New Section: George Bush

[Brendan Slattery]

Not true. Mark invoked "crazy" leaders in DC, and she's certainly one of them. I win.

No, you lose. Mark didn't use the word "crazy." He used the word "scary" (quite appropriately, IMO) to describe people holding political views much like your own who are currently on the rise in my country. The McKinney picture didn't address anything he said.

I covered the "scary" part in post #25. I have moved on to crazy. Please try to keep up.

Sounds like you'd be much happier in Putin's Russia, although I can't vouch for the radio reception over there. Bon voyage.

This guy Slattery is SCARIER than Bush. Bush lies to cover up his Nazism most

of the time*, but Slattery is upfront about his neonazi beliefs. Does somebody

pay him to xxxxx around and scare us?

Jack

*George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -

just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000.

Jack, I think that alleged ice pick did more damage than you realize. Were you a normal person before the attack?

Edited July 15, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[Owen Parsons]

I covered the "scary" part in post #25. I have moved on to crazy. Please try to keep up.

Hey, I'm not the one making up quotations as I go along.

Sounds like you'd be much happier in Putin's Russia, although I can't vouch for the radio reception over there. Bon voyage.

I probably wouldn't. Free market "reforms" screwed things up pretty badly (see Solzhenitsyn), although Putin's doing a pretty good job of pulling things back together.

Jack, I think that alleged ice pick did more damage than you realize. Were you a normal person before the attack?

Were you ever a normal person?

[Brendan Slattery]

I probably wouldn't. Free market "reforms" screwed things up pretty badly (see Solzhenitsyn), although Putin's doing a pretty good job of pulling things back together.

Nostalgic for the good ol' days of centralized Politburo planning, eh? Your ex-KGB buddy's autocratic ways didn't escape the notice of today's Wash Post opinion section:

Putin's 'Sovereign Democracy'

By Masha Lipman

Saturday, July 15, 2006; Page A21

MOSCOW -- In the weeks before the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, two things went on at once: There was an intense public relations effort to improve Russia's image and, along with it, a widening crackdown on democracy and individual freedoms. The reality, not obscured by the PR, is that the Russian government has resorted recently to police practices strongly reminiscent of those used some three decades ago in the Soviet Union.

On the public relations side, one of the most influential Kremlin aides, Vladislav Surkov, met with Western journalists to explain that Russian "sovereign democracy" is not much different from democratic practices of the Western countries. "Sovereign democracy" is a Kremlin coinage that conveys two messages: first, that Russia's regime is democratic and, second, that this claim must be accepted, period. Any attempt at verification will be regarded as unfriendly and as meddling in Russia's domestic affairs.

About a week after Surkov's media session, President Vladimir Putin attended the "civil G-8," an international conference of human rights and nongovernmental organizations. For two hours he listened politely to the participants' concerns and told them that he was pleased to be among like-minded people and glad to talk about human rights in Russia. He then spent three more hours at dinner with a group of conference members representing international public organizations.

But the performance wasn't entirely convincing. The day after their meeting with the president, representatives of many leading Russian and foreign human rights organizations issued a statement in which they expressed "deep concern about the situation with human rights in Russia" and cited a "systemic crisis in the field of human rights and democratic institutions." "Concealment of these issues," the statement says, "will promote further degradation of the situation with human rights and the erosion of democracy in Russia."

These concerns are fully justified by the government's consistent effort to clog up every channel for public participation in politics and to block every opening for the emergence of an autonomous force on the Russian political scene. In the course of Putin's presidency, such fundamental elements of democracy as separation of powers, an independent judiciary, the rule of law and press freedom have been gravely undermined. Over the past year and a half the Kremlin has conducted an ongoing electoral reform aimed at consolidating the dominance of the pro-Kremlin party United Russia. The most recent legislative initiatives further broaden the administrative and legal authority to exclude candidates from party slates and to bar or remove parties from the race altogether. According to a Communist deputy in the Duma, the Russian legislation provides more than 60 pretexts for eliminating the unwanted.

In one of the most notorious recent innovations, the practice of early voting has been reintroduced after being removed from Russian law just a few years ago. The practice, in which ballot boxes are brought to voters prior to the election so they can vote outside regular polling stations, where no public observer can watch them, provides an easy way to rig the election results. During the Belarusan presidential elections in March, the "early vote" accounted for at least 20 percent of the turnout, with President Alexander Lukashenko winning over 80 percent of it.

A new alarming development is the use of police-state practices. Much as they did when President Richard Nixon visited Moscow in 1974, authorities are arresting and detaining public activists, with no legal basis for doing so. Three decades ago Communist authorities prevented dissidents and refuseniks from contacting the members of Nixon's delegation. This month, in the days before the G-8 summit, more than 100 people were intimidated, harassed or beaten by the police in various Russian cities. In some cases their passports were taken away from them for no legal reason. Some were young radicals headed for St. Petersburg to rally against the summit; others were on their way to Moscow to attend "The Other Russia," a meeting of Kremlin political opponents and human rights NGOs held Tuesday and Wednesday.

"The Other Russia" was attended by a few prominent foreign diplomats as well as U.S. administration officials who had been warned by the Russian authorities that they should stay away from the event: A high-ranking Kremlin official said that attendance would be treated as an "unfriendly gesture."

Foreign officials ignored the Kremlin message and attended the event, at which four young activists were arbitrarily arrested and a German journalist beaten when he tried to photograph the arrests. Thus it's likely that Putin's PR effort was lost on the foreign dignitaries who attended "The Other Russia" -- just as it is lost on anyone who has been paying heed to actual developments in Russia rather than to the official pre-summit rhetoric. Increasingly, the work of improving Russia's image seems a ritual gesture rather than a serious objective of the government.

The country's abundant energy assets have freed it to practice "sovereign democracy" and act with little or no regard for the judgments of outsiders. By no means does Russia or its wealthy elite want to be isolated. Putin wants recognition of Russia's leading position on the world scene and respect for its economic and geopolitical interests. But he demands that it be recognized as is, not at the cost of softening his increasingly authoritarian policies.

Masha Lipman, editor of the Carnegie Moscow Center's Pro et Contra journal, writes a monthly column for The Post.

[Jack White]

What ALLEGED ICE PICK?

Please check with my insurance company which paid $55,000

to my four doctors and the hospital for my 24 days in the hospital

with my ALLEGED wounds. Those were 1991 prices; double that

in 2006. My heart attack in 2005, with only one doctor and four

days in the hospital cost $50,000. It pays to have good insurance.

Jack

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I covered the "scary" part in post #25. I have moved on to crazy.

Yes, we've noticed. Please seek help. Soon.

[Owen Parsons]

On the public relations side, one of the most influential Kremlin aides, Vladislav Surkov, met with Western journalists to explain that Russian "sovereign democracy" is not much different from democratic practices of the Western countries. "Sovereign democracy" is a Kremlin coinage that conveys two messages: first, that Russia's regime is democratic and, second, that this claim must be accepted, period. Any attempt at verification will be regarded as unfriendly and as meddling in Russia's domestic affairs.

Whatever Ms. Lipman believes it "conveys," when Putin speaks of "sovereign democracy" he means "democracy" not imposed from the outside, as is happening so often now (here).

But the performance wasn't entirely convincing. The day after their meeting with the president, representatives of many leading Russian and foreign human rights organizations issued a statement in which they expressed "deep concern about the situation with human rights in Russia" and cited a "systemic crisis in the field of human rights and democratic institutions." "Concealment of these issues," the statement says, "will promote further degradation of the situation with human rights and the erosion of democracy in Russia."

Yes, there are various "non-governmental" organizations who make irresponsible charges in the interests of the NATO governments. A study of what happened in Yugoslavia will show how this game is played.

A new alarming development is the use of police-state practices. Much as they did when President Richard Nixon visited Moscow in 1974, authorities are arresting and detaining public activists, with no legal basis for doing so. Three decades ago Communist authorities prevented dissidents and refuseniks from contacting the members of Nixon's delegation. This month, in the days before the G-8 summit, more than 100 people were intimidated, harassed or beaten by the police in various Russian cities. In some cases their passports were taken away from them for no legal reason. Some were young radicals headed for St. Petersburg to rally against the summit; others were on their way to Moscow to attend "The Other Russia," a meeting of Kremlin political opponents and human rights NGOs held Tuesday and Wednesday.

Here's the real story:

The article is actually about "The Other Russia" forum that Kasparov held a week or so ago. Western media pictured it as a "democratic" challenge to Putin. Few mentioned the fact that at this forum Kasparov gathered almost all extremists both left and right. Like, Limonov's National Bolsheviks (their flag is an exact copy of Hitler's banner only swastika in the center is replaced by black hammer and sickle) and Anpilov's Working Russia – an ultra Stalinist organization that promises to hang millions of "democrats" on every tree in Russia if only it gets to power. Even Miss Novodvorskaya – mentally challenged "freedom" bigot – refused to join Kasparov. On the other hand the British Ambassador and two guys for the US State Department saw nothing wrong to sit at one table with Nazis and Stalinists. If one follows the perverse logic of Western mainstream media Putin had to support this forum. Isn't he the one who loves Stalin and encourages racist attacks?

Another funny passage from Kasparov's article:

Just days ago, dozens of activists en route to Moscow to attend the conference were arrested, some beaten.

The above mentioned activists (not dozens – there were twenty of them) are members of AKM – Avant-garde of Communist Youth. They were beaten by the train passengers who got sick and tired of their shouting for hours, "Stalin is our hero. Putin is haemorrhoids". (Сталин наш герой, Путин геморрой). Police actually had to defend the drunk teens. (link)

Foreign officials ignored the Kremlin message and attended the event, at which four young activists were arbitrarily arrested and a German journalist beaten when he tried to photograph the arrests.

The "four young activists" were members of the National Bolshevik Party; the German photographer only appears to have had his camera taken from him. (link) Read more about this party here. Its a strange mix of Leninism and Fascism.

Masha Lipman, editor of the Carnegie Moscow Center's Pro et Contra journal, writes a monthly column for The Post.

Carnegie Moscow Center, huh?

Edited July 16, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Douglas Caddy]

The Soviet Union was an evil empire and so is 'ours' [shamefully admitting to sharing citizenship with Brendan]. My vision of humanity has no place for persons who [like Bush and his Gang] hate, who try to control others, who deceive and steal, who like to kill and torture, who want to control others, who are not in balance with Gaia, who think they are better or 'god-given', who do not want justice for ALL, who think that a few rich ruling over the mass of the poor is a norm to be preserved, who think that men are better than women or white better than non-white or rich better than poor or we better then them, or Christian better than non-Christian nor America Uber Alles. I was in Berlin celebrating the fall of the Wall and will equally welcome the fall of the American Empire. I will let history decide who are the real patriots. We have a very good [far from perfect] constitution but it has been killed along with the 'nation', law, our freedoms. We are going all over the world doing very little good and huge amounts of harm (since WW2), death, destruction, hatefully, imperialisticly, stupidly, inhumanly. There are good people in America - NONE of which are now running the 'show'. Stop thinking football games...there are more options than 'them and us'.....more that two options. Bush is IMHO something akin to a Stalin. Open your eyes...and more importantly your heart, if you have one....most of the 'enemies' are invented or created to further the aims of the Oligarchs.... Uno Mundo, Peace, Justice, Sanity for ALL - not control and riches for a very few. I'd love to see Bush tried in court for War Crimes, treason, corruption, theft, illegal actions one after another - and crimes against the planet, peace, justice, sanity, life. I'd not mind if his former CIA buddies Sadam Hussein and bin Laden were there too...and many other leaders, foreign and domestic. I fight for truth,justice and what is right, not my 'flag' and der Fuhrer. The old paradigms have gotten us to where we are today...at the brink. Think.

Bush: Worse Than Nixon

The writer was on Richard Nixon's "enemies list," but Bush's power grab has him really worried.

By Morton H. Halperin

MORTON H. HALPERIN served in the administrations of presidents Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. He is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the director of U.S. Advocacy for the Open Society

Los Angeles Times

July 16, 2006

THE BUSH administration's warrantless wiretapping program may have shocked and surprised many Americans when it was revealed in December, but to me, it provoked a case of deja vu.

The Nixon administration bugged my home phone — without a warrant — beginning in 1973, when I was on the staff of the National Security Council, and kept the wiretap on for 21 months. Why? My boss, national security advisor Henry Kissinger, and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover believed that I might have leaked some information to the New York Times. When I left the government a few months later and went to work on Edmund Muskie's presidential campaign (and began actively working to end the war in Vietnam), the FBI continued to listen in and made periodic reports on everything it heard to President Nixon and his closest associates in the White House.

Recent reports that the Bush administration is monitoring political opponents who belong to antiwar groups also sounded familiar to me. I was, after all, No. 8 on Nixon's "enemies list" — a curious compilation of 20 people about whom the White House was unhappy because they had disagreed in some way with the administration.

The list, compiled by presidential aide Charles Colson, included union leaders, journalists, Democratic fundraisers and me, among others, and was part of a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies," as presidential counsel John Dean explained it in a 1971 memo. I always suspected that I made the list because of my active opposition to the war, though no one ever said for sure (and I never understood what led Colson to write next to my name the provocative words, "a scandal would be helpful here").

As I watch the Bush administration these days, it's hard not to notice the clear similarities between then and now. Both the Nixon and Bush presidencies rely heavily on the use of national security as a pretext for the usurpation of unprecedented executive power. Now, just as in Nixon's day, a president mired in an increasingly unpopular war is taking extreme steps, including warrantless surveillance, that many people believe threaten American civil liberties and violate the Constitution. Both administrations shroud their actions in secrecy and attack the media for publishing what they learn about those activities.

But there also are important differences, and at first blush, it is hard to say which administration's policies are worse. Much of what the Nixon administration did was clearly illegal and in violation of the Constitution. Nixon and his colleagues seemed to understand that and worked hard to keep their activities secret. On the occasions when their actions became public, administration officials tried to blame others for them.

These actions were not limited to its warrantless wiretap program and the investigation of political opponents by the IRS and other agencies. They also included, among other things, the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist (to find evidence discrediting Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times) and the effort to have the CIA persuade the FBI to call off the investigation of the Watergate burglary (by asserting that it threatened national security).

Although the Nixon administration did argue (like the Bush administration) that virtually anything the president did to promote national security was lawful, it never presented an argument to justify these particular transgressions.

By contrast, as far as we know, the Bush administration has not engaged in any such inherently illegal activities. Nor has it, to our knowledge, specifically targeted its political opponents (aside from the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame).

But even though Nixon's specific actions might have been more obviously illegal and more "corrupt" (in the sense that they were designed to advance his own career over his rivals), President Bush's claim of nearly limitless power — including the ability to engage in a range of activities that pose a fundamental threat to the constitutional order and to our civil liberties — overshadows all comparisons.

Among the many such activities are the seizure of U.S. citizens and their indefinite detention without charge or access to lawyers; warrantless wiretaps of citizens in violation of procedures mandated by Congress; and the seizing of individuals in foreign countries and their movement to third countries, where they have been subjected to torture in violation of U.S. laws and treaty obligations.

When these activities have leaked out, the president has not sought to deny them but has publicly defended them (and attacked the press for printing the information). The administration has vigorously opposed all efforts to have the courts review its actions, and when the Supreme Court has overruled the president, as it has several times now, the administration has given the court holdings the narrowest possible interpretation.

Congress has been treated with equal disdain. When the Senate voted overwhelmingly to prohibit torture and cruel and degrading treatment by all agencies, including the CIA, Vice President Dick Cheney warned lawmakers that they were overstepping their bounds and threatening national security. When Congress persisted and attached the language to a defense appropriations bill, the president signed the law with an accompanying statement declaring his right to disobey the anti-torture provisions.

The administration has repeatedly failed to inform Congress or its committees of what it was doing, or has told only a few selected members in a truncated way, preventing real oversight. Even leading Republicans, such as Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have voiced strong concerns.

During the Nixon years, the laws governing what the president could do and under what circumstances he needed to inform Congress were murky. There were no intelligence committees in Congress, and there was no Intelligence Oversight Act. There was no legislated prohibition on national security surveillance.

In response to Watergate and the related scandals of the Nixon years, however, Congress constructed a careful set of prohibitions, guidelines and requirements for congressional reporting.

Bush's systematic and defiant violation of these rules, as well as of the mandates of the Constitution and international law, pose a challenge to our constitutional order and civil liberties that, in the end, constitutes a far greater threat than the lawlessness of Richard Nixon.

[Antti Hynonen]

... and where are we today?

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02...eech/index.html

Bush: Ending Saddam's regime will bring stability to Mideast

Thursday, February 27, 2003 Posted: 0955 GMT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday said ending the "direct and growing threat" posed by Saddam Hussein will create a "free and peaceful" Iraq and bring stability to the entire Mideast.

"The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted," Bush said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

The administration hopes that the Iraqi regime will meet U.N. disarmament requirements, he said. If not, force will be used to make Baghdad comply.

"Either way, this danger will be removed," he said.

Creating a free Iraq will be a difficult task requiring a "sustained commitment" from the United States and other countries, but a new Iraq could serve as "a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom" throughout the Middle East, Bush said.

"Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet, that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation," Bush said.

"Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them," he said, adding "we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

Bush said the United States does not plan any permanent occupation of Iraq, but he did not offer a timeline.

"We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more," he said.

If war does come, coalition forces will protect oil fields "from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people," Bush said.

The president compared the rebuilding of Iraq to U.S. efforts after World War II to rebuild war-ravaged countries, including wartime enemies Germany and Japan.

"After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could built lasting institutions of freedom.

"In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home."

Reminding Americans of the price the nation paid on September 11, 2001, Bush said the "safety of the American people depends on this direct and growing threat" posed by Saddam.

"The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning: That support for terror will not be tolerated."

An end to Saddam's reign also would have positive ramifications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said it would set in motion "progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state," and Palestinians would be rid of Saddam's "outside support for terrorism."

"The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East," Bush said.

Earlier in the day, Bush's father, former President George Bush, spoke at Tufts University in Massachusetts and detailed his view for the Middle East. He said stability requires a "new vision to be advanced by the region's leaders and embraced by the people. It will require them to once again rise above violence and recrimination, and to choose hope over hate."

"I believe in the longer run the 21st century will offer leaders throughout the eastern Mediterranean a real chance to emerge from their current period of conflict and begin building a brighter future worthy of their proud peoples," he said.

At one point, antiwar protesters interrupted the speech by shouting at the elder Bush. As security escorted the demonstrators away, the former president said, "We've now found another real good reason to use duct tape."

----End -----

... and where are we today?

I'm glad that went well. How many people (American and Iraqi) are dead now and counting? Is oil and gas any cheaper (stability to the region)?

Has the threat of terrorism lessened (stability to the region)?

Ok, Saddam is in court, was it worth it (stability to the region)?

Nice going, really nice.

Stability to the region my ***!

[Brendan Slattery]

... and where are we today?

Year 5 of a long war with global jihadists. But I think you already knew that.

I'm glad that went well. How many people (American and Iraqi) are dead now and counting?

Little over 3,000 Americans, or what you call a "grim milestone." Number of Americans and Iraqis who would have died had we done nothing? Unknowable. I'm curious: are you nostalgic for the peaceful, "stable" days of Baathist torture, rape rooms, and mass graves?

Is oil and gas any cheaper (stability to the region)?

Nope, which only disproves the hysterical "blood for oil" mantra.

Has the threat of terrorism lessened (stability to the region)?

That depends. The US hasn't been hit since 9-11. You remember Sept 11th, don't you? It happened during your mythical era of "stability." If only we could return to the peaceful, stable, pre-Bush days of the first WTC bombing, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing of our embassies in Africa. Wouldn't life be grand.

Ok, Saddam is in court, was it worth it (stability to the region)?

Show me where Bush promised to turn a troubled region into Disneyland in three scant years.

Edited July 18, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[Chuck Robbins]

When the patronising tone ceases, in favour of angry, self rightous personal rants, you just know you have hit a nerve. LOL.

I see. So the key to being taken seriously here is to make the most outlandish claims in a clear, civilized tone.

Brendan, that "If you dont like Bush your a Communist/Terrorist"B/S might have some clout in the US, but over here its about as effective as a chocolate radiator.

I'm not trying to win you over. Why would I? You're incorrigible. Nor do you deserve any form of deference.

Oh, and BTW, quite a few of us here are Socialists, now I realise what that little fact must do to your blood pressure(hope you have good health insurance, over here its FREE) but do try and calm down sir. regards, Steve.

Socialists in 2006. What a tragedy.

Brendan,

Get a life.

Try a dose of reality.

Better yet, go to Iraq and support your position in the best way possible.

What's that? You've got flat feet? Figures....matches your flat head view of your flat world.

I smell chicken.

Chuck

[Antti Hynonen]

Brendan Slattery Posted Today, 05:54 AM

QUOTE

... and where are we today?

Year 5 of a long war with global jihadists. But I think you already knew that.

QUOTE

I'm glad that went well. How many people (American and Iraqi) are dead now and counting?

Little over 3,000 Americans, or what you call a "grim milestone." Number of Americans and Iraqis who would have died had we done nothing? Unknowable. I'm curious: are you nostalgic for the peaceful, "stable" days of Baathist torture, rape rooms, and mass graves?

QUOTE

Is oil and gas any cheaper (stability to the region)?

Nope, which only disproves the hysterical "blood for oil" mantra.

QUOTE

Has the threat of terrorism lessened (stability to the region)?

That depends. The US hasn't been hit since 9-11. You remember Sept 11th, don't you? It happened during your mythical era of "stability." If only we could return to the peaceful, stable, pre-Bush days of the first WTC bombing, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing of our embassies in Africa. Wouldn't life be grand.

QUOTE

Ok, Saddam is in court, was it worth it (stability to the region)?

Show me where Bush promised to turn a troubled region into Disneyland in three scant years.

So Mr. Slattery,

You have no regrets of the action taken by the Bush administration (and the "coalition")? Are you trying to say that you are satisfied with the situation and it will merely need some more time to resolve?

Little over 3,000 Americans, or what you call a "grim milestone." Number of Americans and Iraqis who would have died had we done nothing? Unknowable. I'm curious: are you nostalgic for the peaceful, "stable" days of Baathist torture, rape rooms, and mass graves?

I'm saying the situation in Iraq went from bad to way worse. I fear the world may be falling into WWIII due to events which have transpired in the middle east over the last 3 years.

Show me where Bush promised to turn a troubled region into Disneyland in three scant years.

Nevertheless, a little progress (less killing) would be comforting?

That depends. The US hasn't been hit since 9-11. You remember Sept 11th, don't you? It happened during your mythical era of "stability." If only we could return to the peaceful, stable, pre-Bush days of the first WTC bombing, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing of our embassies in Africa. Wouldn't life be grand.

Things have escalated to new levels since the Iraqi campaign and the situation is definitely not under (any nations') control any longer. The events you listed are terrible events indeed. I agree that some action was needed to retaliate against these acts of terrorism. Regarding the perpetrators of these tragic events you listed, how many of them were Iraqi national or individuals residing in Iraq? Would you know?

I'm trying to ask what the direct links are between the second gulf war in Iraq and say, 9/11?

To be frank with you, times did seem more peaceful during the Clinton era, and yes fuel was a lot cheaper (stability in the region). Also something called a "Palestinian and Isreali road map" was being worked on... I guess that's history now. There was a lot less fighting and killing (stability in the region), actually yes, reality was a lot closer to Disneyland then than now.

[Jason Vermeer]

Guys I don't understand the waste of time with Bunion. He's saying NOTHING insightful, intelligent or new really. Currently, he's rubbing mint oil onto Limbaugh's hairy back while Rush whispers whitless comebacks for him to use on Bunion's current sounding board. He won't disclose personal info 'cause he's got his ass kicked before. Check out the sanitized bio.

He argues JFK topics extremely poorly. He marginally studies the side he's going to argue but doesn't bother to read alternative material. Once he has 50 words he feels he can type with some accuracy, he waltzes back proclaiming the shadows on the cave wall caste by the fire ARE reality. The dude doesn't bother to walk out of the cave and the pity is, he probably knows where the entrance is.

Most conservatives are put off by people like Bunion. They give the right a bad name. He's not even overly political really. He just likes to piss people off.

Bunion's kind of like a retarded kid on the block who suddenly walks out of the house with his dad's shotgun. Everyone just kind of freezes or starts shouting or maybe running and all the while hoping the retarded kid doesn't blow someone's head off. Now the retarded kid, Bunion in this instance, is apt to become really excited because of all the action and dust up...but...the problem is you have a retarded kid in the neighborhood holding a shotgun.

Jason Vermeer

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

... and where are we today?

Year 5 of a long war with global jihadists. But I think you already knew that.

Yes, but what everyone might not know is that 40,00 US National Guard and reservists have just had their enlistment period extended to December of 2031 . The "long war with global jihadists" is something of an understatement, apparently.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...rn_of_the_draft

I'm glad that went well. How many people (American and Iraqi) are dead now and counting?

Little over 3,000 Americans, or what you call a "grim milestone." Number of Americans and Iraqis who would have died had we done nothing? Unknowable. I'm curious: are you nostalgic for the peaceful, "stable" days of Baathist torture, rape rooms, and mass graves?

Since the Ba'athists were a US foreign policy construct, since Hussein was installed as a US foreign policy construct, and since the US supplied Hussein with his military might, your distinction between "then" and "now" illustrates what, exactly? That Hussein's handiwork as your country's proxy is now somehow forgotten? Or that it was deemed bad only once he had been stopped? Your hypcrisy is as transparent as it is selective.

Is oil and gas any cheaper (stability to the region)?

Nope, which only disproves the hysterical "blood for oil" mantra.

On the contrary, the premium paid for oil's use has gone up, as have the profits of the industry most closely associated with the two men who head your current administration. Just another one of those odd wrinkles you "coincidence theorists" must dismiss as irrelevant.

Has the threat of terrorism lessened (stability to the region)?

That depends. The US hasn't been hit since 9-11. You remember Sept 11th, don't you? It happened during your mythical era of "stability." If only we could return to the peaceful, stable, pre-Bush days of the first WTC bombing, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing of our embassies in Africa. Wouldn't life be grand.

Let's see now.... The first WTC bombing was the direct result of a blind sheik being recruited by CIA, and his followers being supplied the materiel and expertise by an FBI agent provocateur. [Don't believe me: read the transcripts.] And the Khobar Towers, USS Cole and African embassies were the handiwork of your proxy ObL, which you presume is also the case with Nine-One-One. Odd assortment of friends you have, BS. With friends like that....

Ok, Saddam is in court, was it worth it (stability to the region)?

Show me where Bush promised to turn a troubled region into Disneyland in three scant years.

Do the words "mission accomplished" ring a bell? How about the words "the insurgency is in its last throes?" How about "we will be greeted as liberators?" Or maybe "we know where the WMDs are?" Given the lengthy list of hollow promises, it is a wonder that Bush didn't promise Disneyland.

[Len Colby]

I'm glad that went well. How many people (American and Iraqi) are dead now and counting?

Little over 3,000 Americans, or what you call a "grim milestone." Number of Americans and Iraqis who would have died had we done nothing? Unknowable. I'm curious: are you nostalgic for the peaceful, "stable" days of Baathist torture, rape rooms, and mass graves?

I don't think anyone here (except maybe Sid Walker) thinks that a world isn't better with out Saddam, the question is the price that was paid by Iraq, the US and it allies and the world worth it?. Number of Americans that would be dead if we hadn't invaded, probably only a handful of tourists in Israel. Number of Iraqi's who would have died, probably a fair amount but less than have died since the invasion

Has the threat of terrorism lessened (stability to the region)?

That depends. The US hasn't been hit since 9-11. You remember Sept 11th, don't you? It happened during your mythical era of "stability." If only we could return to the peaceful, stable, pre-Bush days of the first WTC bombing, or the bombing of the Khobar Towers, or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the bombing of our embassies in Africa. Wouldn't life be grand.

But of course even the Bush administration admitted there was no connection between Al-Queda or 9/11 and Iraq. The lack of attacks on US targets probably has more to do with increased vigalance and the invasion of Afghanistan than that of Iraq. Don't forget there have been several attacks against US allies (London, Madrid, Bali, Bombay, Istanbul, Israel)

Show me where Bush promised to turn a troubled region into Disneyland in three scant years.

Is this close enough?

Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

Also explain your boy Bush proposing to create a false pretense for war by painting a U-2 in UN colors and hoping the Iraqi's would shoot it down. This shows he has no qualms about lying to and fooling the American public (and the rest of the world too) to achieve his objectives. It also show that he is quite stupid.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=7118&st=0

And you right-wing types get so worked up about Clinton being "dishonest"

If it weren't so tragic, it'd be funny.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Len Colby

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Simkin, you're a disgrace. The fact that you're allowed anywhere near a classroom is terrifying. You're not an "educator" of any kind; you're a left-wing radical socialist who long ago dispensed with any of notion of fairness or objectivity. Your hate-fueled anti-Americanism has reached OCD levels. There are 193 countries in the world, but you're fixated on just one. Incredibly, every negative event in the last 75 years has somehow been traced back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. America can never be a victim; only an aggressor. The stupefying, murderous crimes of the Communist world and the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism elicit nary a mention. Why worry about Bin Laden when you can rehash a bogeyman like Joe McCarthy for the umpteenth time, right? Why despair about the lack of civil liberties and human rights in the Arab world when you can kick around a dead horse like Watergate, right? Why scrutinize the anti-democratic and corrupt reigns of Castro, Assad, Putin and the Palestinian Authority when you can ascribe crazy, sinister motivations to an innocent collegiate group like YAF? Why recognize a demonstrably guilty man like Lee Harvey Oswald when you can make all sorts of reckless, fact-free accusations instead. You don't know a goddamn thing about this country, other than you wish it and its leaders ill will. Bush isn't dangerous; you're dangerous. Men like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Joe Kennedy were wrong in the early 1940s and you're just as clueless today. I believe the Soviets coined a term for Western apologists seduced by tyrannical regimes: "useful idiots." Try making yourself a little less "useful" to democracy's enemies before entering your twilight years.

Gee Brandan Intersting Cartoon. I wonder which of the guys spends 51% of ALL GLOBAL MILITARY SPENDING? Is it the guy with the boxing gloves, or the dude with the sword?

SECOND thing we do, kill all the lawyers.