrios or backhills of Appalachia I've seen.

By income standards I myself am considered a part of "the working poor" The truth however is that I am not doing to bad. I bought a wreck of a house that I am fixing up largley with salvaged matterials and the sweat of my own brow. My kids don't go to bed hungry they are warm in the winter and cool in the summer. As a "general rule" my statment stands.
It is true that some children (who's mothers sell thier food stamps for crack foe example) do starve and some people who like in the backhills of Appalachia just need to get the heck out.

[taxpayerslavery]

by Skeptic
taxpayerslavery,

Thanks for being a Fascist apologist.
Please quote my appology. :think:
by Skeptic
You've proven my point that fascism is alive and well in America. However, most people would never suspect. Even the fascists don't know they are fascists.
And I proved the point by showing how much U.S. liberals are like fascists. You socialists don't know just how closely related you are to fascism. :nono:

I'm am for freedom, a true liberal as defined by the dictionary, known today by the term conservative. :thumb:

[taxpayerslavery]

deardelmar

Good one!

Don't forget that socialism (Taxpayer Slavery), causes poverty. I'll believe a person is actually interested in decreasing poverty when they take action to eliminate its root cause - government social/welfare/handout programs and the resulting taxes.

[Lucky]

I wish I didn't have to pay taxes. And if I buy something at the same store that I work in, the govt. takes a double-portion of my money!

[BillyBob]

HerodItThroughTheGrapeVine;
I'm not defining conservatism, that's already been done. I just commented on how far modern political conservatism has moved away from it's original intent and meaning.

Billy;
I disagree. Conservatism is about the preservation of the Constitution and a free America. That idea has always prevailed.

Herod'sOfHollywood;
When Newt Gingrich called for a 'revolution' in 96 that was hardly an appeal for preservation, it was radicalism.

Billy;
Newt is a good Conservative. We could use more like him.

HerYeeHerYee;
Since you can't find anything rational to say, you slink further into the gutter and utter insults.

Billy;
No, I toss out the insults because they are fun.

HerodUpAndSitDown;
But what does one expect from someone who probably voted twice for Sundquist.

Billy;
Sundquist sucked. I wasn't living in Tennessee when he was elected.

Your losing streak remains unbroken.

BigotBob? :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Gerald
George W. Bush engages in bizarre practices involving farm animals and little boys.

George W. Bush engages in bizarre practices involving farm animals and little boys.

George W. Bush engages in bizarre practices involving farm animals and little boys.
:p

Got a problem with that, BB...?
:chuckle:

Billy;
Hey Gerald, I see a couple of Black Suburbans pulling up to your house. Whatever you do, don't answer the door!

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by deardelmar
The "poor" in America live better than Europe's middle class

Billy;
I would say that the poor in America are the wealthiest poor people on the planet.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
taxpayerslavery,

Thanks for being a Fascist apologist. You've proven my point that fascism is alive and well in America. However, most people would never suspect. Even the fascists don't know they are fascists. :kookoo:

Nice of you to take the time and actually answer his post. You have unparalleled skills in concise writing to condense your response to each of his points into one tiny paragraph, stylistically cloaked in condescension. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Billy;
Hey Gerald, I see a couple of Black Suburbans pulling up to your house. Whatever you do, don't answer the door! No problem! They're just bringing me my new copies of the RED LIST and the BLUE LIST.

And whadaya know? You and Odel are on the RED.

(if you're unfamiliar with this list stuff, simply Google the following string, quotes included:

"red list" "blue list" "al cuppett"

There are some mighty impressive paranoid ravings to be found...)

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Gerald
No problem! They're just bringing me my new copies of the RED LIST and the BLUE LIST.

And whadaya know? You and Odel are on the RED.

(if you're unfamiliar with this list stuff, simply Google the following string, quotes included:

"red list" "blue list" "al cuppett"

There are some mighty impressive paranoid ravings to be found...)

I did the google thing and I sort of had fun. I didn't know the new left behind book was out yet:)

[BillyBob]

Oh man, I was gonna just ignore the whole 'red book blue book, 1 book 2 book' thing. Now I'm almost half interested...Thanks Delmar!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Oh man, I was gonna just ignore the whole 'red book blue book, 1 book 2 book' thing. Now I'm almost half interested...Thanks Delmar! I told you it was some entertaining stuff...:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

"The framework of a totalitarian government has been created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its military adjunct under guise of disaster preparedness. In 1994, Clinton signed E.O. 12919 which authorizes FEMA and the National Security Council to seize control of the nation under a state of emergency during which Americans could be stripped of both their rights and their property. " (http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/CUPPETT.html)

More evidence that the Democrats are fascists. I have seen photos of the internment camps being built to imprison Americans and the furnaces already built to dispose of them. They won't take ME alive! Don't ever give up your right to bear arms!

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Don't ever give up your right to bear arms! Yeah, imagine going to the beach and not being able to have bear arms! Oh, "bear" arms...never mind.:cool:

[BillyBob]

:nono:

[HerodionRomulus]

"Billy;
Sundquist sucked. I wasn't living in Tennessee when he was elected. "

Not here then!!!! :shocked:

Yankee go home!!!!! :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

"The framework of a totalitarian government has been created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its military adjunct under guise of disaster preparedness. In 1994, Clinton signed E.O. 12919 which authorizes FEMA and the National Security Council to seize control of the nation under a state of emergency during which Americans could be stripped of both their rights and their property. " (http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/CUPPETT.html) See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/resources/govdocs/eos/eo12919.html

More evidence that the Democrats are fascists. Give me a break! Now, Democrats are no longer communists, but fascists! :doh:

One cannot be both a communist and a fascist. Perhaps you should study more about the "isms" in question.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/resources/govdocs/eos/eo12919.html

Give me a break! Now, Democrats are no longer communists, but fascists! :doh:

One cannot be both a communist and a fascist. Perhaps you should study more about the "isms" in question.

Hitler was certinly a socialist yet it is comon to hear him refered to by the left as right wing or fascist

[marc]

They that take the sword will perish with their sword and their doublespeak.
Hitler spoke of preventive war to disguise his offensive war against Poland. W spoke of preventive or preemptive war to justify his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
`Attack is defense' is an Orwellian perversion.
May we work for a world where might is not right, where the weaker are protected by international law, where security ius understood as political not military, and where power is shared!
May we work for a world marked by open arms, not closed fists!
The only alternative to international law is the law of the stronger, the law of the jungle, the law of the fist. International law isn't a Halloween decoration that can be arrogantly discarded as `irrelevant'.
The last will be first and the first will learn the wonder of truth from the grieving South.

[BillyBob]

Skeptic;
Give me a break! Now, Democrats are no longer communists, but fascists!

Billy;
I never said that you guys are no longer Commies. I simply said that you are also fascists.

Skeptic;
One cannot be both a communist and a fascist.

Billy;
Sure you can. There are tons of similarities between the two ideologies.
The most obvious is that both inhibit personal freedom and promote a large, totalitarian government which is the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party.

If you are not aware of this, then you need to quickly figure it out, jump ship and become a Conservative. It's not too late!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by marc
The only alternative to international law is the law of the stronger, the law of the jungle, the law of the fist.Newsflash: that's how the Real World™ works, and it has been thus ever since the dawn of civilization.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
The most obvious is that both inhibit personal freedom and promote a large, totalitarian government which is the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party.I could buy into that, especially if they let me shoot Christians and conservatives for sport.

Wouldn't it be great if Al Cuppett was right...?:chuckle:

[Delmar]

Originally posted by marc
They that take the sword will perish with their sword and their doublespeak.
Hitler spoke of preventive war to disguise his offensive war against Poland. W spoke of preventive or preemptive war to justify his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
`Attack is defense' is an Orwellian perversion.
May we work for a world where might is not right, where the weaker are protected by international law, where security ius understood as political not military, and where power is shared!
May we work for a world marked by open arms, not closed fists!
The only alternative to international law is the law of the stronger, the law of the jungle, the law of the fist. International law isn't a Halloween decoration that can be arrogantly discarded as `irrelevant'.
The last will be first and the first will learn the wonder of truth from the grieving South.

international law is not a biblical concept. At least not a favorable one.

[Delmar]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by marc
The only alternative to international law is the law of the stronger, the law of the jungle, the law of the fist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Gerald
Newsflash: that's how the Real World™ works, and it has been thus ever since the dawn of civilization.

True ...and a broken clock is right twice a day

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
I could buy into that, especially if they let me shoot Christians and conservatives for sport.

Billy;
You wanna shoot Conservatives? Christians? Why?

Gerald;
Wouldn't it be great if Al Cuppett was right...?

Billy;
Uhhh, no. I wouldn't be surprised if he is, though.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
You wanna shoot Conservatives? Christians? Why?Well, liberals just kinda sit there and take it; it isn't much of a challenge to shoot fish in a barrel...:chuckle:
I wouldn't be surprised if [Al Cuppett] is [right], though.
:noway:
You can't be serious. Al Cuppett's ravings (assuming Cuppett himself is not an utter fabrication) are drawn straight out of the most fringe-dwelling conspiracy theories.

However entertaining he may be, he's just as full of bilge as all the other wacko conspiracy theorists.

[aikido7]

Be patient, everyone.

FARENHEIT 911 is coming.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Skeptic;
One cannot be both a communist and a fascist.

Billy;
Sure you can. There are tons of similarities between the two ideologies.
The most obvious is that both inhibit personal freedom and promote a large, totalitarian government which is the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party. The fact of historical limits to personal freedom and totalitarian governments of previous Fascist and Communist countries does not mean that Fascism and Communism are defined by limits to personal freedom and totalitarianism. There are clear differences between the too "isms." And these differences are what I'm talking about. Limits to personal freedom and totalitarianism are only METHODS to acheive their ends.

Here is more about the differences (my bold: Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.

Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.

Many of these features were adopted by the Franco regime in Spain and by quasi-fascist dictators in Latin America (e.g., Juan Perón ) and elsewhere. A variation of fascism was the so-called clerico-fascist system set up in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss . This purported to be based on the social and economic doctrines enunciated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, which, however, were never put into operation.

From: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/fascism_TheFascistState.asp

Here is more: A class of political ideologies (and historical political regimes) that takes its name from the movement led by Benito Mussolini that took power in Italy in 1922. Mussolini's ideas and practices directly and indirectly influenced political movements in Germany (especially the Nazi Party), Spain (Franco's Falange Party), France, Argentina, and many other European and non-European countries right up to the present day.

The different "fascist" movements and regimes have varied considerably in their specific goals and practices, but they are usually said to be characterized by several common features:

1.Militant nationalism, proclaiming the racial and cultural superiority of the dominant ethnic group and asserting that group's inherent right to a special dominant position over other peoples in both the domestic and the international order

2.The adulation of a single charismatic national leader said to possess near superhuman abilities and to be the truest representation of the ideals of the national culture, whose will should therefore literally be law

3.Emphasis on the absolute necessity of complete national unity, which is said to require a very powerful and disciplined state organization (especially an extensive secret police and censorship apparatus), unlimited by constitutional restrictions or legal requirements and under the absolute domination of the leader and his political movement or party

4.Militant anti-Communism coupled with the belief in an extreme and imminent threat to national security from powerful and determined Communist forces both inside and outside the country

5.Contempt for democratic socialism, democratic capitalism, liberalism, and all forms of individualism as weak, degenerate, divisive and ineffective ideologies leading only to mediocrity or national suicide

6.Glorification of physical strength, fanatical personal loyalty to the leader, and general combat-readiness as the ultimate personal virtues

7.A sophisticated apparatus for systematically propagandizing the population into accepting these values and ideas through skilled manipulation of the mass media, which are totally monopolized by the regime once the movement comes to power

8.A propensity toward pursuing a militaristic and aggressive foreign policy

9.Strict regulation and control of the economy by the regime through some form of corporatist economic planning in which the legal forms of private ownership of industry are nominally preserved but in which both workers and capitalists are obliged to submit their plans and objectives to the most detailed state regulation and extensive wage and price controls, which are designed to insure the priority of the political leadership's objectives over the private economic interests of the citizenry. Therefore under fascism most of the more important markets are allowed to operate only in a non-competitive, cartelized, and governmentally "rigged" fashion.

**********
Friendly Fascism - by Bertram Gross - quote

"Don't think that modern fascists are like Hitler or Mussolini. Today's Big Government-Big Business tyrants are just as willing to use violence. But they do it more efficiently than the old-time fascists-- with higher tech and lower costs to them. They have the best looks, poli- ticians, celebrities, and control mechanisms that money can buy. Yes, their own conscience tells them that true democracy would be nice. But suppressing their conscience, they under- mine the rights of the working and middle classes. Their operating principle is "Might, Money, Male, Murder-- and also White--Make Right." They wreck the environment. They fool you, rule you, use you, abuse you--and make you like it. They divide you by race, sex, class, and nationality. But they fear the power of the powerless. They're afraid of what you could do if you get off the boob tube and drugs, out of the night clubs and cut-throat competition--and work with others for equal rights."

From: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism_characteristics.html

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeptic, are you claiming that the Conservatives in THIS country [US] are fascists? I just want to be clear on your position before I comment.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
fascism abhors the idea of a classless society

While conservatives are not likely to embrace the commie lingo "classless society" we do embrace unbridled economic freedom. The kind of freedom that allows people from all walks of life unbridled economic success. The kind of success that says to people of any "class" I can aspire to greatness also.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Hey Skeptic, are you claiming that the Conservatives in THIS country [US] are fascists? I just want to be clear on your position before I comment. Not most, but many of the neocons in the Bush administration are very fascist-like and probably do not even realize it. Then, again, some of those neocons might realize it, but do not want to admit it publicly. These neocons are attempting to move our country in a more fascist-like (or neofascist) direction.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Not most, but many of the neocons in the Bush administration are very fascist-like and probably do not even realize it. Then, again, some of those neocons might realize it, but do not want to admit it publicly. These neocons are attempting to move our country in a more fascist-like (or neofascist) direction.

who? how so?

[BillyBob]

Yeah, what Delmar said.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar
who? how so? This might shed some light on it:

My bold:
=============================
US Neoconservatives

In any democratic society there will be shadings of political opinion broadly ranging from fascism on the far right to collectivist socialism or Trotskyism on the far left. In the United States, as in Britain and many other Commonwealth countries, ideology has not been a major driving force in the politics of the majority of people and there has not been the fractioning into myriads of political parties one sees in some European countries. Perhaps this results from the fact that philosophy is no longer taught as part of secondary education in the English-speaking world.

Broadly speaking, in the 20th Century, one would generally find just two mainstream political parties in an English-speaking democracy, one to the right, representing old money and business, one to the left representing organised labour and the disadvantaged. In England these were the Conservative and the Labour parties, and in the United States they were the Republican and Democratic parties.

Within the parties there were activists who certainly had ideologies - but in general the electorate cared little for ideology. People identified themselves as, Conservatives/Republicans or Democrats/Labour and voted accordingly. Often the commitment to the party was life-long.

The Great Depression marked a step change in the fortunes of the right in both the UK and the USA. Politicians of the old right were identified as failures. Massive Keynesian economic intervention become the order of the day and World War II identified fascism as an evil which it was necessary to defeat by all means - including an alliance with Soviet Russia.

Post-war, big government and high taxation remained. Governments were broadly internationalist in outlook, supporting the United Nations, NATO, Bretton Woods, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank.

In order to be electable, Conservatives in England and Republicans in the USA had to become "one nation tories". While they differed from the left on matters of detail, the goal of all politicians was (at least in public) to reduce the gap between rich and poor and to promote equality of opportunity - and if that meant redistribution of wealth through taxation - so be it.

During the Cold War, the great bugbear of the US right was "Communism" as practised in the Soviet Union and its satellites. It became the enemy to be contained and defeated.

Fearful of the "domino effect", the US intervened, both openly and covertly, to contain and defeat the spread of communist regimes - openly through NATO, SEATO and the like organisation and with wars in Korea and then Indochina, covertly through activities such as the funding of Christian Democrat parties in Europe (especially in post-war Italy), with CIA support for "regime changes" in Latin America, Greece, Iran and Iraq, which favoured military dictatorship over democracy, and, above all, with the proxy war in Afghanistan.

An ideology was supplied for this tendency on the US right by a group of self-proclaimed intellectuals, many apostates from communism and Trotskyism, who gathered at the National Review magazine, James Burnham, David Horowitz, Irving Kristol, Frank Mayer, Norman Podhoretz, Willi Schlamm - to name but a few - who started to call themselves "Neoconservatives", presumably because they did not wish to emphasise the fascist nature of the ideology they were preaching but also, as a reader of this page has pointed out, to distinguish themselves from "old" US Conservatives (whom they labelled "Paleoconservatives").

Extreme right wing conservatism in the USA is, of course, pro big business, isolationist in tendency (think of "America First"), and many of the old right wing conservatives also supported segregation and were personally anti-Semitic. In contrast, the Neoconservatives had often come from a liberal Jewish background. Instead of being anti-Semitic, they were rabidly pro-Israel.

Raymond McInnis has done useful research on the origins of Neoconservatism which he has posted to his Blogleft web pages.

According to an article by Michael Lind in the New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/) , the Neoconservatives are:-

"products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right ."
Lind† rightly points out that this movement has no precedents in American culture or political history.

† Lind is Whitehead Fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of "Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the southern takeover of American politics".

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute, defines Neoconservatism thus:-

"Neo-conservatism is the secular political philosophy that defined the reaction of a group of former liberals to what they felt was the Democratic party's policy of appeasement toward the Soviet Union--most especially the USSR's treatment of its Jewish population and its relations with the Arab world. They were a small but influential group of writers, commentators and government officials."

This definition is of importance in one respect: it highlights that fact that there are few Neoconservatives who could be defined as original thinkers, they are mainly journalists, media pundits from New York intellectual circles and people from what is sometimes referred to as "official Washington", the people who inhabit Georgetown and the beltway and seek administration places or advisory functions with contractors to government.

Godfrey Hodgson was for many years as a foreign correspondent in Washington. He was at different times the Washington correspondent of The Observer, the editor of Insight on the Sunday Times, the presenter of the London Programme and of Channel Four News, the foreign editor of The Independent and for the past eight years the director of the Reuters Foundation Programme for Journalists at Oxford University. In his book, "The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America" Publ: Houghton Mifflin Company 1996, Hodgson described the Neoconservatives as:-

"a cross between a generation of New York intellectuals, a coterie, and a tendency." Together, they reflected a narrow alcove of American society: essentially, they are products of Ivy League graduate schools and "a corner of the New York literary world."

According to Hodgson:-

"Although many of them claimed to be 'scholars' or 'social scientists,' their real gifts, in most cases, were for a particular style of what used to be called 'the higher journalism,' more French in many ways than American, in which they slashed away at the errors of those who disagreed with them in great and sometimes cloudy realms of high policy and national destiny. ...They definitely made the decisive breach in the defenses of the liberal orthodoxy, because they succeeded in stripping liberalism in the public mind of its monopoly of expertise...."

The group who founded the magazine The Public Interest (http://www.thepublicinterest.com/) represented the core of what later became the Neoconservative movement.

Hodgson points out:-

"Beginning in the late 1960s this group did develop a cluster of ideas and attitudes that were characteristic of what evolved into an identifiable neoconservative movement. It was to have an immense effect on the form American conservatism took in the 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other societies." ‡

"This belief has been deeply ingrained in the United States since the Revolution. It was strong in the American colonies before the Revolution. It has origins in the Puritanism of the English Revolution in the seventeenth century, and it has religious overtones, in the idea that it is the destiny of the United States to "redeem" a sinful `- world, as well as nationalist ones. Indeed, it has sometimes been called a "secular religion." It is found in every corner of the country geographically and in Americans of every ethnic origin and social class, even among many black Americans."

‡ The Neoconservative conviction that American society is "innately morally superior" is one of the marks of the fascist and imperialist nature of Neoconservative thought.

A somewhat similar view of the superiority of British British society and moral values marked the high point of British Imperialism and perhaps it is more than a coincidence that some Neoconservatives talk in terms of taking up "the White Man's Burden" in the Third World.

As the former editor of the Observer, Will Hutton, said in an on-line debate with Robert Kagan on America's Public Broadcasting System:-

Will Hutton on Neoconservatism

Public Broadcasting System Debate - 3 April 2003

"American Neoconservatism is a very idiosyncratic creed. Its pitiless view of human nature, its refusal to countenance a social contract, its belief in the raw exercise of power -- "full spectrum dominance" -- its attachment to Christian fundamentalism, its attitudes towards abortion and capital punishment, and its deification of liberty of the individual are a mishmash of ideas that have no parallel anywhere.

It is an outlier within the Western conservative tradition, and it has taken very special circumstances for it not to be more seriously challenged intellectually, culturally, and politically within America.

Without the collapse of American liberalism, the openness of American democracy to the influence of corporate money, and the continuing resentments of the distinct civilisation below the Mason-Dixon line, this Neoconservatism would never have come to have the influence it has." (link to full text of debate (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blair/europe/kh.html))

Will Hutton is author of a forthcoming book entitled A Declaration of Interdependence: Why America Should Join the World in which he argues that Europe and America share a great liberal tradition that runs much deeper than the temporary phenomenon engendered by the occupation of the White House by an Administration whose foreign policy has been hijacked by the Neoconservatives.

Hutton's thesis is that the current rift between the Bush Administration and its European allies over the war in Iraq is really a sharp split between this consensus of US/European foreign policy liberalism and the presently prevailing Neoconservatism of the Bush administration.

We question whether the "Neoconservative hijacking of US foreign policy" will prove to be as temporary as Hutton evidently hopes.

From: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm
=============================

More on this later.

[Skeptic]

Review this site: The Neo-Conservative Ascendancy in the Bush Administration (http://www.ipsnews.net/focus/neo-cons/index.asp) :thumb:

Here is a good article from the above site:

My bold:
========================
What Is a Neo-Conservative Anyway?

Commentary - By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (IPS) - With all the attention paid to neo-conservatives in the global media today, one would think that a standard definition of the term would exist. Yet, despite their now being credited with a virtual takeover of U.S. foreign policy under President George W. Bush, a common understanding of 'neo-cons' remains elusive.

A brief description of their basic tenets and origin can help distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration's neo-imperialist trajectory; namely, the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson.

As neo-con godfather Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a ''liberal who was mugged by reality''. True to that description, neo-cons generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots that are still reflected in their polemical and organisational skills and ideological zeal.

Although a number of prominent Catholics are neo-conservatives, the movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defined neo-conservatism over the past 35 years, 'Commentary', is published by the American Jewish Committee. But at the same time, neo-conservative attitudes have reflected a minority position within the U.S. Jewish community, as most Jews remain distinctly liberal in their political and foreign-policy views.

Neo-conservative foreign-policy positions, which have their origin in opposition to the New Left of the 1960s, fears over a return to U.S. isolationism during the Vietnam War and the progressive international isolation of Israel in the wake of wars with its Arab neighbours in 1967 and 1973, have been tactically very flexible over the past 35 years, but its key principles have remained the same.

They begin with the basic foreign-policy realism found in the pessimistic views of human nature and international diplomacy of the English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, which neo-cons share with most U.S. practitioners: ''the condition of man (in a state of nature) ... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone”. Or as Machiavelli, another favourite thinker of the neo-cons, wrote: ''Men are more ready for evil than for good.''

But neo-cons take ''man's'' capacity for evil particularly seriously, and for understandable reasons.

For them, the Nazi Holocaust that killed some six million Jews during World War II is the seminal experience of the 20th century. Not only was it a genocide unparalleled in its thoroughness, the Holocaust also wiped out family members of hundreds of thousands of Jewish citizens in the United States, including, for example, close relatives of the parents of Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

For neo-conservatives, as for most Jews, the Holocaust represents absolute evil, and the factors that contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and the subsequent extermination of European must be fought at all costs..

The ”defining moment in our history was certainly the Holocaust'', Richard Perle, a key neo-con and leading advocate of war with Iraq, recently told BBC's 'Panorama'. ''It was the destruction, the genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering.”

''We don't want that to happen again ... when we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes we should do so, because when we fail to do so, the results are catastrophic,'' he said.

For neo-conservatives, the 1938 Munich agreement, under which Hitler was permitted by Britain and France to take over Czechoslovakia, is the epitome of appeasement that led directly to the Holocaust. As a result, Munich and appeasement are constantly invoked in their rhetoric as a way to summon up the will to resist and defeat the enemy of the day.

Almost every conflict in which the United States has been engaged since the late 1960s -- from Vietnam to Central America to Yugoslavia to the ''war on terror'' in Iraq and against al-Qaeda -- has been portrayed as a new Munich, in which the enemy represents a threat virtually on a par with Hitler.

The resulting worldview tends to Manichaeism -- the notion that the world consists of a permanent struggle between the forces of good and evil, light and dark (an idea that also accords very well both with the thinking of the Christian Right, not to mention, of Bush himself). As Michael Ledeen, a close collaborator of Perle's at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) told the same BBC programme, ''I know the struggle against evil is going to go on forever''.

Three major factors are seen as having contributed to the Holocaust: the failure of the liberal Weimar Republic in Germany to prevent the Nazis' rise; ”appeasement”; and U.S. isolationism that kept Washington from intervening in World War Two earlier.

Although neo-cons profess devotion to liberal democracy, they have never hesitated to assail ”liberalism”, or what they sometimes call with their Christian Right allies ''secular humanism'', whose relativism, in their view, can lead to ”a culture of appeasement”, nihilism or worse. So, even while supposedly defending ”liberal” and democratic ideals, their attitude is at best ambivalent.

Appeasement is prevented by a powerful military capable of defeating any foe, the constant anticipation of new threats, and the willingness to pre-empt them. Thus, neo-cons have consistently favoured big defence budgets, a stance shared by the right-wing Machtpolitikers with whom they formed an alliance in the 1970s to end détente with Moscow.

In their view, peace is to be distrusted, and peace processes are inherently suspect. ”Peace doesn't come from a 'process',” wrote 'Wall Street Journal' editorial writer Robert Pollock last year in a column that denounced the 1990s as a ”decade of appeasement”.

In this view, war is a natural state, and peace is a utopian dream that induces softness, decadence and pacifism, embodied by Bill Clinton whose ”corruption of the national mission, combined with the myth that peace is normal, produces a solvent strong enough to dissolve the strength of our armed forces and the integrity of our political and military leaders”, Ledeen wrote in 2000.

Similarly, enemies cannot be negotiated with. ”Before the U.S. can worry about rebuilding Iraq, it has to win militarily, and decisively so,” the Journal wrote just before the war. ”Arab cultures despise weakness in an adversary above all” is a refrain echoing past neo-con descriptions of the Soviet Union, China, and other geo-political foes.

Finally, U.S. engagement in world affairs is absolutely indispensable in preventing catastrophe, according to neo-con ideology, which, in the words of another Perle intimate, Ken Adelman, sees ”isolationism (as) the default option” in U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, many neo-cons, fearing that the Cold War's end would revive isolationism, spent most of the 1990s hawking policies designed to maintain Washington's international engagement, even if that meant supporting Clinton when he deployed troops abroad.

Why? If evil is embodied by Hitler and similar threats, the United States comes as close to moral goodness as can be found in the world today, say neo-cons.

''Since America's emergence as a world power roughly a century ago'', Elliott Abrams, another prominent neo-con who currently serves as the top Middle East policy-maker on Bush's National Security Council, wrote in a 'Commentary' colloquium in 2000, ''we have made many errors, but we have been the greatest force for good among the nations of the Earth. A diminution of American power or influence bodes ill for our country, our friends, and our principles.''

U.S. intervention abroad, as in Iraq, is seen in the best possible light. Michael Kelly, a 'Washington Post' columnist who died in an accident during the Iraq campaign, assured his readers last October that, ''what President Bush aspires to now, is not exactly imperialism. It is something more like armed evangelism''.

The moral goodness of the United States is beyond question and justifies -- indeed requires -- a unilateralist policy lest, by subjecting its will to the wishes or agreements of other countries or global institutions, the United States would actually prevent itself from fulfilling its moral mission.

Although this notion dates back to the early days of the Republic, the neo-conservatives have tried hard to reinforce it. In an attack on the U.N. Security Council this year, Perle argued: ''This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China, and France''.

It echoes a refrain delivered by Post columnist Charles Krauthammer 15 years ago about the United Nations: ''Let it sink'', he wrote. ''It is corrupting''.

This sense of U.S. moral superiority applies especially to what is now called ''Old Europe'', much as it did in U.S. foreign policy until Washington's entry into World War Two. Kelly writes this about U.S. imperial altruism: ''Unlike the European powers, the United States has never sought to own the world. In its peculiarly American fashion, it has sought to make the world behave better, indeed BE better.''

But Washington's moral superiority, combined with the possibly ''catastrophic'' results of failing to confront Munich-type threats, also justifies a range of extraordinary responses, which under other circumstances might be morally questionable, according to the neo-con view. In particular, temporary alliances with other countries or movements whose own ideologies or practices may be morally reprehensible can be defended if they are used to fight a greater evil.

''In World War Two, we were allied for three years and eight months with history's greatest murderer -- Joseph Stalin -- because we had a more immediate problem -- Adolf Hitler,'' said former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director James Woolsey, at an AEI briefing, defending tactical flexibility..

The readiness to make tactical alliances has extended even to anti-Semitic governments and movements, such as the neo-Nazi military junta in Argentina.. The regime was strongly defended by the elder Kristol, while neo-cons in the Reagan administration, such as Abrams and then-U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, worked to reverse the regime's diplomatic isolation and restore U.S. and multilateral aid that had been cut off by President Jimmy Carter.

But if anti-Semitism can be tolerated under some circumstances, the security of Israel remains a fundamental tenet of neo-conservatives, who traditionally supported whatever Israeli government was in power but, since 1993 and the Oslo peace accords, became much more closely identified with the views of the right-wing Likud Party, which opposed the agreement.

The neo-conservative identification with Israel can be explained in part by its predominantly Jewish membership, but Christian neo-conservatives very much share the sense that a strategic alliance with Israel constitutes a moral imperative in the post-Holocaust era. As Catholic neo-con William Bennett wrote in a recent book, ”America's fate and Israel's fate are one and the same”.

This commitment to Israel also explains the willingness of Jewish neo-cons to overlook the anti-Semitism of their Christian Right allies, whose own identification with Israel is based on a ”Christian Zionist” reading of Biblical scripture that recognises a God-given right of the Jews to what both religions consider the ”Holy Land”, at least until the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ.

Kristol and other leading neo-cons have long argued that other Jews should not be offended by this alliance. ”Why would it be a problem for us?” he wrote some years ago. ”It is their theology; but it is our Israel.”
========================

See the fascist underpinnings? Yes, it is possible to be a neo-fascist and hate Hitler.

[BillyBob]

I'll say one thing, Skeptic. If this argument can be won through attrition, you will certainly come out on top.


Skeptic;
Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other societies."

Billy;
It IS superior to other societies, there is no doubt about that.

And the only flaw I see with our system is that the 1st Amendment allows nutcase liberal/commies to spread their filth through lies and deception, capturing young impressionable minds and poisoning them with Socialistic ideals. [I see they got to you]

Other than that, America ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lucky]

This thread has already reached 1000 posts, have we figured out if Bush should be impeached yet?

:chuckle: