Woman to Woman

By Zack

July 4, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

I certainly hope the Eatons and Brian Curtises will avoid their name-calling and for once contribute something to the forum.

Privacy is certainly important, but one’s country comes first. I just have my doubts about the current administration.

The previous topic really struck a nerve with me. Men are discriminated against so much in this female-bias society of ours, and there’s a question asking whether or not men should be given incentives to be better fathers. Let’s, as a society, quit mistreating men as we have and see what a difference that makes. We also need to overcome the stupid thinking that women own their children and always can have custody and can even kill their children before they’re born. My, how wrong we are.

By Ken

July 5, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

Can we please keep bomb throwing to a minimum, at least early on in the discussion? Everyone contributes, even if they don’t have the same opinions. That’s what’s makes this blog so darn interesting…

It’s been a while since I applied for college, but isn’t a lot of this the same information that admissions folks get from college applicants? I can remember getting brochures from several colleges and universities once I took the SAT and ACT tests. Why shouldn’t the military be able to do the same thing? Enlistment into the Armed Forces is no different than any other career choice. Then again, with so many family members in the military I may have a different POV than others.

By Bruce

July 5, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this

I believe every young man and woman should be required to spend at least two years of active military service upon leaving, either through quiting or finishing, high school. If they choose to attend military school their enlistment should be 6 years of active service.

By RS

July 5, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

NO!!! To me, it smacks of the government having an agenda consisting of earmarking certian “undesirables” (kids from low-income homes, “ethnics”, kids who “aren’t smart ebough”) to be shipped off to war.

By Mara

July 5, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Oh, Zack! You poor victimized thing, you. I can see why you’d feel so discriminated against, what with only making 30% more than the average woman, simply because of your gender. How dare those upitty feminists want to be allowed the same opportunities in education, military and public service, as well as equal legal rights that men have. (They’re all probably lesbians, anyway.) I can see how biased society is against men when it only took until the 80’s to get marital rape considered a crime, that it wasn’t until 1920 that women were allowed to vote, and that even less than 40 years ago, a woman was legally subject to her husbands decisions. Oh, yes, and how horribly abused you and the rest of your gender have been, being forced to let women compete with you for resources, as opposed to your god-given right to have the best part of everything, including sports funding. Everybody know that women hate sports, right? You poor dear….. But, back to topic. It’s already law that schools must allow recruiters onto their campus’ or lose any federal funding that they may have. The armed forces are not like other career choices in that death is one possible outcome of that choice. If a 16-year old person is still legally considered a child, unprepared to understand the ramifications of legal documents, political rhetoric or personal choices involving sex or alcohol, why then would we allow those who would put them in harms way to have access to their private records? What would be the harm in waiting til they were more mature, say 18 years old, when at the very least, they’d be allowed to vote for those same politicians who send them to kill or die?

By Archie

July 5, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this

Diane makes a good point about whether a student can opt-out of this military list but Shanti makes a very good point in that this data collection has gone on for 23 years so basically the government has been targetting people for that long. This is surprising but it shouldn’t be and it shows how little the public knows about it’s government, but the government is not some monster from out of space so it will only do what’s allowed. Diane brings up conscription but there isn’t any evidence of that. However recruiting techniques and patterns need to be checked out. My answer to the topic question is yes because they already use student information.

By Mara

July 5, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Hey Ken…if a career in the Armed Services is no different than any other career, can you please tell me how many people have lost their lives or limbs doing Accounting? How about the dead and wounded in Media Relations? The last time you saw flag-draped caskets being sent home from the cutting edge of technology? That’s what I thought.

By Brian Curtis

July 5, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Gee… how many other employment recruiters are allowed to lie to their prospects and then get full govt. backing when the outraged employee finds out the truth?

By E. Lewis

July 5, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

This information should only be available with the parents’ explicit approval. The incentives to abuse it is too great.

By Ken

July 5, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Mara…

Of course some careers will be more risky than others. You compare military service to some of the safest and cushiest jobs around… Why not try comparing soldiers to people who work on the dock yards, in manufacturing facilities, or building large buildings (just to name a few). Many folks are injured, even die in those types of careers. I know this through personal experience from my own family members and through my own job.

As for the military targeting “undesireables.” I guess the writer of that post doesn’t know too many folks who have served or have gone through the testing program to become soldiers. Do you think they give a loaded M-16 to just any person? Do you think any person can operate the weapons of our technically advanced military? Heavens no. Many of the men and women on the front lines are the best and the brightest this country has to offer. They are far from undesireable.

By Brian Curtis

July 5, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

I haven’t seen or heard any compelling reason why military recruiters should have “fast-track” special access to students in their efforts beyond that available other employment recruiters.

In fact, given their history of lying to recruits to meet quotas, I haven’t seen any good reason they should be given the SAME access. Frankly, I’d drive them out with a stick if they strayed onto a campus of mine with their arrogant demands and lying smiles.

By Sheila Hawkins

July 5, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Many of the people that are lured into the military are misguided and lost, and the military plays on that. I come from a Navy family; both of my Grandfathers, and Mother were all in the Navy. And I assure you that the majority of the people that I know that enlisted were enlisted under very cloudy pretenses. Many of the young people that enlist do not understand the magnitude of what the military is about and the possibility of going to war, or what war even is. So no, the military should not have access to that info. It is very different that colleges or jobs have access to it - they are not going to ship you off to war and they are not going hold you in contempt if you try to quit. And furthermore, the fact that the government has been doing it for 23 years only means that it has been going on for 23 years too long. The military has many different recruiting methods. They are at job fairs and on job bards to name 2. So, Shaunti is right most people do not walk in off the streets and enlist; the military has other ways than collecting personal information for young and sometimes naïve high school graduates.

By Mara

July 5, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Well Ken. Work place safety laws are there for a reason, to minimize the possibility of death or injury in factories, construction sites, mines, production lines, and others. Were OSHA generously funded, and the laws strictly enforced, on-the-job injury or death could be minimized, if not completely eradicated.
A career that mostly consists of learning the most effective ways of killing another human being is in no way like any other career choice.
If you object to me comparing certain careers to those of military service, perhaps you shouldn’t have used the all inclusive..”like any other career…”

By lozen

July 5, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

To the earth shattering question for this week, NO!

Mara, you go girl! I know it must really be hard for Zack to live in our woman-ruled, (hardly a man in the congress or the senate!) country.

By SB

July 5, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

Seriously, this is debatable? College recruiters were certainly provided with quite a bit of my personal information after I took the PSATs / SATs.

Sheila - what you stated about enlistment is sad. However, your experience certainly isn’t the same as mine … I come from an Air Force family, and am engaged to a Marine. All of the enlisted folks I’ve come in contact with have praised their military service as a life saving experience, whether it lifted them out of bad situations, opened the door to higher education, or opened their eyes to the world. Their criticisms of the military are often on par with my critisicms of corporate America.

By Sheila

July 5, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

SB - we are all certainly entitled to out opinion and they are based on personal experiences. I am happy that you know people that have benefited from the military, but as with everything else in life there is always the other side to the story.

By Ken

July 5, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

Mara…

You are correct that OSHA exists to protec individuals from the hazards of the workplace, and since I deal with OSHA I can assure your that they are very well funded and provide a great deal of protection for those workers.

The point is, that people who opt to enter the military (remember these folks are not conscripted) have the opportunity to go to other jobs. The question posed this week was whether or not the military should have access to student information. It should have the same access that other recruiters (colleges, other trade organizations) have. If we have a problem with the methods used to convince young people to join the military, to me, that is a separate issue and in fact, I believe should be addressed.

By SB

July 5, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Sheila - my point exactly. I was simply stating that your experience isn’t the blanket experience for everyone.

By Eaton

July 5, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

As I remember, the schools that got my information after the SATs, etc. were schools that I requested get that information. No other school got detailed test scores, GPAs, etc.

By RS

July 5, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Ken: Go rent “Fahrenheit: 911”. You will get quite the rude awakening, my dear. Military recruiters target low-income, Afraicn-American, Hispanic etc neighbourhoods, because to the powers-that-be, those unfortunate kids are perfect cannon fodder. Why do you think the government rewards poor people for breeding? Easy! Lots more cannon fodder for the future…

By Eaton

July 5, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Wow. This topic is so…dull.

By Ken

July 5, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

RS…

The scenes you refer to in “Fahrenheit: 911” simply provide a single point of reference. I would need to consider everything I know: other literature I have read, my own personal experience and the experience and stories I have heard from family and friends.

Michael Moore purposely edited out or did not shoot footage that could have provided a counterpoint to his agenda.

I suggest you rent “Fahrenhype: 911” to see the counterpoint. If you haven’t seen them both, then you are not getting the entire picture.

By Ken

July 5, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

One more thing… Only my wife and my mother can call me dear…

By Lyrazel

July 5, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Ok, I knew this military fact-data collection of minors is attached to GWB’s No Child Left Behind. You know, the program most teachers/educators despise but all states were required to instate due to educational funding. This is NCLB program has been linked to false journalist stories—paid by the government to promote it, has been admonished by academics in EVERY STATE as teaching children to test—but not learn. No Child Left Behind was never the innocent program people thought it was—No Childs Data Left Behind. No matter how many times the government slices its cheese: MINORS are CHILDREN until the age of 18!

Shaunti and others: Military has collected data for years—but data gleaned from Selective service registration. This deliberately targets children. Why use a back door if this plan is so above board? What some people may not understand is how much data collection is currently happening in colleges, especially medical, and technical schools for computer literate students, Arabic speaking students, nurses, doctors, etc.

Could it be so many parents are not interested in funding military campaigns with the blood of their children for a war based on erroneous data? Could it be people are upset military funding outspends every social, medical, fiscal program by trillions of dollars? Our reasons not to support the Iraqi war are declared invalid for the military future Fearless Leader and his Cronies see us in…and covert operations like data gleaning of minors in mandatory education programs is their way of making sure we dont find out.

By RS

July 5, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Ken: I myself have noticed there are more military recruitment offices in lower-income/ethnic areas…And the recruiters always tout the “glamour” & “opportunities” of a military career. Coming home maimed, mentally ill or in a box are destinies that are not exactly emphasized, if you know what I mean (..and I may be your wife or mother posting under an alias! You never know..)

By lozen

July 5, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Eaton, as usual you are so right!

By Eaton

July 5, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

For goodness sakes, someone bring up religion or something. I’m bored.

By Bobb

July 5, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Diane and her supporters persist in believing that the military is a rogue organization existing outside the authority and control of an elected government. It’s been awhile since civics class, but I believe our military only exists because our elected government created it. Its only purposes are defending us from foreign invaders and supporting the foreign policy of our elected government abroad as directed. It’s commander-in-chief is an elected official who appoints other civilians who are them approved by a body of elected representatives to the top leadership posts in each of its branches. It gets funding and additional oversight from that same body of representatives. In short, its reason for being, its objectives, its administration, its funding, as well as its state of readiness all come from people we elect. In other words, they are us. To imply it is insidious for the military to be looking for the best and brightest volunteers amongst our citizenry is ridiculous. Question its the method(s) in accomplishing this if you want, but to speak of the organization responsible for our nation’s (and most of the free world’s) defense as if it were some pyramid scheme is completely irresponsible.

Besides, so what if planning for a possible draft is involved? The Dianes of this country who are now trying to incite the public - in particular the draft age public - to riot against against an elected government they don’t like by yelling, “DRAFT!!”, will be the first ones calling for a congressional investigation if we get caught short-handed in a national emergency with no plan in place for large scale inductions. Give me Shaunti’s quiet reasoning any day.

By Bobb

July 5, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Eaton - You just brought up religion so go with it

By Eaton

July 5, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

I think there is middle ground between viewing the military as an insidious organization and in viewing it as some paragon of virtue. The millitary has certainly been caught in various activities that were not above-board, and recruiting techniques of the past have hardly been what you would call ethical in every case.

It’s interesting that Bobb says that Diane is trying to “incite the public”. What he really means is “She’s speaking out against the party line”. We all know that’s a no-no these days…disent from what Lord Vad-er…Bush says and your a traitor, a godless heathen, and a terrorist all rolled up into one.

By SB

July 5, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Eaton - very well said

By Eaton

July 5, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Just in case Bobb needs some evidence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/national/main696991.shtml

By Bruce

July 6, 2005 07:18 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

I wonder if that report is even true given that CBS has proven to not care if they report the truth or not as long as they can swing opinion to their way of thinking.

RS,

Could it be that the military recruitment offices being located in lower income areas would have anything to do with the cost of renting office space? Maybe they are in these places just to conserve money. Just another way to look at it.

Maybe we would all do well to remember the words of president John F. Kennedy.

“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.”

By Bobb

July 6, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Eaton, I will check out the CBS link. By the way I never said the military or any other branch, dept., or agency of the government was a paragon of virtue. Notice that I used the word “elected” to describe the people who oversee the military. In other words, people we elect run it and rest of the government; vote them out if you don’t like the their policies or the way they manage things. And, I do think Diana and others are trying to play on the fears of parents and draft age persons. I have two draft age sons. I don’t particularly want to see them go to war. I’m sure that our grandparents and great-grandparents didn’t want to see their sons go to war. But it happens. If you don’t like the reason for it, then speak up and vote your conscience. But playing up “DRAFT!” like you are trying to harken back to ’60s and its worn out and discredited themes is getting tiresome. On the other hand today’s youth are spoiled, shallow, and arrogant enough to listen to that nonsense. Heck, they think a rock concert can save the world. What a future.

By Ben

July 6, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

The only reason people are up in arms about military recruiting is because we are at war. During peace time not one of you would probably complain. The fact of the matter is, recruiters have been receiving high school lists for years. The military is a viable option for people who can’t afford college and maybe aren’t ready for college. What other jobs offer you %75 - Free college tuition and teaches you a skill in the meantime? Not to mention the other intangible benefits.

By Archie

July 6, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

I probably disagree with Bobb about a lot of things but he makes sense when says “Notice that I used the word “electedâ€? to describe the people who oversee the military. In other words, people we elect run it and rest of the government; vote them out if you don’t like the their policies or the way they manage things.”

I don’t like Bush and I voted against him but so many people complain but they don’t vote. The recruiting story has been on various newscasts and even Michael Moore’s movie showed some questionable behavior on the part of recruiters. The Bush administration has questionable ethics relating to how we got in this war so that mentality flows from the top down. Lyrazel made a good point about the attitude towards the no child left behind act as it is not very popular amongst the educators.
As a public we have to become more interested in politics and not so easily distracted by things involving people’s personal lives.

By Tony

July 6, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing up the ground.

They want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.

This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.

Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never did and it never will.

Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice which will be imposed upon them. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Frederick Douglas

By RS

July 6, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Bruce: Interesting theory but don’t forget, we’re talking military/US govt. If they wanted the funds to set up in a more upscale area, believe me, they’d get em! In fact, a friend & I were discussing all this en route to work this morning. He agrees with me & in addition, brought up that recruiters are good at convincing inner-city teens that a military career is their easiest & sometimes only way out of the cycle of poverty that’s enslaved past generations.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Bruce, I knew you would attack CBS. I bet you LOVE Fox, though don’t you. CBS has one story that it criticized and they are hopelessly biased. Fox, on the other hand, is “Fair and balanced” even though their official editorial policy deliberately skews things in favor of the Bush admin. Give me a break.

Ben, I disagree with you that we wouldn’t be saying anything. Yes, the military is a viable alternative for a lot of people, and yes it serves a valuable purpose. That doesn’t mean that their recruiting methods should be less than ethical, at any time.

Bobb, I understand that we elect the officials who run the government, but the leaders of the military are not elected, and they are certainly not transparent. In order for us to vote someone out because of their policies, we have to understand what those policies are. And seriously, when was the way the military conducts itself a major campaign issue for anyone? It’s just not something that resonates with the public.

Tony, I think you’ll find that Fredrick Douglass was sugesting that those who want freedom for themselves should be willing to fight for it…not that freedom and war go hand in hand. You might also notice that he is referring more to being willing to struggle ethically and morally than physically, though physical struggle is held as an alternative. If you’re going to just cut-and-paste, you might try understanding the context of what you cut-and-paste.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Tony…

You are absolutely correct, power will concede nothing without demand. I would like to know from which tyrants we need to demand something.

By Ben

July 6, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Eaton - I don’t excuse unethical recruiting practices. I’m just responding to the outrage about high school lists, and the ignorant posts people make about the military recruiting “cannon fodder.”

And believe it or not RS, the military IS a good way out for troubled teens and teens living in poverty. I have a lot of good friends who changed their lives and the path of their lives because of the military. Colleges and corporations weren’t exactly knocking on their door to help them go to school and actually learn something productive and become productive members of society.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Do you really believe this would even be an issue is we did not have troops deployed for war? I agree with you that the recruiting methods of the military should be as ethical, no even more ethical, than that of civilian life, but I highly doubt the public would bring it into question if not for the conflict in Iraq.

As for CBS, FOX or any other news source… they are all biased. Not one of them provides a “fair and balanced” report of the news. I have found the best thing to do is read FOX, CNN and then go somewhere in between. What I absolutely can’t stand is anyone quoting a single news source, sounding like a parrot for one of the networks (I have a lot of these in my family) or taking a propagandist like Michael Moore as the gospel truth.

By Archie

July 6, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

Eaton I agree with just about everything in your post except I think that the public does have to take some responsibility for knowing how the military recruits. In my youthful years I didn’t come across those recruiting techniques described in that story that you provided a link for. No one was pushing me when I came into the recruiting office but then it was more than 15 years ago.

Fox is anything but fair and balanced. Also the military is a viable option for people who don’t have a job waiting when they get out of college, however there are risks. Overall the military carries out the policies of our elected officials,by that I mean they are fighting this war because Bush ordered them to and as a public we have to have the courage to vote people such as Bush out of office if we don’t like his policies,his brand of ethics, and his religious ideas. To some extent Ben is right we didn’t care if the military recruiters targetted black folk because there was no war but that responsibility goes back to the public to educate itself about what goes on their neighborhoods so that an informed decision can be made. After all military service is voluntary. I don’t approve of unethical conduct however.

By Gil Gibson

July 6, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

It is always the left that see the military as a nefarious organization, military recruiting as a trap for minorities, and military service as something for stupid people with no other options…. that is if thay don’t see it as dishonorable in itself. These are the same leftists who say they support our troops….. those poor, misguided, ignorant souls who enlist. Their internalized guilt over enjoying all the benefits of America and giving nothing back except bitter rhetoric causes them to demean those who serve.

By Bruce

July 6, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

RS,

And what is wrong with offering poor kids a better life? I do not look on it as preying on the poor but as an alterative to soemthing better. And as for as having offices located in their neighborhoods, would it be better if they were located in other neighborhoods (or even downtown) making it difficult for these poor kids to even consider this possiblility? I do not agree with misrepresentation in recruiment but I do not see anything wrong with their offices being located in poor neighborhoods.

Eaton,

You KNEW I would attack CBS? How did you know I would be the one? Can you read minds now too?

After the Dan Rather meltdown do you really want to defend CBS on ethics and at the same time accuse another network of being bias? That one story, as you put it, damaged any credibility CBS had in regard to reporting the news in an unbiased manner…. You need a break!

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

Actually, I think it would be an issue, but not necessarily for military reasons. No one has considered the implications of a centralized database containing all the basic relevant information about minors. Diane mentions it briefly, but that’s it. Yup - it’s allll about identity theft, the fastest growing crime in the country.

How many times in the last six months have we heard about someone’s well-protected servers being hacked and enormous amounts of personal information stolen? Every so often someone calls into Clark Howard with a story of how his or her child’s information was used in identity theft? Shaunti says the SSNs are encrypted? There isn’t an encryption out there that can’t be broken. The government has created a big, juicy plum just ripe for some Russian hacker to pick.

Ken, I disagree that all journalists are biased. There are many excellent journalists who are as impartial as their profession demands. As for Michael Moore being a propagandist, well - maybe. But with Karl Rove on the other side, it’s only fair that we liberals have one too.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Oh Bruce, I knew you would because you are such a predictable little goose-stepping Bush-lover. For you, one story shatters decades of being the leader in broadcast journalism. Well, sorry guy - people occasionally make mistakes, and given that the story in question was run in the heat of an election campaign where the other side was throwing out its own badly researched and downright false accusations, I think it can be forgiven.

I don’t need a break Bruce - you need a clue. And possibly a heart, but I think it’s too late for that.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Good comment on Karl Rove, but why do we need to classify ourselves as liberals or conservatives or anything else in between. And please don’t blame the Republicans for this phenomena b/c for as long as I have been aware of politics both parties have done it. We are all Americans who should feel blessed and responsible for carrying on the ideals of the brave men and women who constructed our country. To be honest, I’m not sure if anyone is doing that right now.

This country has become so two sided that I feel like I am in a war zone when I turn on the radio. No more conversation, no more discourse, just talking heads pushing their POV. Now, I just put in a happy Paul McCartney CD and bee-bop home.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Well, Ken, because we are usually either one or the other, or at least more of one than the other. If you want to talk about politics, people have always classified themselves as something. It would be really nice if we could get away from the name-calling and finger-pointing, but that’s not going to happen any time soon.

I also find it very hard not to blame the Republicans, or at least the Conservatives, for the current climate. It was people like Rush Limbaugh who turned the word liberal into an insult. It’s people like Karl Rove who are doing their best to paint anyone liberal as unpatriotic and even traitorous. It’s not Democrats who played the prejudice card last election or played the “Liberals will burn the Bible” card.

Yeah, I DO blame Republicans for the current - note CURRENT - climate.

By Archie

July 6, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Limbaugh has been head-manipulator for a long time. If Ludacris’ cusses and says nasty things on a record you have all kinds of conservatives protesting him but Limbaugh can be drug abuser and he’s ok. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence against Mr. Limbaugh and the man has had several wives even though the party he supports is for “family values”. O’reilly is next man in charge of the conservative media. The word liberal should not be an insult as it is merely a point of view that may not fit a person 24 hours/day.

By RS

July 6, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Ben & Bruce: Oh I see nothing wrong, in theory, with offering disadvantaged kids a chance at a better life; that’s actually a good thing. But-DO they get that better life? Yes, in some cases, the military is just the thing for them, in others, it’s not. Now that may be the faults of the kids themselves, I don’t know, & every case is different. The problem I have is with recruiters playing up the “glamour & opportunity” aspects yet either glossing over or out-and-out ignoring the dangers. Plus I have a BIG problem with the neglect & poor treatment of vets upon their return to the States after duty. No, Bruce, it’s not that I think it’s a terrible thing in itself to place recruitment offices in low-income areas; it’s the reasons WHY

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

RS - here, here on the treatment of vets. In college, our performing groups used to go to the local VA/Mental hospital to perform for some of the vets. The conditions were terrible and the facilities in terrible shape.

By RS

July 6, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Folks, I know this is WAY off topic but I just received an e-mail warning about an extremely destructive computer virus that’s already caused irreversible damage. So if you see an e-mail with the subject line “A Virtual Card For You”, immediately delet it without opening it; opening it will infect your computer. Please do this even if it’s from someone you know & trust!!!

By Tony

July 6, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Ken,

The main reason I posted Fredricks quote was that people want freedom, but are unwilling to do what’s necessary to obtain/maintain it.

Today, left bomb throwers are crying an unjust war. Hardly, but the fact is, we’re there, the terrorist are there, and we must prevail. The constant lies from Kennedy (Manufactured) and company (Biden) are repulsive and destructive to our efforts and are a rally cry for our enemies. Our POV’s mean little, but theirs are posted on every Islamic outlet to decry our values and justify their Jihad!

The last part concerning tyrants I was referring to Robert Mugabe of Africa. Which in my opinion is the same as Saddam in Iraq. The fact is, as it was 20 years ago, live aid did little to help those in need and until we remove the dictatorial despots the vicious cycle will never end.

But you won’t hear that from the left. No, places like Zimbabwe which was once one of Africa’s richest breadbaskets and Zimbabwean farmers fed their own country and many of their neighboring countries. Then along comes their new exalted ruler … the great Robert Mugabe. He sends his goon squads out to steal the land from the white farmers - murdering many of them - and turns those farms over to his revolutionary soldiers. What happens next? Hunger, that’s what.

Sure, they (Bob Geldof) want to fight poverty and all that…but that doesn’t mean that they’re ever going to say one negative word about any of the dictators who steal so much of the aid money and keep their own people in poverty.

By kimberly

July 6, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

System of a Down sings: Why don’t Presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor? Why do they always send the poor? ….Then you feed us LIES from the tablecloth! Lalalalalalalalala.. OOOOOH!

Everybody’s goin’ to the party, have a real good time! Dancin’ in the desert, blowin’ up the sunshine!

By Ken

July 6, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Both sides play cards. In addition to the items you mention (which are disgraceful) I think it was Dick Durbin who recently compared GITMO to Russian Gulags and Pol Pot clearly implicating the President and his administration. You yourself, in addition to other more famous individuals, have implied that people of religious faith are dumb and/or ignorant.

Why have sides. You and I agree on some issues and we disagree on others. I would even imagine that some of the people with whom you are opposed on this board would agree with you on certain issues.

Besides, an intelligent individual like yourself should know that you can’t respond to name calling and finger pointing with more of the same. That action never subdues. It only provokes.

By Bobb

July 6, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I think I’m failing to make my point clearly. The military reports to the Sec of Defense and the Army/Navy/Air Force dept secretaries. All of these secretaries are civilians appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. The President sets policy and the budget. The secretaries manage. The Congress appropriates funds and provides additional oversight. The President also nominates the chiefs-of-staff for each branch of the military and the Senate has to approve them. They serve at the Presidents discretion. Actually, I think the Pres. and the Senate nominate/approve all promotions to general ranks (can anyone confirm?). The President - not a military guy - is the commander-in-chief. The point is civilians are in charge of managing, budgeting, staffing, and policy making for our military. We elect those people who have final responsibility for the military and its management. Is any governmental organization in this country a “paragon of virtue” as you put it? Of course not. No one in their right mind believes that. But we can speak up and vote the bosses out if we don’t like how they run things. Hey, I still have to look at that CBS website

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Tony, like all conservatives today, you equate dissent with a lack of patriotism. Please, tell me what lies Kennedy has told? The only lies I see came from the Bush administration. We invaded Iraq purely for the advancement of the agenda of that administration. There were no WMD, and we knew it. There were no terrorists, and we knew it. There was no link to 9/11 and we knew it. So tell me, Tony, who is lying?

The truth is, Tony, that our own beloved government has spent years allied with or in bed with many of those dictators you are talking about. During the Cold War, anyone who wasn’t a Communist was an ally of ours, no matter how horrific their regimes. Now that’s coming home to roost.

By lozen

July 6, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

I tried to vote them out of office; it didn’t work. But let’s talk about basics here. A person can’t run for office unless they have a lot of money. Our two past candidates for president were incredibly wealthy men. We can’t even imagine what their lives are like. And they can’t imagine our lives, the lives of the majority of people in this country who don’t have money. We don’t have true representation in our government unless we are wealthy. And it’s always been that way. The 55 white men who established our gov’t were wealthy landowners. They had no intention of securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for women, poor people, native americans or african americans. We’ve all had to force our gov’t through long, hard struggles to give us any rights in this country. Who really wanted to choose between Kerry and Bush in the last election? And what real choice did the majority have in that political process? To suggest that we have no right to criticize our gov’t is ludicrous. To try to make people who do criticize into traitors is just plain stupid.

By lozen

July 6, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Tony, Today, left bomb throwers are crying an unjust war. What in the name of reason are you talking about? What left bomb throwers? You are so brain washed it truly is pitiful!

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

No, I understand what you’re saying Bobb, and I agree with you in theory. I’m just saying that I don’t think that we, as civillians, see enough about how the military is run to make the decisions about electing our officials that you claim we should. The most potentially damning stuff is cloaked in security clearances, etc. that we aren’t able to see for years, until it becomes declassified.

I have great respect for the military in general, by the way, though you may not think so. Yeah, I’m a diplomacy-loving war-as-a-last-resort liberal, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect our servicemen and women. My uncle was a career man until he died, a JAG judge and General in the Air Force. I think that he would be appalled at how things are today.

Ken, I have never suggested that being a person of faith makes one less intelligent. I have clearly stated a dislike of and contempt for fundamentalism and fundamentalists. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to clarify that statement. I guess it’s just that there are so many fundamentalists in this part of the country and they assume that only fundamentalists are really religious.

I also don’t think that Durbin’s statements are in any way similar to the things I cited. Isn’t it the responsibility of our elected officials to take stands on things they believe in? Granted, I think comparison to Pol Pot is a little over-the-top, but commenting on an actual issue is a lot different from using fear and lies as a campaign tactic.

By Tim

July 6, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

lozen… Tim in 2020 :)… I hope that is a better choice for ya ;)

By Tony

July 6, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Eaton, you wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit you in the @ss.

By the numbers:

1). Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam’s WMDs.

2).The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.

3).Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.

4).Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs

5).Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.

6).After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs

7).Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.

8).Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.

9).Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.

10).The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Tim, if that’s when you turn 35 I’m gonna have to hit you.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

yes Tony…I’m the one with the reality problem. Every report by the weapons inspectors clearly state that there is no evidence that Iraq harbored WMD since the Gulf War. None…that is the conclusion of the chief weapons inspector, Tony. It’s clearly in the report. None, none, none. I don’t know how many times people have to say it.

You are a brainwashed drone, Tony. Enjoy it.

By Bobb

July 6, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Well, Lozen, we are all in the same boat. In ‘76 I voted for Carter with high hopes and then couldn’t wait till ‘80 to vote him out. Mondale in ‘84? What a New Deal dinosaur. In ‘92 I voted for Ross P. in protest of both mainstream parties and got Clinton for my stupidity. I didn’t bother to vote in ‘96 because I didn’t see hope for any of them. In ‘00 I voted for Bush mainly because he wasn’t Al Gore. In ‘04 I voted for him again because I couldn’t fathom a John Kerry in charge or our national defense. Actually, I couldn’t fathom Kerry at all. You win some you lose some. We are a republic. Speak up. Vote. Protest if you want; just don’t expect everyone to hand you flowers. It comes with the territory.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Lozen…

You are correct that the 55 men were wealthy landowners but to say that we’ve had to force our government to give us any rights equates to a bunch of bunk.

The people give the government rights, not the other way around. The Constitution determines what the Government is allowed to do. Any ammendments are there to either clarify particular issues (Bill of Rights), provide additional participation (several voting acts including direct voting for Senators and women’s suffrage) in the government process or provide government the ability to do something.

That is why Prohibition was overturned and why we should never pass ammendments defining marriage or any other idea of morality.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Bobb, you don’t seem to like any candidate…what exactly are you looking for?

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

What will you say when those amendments start appearing, Ken? Because the way things are going right now, they will. We’ll be writing organized Christianity into the Constitution and this country will become an ugly, vicious place.

By Archie

July 6, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Bobb is just like a lot americans. That’s not a criticism just a fact. People have to read newspapers and watch Fox,Cbs, and other news programs. I must agree that Tony is brainwashed because this newspaper printed an article that laid out pretty good reasons for not going to war before the war with Iraq began. Several cable news programs had people who were republican military experts say that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no connection to 9/11. Even Colin Powell spoke against war. There’s the memo from Britain. I mean I don’t know what people are reading and as Eaton said the inspectors told you there were no weapons of mass destruction. Heck the final report on that subject concluded Iraq had no WMD’s and as far as terrorism goes even Rumsfield said it would take 12 years to defeat the insurgents which means terrorism will probably increase. Saddam needed to be out of power but was it worth it? 1750+ lives lost and the maimed aren’t counted. Was it worth it? Is it worth it to be unethical with young men? At least Kerry actually fought in a war and I think he would have defended this country well but Mr Rove is good,very good. I mean we question the strength of a veteran but not the strength of a guy that no one can remember being around in his national guard unit. That’s amazing.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Archie…

Just as you have cited sources that put forth good arguments for not going to war, there are other sources that cite good reasons for going to war. Some of those would suggest that going to war was the best option with or without WMDs.

I think some people get upset b/c they feel that even though the media presents the war to the American people, and they should, by and large it does not give us news of the good that has occurred. These people also believe that the morale of the American people gets destroyed with the constant bombardment. My father, who was a Marine during VietNam, believes that we would have won that war if not for folks like Walter Cronkite talking with images of body bags rolling behind him. Is it true… Yes. Is it responsbile journalism, in the best interest of the country… That is for us to decide.

What would have happened had the colonists seen Washington and his men freezing in Valley Forge?

What would have, or what very nearly did happen, if all of the carnage from the Civil War had been brought to the people through visual media rather than the reporters?

What would have happened had the American public seen the battlefields of Europe during WWI or D-Day and the Pacific fighting during WWII?

I won’t say that I know for sure, but I suspect history would have been different, and I don’t necessarily believe it would have been for the better.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Most of us who are not ideologues simply want to feel like the media presents news without agenda.

Right now, by and large, I don’t believe that is happening. In fact, the biased nature of the media disgusts my wife, who was trained as a journalist, even more than it does me.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Maybe if we paid more attention to past carnage, Ken, there wouldn’t be such eagerness to create more.

In this country today, we barely give diplomacy a chance. We criticize the UN for not doing enough, yet we sit back and cripple their efforts, undermining them or failing to participate. The rush to war, the focus on the millitary, maybe if our leaders were honest about the horrors of war we would be less eager to start dropping bombs.

Call me what you will, I believe in war as an absolute last resort. There was no danger of Hussein storming our borders or killing our people. His focus was entirely internal - keeping the power that he had grabbed. Yet…we jumped from a necessary conflict in Afghanistan to an unecessary one because we were so terrified of this relatively insignificant dictator whose army was supplied with Korean-era weaponry.

And I have yet to see a real justification of this war that didn’t come from either the White House or the American Enterprise Institute.

By lozen

July 6, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Ken, You are correct that the 55 men were wealthy landowners but to say that we’ve had to force our government to give us any rights equates to a bunch of bunk. You just go right on believing that Ken, if you want to. Our gov’t didn’t give women rights until women marched in the streets, chained themselves to gov’t buildings and were force fed in prison. Our gov’t didn’t give black people rights until they marched, fought off dogs and police, and died for their rights. Laborers weren’t given decent working conditions and less than 12 hour work days until there were labor riots. I could go on and on.

By Tim

July 6, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Eaton… no that isn’t the year I turn 35… that is just the first presidential election I will be eligible for :)

Bobb… I voted for Kerry because I wanted to see what Teresa would wear to all the parties… and I also thought it would be funny if our first African American First Lady was a rich white woman

I can understand recruiters having phone numbers and such (but I HATE it because they about drove me nuts!)… but why do they need a S.S.N. or GPA

By Archie

July 6, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this

Ken there is nothing you can hang your hat on and say it was worth it to go war against Iraq. People need to see images of body bags because that’s the true cost of war. They need to see that so war doesn’t become some yahoo thing to do. If there were good reasons for this war I would like to read them. Being ethical means you put all the viable information out there for the people to see and as someone has said the government is us,the people. Ken people such as Lindsey Graham and Hagel are questioning what we’re doing over there in Iraq. If we’re doing a noble thing then you shouldn’t have to equivocate,spin, and outright lie about your reasons for going to war. If there is good then by all means report it but yes show us the body bags so we can understand what the president means when he uses the word “sacrifice”. You ought to have point for point reasons to ask a man to leave his family years at a time.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

C’mon Tim - you had the perfect answer to get them off your back.

By Tim

July 6, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Eaton… I honestly didn’t even think about that then… I foolishly thought that if I simply said that I had absolutely no interest in being in the military they would leave me alone… I finally realized what the best response was during college… that is when they finally left me alone

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Yeah! When they identify themselves, say “Sweetie! It’s so FABULOUS that you called! I’ve been just dying to talk to you!”

;-)

By Bobb

July 6, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you asked me “…you don’t seem to like any candidate “…what exactly are you looking for?”. That’s hard to say. Carter disappointed me because I let myself get all populist and fuzzy around the edges thinking he’d bring something new to office. He turned out to be nothing but technican and a bad one at that. Clinton’s love affair with himself and the Dems allowing him to co-opt the party turned me off and probably put some edges around my thinking toward conservative principles. The Republicans (closer to conservative than Dems) have ideas, but they seem afraid to get off go for the most part or sticking with once they do. The effect of years being the minority party, I guess. The Dems operate as if they are still the majority party, but have nothing to say except “No!”. I don’t know, polictics is like art to me: I may know what I like, but I know it when I see it. I’m not seeing much.

By Tim

July 6, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

lol @ Eaton

By RS

July 6, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Oh, Eaton, your 2:28 post had me rolling! You are a MESS! Don’t change!

By Ken

July 6, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Archie…

I am not hanging my hat on anything… The statement I made said that several sources cited reasons both for and against going to war. It is up to you to decide which set of reasoning fits more with your values. If you believe going into Iraq was a bad idea, then so be it.

I also never made any mention of discussing the war effort or questioning how the government handles the war. The only item I brought up was that the media should provide all angles and stories involved. Body bags are part of war, but not the only part. Oddly enough, you never answered the very pointed questions of what if…?

Lozen…

I will continue to believe that, because I believe in what the Consitution stands for… The basic agreement between the people and government. To your statements, it does identify which citizens are allowed to vote. That has been increased over time, and yes, it was unfortunate what needed to happen to give all citizens over the age of eighteen that opportunity.

However, to the best of my knowledge the agreement between worker and employer was never part of the Constitution nor did the framers intend it to be. We as a society decided to set those standards through the protesting you refer to. IMHO, those are not rights, those are standards set by society.

What right do I have to anything related to my vocation? None, other than the ability to actively pursue what I choose it to be. I do not have the right to a job. I do not have the right to a certain salary. I do not have the right to certain working conditions. I do have the right to quit my job and work someplace else or change my vocation if I am unhappy with my salary and my working conditions.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Bobb, you have an interesting perspective…Clinton was a very centrist, moderate Democrat who had a lot more in common with traditional conservatives than traditional liberals.

I strongly disagree with your statement about the Democrats still behaving like the majority party and saying nothing but “No”. From my perspective, the Republicans are acting like the ruling party rather than the majority. If anyone has forgotten the shape of compromise, it’s them. They take a slim majority and treat it as a mandate to shape the nation along extremist lines, even when the nation doesn’t embrace those extremes.

49% of the nation voted against Bush. The nation as a whole is not nearly as conservative as the Frists and Roves and Bushes of the world, but their only idea of compromise is “Do what we say”. If the Democrats are doing nothing but resisting, its because for the most part the Republicans give them no choice.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

You are correct… We should consider past carnage before we decide to go to war… That cost needs to be weighed against the alternative of status quo.

I do believe we were right going into Iraq. So far I do not believe we have handled reconstruction very well and I will be very vocal about that. However, I will also attempt to decide whether my actions simply voice opinion or could potentially make the job of our soldiers more difficult.

For most of us on this discussion, that decision it pretty clear. We wouldn’t have enough influence to affect too many things… But someone like Dick Durbin gets a sound bite on Al Jazeera and enrages people all over the world. Does that mean we should not investigate the issue he brought up. No, we should. But someone of that magnitude should be more aware of the consequences surrounding his speecha dn actions.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Ken, there are many reasons why labor laws are what they are. Do you have any grasp of the history of labor in this country? Triangle Shirtwaist Factory? Matewan? Company Scrip? Do any of these terms ring a bell?

Until labor became regulated companies took terrible advantage of workers and often they didn’t have the ability to just pick up and go elsewhere.

By Sean

July 6, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Its funny how women can comment on the military and conscription when they have absolutely nothing to do with it. Women by law are not eligible for the selective service draft and therefore their opinion matters very little in these matters. When women become eligible for the selective service draft, then you might listen to what you have to say.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Really Ken? Why were we right? How did going into Iraq make us safer or better off as a nation?

Just curious to know what you think we have gained with the blood of 1700 US soldiers and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars.

By Archie

July 6, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Ken I didn’t answer your questions about what if because I am not God and I have no way of knowing and I thought you were asking those questions as food for thought certainly not for an answer. “I won’t say that I know for sure, but I suspect history would have been different, and I don’t necessarily believe it would have been for the better.” That was your response to your questions. Notice you say you don’t know for sure about history. You use the word suspect.

An answer to Eaton’s 3:17 post would be good enough for me.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

I very much doubt that past outcomes would change. People in the wars Ken mentioned knew why those wars were being fought. There were real reasons behind them. There may not have been the immediacy of television during WWI and WWII, but newsreels and other films played a very important role in those wars. People were not ignorant of the realities of war just because Wolf Blitzer wasn’t giving the play-by-play.

People KNEW why we were fighting WWII, they KNEW why we were fighting WWI. Many of us have no idea why we’re fighting in Iraq.

By Bobb

July 6, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Eaton, Clinton became a “very centrist, moderate Democrat”, because it was politically expedient for him to do so. He is tie died in wool liberal but didn’t have the guts to stick to it.

Keep in mind that the Dems ruled both houses of Congress almost exclusively from the ’30s up until recently. Now it is someone else’s turn and they don’t know how to behave in the other role.

But you are right, it is about perspective.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Well Bobb, based on the Republican parties behaviors as the minority party, blocking over 200 of Clinton’s judicial nominees, a large number of ambassadors, etc. - you’re right. The Dems haven’t learned how to behave as a minority party. They’ve only blocked 10.

The Democrats have a lot to learn, for sure.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

I would be more than happy to answer Eaton’s 3:17 post in two words…

Saddam Hussein.

I do not need to go through the litany of things he has done. It was best for the people of Iraq and the entire world that he was removed. With or without WMDs. Sometimes we need to take a step back and forget how we are better off and think about how the world is better off. The world now has one less dictator oppressing his people and filling mass graves.

However, as I mentioned before, I am not happy with the post invasion effort. I guess I separate the two and some folks do not.

With a better planning effort, we would have gone through a smoother transition and our losses would have been greatly decreased. But then, there are folks out there who would see one lost life too much to remove a terrible regime. I can respect that.

By kimberly

July 6, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Sean: WOMEN are mothers and wives who bury their sons and husbands who die in war. When our men are killed or mutilated, it wrecks our lives. Why do you think women should have no say? How ‘bout a promise to only take the men to war when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, and by that, I mean in defense of our nation, NOT to secure oil for greedy oil exectives who bought their way to political power? How ‘bout sticking to that little promise? Or do you think dumb girls have no right to ask that of our government?

By Ken

July 6, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

And as for the labor laws…

I never disagreed with them. In some cases they are/were necessary. I have many family members that have worked in very distressing conditions. However, the Constitution does not guarantee those working conditions. We as a society determined that government has the right to make those laws. Althought the term “we” actually refers to folks way before I was ever alive.

I am merely coming from a different mindset. I do not believe the government provides anything that we as a society do not give it permission to provide.

By Archie

July 6, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

“But then, there are folks out there who would see one lost life too much to remove a terrible regime. I can respect that.”

Ken I am one of those folks. I hope you do respect that. I was hoping for a more point for point reason.

By kimberly

July 6, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Yo, Ken: Uzbekistan is a nation of repressive tyranny. It is widely reported that they BOIL dissenters there. Yet, BushCo is buddy-buddy with Uzbek, as they have been with many numerous evil dictators and regimes. It’s not REALLY about saving the people of the world from a bad man, is it? IS IT? Admit it. You’re perpetuating a lie because you don’t want to admit you were wrong.

To all who supported Bush and his war: NO ONE wants to believe their leader is a lying SOB who would send our good soldiers to DIE for money. None of us wants to believe that, any more than we want to believe our spouse is cheating on us or our kid took money from our purse. But TRUTH is TRUTH. Admit that you were misled. Confess your sin of protecting evil to save face. Purge yourself from the daily task of defending the indefensible. Promise to do better, to pay attention, to ask questions and stop blindly following Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Scarborough, and promise to THINK and connect the dots. You will find our forgiveness. You will once again sleep at night.

By Ken

July 6, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

C’mon Sean… No need for bombs like that… Women are affected as much or more than the men who go and fight. They lose husbands, sons, fathers and brothers and are completely powerless to stop it.

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry Ken, I just can’t buy the Saddam Hussein defense. Yes, the man was a horror but…guess what. So are a lot of people. Some of them are or have been our allies. Hell, HUSSEIN was our ally when it was convenient, back when Iran was the big enemy. Putin - the man Bush says he “looked in his eyes and saw his soul” - rapidly on his way to becoming the next Stalin. China? Terrible regime.

Let’s look outside - North Korea? Lousy regime, millions starving to death, building nuclear weapons. Actual threat to US security. Our policy there? IGNORE THEM!

By Eaton

July 6, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Couldn’t have put it better myself, Kimberly

By armageddoncometh

July 6, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Many men love war. Most men have always loved war! The only way to ever end war is to get rid of all the war-loving men. And Goddess help us, that will never happen, because they are our fathers, sons, husbands. The human race will perish because men just continue thinking war can solve problems; they are addicted to war. War has never solved anything; it never will. One war, no matter who wins, just leads to another war. As long as war is even considered as an option for solving problems we are headed for dropping the big ones (again). But next time it won’t be just the U.S. dropping the big ones; it’ll be every country that has them. And that will be the end of the human race. Then perhaps this planet (if it isn’t totally destroyed too) can rest in peace. Maybe it will be good for all other living things.

By Bruce

July 7, 2005 07:36 AM | Link to this

RS,

Thanks for the warning on the virus but I did some research and this is only a hoax. It is not a virus at all. Please go to the link below for verification.

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/virtual.card.for.you.html

By Ken

July 7, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

You are correct. There are lots of other terrible people in the world and we have been loosely allied to some when the government saw them as the lesser of two evils.

I would again agree that North Korea needs to be dealt with as well as other regimes in Africa. But that does not remove the fact that Hussein was also a bad dude that needed to be dealt with. Maybe others should have come first. Maybe it should have done differently. It still needed to be done.

And please don’t compare newsreels from WWII to Wolf Blitzer’s “play by play”. There are no comparisons. One has dramatically more impact than the other. Wolf Blitzer comes into every house each and every evening. Wolf Blitzer, by and large, has no government restraint on what he shows. Wolf Blitzer does not cost the average American money to view (except your basic cable bill).

Kimberly..

Did you grow up the daughter of a baptist preacher…? The way you tell me to “confess my sin” brings goose pimples to my arm. I will confess to nothing other than I supported going in and I am unhappy with the reconstruction.

BTW, if I was misled, I did nothing wrong.

Archie…

I do respect ayone who believes in the value of one life over all. I respect anyone’s personal belief and will not ever call people names or denigrate them b/c of it. I will disagree though.

Was it worth millions of lives to end slavery?

Was it worth millions of lives to defeat Hitler and Hirohito?

Was it worth thousands of lives to gain our independence from by and large a government that did nothing more than colonists unfairly?

Was it worth any life to drive Hussein from Kuwait or end the genocide in Kosovo or try to feed people in Somalia?

By Ben

July 7, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this

I guess the one thing I can agree with is that Saddam had to go. However, the American people and the military were misled into squashing W’s personal vendetta.

Saddam was severly crippled in the 90s when we whooped his butt the first time, and was incapable of threatening anyone. The objective of the War on Terror was to bring in the Taliban, and more importantly, bin Laden. When W changed courses he lost sight on his objective and began mismanaging the military and its assets, not to mention tax payer dollars. His bassackward priorities may prevent our military from defending against and fighting more prevelant threats that are capable of much more harm than Saddam.

Time to catch Zaqwari, pack up, regroup and handle more urgent business. Afterall, a Civil War did us good!

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

Ken, it’s funny that you reprimand me for comparing newsreels to CNN and then go right ahead and compare Saddam to Hitler. The things you mention, again, were of enormous import. Hitler was bent on world domination…I’m not exactly sure what millions of lives you’re talking about with Slavery, because anyone with a high school education SHOULD know that A) the casualties in the Civil War didn’t come close to one million, much less millions, and B) The civil war was not about slavery.

Seems like you’ve got the easy “pop” answer for everything…

By Tony

July 7, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Under Saddam’s regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions, the vast majority of them Muslims.

According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, “victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks … some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage.”

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.

There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths. (No WMDs???)

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam’s 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths.

2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

According to Human Rights Watch, “senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south.

“Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein’s Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government’s campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran.”

In 2002, the U.S. Committee for Refugees estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the “central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north.”

“Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living.” (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq. The UN Special Rapporteur’s September 2001, report criticized the regime for “the sheer number of executions,” the number of “extrajudicial executions on political grounds,” and “the absence of a due process of the law.”

Saddam Hussein’s regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984; 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998; 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a “prison cleansing campaign;” 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000; 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

Today (Hang your hat on this!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.

Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

Nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning.

The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

On Monday, October 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.

All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

By October 1, Coalition forces had rehabilitated over 1,500 schools-500 more than scheduled.

Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

Doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to Iraq’s children.

A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq’s 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals, which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms.

This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

We have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

There are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.

The wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

The central bank is fully independent.

Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

Satellite TV dishes are legal.

Foreign journalists aren’t on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for “minders” and other government spies.

There is no Ministry of Information. (I. E., “Bagdad Bob”)

There are more than 170 newspapers.

You can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.

Foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.

A nation that had not one single element-legislative, judicial or executive-of a representative government now does.

In Baghdad alone, residents have selected 88 advisory councils.

Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

Today in Iraq, chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government.

The Iraqi government regularly participates in international events.

Since July, the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

Shia religious festivals that were all but banned aren’t.

For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala, thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Uday and Queasy are dead-and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq’s soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.

Children aren’t imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.

Political opponents aren’t imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.

Millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

Saudis will hold municipal elections.

Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.

Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian-a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace. Saddam is gone.

Iraq is free.

Worth it? YOU BET!

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Tony, do you think anyone actually takes the time to read your drivel?

By Archie

July 7, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Of course Saddam needed to go but I have not seen a point for point reason for war. We know why we’re going after Bin Laden. I am looking for someone to layout the reasons for war with Iraq and not just repeat the party line. As I have said before we a superiority complex in this country.

Eaton what was civil war fought over states’ rights?

By Ben

July 7, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Tony, Tony - Didn’t you say you were in the military? If you are, you’ve obviously never been to Iraq! Because they are far from free! Most of your numbers on Saddam are pre-Gulf War (the first one)! So they definitely justify our actions then. But stick to the numbers after 92 and see how your stats stack up. And don’t forget the 10s of thousands Iraqi civilian casualties.

And even though W is going to take credit for it, much of the change in the Middle East is the result of Arafat’s death. And if the U.S. was truly interested in a peaceful Middle East, we would have taken our thumb off of Sharon’s neck and let him handle it. But that wouldn’t be a good idea because we would miss out on the spoils.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this

C’mon Ben - if we had let Sharon had his way, the Middle East would be far more unstable than it is now. One of the primary drivers of extremist Muslim sentiment is the treatment of the Palestinians and the handling of the Palestinian territories by Israeli hardliners - of which Sharon was the worst until it became politically expedient for him not to be.

What we SHOULD have done was exercise our significant influence to bring both parties to the table. Instead, we’ve remained a staunch supporter of Israel and heightened the existing anti-American sentiment that was being used to recruit new terrorists in the first place.

By Ben

July 7, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

I don’t necessarily agree with that, Eaton. But it all really depends on how you look at it. He’s a hardass who was tired of watching his people get killed. If they blew up a bus, he blew up a city. The Jews were hated, and always have been. He just doesn’t take crap. He’s extreme, but you have to be dumb to mess with him. If we would have let him go, there wouldn’t be very many extremist Muslims. lol.

By Ken

July 7, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

I apologize for trying to keep the answers short and succinct in the interest of space, time and my carpal tunnel.

Would it have mattered had I said hundreds of thousands rather than millions? The point was A LOT. Rather than focus on the heart of the question, was the outcome of the Civil War worth tremendous loss of life, you try to discredit me through nitpicking a few facts. Just answer the question.

And, the Civl War was fought over State’s rights. The Southern States wanted the autonomy to determine several issues without Federal intervention. Slavery being the chief one of them. BTW… Casualties (death from disease and battle) from both sides approached 700,000 and that does not include civialians or the severely maimed and injured. Maybe I inflated a little for affect, I apologize.

I never reprimanded you. I simply stated a different view point. Please do not take it personally. You are obviously a very intelligent and articulate individual. I don’t always agree with you, but that is why we discuss and then vote on our elected officials, so we can each have our say.

By Tim

July 7, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

the Civil war had very little to do with slavery… it was all about money… just like most every other war… the South was p** because they thought they were getting screwed by the North

By joe

July 7, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Bring people to the table? Sit down and negotiate? Compromise? What a wus. You sound like that weak, ineffectual Jimmy Carter. Hell, no. We’ll whoop yo a*! That’s the manly way of doing things.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Jews weren’t always hated, Ben, but that’s a very long and detailed historical discussion that I don’t have the inclination to have (yeah, you’re as surprised as I am :-) )

All that aside - it’s exactly that kind of cycle of violence that keeps things at a boiling point. You look at the Palestinians and see terrorists, and look at the Jewish Israelis and see victims, but that’s far from the truth. Most Palestinians are just normal people driven to desperation by the harsh measures and abusive policies of the Israeli government.

Yes, there are some very bad people in Hammas and Hezbolah doing terrible things - no one questions that. But in some ways the Israeli army is worse - they are terrorists cloaked in state authority.

A Hammas terrorist blows up a bus killing a few people. Rightfully, he is denounced. BUT, the Israeli government responds by retaliating against innocent people, sometimes killing women, children… Retaliation against the innocent has never been acceptable and should never be acceptable. It’s ironic that the Israelis are using the tactics of the Gestapo.

Not to mention, it perpetuates the violence. Then, when a cease-fire is declared, what happens? The Israeli government starts assasinating people. Are they criticized, though? Oh no…

We are so one-sided in this conflict its apalling. BOTH sides need to have pressure applied to them. BOTH sides need to be held responsible for their actions. You will never have real peace or justice in the region until that happens.

By Ben

July 7, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Sharon is nearly a saint compared to Arafat. But he went to the University of Texas, so he can’t be all bad, huh?! lol.

By Ben

July 7, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this

Arafat made Sharon look like a saint. lol. But he went to the University of Texas for a while so I guess he’s okay. lol.

By Bruce

July 7, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Tim,

I was taught differently. The Civil War was fought because the North felt they were being cheated because they had to pay their labor to produce the goods, whereas the South had free labor to supply the material to the North. But you are right is was more about the money than anything else.

By Tony

July 7, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Archie, your judgement of me (Brainwashed) causes me to hesitate to repsond to you, however please answer:

1). Ahmed Hikmat Shakir � the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

2). Saddam’s intelligence agency’s efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990’s?

3). Mohammed Atta’s unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which â€â€? notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission’s dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) â€â€? the Czechs have not retracted?

4). The Clinton Justice Department’s allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

5). Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam’s henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

6). Saddam’s hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

7). Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

8). Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

9). Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero� following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

10). The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

11). Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad�? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

12). Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi’s choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

13). Saddam’s Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

14). Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

15). We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

16). Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

17). Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

18). We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.

19). The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

20). Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

By Butler

July 7, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

You are right joe. War is the manly way of solving problems. Men don’t back down! Somebody might call them “sissies” and sissy is the worst thing you can call a man. It’s like being called a “girl” to be called a sissy. A man would rather be called a murderer, or a rapist or a child molester than a darn “sissy.” A man will do just about anything to show he ain’t no darn sissy. War is the best way to show that!

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Ken,

My apologies - I do come across as abrasive in arguments sometimes, I’m aware. In most cases I don’t mean it personally. Most cases. And not in this case.

I understand your point, and I agree that WWII and WWI and the Revolutionary War were important, for different reasons. I find the Civil War regrettable, though, and find no parallels of rightness, or justifiable war there.

For Iraq, no one has disagreed that Saddam was a terrible leader. But we have to consider deeper issues. As selfish as it sounds, we DO have to consider the cost to us, both in dollars and in blood, of waging a war of choice. We also have to consider our role in the world. Does the US want to be seen as a tyrant that invades wherever it pleases? Or do we want to be a leader of nations who are inspired to follow us rather than afraid not to?

We mock the UN for being ineffective, but do we ever really give it a chance to function? Not lately - Bush never put the weight of US authority behind UN attempts to nullify Saddam through diplomatic and economic means. Instead we stood by and did everything we could to undermine those efforts because we WANTED to go to war.

Sorry, but I do believe that war should be the last, last, last resort. Not something we leap gleefully into. And I have to say, there was a lot of glee on Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s faces the day we invaded.

By Tim

July 7, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Bruce… either way people are still very misguided if they think it was about slavery… like you said… it was about money… plain and simple

but I do want to add that there were still slave owners in the North… so there was still ‘free’ labor there as well

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Tony, you are a very credulous person. Please read the reports of the 9/11 investigation commitee that clearly states that there is NO and was NO connection between Iraq and terrorist organizations.

Tony, even someone as stupid as you should realize that it is beyond idiotic to believe that the very SECULAR BAATHIST government of Iraq would work with the RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS from Al-Qaeda, particularly when Saddam was their number two bad-guy.

Anyone can list “facts” Tony. That doesn’t make them true.

By lozen

July 7, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

Tony, 1. ben Ladin admits he is responsible for 9/11 2. All but two of the men who flew the planes were Saudis and not Iraqis 3. ben Ladin’s family (big buddies through the oil business for years with daddy Bush) is flown out of the US right after 9/11 4. the search for bin Ladin is unsuccessful 5. Saddam Hussein, who used to be our friend and ally, tried to assassinate daddy Bush. He can’t defend himself and makes a good scape goat for sonny Bush. 6. The focus of getting bin Ladin is diverted to invading Iraq 7. bin Ladin: Still at large and planning the bombing of London today!

By Ken

July 7, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Tim…

Slave owners in the North…? Did they own plantations down South and have slaves there (I guess that’s possible)…? Are you suggesting that folks up North had slaves on the sly…?

Northern states abolished slavery mid-way through the 19th century and many of the states that came into the Union during that time period never had slavery to start with (Maine, Wisconsin, etc.). That was the whole point of agreements like the Missouri comprimise.

Please don’t compare poorly paid immigrants to slaves. That is an insult the human beings who were bought and sold up through 1863/4/5?

And Eaton is right in saying that anyone can line up a bunch of facts to present a particular point of view. Everything, including those facts, should be taken into context with the broader situation and crossed with facts that may contradict those same items.

By Tim

July 7, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

Ken if you want to think that the civil war was about slavery… go right ahead

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

In case anyone has any lingering thought that Tony is able to think for himself, please Google any of the phrases in his long list. You’ll see that he is pure plagarist.

By Archie

July 7, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

First of all thanks Lozen and Eaton for helping out in response to Tony. I should not have said you were brainwashed Tony. I should not have said that but Tony as Eaton and Lozen have said in previous posts you had a bipartisan committee tell you that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. All those things you listed were considered by that committee. In other words they have access to that information you listed and yet they gave a final report that did not connect Iraq to 9/11. I wanted to support Bush in this effort but like many I was disappointed to find out that I had been misled, there were no weapons of mass destruction and it was a known fact before we invaded Iraq. Remember several individuals have resigned from the Bush team since this war effort started. There is bipartisan skepticism about this war. Again I will do better than to say anyone is brainwashed.

By Ken

July 7, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Tim…

I guess I will continue to believe that the issue of slavery drove two nations of this country to fight amongst itself for nearly five years. Maybe that is the difference between the history curriculum up North and down South. I know this subject is taught differently regionally after reading textbooks from both.

Bottom line is this… Before the war, you could own another person in the country. After the war, you couldn’t.

I also think that if Tony gets hammered for plagerism, the writers on this board should consider the same treatment for anyone regurgitating scenes from ‘Fahrenheit 911’ or any other partisan rag.

By Tony

July 7, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Thank you Archie for correcting your malignant characterization of me.

It is a fact that Saddam had WMD’s. Indeed he used them against his own people.

Our intelligence, Russian, German, France, Israeli, Great Britain all stated that Saddam had WMD’s.

We went to war based on that information.

Our President did not LIE. If you have evidence that he did, PROVE IT. He acted on information provided by our CIA among others.

Here’s some quotes from others who believed Saddam had WMD’s: Are they liars???

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â€â€? if necessary â€â€? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

By Brian Curtis

July 7, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

You want some proven lies of G.W. Bush? No problem!

“We know where the WMDs are.” 2002 “The Iraq regime possesses some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” 2003 “Mission Accomplished.” 2003 “Iraq has aided, trained, and harbored operatives of Al-Qaeda.” 2003 “Every measure has been taken to avoid war.” 2003 “The terrorist threat will be diminished when Saddam is deposed and disarmed.” 2003

And that’s not even counting his lies concerning tax cuts and economic policy; torture and detainee treatment; environmental issues; jobs; Social Security; and many, many more.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/31/122152/436 http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/10024

For those of you who don’t know, Truthout is an absolutely neutral organization dedicated to exposing falsehoods, innacuracies, and yes, downright lies, of our politicians, regardless of their party affiliation. They excoriated both Kerry and Bush in the last campaign and were (inexplicably) quoted by both campaigns as reliable sources of information.

Here is their discussions of Bush’s manipulation of intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion, a manipulation that would certainly cause many leaders to believe that Iraq had WMD. It is irellevant that our Senators, etc. claimed Iraq had WMD at one time - we know they made these statements, because the information they were fed by the Bush administration told them that it did.

What matters is that our leaders, when presented with accurate information, have recanted. However, Cheney and other continue to persist in the fiction, no matter how much evidence is supplied.

By Ken

July 7, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Tony…

Would it make you feel better if detractors simply said that the President and this administration was wrong, rather than lied.

I think I would. Saying someone lied implies a great deal and carries a huge burden of proof. This is even more difficult when it comes to the President, regardless of who that person may be. He does not gather information or analyze it. The President, from all estimation, makes decisions based on information and opinion provided to him. Is it fair to say that his advisors miscalculated or over estimated or made poor judgements. I think that is fair.

By Archie

July 7, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

Tony the administration knew the intelligence from those countries was bad. Are you reading the posts of Eaton and others. You continuously cut and paste albeit true quotes but irrelevant ones because the bottom line is the bipartisan commission has said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some people just will not address the bipartisan report. Hey I will not name call but is there any thinking going on. I have read posts and looked at links even on things involving homosexuality although I am church-going-straight male. I do that so that I will be informed. Thanks again Eaton and Brian Curtis.

By kimberly

July 7, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Eaton is right. The Cheney-heads continue the lie because it’s PROFITABLE. While the net worths of this nation and many individual Americans have plummeted, Halliburton’s stock is WAYYY up! Ditto for the big oil companies as they gouge us at the pumps. Universal truth: if someone makes a “mistake” that puts money in their pocket, expect them to make that mistake over and over again.

Don’t take my word for it, OR Eaton’s. Look it up! Whose profits are up since this war started? Who is raking in the dough? HELLO!

By lozen

July 7, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Follow the money, honey. As Kimberly says, as Eaton says, as most of us know. Follow the money if ya wanta know what’s goin’ on!

By Bobb

July 7, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Just out of curiosity, what is the status of Bosnia these days? NATO - led by us - had bomb the crap out of it then move in with troops because it was so critical to the rest of the world and Slobodan Milosevic was such a threat to world peace. Seriously, you don’t hear about it anymore. Has Slobodan Milosevic been convicted? Is everything settled? Are our troops out? Is the rest of NATO or the UN or whatever out? What’s the latest scoop?

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Ken, I feel comfortable with lie, or at least mislead. There is compelling evidence that Bush had the invasion of Iraq as a goal from the beginning of his presidency, long before 9/11. Numerous ex-Bush administration officials have admitted that Bush was making plans from Day One, and have admitted that intelligence agencies were basically told to “make” the intelligence fit the plan.

Rove and his neo-con cronies are on record at the American Enterprise Institute, neo-conservative think-tank who counts among its fellows MANY Bush admin folks, before Bush was even elected clearly laying out the necessity, in their eyes, to invade and hold Iraq.

There is far too much evidence showing that Bush always planned to invade Iraq. I call him liar all the way. And a lot of other names, but that’s not the issue right now.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

Bobb, he’s been on trail at the Hague for several months now. The trial is expected to last for a long while. It’s been quite a farce, with Milosevic declaring that he is an innocent and great man over and over. Fun for all.

By Ken

July 7, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

Unfortunately in today’s media climate, one always has to ask about the source of information.

I would be curious to know where I could read “compelling evidence” that this administration ahd plans to invade Iraq since before the election of 2000. I’m not saying it isn’t true, I simply would like to read for myself. I would simply liek to know whether or not is was more than potential “what if” scenarios.

By Tony

July 7, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Ken,

People calling our President a liar is extremely irresponsible and unjustifiable.

Where we wrong on WMD’s? There is evidence of Siren Gas being used recently against our forces, but more importantly WMD’s are/where not the only reason we went to war.

Failure to adhere to UN resolutions was the main reason for war not to mention the humanitarian reasons. We did not go to war alone. Great Britain, Australia, Italy and others are there with us. Are they taking the hits our President is? Where they all wrong also?

Bottom line, we’re in a war. Have we made mistakes? Darn right. But every effort to correct those mistakes and be victorious are essential. False accusations and claims will not support our effort and indeed supports our enemies. Arguing over something that will never change is wasted. Our efforts need to be united for us to be victorious, and that is not happening in our media or by the left wing politicians. Suggestions of time lines and exit strategies are embolden our enemy and negatively impacting our men and women on the battle field. We are dividing ourselves, and a house divided will not stand and they know it!

By Bobb

July 7, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Eaton, leave it to Hague to let the defendant put on a show trial. So is the USA/NATO out of Bosnia and/or who is keeping the peace?

By Brian Curtis

July 7, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Tony, you asked for a list of Bush’s lies, and they’ve been provided. Do you have any specific counterclaims to present, or do you accept them as written?

Backpedaling to a simple platitude like “calling Bush a liar is irresponsible” is no longer an option for you. Either address the evidence presented or admit you were wrong.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Ken, the Rove, et. all work at American Enterprise Institute is available from their website archives. The other reports from various Bush officials are matters of public record. There’s also a quite a bit of compelling information in the Bob Woodward book released a year or so ago. Quotes straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were.

Tony, you’re so fond of quotes. Here’s one for you, from Teddy Roosevelt: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Or how about this one. James Madison: “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”

Or, the oft-quoted Jefferson: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

I find your drone-like insistence that we must not criticize or question while we are at war to be cowardice of the highest order. You prattle on about the liberal media like a good little facist, and even have the gall to say that we didn’t go to war because of WMD. No matter what evidence is put before you, you blindly follow along after your conservative masters like the puppy dog you are.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Bobb, no offense man, but…can you say OJ? Can you say…Michael Jackson?

It ain’t just The Hague.

By Ken

July 7, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Finally… Something Eaton and I can agree on…

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

C’mon Ken…we can agree that the sky is blue right? There’s something…

By Archie

July 7, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Jay Bookman of this newspaper wrote years ago about Pan Americana which according to Mr Bookman is about US domination of the world. There is no exit strategy because the plan is to stay in Iraq and dominate the Middle East from that location. I read about this years ago and Mr. Bookman goes point for point about what he believes Bush is attempting to do and just as the Britain memo implied Bush was determined to go war period. Mr. Bookman calls Bush a liar in print. I am only doing so on an internet blog. As Eaton suggested last week I can’t be so non-confrontational that I can’t just tell it like is. We don’t have many people that can speak the language and understand all the customs to give us great intelligence. This was pointed out by intelligence community and the 9/11 commission report. I can either believe Mr. Bush miscalculated(he graduated from an elite university) or he lied. I believe he lied because Mr Bush is an intelligent man and the president of the USA and he can interpret data pretty well. If a person searches for Bookman and Iraq you would find the article written that I speak of.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Whoa now Archie, don’t get crazy. I don’t think he’s a particularly intelligent guy. Crafty maybe, and a good manipulator, but intelligent? Nah. Before he was a politician he oversaw a string of business failures. He only graduated from an elite university because his daddy was a wealthy and influential donor.

The man can barely string two words together without sounding like an idiot…

By Archie

July 7, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Eaton let’s give our president some credit since he did graduate and he is still a wealthy man. There are many people who earn millions yet are knee-deep in debt(see Mike Tyson, and see individuals that have won the lottery yet are broke now). Many people fail at business, but thanks to Brian Curtis,Kimberly,Eaton, for providing links about this war business. My relative is home for a few weeks before he’s off to foreign soil again. This stuff is serious and ethics are very important when it comes a person’s life.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Archie, Bush is heir to the kind of fortune that not even the world’s greatest wastrel could squander. There are many, many filthy rich ivy league grads out there who can barely add two and two. I don’t give him any more credit than he is due.

By MissUnderstood

July 7, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Wow you guys get really heated on this blog. Well for my .02, if our so called “Commander in Cheif” doesn’t do something and fast, he’s going ot start having problems right here in his own back yard. People are tired of struggling to make ends meet just so they can enjoy life without having to give a good bit of their earnings to the gas pump. It makes absolutely no sense at all, but then again when you are as invested as he is I guess you will make sure that when this is all over you will come out ahead.

By MissUnderstood

July 7, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Mike Tyson is a horrible example to use when referring to our president, especially since he really isn’t too bright to begin with. While a lot of people may fail at business, some are smart enough not to get in trouble.

By MissUnderstood

July 7, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

As far as the military using student info for recruiting, that’s a no no. If my son, and he is my only one, decides he wants to do this on his own, then I will support him. If someone knocks on my door and try to convince him, then let me just say, they won’t get in the door. Doing this to avoid the draft is just an excuse to find those individuals that one would think isn’t going to help, if you will prosper, our current economic situation. They need a way to weed out these individuals, and since profiling is too obvious, then this is the next step. Why else would the rules change from going to summer school to get promoted if you fail the test to repeating the same grade. There are rules already in place for the age limit for school children. If you fail this test two years, and it does not have to be consecutively, then if you’re still in high school when you turn 19, guess what, you can’t go. The next step for you is the military. With no high school education, and no hope for getting a decent job, well I guess now the military is looking better and better. The government think they are so slick.

By Archie

July 7, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Eaton you guys are hard on Bush… and I am not mad you.

By MissUnderstood

July 7, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

People are no more harder on Bush than they were on CLinton. The only difference, Bush has gotten us in some deep doo, doo and we don’t have a clear way out yet.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

I am hard on Bush because I believe he is one of the most dangerous presidents we have had in a long time. He honestly believes that he is ordained by God to be president. By extension, that means he believes that his personal religious beliefs are the absolute truth. I fear what he would do to this country given the proper influence.

A Supreme Court stacked with judges appointed by Bush would plunge us back into the Dark Ages, figuratively speaking. Science, civil rights, freedom of expression, the freedom to choose - all of these things would be consumed in a wave of narrow-minded conservative fundamentalism that rejects and seeks to destroy those that do not fit its definition of orthodoxy.

Hard on Bush? You bet.

By lozen

July 7, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Ben, your attention please! Army Sgt. Rachel Deaton, with the Baghdad-based 3rd Infantry Division, came to Iraq as a mechanic but was soon riding in the front seat of a Humvee providing security for convoys, she says. She goes out nearly every night on escort patrols. She has been within 50 feet of roadside bomb blasts and taken on small-arms fire “several dozen” times, she says. “I could stay on base my whole time here and be in just as much danger,” says Deaton, 23, of York, S.C. “If you pass that law (restricting women’s roles), you might as well keep us in Kuwait.”

Despite Rule, US Women on Front Line in Iraq War By Rick Jervis USA Today Sunday 26 June 2005

By Ken

July 7, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

Are you trying to start a real bru-ha-ha…? I’m sure there are some folks who would love to sink their teeth into a Supreme Court argument (anything but another Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Or with the pointed religious remarks. I guess you are getting bored with this topic.

I actually found it interesting that Bush graduated with better grades than Kerry. The President is not stupid, far from it. Just b/c someone doesn’t succeed with some business ventures does not make them stupid. Many folks in all sorts of business fail multiple times before they find their niche. How many of us changed majors, or changed careers?

And in all likelihood, you and I probably agree on far more things than not. This blog simply picks the most polarizing of issues.

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Not really trying to start anything Ken. Just explaining to Archie why I dislike Bush so strongly. It has nothing to do with religion in general, but everything to do with Bush’s idea of religion. There is nothing more frightening that someone who honestly believes he rules by divine right. They need not justify anything to themselves, as anything they decide is right, is, by dint of truly circular reasoning. After all, they wouldn’t be appointed by God if they weren’t right, right?

Right.

By Tim

July 7, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

actually Kerry’s GPA was slightly higher than Bush’s

By Eaton

July 7, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

I hope no one judges me by my undergraduate GPA…I majored in Beer and minored in late-night parties. Thankfully I got my butt in line for grad school and finished with a 3.89.

I would be more interested to know what Bush’s B-School GPA was than his undergrad. We can all be forgiven for being a little wild in college.

By Tim

July 7, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

I agree Eaton… certainly cannot judge someone by their undergrad GPA

By lozen

July 7, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

Sorry, that email about women in the military got really botched up.

By Bobb

July 7, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

Eaton, re: your 01:38 post, the OJ and Jackson trials were travesties of justice for sure, and certainly nothing that make our judicial system seem fair and balanced, but at least we didn’t let go to war over them in some fly-spec rock patch in the Balkans or a tin-horned Serbian dictator, neither of which posed any threat to us.

By Ben

July 8, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this

MissUnderstood - You can’t get into the military, well Marine Corps, without a high school diploma or GED w/ college credit, so nice try. Furthermore, recruiters have been receiving high school lists since the draft ended YEARS ago. NCLB only mandates the 13% that weren’t providing them provide them.

Lozen - I’m here, but I’m sitting in the wings, touchy subject and too much going on in the world to listen to the drivel here. Was there a reason you pointed out that story to me? I knew quite a few women while I was in Iraq who were in those positions. I even know a few that have bullet wounds, and a couple that died in firefights! So what are you getting at?!

By Tony

July 8, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this

My my, so I’m a stupied brainwashed cowardly drone without any options but to admit I’m wrong.

A son and his father were walking on the mountains. Suddenly, his son falls, hurts himself and screams: “AAAhhhhhhhhhhh!!!” To his surprise, he hears the voice repeating, somewhere in the mountain: “AAAhhhhhhhhhhh!!!” Curious, he yells: “Who are you?” He receives the answer: “Who are you?” Angered at the response, he screams: “Coward!” He receives the answer: “Coward!” He looks to his father and asks: “What’s going on?” The father smiles and says: “My son, pay attention.” And then he screams to the mountain: “I admire you!” The voice answers: “I admire you!” Again the man screams: “You are a champion!” The voice answers: “You are a champion!” The boy is surprised, but does not understand. Then the father explains: “People call this ECHO, but really this is LIFE. It gives you back everything you say or do. Our life is simply a reflection of our actions. If you want more love in the world, create more love in your heart. If you want more competence in your team, improve your competence. This relationship applies to everything, in all aspects of life; Life will give you back everything you have given to it.” YOUR LIFE IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. IT’S A REFLECTION OF YOU!

Author Unknown

President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn’t pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles.

President Bush’s reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn’t make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam’s self-incriminating behavior and the fact that he used WMD’s against Iran and his own people.

President Bush’s rationale for attacking Iraq was that under Saddam, she was our enemy in the global war on terror and a threat — indirect and direct — to our national security.

You can either join us in our war against terror, or scream to the mountians.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this

Don’t worry… Nobody will judge any of us on our undergrad GPA unless we run for office.

And actually Eaton, I don’t believe that our President does things with a “divine right” attitude. That, however, may be that I as a religious individual view things through a different prism.

I believe every human being will make decisions in their vocation (and other life events as well) based on personal beliefs. That is only natural. The President has become a deeply religious, man of faith, and that guides how he makes decisions. My faith guides my decisions, and your faith guides your decisions.

The difference with G.W.Bush and many others before him, is that he makes no bones about it. He is a “born-again Christian” with a very specific value and moral code. No apologies. No explanations. I appreciate that (even if I don’t always agree) and I would think that others would as well. Love him, hate him, or simply like him better than the other guy (that’s me), at least you know what you get.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

Yes Tony…you are a stupid, cowardly drone with no option but to admit you’re wrong. Oh, and a typical “With us or against us” attitude that would do your neo-facist President proud.

Ken, Bush has SAID that God made him President. If that’s not Divine Right, I don’t know what is. And the difference between Bush’s faith guiding his decisions and anyone elsese is that Bush is trying to guide everyone’s decisions with his faith, whether they share it or not.

If Bush were just some guy, then yeah, I wouldn’t care about his obsession with religion. He’s not though. He’s the President of the United States, and he’s doing his best to force everyone else in this country to abide by his code. That’s not America, Ken. That’s the Taliban. Of course, Tony and his buddies welcome that. Maybe you do too, I don’t know.

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Sorry, Tony, but you’re still trying to dodge. I listed Bush’s lies; you claim that none of them were lies, apparently because Bush was too dim to tell the difference after he ORDERED the CIA to tweak and filter their information to give him the answer he demanded.

But that doesn’t change anything; he still lied, and pretending that “questioning the president is disloyal” is a standard conservative smokescreen. Saying things you know are untrue, as Bush has done (repeatedly), is the definition of “lying.” Therefore, Bush HAS been proven a liar.

Thanks for playing; you might want to try again somewhere that people don’t have access to accurate information. Perhaps the Fox News forum?

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Ken: We should keep in mind that men of “deeply held religious faith” were also hijacking those planes on Sept. 11.

Bush is a Christian fundamentalist with a “very specific value and moral code, no apologies, no explanations.” Do we really need an irrational fanatic like that at the helm of this entire nation? Why on earth should we “respect” someone who proudly declares his inability to consider both sides, consider compromises, and respect freedom? Because make no mistake: that’s what “fundamentalist” means.

Stubbornness is not a virtue—especially when you’re wrong.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

As I said before, we have different views on this because we have different faith walks.

I also believe that God enables me to do things, puts me in places and situations to make a difference. He is simply in a more scrutinized position than I. Respect him because he does not try to act one way to some people and a different way to others. Respect him because he stands for his prinicpals. He believes, as I do, that we should not hide our faith because a very small minority find it appalling.

Please, don’t ever compare the religious nature of this President to the Taliban. No one is being forced to worship in a particular way. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists are all free to worship in their own fashion. Women are not being forced to cover their faces, being kept from an education. The original point was that all people make decisions based on their faith. Where you call the President a religions fanatic and compare him to the Taliban, were certain secularists in his position, they would be called Godless heathens and considered completely amoral.

Whether you like it or not, America was constructed as a country that acknowledged and respected God. Does that mean specifically Christianity, or any other relgion, no. It simply means God, a divine power that created us.

By Politically Incorrect Patriot

July 8, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

Did anyone notice the irony that the London bombings happened AFTER the big concerts? Yeah, somebody must have had tickets… Why military recruiting is failing: a soldier, gets 30,000/year and a civilian contractor doing the same job for Halburton makes 75-100,000 for less than a year. Do the math, people. Europe should just take all muslim men and lock them in a mosque. These militants would understand we aint gonna be messed with after a few full mosques were blasted up to Allah. The solution to Iraq is simple. Bring home all military and let them pick up illegals and homeless, empty jails in this country, load them all into planes and drop them off in Iraq. If you want to be on welfare, you live in Iraq, since thats where 480 billion/year is going. Let them live in the subsidized housing we built over there. Bet those tough gang members would be p** their prison orange. Illegals will stop coming in so fast if they knew deportation would be to Iraq….foolish births subsidized by welfare would stop….and the rest of us can get back to eating our hot dogs and apple pie in crime-free neighborhoods. Jihad can be fought 2 ways!

By Ben

July 8, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Finally, somebody who makes sense. lol. A big part of me is with you Patriot!

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

It’s interesting to see how successful the Bush/Rove machine was in diverting people’s attention to Iraq using the “war on terror” strategy. We are firmly focused on Iraq while Bin Laden continues to orchestrate bombings the world over.

Yet Tony declaims that we can either “join [the] war on terror or scream to the mountains”. Well Tony, if we were actually fighting a war on terror in Iraq… I mean sure, there are terrorists there NOW, because they showed up after we invaded. We’ve been very helpful to the terrorists, actually. We’re training their next generation of urban guerrilla fighters for them!

I’m sure the citizens of London appreciate our efforts.

By Bobb

July 8, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Looks like we were still in Bosnia as recently as this year performing “peacekeeping” duties according to this Pentagon link, http://www.dtic.mil/bosnia/. Took 10 years. The EU is still there in some capacity apparently.

So why was a part of the world that has been at war with itself for 1000 years worth the US fighting and dying for? What was the offical White House rational for this one - ruthless local dictators? Genocide? Posed a threat to US security? Weapons of mass destruction? Chance to bomb the Chinese embassy in Serbia by mistake to distract attention from giving them our missle technology?

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Geeze Ben. I used to think you were an intelligent guy.

Ken, you just don’t get it. The difference between Bush and those “godless heathens” is that the “godless heathens” aren’t trying to make moral decisions for other people. Bush does and is. And I will compare him to the Taliban, because that’s the kind of America that he would have, if he could.

One need only go to the websites of the various groups that he has spoken at in the past, the groups that give him lots of money, the groups he claims to represent, to see what kind of fanatic he is.

By Archie

July 8, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

I always thought of Bush as someone with a superiority complex more than a deeply religious person. Many americans relate to him because that complex runs through society. People are gung-ho about war because we superior americans can blow up some foreigners. As some have said Bush feels God made him president. I feel like this has more to do with a superiority complex than religion because at least in my church you’re taught to be humble. In other words you check yourself. I have a problem with him trying to change the Constitution to define marriage but I can’t dog him too much because many americans agree with him. However, if one reads the San Francisco Chronicle,Tampa Tribune,Boston Herald, you will see that many states are trying different things and the people are diverse. The New England is discussing universal healthcare and of course gay marriage was practiced san francisco. The point is people are different and they may not share the same point of view on anything and if you govern by might and equivocation with a complex to boot you will have some problems.

By Bobb

July 8, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this

Archie, universal healthcare? You want the government to tell you what doctor to see and when? Be careful what you wish for.

By Archie

July 8, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

I agree with the Patriot about sending gang members over to Iraq because then they could shoot and really be tough but many welfare people need that program and the homeless are weak people,weak people. I mean why pick on your weak and poor. Send gang members and the rich folk relatives. As someone has said the inner-city youth are targetted for military service because they may not have college skills or money for college. The poor and minorities have disproportionately fought in our wars for years. Every one in jail is not guilty so emptying jails isn’t practical. The generalized criticism of homeless and welfare people is not intelligent but it shows how easy it is to distract people from thinking about how a Ceo make 600 times the salary of an employee or how little military service comes from families with high incomes.

By Archie

July 8, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Bobb I did not say anything about the government. Please reread the last part of that post. The point is that people are different and you can’t force your viewpoint through might or equivocation onto people.

The New England area is discussing universal healthcare and of course gay marriage was practiced san francisco. The point is people are different and they may not share the same point of view on anything and if you govern by might and equivocation with a complex to boot you will have some problems.

I have discussed universal healthcare before and now is not a time for that. If you go back about 2 or 3 years you can see plenty of posts from me and others about that subject.

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Ken: Why shouldn’t we compare them? A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist. They’re the single greatest threat to our civilization worldwide… and whether they’re in the Moslem or Christian camps makes little difference. They both hate freedom, reason, and peace.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

So, Patriot, what you’re saying is…after we invaded Iraq, bombed their cities, and destroyed much of their infrastructure, we should not only pull out all our troops at once, but we should send all of our undesireables over there as well, to plague the innocent civillians, as if Iraq were now somehow a legitimate dumping ground for our exclusive use?

Is…that about the size of it?

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

The gay marriages in San Francisco were declared invalid, Archie. By straight conservatives who already have all the rights they want. Don’t get me started.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Actually, I think when it comes to religion, you just don’t get it. You can’t believe that anyone would believe and put faith into a higher power to guide the decisions they make. And regardless of what the President “might do”, he hasn’t and couldn’t without approval from Congress.

As for making moral decisions for everyone, all politicians do that. For example, our government has told us abortion is legal. That is legislating morality that not everyone agrees with. It just so happens that our President does not hold the same values you hold. He does not hold all of the same values I hold. And choosing to have an amoral society is imposing morality… The lack of it.

By Archie

July 8, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this

Eaton I know the gay marriages were declared invalid and I was just trying to make a point that people are different. I know your situation. It seems no one reads posts. The Patriot does what people with the superiority complex do, pick on someone that’s weaker physically and/or mentally.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

Brian…

I think where we disagree is that a) I think I would use the term radical rather than fundamentalist and b) I don’t believe our President is a fundamentalist (or a radical). We use the two interchangeably and I do not believe they are.

I follow the fundamentals of my faith, and I am nothing like what you consider a fundamentalist. Unfortunately, those terms are subjective. To an atheist, I may be radical in faith. To others I am probably, to use a biblical term, lukewarm.

As always, I go back to the same result… Have discussion, form your own opinions and then vote for the candidate that best represents you. None of them will be perfect for everyone. It just so happens that we are in a historical period where the country has swung more to the right side of the pendulum. The closest race was for President. The right holds 55 seats in the Senate, I think roughly the same percentage in the House and roughly the same percentage of governorships. When folks are not on top, they attack. Just look at what the Right did to Bill Clinton.

By Tim

July 8, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Ken… sorry to chime in… but… what a lot of people have a problem with (I being one of them) is that the president and people like him… ‘fundamentalist’… would like to force their beliefs on others… your example of abortion isn’t very good… no one is forcing you or anyone else to agree with abortion… like no one in Mass. is forced to agree with gay marriage… people are still entitled not to agree with abortion or gay marriage… what you are NOT entitled to do if force your beliefs on someone else… no one can force you to have an abortion or force you to marry someone of the same sex… if they were then that is when those beliefs would be forced upon you… furthermore, since in most areas of the country gay marriage is illegal then those beliefs of it being wrong are forced upon me… and that is wrong… believe what you want… but don’t hinder someone elses beliefs in the process

(and before you start in on me ‘not getting’ religion let me just say… I was raised in the church… I attended a Christian University and I still attend church… so I am pretty sure I will be able to ‘get it’ just as well as anyone else)

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Ken, are you being deliberatley obtuse? I “get” someone allowing faith to shape their lives. What I do not “get” and what I do not accept is a leader of any nation that claims to be free using that faith to support and encourage laws that deliberately discriminate against citizens of that country based on his faith.

Period. And…seriously…you don’t consider Bush a Fundamentalist? I believe it was Jay Bookman who wrote an editorial a year or so ago about people losing touch with the distinction between what is opinion and what is inarguable fact. Bush IS a fundamentalist. There is no question about that. He fits every definition of that word.

By Politically Incorrect Patriot

July 8, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Eaton, YES! I am saying why are we paying for jails when we got a great 480 billion dollar jail just waiting in Iraq? Archie, we got enough life sentenced prisoners! Doubt any of our pansy prison pretty thugs would NOT reform and real quick if Iraq was their ONLY option of residence. They can try and escape from Iraq—do their gang wars thing over there and maybe prison life so many youth seem to covet would be less popular…LOL at least it would be fun watching them stylish gangsta with their pants on their knees running! Betcha they would pay for a belt—real fast. We spend millions for the gvt. to pick up illegals and deport them—so since they want to find jobs, Halburton is hiring. BET it would slow down traffic across every border! You get caught here as an illegal—you get deported to Iraq. As for the our pampered-on-my-dollar poor…let them really experience POOR and maybe they will shut their always opressed mouths! I am tired of helping them who got money for crack, nail polish and designer tennis shoes but not to feed their own bastards! These terrorists arent worth pity—yes if they let me, the next time some damn suicide bomber blasts innocent civilians I would pack every radical mufti and follower into their damn mosque and let them achieve Allah. It would stop these militants about the 4th mosque in with screamers in the flames. Hey, you fight a war to win not to make friends.

By Sandy/Sanhan

July 8, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

I might have a bit of respect for Bush if I thought his religious convictions were sincere, but I do not believe they are. I believe he is an opportunist; he used born-again Christianity to haul himself out of trouble, and is now using it to further the policies of the neocons by co-opting the religious right. By using 10 commandments and opposition to gay marriage, Bush and company are throwing up diversion after diversion to get the religious right to vote their way; unfortunately for progressives, this works. But we all pay the price with polarizaiton regardless of our religious convictions. While I don’t agree with the fundamentalist god-fearing ways (as I have hashed and rehashed on this blog), in a way I feel bad for those who are truly faithful, because they are being used.

This supreme court vacancy may be the catalyst for determining whether Bush will go so far as to have Roe V. Wade overturned; by report, he feels we are not ready to overturn Roe V. Wade, but the religious right has been gearing up for this for 30 years… (Ask yourself, if abortion is determined to be murder, and murder has no statute of limitations, are you willing in principle to convict someone ideologically (not necessarily legally) for having had an abortion? Would you be willing to investigate each and every miscarriage to make sure that there was no “foul play” involved, suspecting each and every woman?)

All told, I think that Bush is far more reprehensible and more dangerous for using people of faith for his cronies’ ill conceived purposes than he would be for having real faith to begin with.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Well there is this teeny, tiny problem. We don’t OWN IRAQ YOU CHOWDERHEAD.

There are so many things wrong, immoral, and just downright evil in your “solution” that I can’t even begin to disect it.

By Politically Incorrect Patriot

July 8, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Who says we got to own it Thunderpants? Drop these suckers off at the airport and wave bye-bye! We got good men and women dying in a war—well damn—lets get the hard working decent citizens home and send our bad element to fight their bad element! We have MILLIONS sitting in prison getting their wrists slapped by the govt. for murder, rape, gang violence—proof they can use a gun, eh? Let them fight for the length of their prison sentence— Maybe my evil comes from watching all the bleeding hearts cry out for peace but blindly let decent good Americans die cuz theyre to liberal to hold a gun to someones head who bombs innocent victims. When you watch the video of the head being sawed off the next American—you come me why these scum are worth saving!

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

here is eaton’s quote: “I believe it was Jay Bookman who wrote an editorial a year or so ago about people losing touch with the distinction between what is opinion and what is inarguable fact. Bush IS a fundamentalist. There is no question about that.”

perhaps it is eaton who has lost touch with the distinction between opinion and inarguable fact.

bush is a fundamentalist but clinton was a moderate centrist. ha ha ha. apparently according to eaton these are facts.

how a guy who claims to be as smart as eaton can’t whiff the stench of his own hypocrisy is beyond me.

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this

when people on this blog are quoting jay bookman, you know it’s gone downhill. actually, to whoever wrote this earlier in the blog (archie?), it was bookman’s article about pax americana (slight difference between pax and pan) that you were referring to, and it was full of more holes than swiss cheese. his predictions concerning america’s behavior were pure hypotheticals that had no grounding in historical fact. bookman will tell you that gitmo is the great evil of the war on terror but that durbin’s comments won’t be used to recruit other terrorists. he falls silent when presented with facts about gitmo and the health of the prisoners there. he’ll tell you that all liberals wanted to go to war in afghanistan despite sharing the opinion pages with martha ezzard, who at the time was telling us we need to understand where the terrorists are coming from and sympathize with them. he tells you that the mayor of atlanta is right not to privatize the airport in an attempt to solve its financial woes, but is silent when you remind him that perhaps the reason why is because her children and ex husband are all getting rich as minority partners in concessions within the airport. please, spare us all from quoting bookman.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

I am not being obtuse, I am merely trying to help you understand how a person with true faith, regardless of their religion, makes decisions. Anyone with a true religious convictions would ALWAYS have those convictions guiding how they do anything. You would not be able to separate the two. You would not want to separate the two.

Tim…

I believe abortion is a good example for legislation of morality b/c some people believe abortion is killing another human. So to those folks, keeping abortion legal means you give an individual the right to kill another for means other than defending their own life.

Sandy/Sanhan…

When you refer to the truly faithful who are being used, you must be referring to the minorities and the unions being taken advantaged of by the Left, correct?

Every political party has pandered to groups in an effort to get votes. That will never change. It happens in every Democracy in the world and will never stop.

The real quandry comes when people who agree with certain points on each side need to make up their mind. There are very few of us unfortunately b/c of he polarization that has taken place in this country. Most of the time, that decision comes down to who we most identify with.

By Politically Incorrect Patriot

July 8, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Sandy—where in hell does morality come into your fluffy little world? Someone who says Abortion should not be legal or the status quo who supports 9 million deaths?

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Well, Not-a-Patriot, because:

A) When you kill someone just because of their political or religious beliefs, you are as bad as they are. You can’t herd people into a room and kill them because you don’t like their political beliefs. That’s murder.

B) Despite the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh, et. all, we liberals are as anxious to see actual terrorists punished and stopped as anyone else. Your attempt to paint us as weak and indecisive is demeaning and insulting, and is nothing more than an attempt to diminish our arguments. Do I need to quote Goering again? Do you even know who Goering was?

C) As the invading force, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people we have invaded are left better off then they were when we finally leave. I have serious doubts that substituting convicted criminals for trained soldiers would accomplish that end.

D) Everything you have said is meaningless, rabble-rousing nonsense. You pose no real solutions, only make statements guaranteed to get the lowest common denominator fired up and bloodthirsty. Your proposals would create more hatred, more terrorists, more chaos. Thank God you’re just some idiot posting on a blog and not an actual leader.

Blahblahwhatever - The facts speak for themselves. Bush is an ultra-conservative evangelical who believes in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and believes that only other evangelical Christians such as himself follow the true religion. That’s fundamentalism. That’s fact.

I also think you will find that political historians agree with my assesment of Clinton’s politics. Of course, since you surely adopt Fox News’s idea of Fair-and-balanced, I doubt you would care. Blah blah blah, indeed.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Ken…no one is forced to have an abortion. No one. Do you understand the difference? If you don’t approve of it, DON’T DO IT.

And YES, there are people in this world who have great faith who understand that it is neither their right nor responsibility to force that faith on others. And THAT is why Bush is and always will be a Fundamentalist.

By Politically Incorrect Patriot

July 8, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Thunderpants, you list a whole lot of law and moral concepts that we should follow as upright stalwart citizens and countries—eh? Well I dont see the enemy playing with the geneva convention! I do see these scum blasting up innocent victims in subway stations, police stations, restaurants and even their own damn mosques! I see them churning up hate at the expense of decent people—so why not let fire guide our path? Could we just make gay marriage legal in Iraq and they would come on their own? Least they would die well dressed, eh? As for Goering he was a snappy dresser too.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Personally, FacistPatriot, I don’t care how the enemy behaves. I realize that you are morally and ethically bankrupt, but even you should understand that by using the tactics of our enemy, we become our enemy. And you seem to be doing an excellent job of churning up hate yourself, Jr. Nazi.

By Bobb

July 8, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Alright, I’ve tried in several previous posts but no one will bite, so I’ll ask a genuine question and hope to get some constructive feedback.

The most bashed topic in this forum - other than religion - is President Bush. From all accounts he is a moronic, opportunistic, right-wing, delusional, lying, bible toting fundamentalist warmonger. It’s the lying warmonger part I’m curious about. If we assume that the war in Iraq is not justified based on any credible threat to our national security or it being any of our business how Saddam ran his country or how many people he slaughtered, then how did how was the war in Bosnia justified? The world politicians and thinkers who bash Bush now pretty much fell all over themselves to support Clinton and that war. What the hell is Bosnia, Serbia, and Milosevic to us? Why is Iraq bad, but it was okay for Europe and NATO - led by us - to blow the hell out some dinky little countries that most people can’t find on a map? At one time Milosevic was supported by us, just like we supported Saddam as a bastion against Iran. Why the outcry over Iraq but the sound of silence during Bosnia? Did all of you bash Clinton over his escapade in the Balkans back in the ’90s like you trash Bush now so vehemently personally and over the war? Did you have the same convictions about needless wars then?

I’m not questioning your convictions all. I’m asking because I’d really like to know if you are anti-Bush, anti-war, or both, or something else. The only variable I can find is that this is Bush’s war and liberals hate Bush as much as they apparently love(d) Clinton. But that may not be a fair assumption on my part, so I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.

By Tim

July 8, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Ken… ‘Anyone with a true religious convictions would ALWAYS have those convictions guiding how they do anything’… I totally agree… but notice you used the phrase THEY do anything… I would expect you to use YOUR religious convictions for your OWN life… the problem is when someone uses THEIR religious convictions to dictate someone elses life… that is why many believe Bush is a fundamentalist… because anyone with ‘true religious convictions’ also knows that you shouldn’t force YOUR convictions on someone else

your example of abortion still was not a good example… you said it was because some people believe abortion is murder… well it is still a BELIEF and ones belief should not be forced on someone else… and just because abortion is legal does not mean that you are forced to agree with it… so that is why I don’t think it was a very good example

and again what about gay marriage… by voting against it people are forcing their beliefs on others… Bush was very in favor of a constitutional ammendment… that means he is forcing his beliefs on me and many other Americans and that is what a fundamentalist does… tries to force their beliefs on others

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Bobb, the Bosnian situation was an international operation involving multiple nations and supported by those international organizations that we, as the nations of the world, have chosen to designate as the arbiters of international law.

Above anything else, I believe in international law. I believe that the international community has a responsibility to police its members and to act, as an international body, to unseat unfit leaders. I don’t believe that any nation should be able, on a whim, to invade another nation. There was no credible threat out of Iraq to US security. There was no broad-based international support for our invasion. The international community was acting through diplomatic measures to remove Saddam, and I belive that in time the support for invasion would have grown. Instead we pre-emptively invaded for our own purposes.

On the other hand, the Bosnian situation DID have broad international support. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the costs, both in pure currency and in blood, were shared by multiple nations. Our so-called Coalition for the Iraq war is a farce. Clearly, the weight of international opinion was opposed to invading at the time.

Please note - in the face of clear and present danger, any nation has a right to defend itself. However, remember that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor pre-emptively, fearing that the US would one day be a threat to their plans, and we condemned that attack. I really don’t see any difference in what we did, other than as the “victors” we get to write the history.

By Randy

July 8, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

So the topic is Bush! The bombings in London yesterday eliminated any doubt that Bush is doing the right thing. If it were not for him, those hateful people would be blowing up innocent people on a daily basis. Thank God for George W. Bush!

By Randy

July 8, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Maybe Diane and Shanti should pick someone on this site to start the discussion every week. Our topics would be much more interesting. Don’t you think!

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Really Randy. Interesting logic. Even though the numbers indicate that the incidents of international terrorism have increased every year since our so-called “War on Terror”, you still manage to believe that Bush is doing the right thing?

By Randy

July 8, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

We so called fundamentalists aren’t really trying to force our beliefs on others. We just realize that we have had a life-changing experience and wish others could experience that also(for their own good). It’s like someone is sticking a knife in hand and we say that’s not good.

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Randy: You mean… like they just did?

You’re right about one thing: it removes any doubt about whether Bush is doing the right thing. Obviously, he’s not.

Thank God for freedom! May we be rid of Bush soon and back on the path to it.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Tim…

ANYTHING also includes how one would govern a nation. If someone believes abortion is murder, why would they pass a law that accepts it?

Would you repeal laws that punish thieves and then make the statement… Well if you think stealing is wrong then don’t do it? Of course not. We have laws to protect person and property. It just so happens that we as a society have agreed that stealing is wrong. We do not have such consensus on other issues. However, we should never, EVER, have laws to mandate lifestyle.

I steadfastly disagree with any law prohibiting gay marriages, or other lifestyle choices, including the use of drugs/alcohol, etc. This is one of those issues (along with most environmental issues) that I agree with the Left.

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Randy: Actually, it’s more like someone buying an SUV and then trying to force one on the rest of us by raving about how great they are… and then passing laws requiring us all to buy one.

Do what you please, and leave us alone to do the same.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

That attitude is exactly why the Democrats lost the election. You will not find too many Americans who would go along with the idea that the international community should dictate how we as a nation act.

We had a broad coalition for Serbia for one reason… B/C the conflict was in Europe. Had Milosovic been anywhere but Serbia, our European “allies” would have side stepped it and denounced our action. They just wanted to do some house cleaning and called in the favors.

Not to mention… Who do you think foots the bill for most of the NATO and international efforts? The U.S. that’s who. Money, men, machines. Others carry the load, but we are far and away the heavy lifters.

By Lyrazel

July 8, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Bobb, its the deceptions I am having trouble with concerning this administration. I would like to know why Bush feels we need to abandon the nuclear arms agreement and start enriching plutonium again? In return to the topic, why is the Bush admni, using education programs funding to produce lists of minors—a clear violation of the law. Fearless Leader and cronies have this clear air act but turn a blind eye at major energy polluters. National parks are being opened for energy exporation and closed to citizens due to lack of funding. Exactly why have the American people been kept in the blank about new permanent military bases being built in Iraq—if we close bases in America? His classic—tax cuts for the wealthy 1% has created a deficit of billions, has NOT created jobs, has NOT helped the economy…just some pocketbooks that never needed padding or protection. In return for the Fearless Leaders gains MY Nation suffered—and instead of offering solutions—to even getting armor on military vehicles in Iraq—we get further excuses, flag waving and patriotic rallies that want to end the one working social program we have in America. You asked. I voted for third party. Both dems and repubs should be replaced with non-party affiliated candidates—enjoy friday people!

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Thanks Randy, but really - we don’t need your concern. REALLY. I can’t express this strongly enough - we don’t need your patronizing and insulting concern for those of us who you, in your arrogance, think don’t have the lock on truth that you do.

Ken, it is not a fair comparison to use stealing, etc. when you’re talking about legislating morality. Things like stealing, killing, etc. are illegal because they harm others. These prohibitions exist regardless of religion, culture, etc.

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Ken: Then doesn’t that make us suckers? Why shouldn’t we all go live in a European nation where we can get national healthcare, shorter work hours, etc., and let the dumb ol’ U.S. handle our defense?

The problem with Bush’s War is that he broke the law. I agree that international consensus is not the final word in every military action we take—and if you’ll look closely, Eaton (and Kerry) both said as much, quite clearly. The anti-UN whiners were the ones who turned that into “asking permission to defend ourselves,” which is a ludicrous distortion. Rather, another LIE.

By launching this (illegal) war with (doctored) intelligence, Bush has broken the law and violated the U.S. Constitution—the document he swore to uphold. Doesn’t that bother anyone?

By Tim

July 8, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

Ken… but if someone believes abortion is murder it is still just that… a belief… but anyway we could go round and round about that… I just wanted to show that that is but one reason why many of us view Bush as a fundamentalist

as for your comments on lifestyle choices… can’t disagree with you there… are one of those moderate republicans? lol

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

“Patriot”—Are you sure you’re not Zack in disguise? The anger and love of violence, the gay-bashing and concern for “decent people” (always a narrow category), and—especially—the whining about abortion are all Classic Zack.

All that’s missing is hysterically declaring abortion to be a “holocaust.”

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

I’m aware of that Ken…we as Americans are arrogant enough to believe that we can do whatever we want because we have a big army. We claim to believe in Law, but we really just want to do what we want whenever we feel like it, just like spoiled teenagers.

I believe that if there is going to be peace and prosperity in the world, it will only come about because the international community works together to make it happen. Imperialism and aggression will never create a peaceful world.

What I really find ironic is that all the self-proclaimed Christians out there deride and insult any liberal who believes in a peaceful world. All of you devout followers of Christ are more than anxious to blow people up, but find it almost unfathomable to pursue peace.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Sorry Ken, looking back that “you” sounded like an accusation. I apologize - I did not mean to lump you in.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Nah Brian - Zack has a peculiar syntax when he writes. He uses a lot of awkward and disjointed phrasings and has a very discernable pattern to his writing. Patriot also never used Zack’s favorite word - “bigot”.

Besides, can you see Zack calling someone “Thunderpants”?

By Politically Incorrect Patriot

July 8, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

I am aithest and do not believe in god. Zack uses god as a foundation of his belief and posts. I do not. I do not love violence but am frustrated by nations that panders to thugs, deadbeats and criminals! Learn a lesson—you cant fight terrorists in a polite way—and frankly why not blow up a church with them in it to end further bloodshed? Its american logic—Americans bombed Japan to prevent further deaths—remember? Native Indians suffered a holocaust and I guess you forgot that didnt happen in germany—guess you forgot about how we interred-unwanteds in this country—so I dont need lessons about WWIIl! Get over it about abortion, the majority of abortions are performed for b*** too lazy to use birth control. Thats a p** poor excuse for slaughter even if it is a 2-4 week zygote. The sheer number of abortions performed every year speaks clear enough that its used as birth control not for emergency! 9 million rapes? 9 million potential babies harming the woman? Thats a crock to swallow so pardon if I spit on your shoes…while you try to force feed me bunk. Who says I love violence? I just think its stupid to send soldiers to combat zones to be nice-to-them. I cant forget the beheadings, kidnappings and subway bombings—why do you?

By Archie

July 8, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Eaton not all christians insult any liberal that believes in a peaceful world. Some of these people aren’t christians just bigots that carry a bible. People propose things that aren’t going to happen. For example,we’re not going to deport murderers,etc. to Iraq. First of all you really want trained soldiers fighting for you otherwise you’re being stupid. People are entitled to rant but we had good discussion going with Ken,Bobb, and yes,Tony. When I asked the question was the war with Iraq worth 1750 or more lives I was asking for response. Any response. Tony and Ken responded although I didn’t agree with them, they responded. Now the bigots are loose. Eaton your 2:34 post is what I mean about a superiority complex except you say arrogance,good work.

By Ken

July 8, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Eaton… Thanks for the clarification. B/C I am much more like you when it comes to the use of force, as a last resort. I simply felt that we had adequately exhausted our options in Iraq…

Brian… Some people would consider us suckers. But I would never move to Europe for one reason… Choice. We have more freedom of anyone I know that lives in other countries (from various countries in Europe to Singapore).

Tim… My wife calls me a Libertarian. Unfortunately they don’t have much influence, so others say a moderate Republican. About the only government regulation I support fully is environmental, especially gas. I’d make gas $7.00 a gallon if it would make people ditch their SUVs and drive more enivronmentally friendly cars. So I guess I’m actually a tree-hugging, moderate Republican.

By Bobb

July 8, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

I’m reading in hurry. Are you saying our participation in Bosnia was justified because there was a broad coalition that wanted it? So what? What was the reason for the war? How did the Balkans threaten our security any more than Iraq did?

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

eaton,

the facts about bush and clinton speak for themselves according to you. that’s what makes your point about blurring the line between fact and opinion so comical. amidst your blathering and fingerpointing, you fail to recognize that you suffer from the same affliction that you accuse others of having. i’m sorry if you’ve been outed as a hypocrite.

if bush was truly as fundamentalist as you believe him to be, i think the policies he would pursue would be that much less palatable to you. i can think of numerous ways in which he could be more fundamentalist.

and part of the reason someone would find clinton to be a moderate centrist is because after his first two years in office the landscape in congress was so dramatically altered that he had to put forth more centrist policies in order to get anything done. that, in and of itself, would not make him a centrist moderate. it makes him politically smart. don’t forget hillarycare, which i’m sure most “political historians” would view as being anything but centrist. the “republican revolution” or whatever you want to call the midterm elections of 94 were in large part a repudiation of clinton’s political stances as president up to that point.

and by the way, i watch fox news maybe once or twice a year. just because i happen to disagree with your overzealous characterization of things doesn’t mean i’m a goose-stepping facist like some of the other people you name call around here. it is truly laughable that you tell people that they’re “churning up hate” while you’re calling them junior nazi. i don’t even particularly care for bush, i just call BS when i see it - and you’re it.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

You are reading in a hurry, obviously. International community - reponsibility to uphold international law as an international body.

By Tim

July 8, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

PIP… you start spittin on my shoes and we will have a problem

Ken… first… I really wish there was a way that more voices were heard other than simply Republican or Democrat… I think the majority of people simply associate themselves with one or the other becasue there really are not any other options… second… about gas… I may need to start looking for a job closer to home if you get your way (I do find things like Hummers a bit ridiculous though)

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

If you say so, blablablah.

By Brian Curtis

July 8, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Ken: Wow. You’re a rare, sensible person. I’m impressed.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Oh, and blablabla, I think characterizing someone who advocates the mass-murder of political dissidents who have committed no crime and the conscription of the poor, homeless and indigent as a Jr. Nazi is pretty fair. But hey, if you think that’s churning up the hate…

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

eaton - quick test - was my closing comment fact or opinion?

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

eaton, i just find it funny that you call everybody names while you’re telling them to stop churning up the hate. you’re doing exactly what you’re telling other people not to do.

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

i truly wish y’all would stop whining about gas prices. think where it would be if “real” prices had remained the same and just escalated at the rate of CPI. it’d be a lot more than $2.25/gallon. nobody makes anybody buy a big, gas guzzling car.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure I only called NonPatriot a name, Blabla, and I feel no remorse about that. Using a derisive or descriptive name about someone in a discussion such as this is just a rhetorical device. It’s hardly the same thing as advocating murder.

Talk about your lack of proportion…

By Sandy/Sanhan

July 8, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

PIP, morality comes in to my “fluffy” world as the belief that biology is not destiny, and that a woman’s actual life is worth more than a zygote’s. Safe, legal abortion has a role in society as much as I would like to see its need eliminated. The lives of women are irrevocably changed physically, economically, and politically with parenthood, often to a far greater degree than mens’ lives, and in ways that men will never have to experience. Putting a woman’s right to sovereignty in competition with her potential offspring hardly seems a peaceful or desireable solution.

I must acknowledge that you’ve broken the stereotype about anti-abortionists, as most will invoke God as the basis of their moral belief that life begins at conception. As an atheist, your position is clearly unique. I find it hard to believe that carrying those 9 million fetuses to term would make you happy, though. You just don’t seem to be the sentimental type who wants to care for some “b***’ babies.” If a person is too lazy to use birth control (or too strung out on drugs, or mentally incapable, or educationally, econmically, and socially deprived,etc.) they’re too lazy, strung out, desparate to be an effective, loving, parent, too. In some cases, perhaps it’s better to never be born.

As far as your diatribe about being “nice” to the enemy, don’t confuse understanding the enemy with sympathizing with them. Hatred will never destroy hatred, and until we recognize our own potential to be monstrous in times of war, and curb that impulse, we will never reach a lasting peace. Of course, lasting peace is not in the neocons plans anyway, as then there would be no money to be made through warmongering.

Ken, your point is taken about pandering for votes, but W seems to have talked more about God and religion than any other president. Others have respected the division between church and state, but he has made the polarizations more severe, despite his declaration that he is a uniter not a divider. I wonder what will happen when the religious right is no longer useful to this administration, or the next.

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

eaton, i’ve seen you call other people names or refer to them as stupid on this forum. and i’m not defending patriot’s stance on anything. i accused you of churning up that hate by calling people names, etc. while telling other people not to. reading comprehension…

stop being so hateful, you evil, facist, goose-stepping, murdering, fox news watching bedwetter! that’s what you sound like. that’s why you’re entertaining. ;)

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Blabla, I’m glad you find me entertaining, though I’m fairly sure I’ve never accused anyone of being a bedwetter.

Let me ask you something…if someone says - and I’m going to use my own favorite example since it hasn’t really come up this week - if someone calls me or someone else on the blog a “dirty f*”, if I respond to that by calling that person an evil, scum-sucking, fundamentalist bastard…I’m overreacting?

By Bobb

July 8, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you aren’t answering the question. Forget the international community and Bush lying for a minute. What was occuring in Bosnia that justifed the US particpating in that war? Saddam broke all kinds of international law and the rest of international commnunity didn’t give a damn.

You said yourself that Bush lied about Iraq and there was no threat to the US. So, what laws did Milosivec break and what threat did Bosnia/Serbia pose to our country to or to any countries other than themselves that justified our intervention much less that of the international community? If Serbia and Milosivec weren’t a threat to us then we had no reason to be there either. It doesn’t make it right just because everyone wanted it. What, the international community and Clinton weren’t capable of deception to justify a needless war instead of more negotiation?

You said in a previous post in this or a recent topic that you are diehard liberal that believes in giving negotiation every chance (quoting from memory). If so, why the rush to war in the Balkans, but nothing justifies war in Iraq?

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

eaton, no, i’ve never seen the bedwetter comment. i just threw that one in there for fun.

honestly, i would advise you not to put too much credence into anything that somebody calls you on this blog. if somebody called me a dirty f@g, i wouldn’t care. in your case, assuming you are gay, if you respond with similar tactics and tone as your enemy, you’re now no better than your enemy. didn’t you say something along those lines earlier in the blog? i don’t recall exactly for sure, but i think so. if that was you that said that, i tend to think you’re right.

someone calling you a dirty f@g in public exposes their intolerance and bigotry. slamming them back exposes your intolerance of their position. neither will promote positive communication. what i really think the gay community wants from straights is simply tolerance. leave them to their life and their lifestyle and let them pursue happiness in whatever way works for them. personally, i think straights should be that tolerant. at the same time, i think the gay community needs to realize that not everybody will be that tolerant and not go ballistic b/c somebody calls you a name.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

I did answer the question Bobb, you just don’t like the answer.

I’m not an isolationist - I believe the US has a responsibility as a Superpower to assist the greater community. No, the Balkan situation didn’t directly affect the US, but there was broad international support.

US invaded Iraq in defiance of international law WITHOUT a clear and present danger to us.

I think the UN serves a valuable purpose, and if we actually supported it rather than constantly trying to undermine it, it could be very effective.

By lozen

July 8, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

What are the recent developments on the abortion issue? Abortion continues to be an important issue for American voters. Many experts believe that the mobilization of evangelical voters around the abortion and gay marriage issues was critical to the Republican victory in the 2004 election. The partisan political divide on the abortion issue mirrors the sharp divide in public opinion on the subject but the fundamental issue of abortion legality is presently beyond Congress and the Presidency and rests with the Supreme Court’s decisions upholding a woman’s right to make such a decision. In 2003, Congress passed Administration-supported legislation concerning late term “partial birth” abortions but included language that virtually insured that it would not meet current Supreme Court constitutional standards. Thus the critical current battleground is the composition of the Supreme Court in the near future. The abortion issue may be the chief reason that Democrats have opposed some of President Bush’s lower court appointments leading to a possibility that Senate Democrats could no longer use filibuster tactics to oppose such nominations.

Should a newly constituted Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the abortion controversy will be far from over. The abortion question would most likely again become a matter of state legislation. But unlike in the era prior to Roe v. Wade, a substantial number of states would keep abortion on demand legal. Quite obviously residents of states where abortions are banned will travel to states where it is permitted. Any governmental effort to regulate such activity would raise other constitutional issues pertaining to the right to freely travel from state to state. (www.newsbatch.com)

By Tim

July 8, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

‘i think the gay community needs to realize that not everybody will be that tolerant and not go ballistic b/c somebody calls you a name.’

that is the biggest pile of cow patties I think I have heard all day… would you expect a black person to be tolerant of someone calling them a stupid n****?

By lozen

July 8, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

To Politically Incorrect Patriot: Sandy has more morality in her little finger (and in her heart) than you can EVEN begin to understand. I think I recognize your inability to spell or state a thought clearly!

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

tim, someone calling you a name isn’t the end of the world. that was my point. a lot of people tend to get all up in arms over being called a derogatory name. so what, get over it.

By Tim

July 8, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

have a good weekend all

By Tim

July 8, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

bla… you have your thoughts I have mine… someone is disrespectful to me… I am going to handle the situation… if you think that is the wrong decision then oh well

By Eva

July 8, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Quoting patriot nut: ” the majority of abortions are performed for b*** too lazy to use birth control.” The majority of abortions are performed for women who slept with p****** too lazy to use birth control! you nut case.

By Eaton

July 8, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Blablabla, spoken like someone who has never been called a derogatory name.

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

tim, perhaps it would make more sense to you if i said it a different way. straights should be tolerant of the fact that there will be gays. but gays need to be tolerant of the fact that not all the straights will be thrilled to have them around. bigotry doesn’t change overnight. someone calling you a name in the street isn’t disrespecting you, they’re disrespecting themselves (publicly). there are smart confrontations and less than smart confrontations.

By Bobb

July 8, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I haven’t seen an answer to the question yet so I’m not able to like or dislike it. You just keep saying “broad international support”. Bush lying or not, by the standards you set for Iraq, the war in Bosnia was not justified either - broad international support not withstanding. Would the Iraq war be justified if there had been broad international support? Based on your repetiive us of the phase it sounds like you would think so.

By Blablabla

July 8, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

eaton, i’ve been called plenty of derogatory names. at times it has bothered me so much i couldn’t even function. but you can’t let what other people say about you dominate your life or define who you are. life is too short to worry about making other people happy. overly simplistic, i know, but i just don’t really let what other people say bother me.

By lozen

July 8, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

Have a great weekend Tim! Lyrazel and Sandy - you’ve both made good points in the past hour or two. Interesting how Woman to Woman becomes Man to Man every week! I think the same people post on this forum every week; they just use different names. At least I hope so. It would really be depressing to think there are actually this many testosteronally challenged people on one forum.