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 hi