Woman to Woman

By Peter S. Morgan, Jr.

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

It shocks me that anyone still believes that the Iraq invasion plan (conceived prior to 9/11) to protect U.S. petroleum interests is a means to deal with global terrorism.

It awes me that all the failed “intelligence” used to justify the war is still accepted as defense of the plan.

The military agenda has only fueled the flames and isolated us further.

Many alternatives have been brought forth. “Terror in the name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill” by Jessica Stern might be a good place to start if one has concern for collateral damage (civilian fatalities) and the financial burden we have placed on our grandchildren.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 07:38 AM | Link to this

Let’s stop fighting terrorists - and go read a book. About why they want to kill us.

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this

I’m impressed with the lengths some Bush fanatics will go to ignore the truth and pretend that invading Iraq had something to do with fighting terrorism.

The argument tactics they use are childish at best. “Saddam was a baaad, baaad man!” Very true; but what does that have to do with fighting terrorism? “Our troops need support!” You betcha, especially since their idiot commanders have sent them on a fool’s mission without cause or justification. “Everybody ELSE believed there were WMDs!” Yes, but none of them started a war over it, did they?

And Stage II of this simpleminded campaign is now underway: “Can you believe those durn lib’rals? I guess they don’t want to fight terrorists at all. They’d rather hold hands ‘n’ sing ‘kumbaya’ with ‘em.” Uhh, not even close, Cletus. Liberals want to fight terrorism intelligently and effectively. Rather than the way the Bushies have chosen to do it.

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

Wow… even before I finished predicting how brain-dead far-right wackos would attack any attempt to fight more sensibly… Tabogo beat me to the whine.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 07:44 AM | Link to this

Liberals want to fight terrorism intelligently and effectively.

Brian,

You could be the first Liberal to let us all know precisely how you would do it.

By CRAIG ELAM

July 18, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

Shaunti has briefly but eloquently expressed what many Americans need to understand. That we do need to support our Leaders committment to stand against the cruel and hate-filled acts of terrorism, either in our country or across the globe. We are a people of compassion and purpose, and have the power and the means to help others in their transition to becoming a free country! Thanks for the bold viewpoint and reminding us that as America is a blessed nation, we are seeking to bless the people of Iraq. Truly, we are attempting to bring and restore peace but it is the evil minds and subversion of hateful men that we are battling and fighting!

By taboga

July 18, 2005 07:57 AM | Link to this

While I am waiting for Brian’s response as to how he proposes we fight the war on terror — “working with our allies” or some such vagueness that has no real meaning — I thought I would ask a question.

I am looking for an Al Qaeda Terrorist. He wears no uniform, has no specific nationality, has no physical markings as such and carries no Al Qaeda membership credentials on him. He is located anywhere and everywhere in the world.

How do I find him?

By Peter S. Morgan, Jr.

July 18, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this

“People of goodwill must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and build an arsenal for conquest and mass murder is not peace at all; it is pretense.”

George W. Bush March 8, 2003

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

Craig: I wonder if we would be equally grateful if another country chose to “bless” us with their system of government at the point of a gun.

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

Sigh… All right, Taboga, I’ll try to explain this in small words, although I know you won’t understand anyway.

If a country had attacked us, the proper response would be a military operation. A country has a set location, a specific command structure, military vs. civilian targets, etc. That makes it easy to deal with them militarily.

Al-Qaeda, however, is NOT a country. They don’t wear uniforms, stay in one location, or depend on a specific government for their logistics and support. Using the military against them is not a feasible option, because the military is not set up to handle fine-detail work, house-to-house searches, or coordinating intelligence and leads to track down specific individuals.

Let’s see now… what sort of operation would be ideal for that sort of work? Cruise missiles and tanks? Nah. How about intelligence operatives, international and coordinated search efforts, and detective work? Wouldn’t that be more sensible?

Of course, if you want to follow suspects from one area to another, you have to be on good terms with the property owners and secure their cooperation. That’s a little hard to do after you tell them they’re “irrelevant” and “either with us or against us.” Funny how that works, eh?

I don’t expect this approach to satisfy the bloodlust of the typical far-right nut, though. It just doesn’t have enough dramatic explosions.

By Peter S. Morgan, Jr.

July 18, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

Brian, remember that your answer to taboga cannot be from any scholarly work you might have read. You must make up a response with the weapons you happen to have on the shelf. Nukes are not off limits if you are on the winning side.

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 08:09 AM | Link to this

Peter: Actually, there’s other options between war and “allowing him to do whatever he wants.” One is called containment, and—as has now been proven—it was working perfectly, without the need for endangering our troops.

Just because Bush said it, doesn’t make it true. You people really have to work on that concept!

By Peter S. Morgan, Jr.

July 18, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this

Brian, forgive me for missing the irony key when I typed the Duh-bya quote. (I’m not one of “you people.”)

By taboga

July 18, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

How about intelligence operatives, international and coordinated search efforts, and detective work? Wouldn’t that be more sensible?

OK. So your intelligence operatives and international coordinated search efforts reveal that Al Qaeda is located in:

*Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya - and other countries around the world.

What’s next?

By Ken

July 18, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Why did Diane have to bash Nancy and her “Just Say No” campaign…?

By Daniel

July 18, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Being conservative is no substitute for intelligence. In Iraq we’re fighting Iraqi patriots and creating terrorists. We suffer from incompetent leadership. They have the words but no substance.

By Ken

July 18, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

What is the difference between containment and appeasement?

By Jack

July 18, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

We should have let Israel handle it. They can also take out Iran & Syria while they’re at it.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

So far, the solutions we have for figthing terrorists is: “Coordinated search efforts* from Brian and “Reading a book” from Peter.

I am still waiting for the first Liberal to pose precise actions to be taken - other than those outstanding suggestions.

By Tim

July 18, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

“You’ve got to be kidding me”… very first sentence of Shaunti’s rebuttal and explains EXACTLY how I feel about her third statement… “It wasn’t the U.S. who flew airplanes full of innocent civilians into building full of innocent people”… you’ve got to be kidding me!! you don’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed or the brightest star in the sky to know that Iraq was not invovled in the 9/11 attacks… is that really that challenging to figure out?

was the Iraq war necessary to fight terrorism? no… is it necessary to finish the job in Iraq to fight terrorism? probably… how sad

By Ken

July 18, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

This is not a liberal versus conservative issue. All of each side do not agree/disagree with the actions going on in Iraq right now.

The question that I think most people ask is not whether we should use force, but when. Some folks felt that we had run the course of “diplomacy”, while others felt there was still some stones unturned on this front.

In the case of Saddam, I still believe we should have finished the job in 1991, so I supported the military actions in 2003. I do not support the handling of said actions. The poor execution has put us in a less than desirable position, but taking him out was the right move.

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Peter: Sorry about that. I missed it too and realized it only after I sent the message. My apologies.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

you don’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed or the brightest star in the sky to know that Iraq was not invovled in the 9/11 attacks… is that really that challenging to figure out?

And you don’t have to be a tool or a star to realize that the actions in Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Taboga: Okay, I’ll get more granular for you.

With the core principle in place—fighting terrorism intelligently, through international coordination and intelligence activities—we can now move on to specific actions.

• Institute airport and seaport security checks that are actually effective, instead of frisking grandmothers and getting everyone to take their shoes off while leaving packages and luggage unchecked.

• Restrict weapons sales. In particular, get the U.S. out of the arms-dealership business with dictators, which always seems to backfire on us.

• Work with international allies’ intellgience operations to share information and track suspects and terrorist networks worldwide.

• Coordinate enforcement and prosecution of suspects, and apprehend and question terrorists instead of blowing them up. Is this an act of mercy? No; it’s common sense. You can’t question a corpse.

• Set up actual border and immigration checks, no matter how many companies are profiting from illegal migrant labor.

• Actually listen to the nonviolent critics of U.S. foreign policy. Scale back the tendency to spread military bases everywhere and enforce our economic will on other sovereign nations; encourage democracy, rather than imposing capitalism.

• Fund research and spur development of alternative energy sources ASAP, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil… or indeed, any oil at all.

By TT

July 18, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Thanks you, Brian, for your practical suggestions. And I have read that piece, Peter, and it’s quite brilliant. We are truly fighting a battle of ideologies and imposing our system of government on other nations is exactly what enrages the terrorists and costs lives, both Americans and others. I wonder if any conservatives on this blog have any solutions to terrorism other than invading the Muslim world, one country at a time. You see Iraq wasn’t tied to the religious fundamentalism that spurred 9/11. But our good ole allies, Saudia Arabia were. And just curious, Taboga, why did we go into Iraq in the first place? Why would we get embroiled in another conflict in another country when our priority should have been strenghtening our borders and preventing terrorists from utilizing our own infrastructure to kill innocent civilians? Seems to me if our priority is national security, then we should concentrate on locking up our porous borders. Perhaps that we would be offensive to the Mexican-American population that Bush was courting for political support…

By Ken

July 18, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Brian…

Excellent points. Although I would ask a couple of items…

How do we apprehend and question terrorists? These are some of the shadiest folks around and without more lenient rules for law enforcement, I fear that we will miss far too many of these guys.

I don’t know if I would restrict the sales of weapons, but I would very much like to track the sales of weapons in a central place. I know there are arguments for both sides of gun control, but if folks want to protect civil liberties in regards to arresting, detaining and questioning potential suspects, then they should also protect the civil liberties of folks who want to purchase weapons.

It takes $$$ and time to research and develop anything, let alone alternative energy resources. As an engineer, I know what goes into product launches. I would be curious to understand the effect to our economy if these alternative fuel sources made their way into the marketplace.

By TT

July 18, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

I’ll add to your list, Brian. After utilizing intelligence to track down terrorists, we should utilize covert operatives to take out terror cells. The CIA is not just an information-gathering organism, it has participated in quite a few coups and assassinations. The key is to target terror cells and terror masterminds through controlled actions by highly-skilled special operatives, rather than waging full-scale war on nations. Even the administration acknowledges that Al Qaida is a global entity that is not contained to particular countries. Therefore, U.S troops should not be utilized to fight large-scale conflicts on foreign soil, let the CIA and the covert agencies of our allies deal with terror cells abroad. We need our military here on borders, clustered around targets within our cities, safeguarding our civilians and our interests. Can anyone, conservative, liberal, or libertarian argue with that? American lives come first. It’s time we stopped putting our necks on the line for some phony crusade at the expense of our soldiers and our safety.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Brian,

Institute airport and seaport security checks that are actually effective, instead of frisking grandmothers and getting everyone to take their shoes off while leaving packages and luggage unchecked.

The terrorists on 9/11 did not get here via seaports. There would be no need to arrive via seaport or smuggle anything via seaport - when they can get here legally via many other means - and we have everything they need already here. And we could come up with all the “security checks” imaginable - and that alone will not stop anything.

Restrict weapons sales. In particular, get the U.S. out of the arms-dealership business with dictators, which always seems to backfire on us.

Restriction weapons sales from where? Worldwide? The very least of a terrorist organization’s worries would be: The availability of weapons.

Work with international allies’ intellgience operations to share information and track suspects and terrorist networks worldwide.

OK - so we do all that. We’ve tracked them to: Syria, Iran, Libya, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East and Asia. What next?

Coordinate enforcement and prosecution of suspects, and apprehend and question terrorists instead of blowing them up. Is this an act of mercy? No; it’s common sense. You can’t question a corpse.

Are you planning on coordinating all this with: Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon and the others?

Set up actual border and immigration checks, no matter how many companies are profiting from illegal migrant labor.

The terrorists are not coming here for a job in landscaping — they get here on official visas with passports. Stake-outs on the Rio Grande wouldn’t do much to stop the terrorists.

Actually listen to the nonviolent critics of U.S. foreign policy.

I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

Scale back the tendency to spread military bases everywhere and enforce our economic will on other sovereign nations; encourage democracy, rather than imposing capitalism.

Standard Liberal babble that has nothing to do with anything.

Fund research and spur development of alternative energy sources ASAP, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil… or indeed, any oil at all.

Well, why don’t you Liberals fund it? And you Libs have all the research facilities necessary: Universities. Or, is it that you Libs, as usual, want everyone else to come up with it? Seems to me, that all you smart Liberals could go ahead and get these “alternative energy sources” in place - rather than talking about for last 30 years!

By Peter S. Morgan, Jr.

July 18, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Brian, well done. The Department of Peace initiative that Dennis Kucinich advocates would provide an alternative voice at the cabinet level. Perhaps a voice of reason with an historical and global perspective might tip the balance. The era of U.S. world dominance is fading. (Isn’t it strange that the failures of the past are being used as justification for continued engagement in Iraq.) I have yet to hear any appeal to U.S. citizens to make ANY sacrifice for the war on terrorism (beyond retaining soldiers beyond enlistments and a debt burden differed to the next generation), the population is engaged only to the point of a ribbon slapped on the back of SUV’s.

By Joe

July 18, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

First of all, kudos to Brian Curtis. Excellent suggestions.

However, I would like to point out that it was weakness and lack of vigilance during the CLINTON administration that spurred the attacks on the twin towers.

While Cliton was commander-in-chief, we sustained the 1) First world trade center bombing, 2) the embassy bombings in Africa, 3) USS Cole incident. He did not take a firm, aggressive stance. His responses were “investigation” and weakly lobbing a few unmanned cruise missles into Afghanistan camps. We demonstrated weakness to our enemies, who felt that we are a paper tiger that would never have the chutzpah to strike them in their lairs- thus leading them to brazenly kill as they did on 9/11.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, has aggresively taken the fight to the middle east in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that this is the best course of action.

I understand that Iraq’s direct ties to 9/11 are questionable. However, Iraq’s regime was a potential prime haven for future endeavors against us. Also, Iraq, situated as it is in the middle of the middle east, serves as a lightning rod that attracts our enemies. The number of foreign fighters participating in the Iraqi “insurgency” serves as proof positive that such a strategy has been effective. Those who wish to kill Americans go to Iraq, where at least our soldiers have the ability to defend themselves. Let’s fight them over there with Soldiers and Marines instead of over here with Police Officers and Firefighters.

We are in a war people. The first rule of warfare is “set the battlefield”. George W. Bush & Co. have successfully done so. Personally, I hate that it has to be this way. I hate that our soldiers are dying along with Iraqis. However, I take solace in that once we are victorious Iraq will follow post-world-war-II Germany and Japan into a bright prosperous future of freedom from tyranny.

By Chilao

July 18, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

well, whatever is going on, Iraq itself right now is prooving to be an excellent training ground for urban combat terrorists….

By Peter S. Morgan, Jr.

July 18, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

The first rule of warfare is “set the battlefield�. George W. Bush & Co. have successfully done so.

Shock and awe in London testifies otherwise.

By DeltaX

July 18, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

taboga-

Anyone can shoot down ideas with one liners like you provide. If you have no actual intrest in hearing opinions or in seeing if you ARE ABLE to sythisize differing information with what is already in your head; you have no business acting like you want to debate.

People like you slow down the growth process that is neccasary for decent movement.

Like those people that make business meetings so unproductive and lugubrious; you are a blight on the possible success of human effort.

Nice concise posting Brian! Kudos!

By Darryl

July 18, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

It’s absolutly absurd to think that you white wing zeolots think that you can continue killing in the name of christianity. Remember, that was the argument used to defend slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation as well. But we all aren’t white, male and stupid. They’re the only group who overwhelmingly buy that white imperialistic argument. All of you “so-called” conservatives are the same dixiecrats who ruled the south or the great white way. What is a person, group, or an ideology that picks on and threaten the weak and indefensable? A coward. America has always been a bunch of thugs, robber barrons, and cowards. What if I took a group of friends and convinced them to invade a sandy springs neighborhood because it has some luxury homes that I would like to aquire. There would be an uprising from the citizens that you couldn’t fathom. Well, that’s what you got in Iraq, stupid white people. One more thing, find out where the wreckage to the “mystery” airplane that crashed into the pentagon was hauled off to. Oh! It doesn’t exist. You ever wonder why only the south and mountain west are overwhelmingly republican. White racist states right.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Joe,

You say we need to set the battlefield - if this were a conventional war, you would be correct. But, it isn’t. We set the battlefield and all we’ve done is create a training ground for urban guerilla warfare. There are no lines in this conflict. While we’re fighting insurgents in Iraq, the terrorist organizations are spread around the world and using the internet as a means of promulgating a franchise-like “do-it-yourself” attack technique. All we’re doing in Iraq now is giving AQ and it’s sister organizations a way to train their future soliders and leaders.

The CIA and several other think-tank organizations have published reports suggesting that those insurgents you cite as evidence that our plan is working aren’t coming to Iraq and dashing themselves futilley against the rocks of our troops - they’re coming to Iraq and learning the techniques of urban warfare. Each month, they become more and more efficient at killing our troops. Then, after they’ve learned from their engagements with us, they slip out of Iraq to go to other countries where they can ply their new skills elsewhere.

Terrorism is a technique used by small groups against large, powerful ones. By its nature it is calculated to ignore the advantage offered by strength of arms, so why do we think we can combat its use through the application of the very strength it is designed to defeat? Why do we continue to focus on the symptom and not the problem?

If you were ill, would you want your doctor to continually treat your symptoms while ignoring the root cause of your illness? Don’t you think that after several years of your illness not going away you might reccommend a change in strategy? We’ve got to start trying to understand what it is that makes it so easy for the organizations ranged against us to recruit new blood.

Certainly there is a core group of people who are deeply anti-American, anti-West, anti-secular, but studies consitently show that Middle Easterners, as individuals, tend to display no animosity towards American ideas and influences or Americans as individuals. It’s America as a government that evokes anger and rage.

Understanding what changes someone from a person angry with a government into someone willing to sacrifice his own life to kill citizens of the nation represented by that government is key to our becoming safer. The war now isn’t working - global acts of terror are up. Recruitment for Al-qaeda is up. The monthly death tolls in Iraq are increasing. Clearly our current course of action is ineffective.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Anyone can shoot down ideas with one liners like you provide. If you have no actual intrest in hearing opinions or in seeing if you ARE ABLE to sythisize differing information with what is already in your head; you have no business acting like you want to debate.

So, if I weren’t shooting down ideas with “one liners” - but rather babbling on and on with complete and total nonsensical ideas - I would somehow help the debate process?

And yes - I would love to hear ideas about how to fight the war on terror! But, “Bush Lied!”, “No WMD”, “War for Oil” and “Halliburton” along with generalities like: “Work with our allies”, “Build a coalition”, “coordinate efforts”, “secure the borders”, “understand why they want to kill us” and all the rest - simply don’t qualify as “ideas” to me!

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

This is taboga: sticking fingers in ears Blah Blah Blah, I can’t hear you! Na Na Na Na!

Taboga, take fingers out of ears … . Make your own suggestions and try to cooperate like a big boy with the other 49% of the country.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

DeltaX,

Darryl just injected some great “ideas” into the debate. More along the lines of what you had in mind - I’ve no doubt.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

I have a feeling that taboga is still struggling to comprehend the subtle meanings of “See Spot Run”. Don’t be too harsh on him, Jennifer. It’s hard to comprehend complex ideas when your most significant mental accomplishment to date is tying your shoes.

By DeltaX

July 18, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

Taboga-

You state “don’t qualify as “ideasâ€? to me!”

This is a simple example of how one can create their own definitions to words as a means to avoid actual contemplation of the notions provided.

I can say red is blue all day long, but cannot claim it is an intelligent/helpful/enlighening position.

Instead, it is the highest form of lying; and is refered to as denile.

No reason from here on out for anyone to listen to your 3rd grade prose.

By Joe

July 18, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Darryl: Normally, I would not respond to such an ad hominem attack such as your rant. However, I believe that your post is bluntly stating what many of your America hating Democrat colleagues, such as Brian Curtis and Peter S. Morgan believe.

First of all, white male does not equal stupid racist. Your remarks here are the only post that is dripping with racially based hatred. I am quite certain that if I were interviewing for a job with you, I would no doubt fail to secure the position because you hate white men. On the other hand, if you were applying for a job with me, you could count on an objective appraisal of you AS AN INDIDUAL, not as a member of a racial group.

Second of all, this post is about Iraq. However, I can bring your remarks full circle in this regard. In Iraq, the “thugs” that formerly oppressed Iraq were the bourgeois Sunni Muslims represented by Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. AMERICA has helped free the Iraqi proletariat, catalyzing the Iraqi equivalent of the hypothetical “Sandy Springs uprising” you mentioned.

Last of all, President Abraham Lincoln, who also went to war for freedom, ahem, was a REPUBLICAN.

By TT

July 18, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s send ignorant people like Taboggan off to war to be cannon fodder. Then we can get rid of the symptoms and the cause all at once. If you right-wing wackos are so gung ho about this war, why don’t you enlist your cowardly butts and do the fightin? Give some of the soldiers who have made repeat trips over there a break. But we would probably have another Abu Ghraib situation, with ole’ T-Bag in the ranks. “Hey Ma, watch me smoke them terrorists! Take this libruls! You and your energy efficienct girly-cars!”

By Jen

July 18, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

DeltaX…man, that was almost good. But you had to go and misspell denial…. They’ll just use that as a diversion now…. sigh

By DeltaX

July 18, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Eaton-

Absolutly! This newcomer “taboga” is one piece of work. Must be like 12 or so…

I really wish his mom and dad locked the PC when they leave him alone. And as a testiment to how screwy he must be. Any young boy who peruses the blogs instead of good childish porn must have some real sick behaviors.

I can see it now: “But doctor, the blogs just get me so hot! And the Eaton, boy can he type.”

Sorry, just some comic relief.

By TT

July 18, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Richard Nixon was also a Republican, Joe.

By Blablabla

July 18, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

darryl:

you are entitled to your opinion, but your comments are some of the dumbest things i’ve ever read on this blog. you have just shown the world what an ignorant and bigoted jack@ss you are. congrats.

By Joe

July 18, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat, TT. I am sure that you are referring to Vietman. Please consult your nearest history text…

By Jen

July 18, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

And Thomas Jefferson, who is the author of our constitution was not a Christian. He was a Unitarian…it’s a Deist religion. Meaning, he believed in God. Repeat not a Christian. Many of our founding fathers, so to speak, were not Christian, but simply Diests. This was common at the time of the American Revolution.

By JB

July 18, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Here are a couple of suggestions for fighting terrorism:

1) Stop acting like this is the United States of Jesus Christ. This country IS and IS SUPPOSED to be a secular nation where all forms of race/religion/politics are welcome. Too often Bush et al come across as evangelicals ready to spread the word to all nations of the world. It’s easy to work uneducated, poor Muslims into a frenzy when Bin Laden can point to the “Crusaders” and almost be correct.

2) Tear up the blank check of support for Israel. Too often we either encourage or say nothing while Israel treats Palestinians like ants to be stepped on. If Israel does something stupid, we should say so, and act as if we support peaceful people. Not all Palestinians are terrorists, so they shouldn’t be treated like it.

3) Try attacking the people who actually did fly into the WTC and Pentagon. At any point during the Iraq conflict there have been 10 times as many soldiers in Iraq as there have been in Afghanistan. But we know for a fact that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan in late 2001 and has been in the border region with Pakistan ever since. But we’ve yet to lay a heavy hand on Pakistan to let us in to find him. Pakistan is a country that really does have WMD’s, but we’re afraid to go there. Seems backwards to me. We THINK a country has WMD and we go in guns blazing, but we KNOW another does so we let the most wanted man in the world roam free because why?

4) Develop a hydrogen fuel infrastructure and provide tax breaks and incentives for both the US Oil and Auto manufacturing industries to participate in this process. Iceland has already worked on this and is well on their way to eliminating the need for oil for automobiles. If they can do it, why can’t we?

5) Number 4 leads to this one. Denounce the Saudi regime. They’re one of the worst, but because of our oil relationship, we look the other way.

That enough suggestions for you tagoda or toga or whatever your damn name is?

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Joe, please do not characterize any of us who don’t agree with you as “America hating”. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and by using that phrase you reinforce the false notion being perpetuated by the Karl Roves of the world that dissent is tantamount to treason.

I do not like the direction that the current administration is taking this country. That does not mean I hate this country. I could quote for you many great patriots - Jefferson, T. Roosevelt among them, who stated unequivocally that dissent should not only be welcome, but is essential to the functioning of a proper democracy.

You know, conservatives object to being characterized as Nazis, and frankly I can understand that. It is an inflammatory statement, and I’ve been guilty of using it in the heat of the moment, but there is a small grain of truth there - Nationalism, the precursor to facism, encourages the belief that dissent is wrong. When you claim that we are un-American, you’ve taken that first step down the road to an uglier world.

By TT

July 18, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Sometimes I feel that party loyalty blinds us to real solutions. Why do we feel such a need to make this issue Republican versus Democrat? You can support the troops and be patriotic without supporting the President. You can be a Democrat without embracing hate rhetoric and adopting a victimization complex. If both parties worked together to solidify our national security, understand the roots of terror, avoid broad generalizations across cultural lines and imperialist actions, clean up the mess we’ve made in Iraq, strengthen the economy, push the auto industry for fuel efficiency, and regain the confidence of voters, then maybe we could salvage something from 9/11. The blame for the Iraq war rests with both parties. Now we need to come together to reach some resolution.

By DeltaX

July 18, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Jen,

Way it goes;)

I agree in trying to show respect for others by spelling correctly; yet anyone that wants to try to hinge my inteligence or the validity of my points on spelling errors derived from fast typing is also too remedial for a discussion.

By TT

July 18, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Nope, Joe, I was referring to Watergate and presidents who lie to the American public and are forced to resign for covering the butts of sorry staffers.

By Netbanker

July 18, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

“Iraq, situated as it is in the middle of the middle east, serves as a lightning rod that attracts our enemies. The number of foreign fighters participating in the Iraqi “insurgencyâ€? serves as proof positive that such a strategy has been effective. Those who wish to kill Americans go to Iraq, where at least our soldiers have the ability to defend themselves. Let’s fight them over there with Soldiers and Marines instead of over here with Police Officers and Firefighters.”

Interestingly enough the CIA has reported that what we are doing is creating the terrorist class of ’05. The borders are so porous in Iraq that would be terrorists slip in, get experience in live urban warfare, and then slip back out. They’re learning new techniques for making and setting off bombs that are harder to detect. We’re providing them the chance to hone their skills so they can be effective when they strike elsewhere.

In Iraq we should have had a REAL plan for the post-war effort instead of crack pipe dreams about the population showering us with flowers and love. Why did they disband the Iraqi Army so quickly? That left thousands unemployed and p** off. Why are the majority of firms involved in reconstructing the company NOT Iraqi? That would have provided employment and provided buy-in from the newly free people that they can take control of their country.

It has been shown that the most progress toward democracy has only come in countries that have decent public institutions and a middle class. With encouragement and support of those institutions the people have demanded change in their governments and been far more successful than we’ve ever been doing so by military attack. Why? Well when one is attacked the natural reaction is to fight back. We create or strengthen a sense of nationalism that causes the population to rally for their country. We provide dictators a chance to consolidate their power through that nationalism. Using isolation destroys the merchant/middle class and public institutions. Just look at what happened to the middle class in Iraq after the first Gulf War for an example.

By Peter

July 18, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I appreciate your remarks to Joe. (Saved me from going on a rant.) *#$&^@$ !

By TT

July 18, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

O my God, Netbanker, you mean we should have studied the cultural, political, and economic landscape before we went charging into Iraq to liberate everyone???? How novel. I guess we were to busy looking for those phantom nukes and massaging the intelligence to look at the facts. Here’s some reading for T-bag and Joe and the rest of think scholarship has nothing to offer—Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations.” This groundbreaking piece offers a glimpse into the collision between Christianity and Islam and is frequently cited by conservatives in their desire to characterize Muslims as irrational murderers. But what they fail to focus on is the premise that even an oppressed people will rise up to attack a foreign invader that threatens to topple the dictatorship they live under. Just like that old saying, “The devil you know, is better than the one you don’t.”

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

DeltaX,

I know, but taboggan’s tactic is to divert attention from the topic to trivial things in an attempt to discredit the individual. It’s a very annoying ploy.

By Joe

July 18, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

You make some excellent points. I agree with you that this war is unconventional. I agree that there is a chance that Iraq, through perhaps a brutally darwinian process, could produce some uber-terrorists.

However, I disagree with you in that I do not believe that global acts of terror (Iraq excluded) is up. I also believe that our military efforts in Iraq are increasingly effective in that you are incorrect about increased insurgent effectiveness and increased US casualties. On the whole, it appears that Iraqi insurgents are increasingly desparate and are blowing up civilians in frustration.

I also do not see any evidence (i.e. terrorist attacks) that insurgents are leaving Iraq to wreak havoc elsewhere. Therefore, your assertion that Iraq is spawning terrorist “franchises” is incorrect. Also, the brutal truth is that the more of them that we kill or arrest, the fewer that will be left with the desire and means to commit acts here in the U.S. Again, please keep in mind that the 9/11 attacks took place after the “peaceful” Clinton administration: there was no US policy impetus.

Regarding your concerns, such as the legitimate concern about anger towards our military action: I believe that once the war is won in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab/Muslim world will see the fruits of our labor…a free and independant nation where Sunnni and Shiite can live, work, and worship without repression.

By Brian Curtis

July 18, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Well said, Eaton. Dissent is always among the most patriotic things an American can do; to pretend otherwise is despicably simpleminded and, indeed, itself anti-American. So, naturally, far-right reactionaries flock to this tactic like flies to roadkill.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

DeltaX,

I am glad to see your Liberal “Tolerance”, “Open-mindedness” and “Respect for the opinions of others” characteristics coming to the surface!

By Netbanker

July 18, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

JB..all wonderful suggestions. I wish it was a requirement for every American to spend time outside the country to gain some perspective from others. It will make you appreciate the freedoms we have here and also open your eyes to the perceptions and understandings of those on the receiving end of foreign policy. It would expose people to places where the evening news spends the majority of their time on WORLD affairs and explains the impact of someone else’s foreign policy decisions rather than apartment fires, shootings, run away brides, and missing Aruba visitors.

By Joe

July 18, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Mea Culpa: I was out of line to call y’all “America haters” and indirectly call you unAmerican.

I agree that dissent is healthy and in deed necessary to a free nation. Let all men and women be heard. Let ideas flow, ebb, and clash in the furnace of debate to forge a good conclusion.

All: please accept my apologies for the disrespectful comment. I wish that our Legislative branch would take this lesson to heart.

By Ken

July 18, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

JB… You make some great points but I think you have missed he boat on your first one… Whether or not we are a secular nation has nothing to do with Bin Laden getting poor Muslims stirred into a frenzy. If he couldn’t say “crusaders” he would use a different term to denounce our way of life…

His interpretation of Islam is a very narrow one, just as is the interpretation of Christianity or other religions by certain fanatical sects… He wants power, not religious revolution. He simply uses religion as a means to an end. Perhaps I am off base, but I liken it to the Communists in Russia… They didn’t care about making things better for the people, they wanted power and used a twisted version of Marxist ideology to get there.

As for whether we are “supposed” to be a secular nation, we can argue about that at another time…

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

Toboga, you are such a tool, you know that, right? Please do better than flinging around all this trite horseshit. Nothing but dumbass stereotypes flying out of your piehole.

What the hell is wrong with you?

By taboga

July 18, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Post after post with self-proclaimed intelligence, insight and thoughtfulness.

Still waiting for the precise actions to take against terrorism!

Not holding my breath of course…

By Tony

July 18, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this

Hey, Taboga, Keep up the good fight. Heres a little info to help.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA

The Big Lie technique is alive and well .. and being practiced to perfection by the Democratic Party and their fellow travelers in the mainstream American media. You certainly don’t have to travel, or read far to hear some Democrat say that there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein, Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, you’ll usually hear it stated something like this: “Everybody knows that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” or “It’s been proven that there was no connection ……” etc.

The trouble is that those statements are just flat-out lies. There was a connection, and the connection has been proven. Not proven by American intelligence estimates and statements, but proven by documents secured from the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

Here’s a link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp) to an amazing article that appears in the current edition of The Weekly Standard. The article is entitled “The Mother of All Connections.” It’s 15 pages long — and a somewhat complicated read. Here are just a few gems from the article:

Saddam agreed in the mid 1990’s to a request from Al Qaeda to broadcast anti-Saudi messages on Iraq radio.

In 1998 there were a series of payments from Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden’s No. 2 goon, Ayman al Zawahri in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This was happening at the same time the U.S. was putting increased pressures on Saddam for more inspections, and at the same time Bill Clinton was actually making speeches at the Pentagon that some viewed as preparing the nation for war against Iraq.

Other documents recovered from Iraqi intelligence show that there were meetings between a high-level Al Qaeda operative and Iraqi intelligence officials in Baghdad. It was also at this very time that Osama bin Laden issued a Fatwa for the “killing of Americans wherever you find them.” Not only were these meetings referenced in the documents recovered from the bombed-out Iraqi intelligence headquarters, these meetings were also detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report … a section of the report never, or so it would seem, released to the Democrats.

You want more? How about evidence that a former Iraqi soldier who was recruited by the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan was found to have participated with Iraqi intelligence in a plot to blow up an American embassy in Pakistan .. with a chemical bomb. Chemical Bomb? That would be a WMD, in case you didn’t know.

There was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And .. yes, connections can be shown between Iraqi intelligence officials and the people who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Those who seek to politicize the war on terror will never admit the connections. Those who believe that we need to commit ourselves to fighting those who want to kill us will understand that the connections are, in fact, real .. and that the current front for the war on terror is rightfully in Iraq.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

*Toboga, you are such a tool, you know that, right? Please do better than flinging around all this trite horseshit. Nothing but dumbass stereotypes flying out of your piehole.

What the hell is wrong with you?*

I am a right-wing religious fanatic and homophobic racist who wants to starve children, start wars for oil and poison the environment!

Haven’t you been taught that yet?

By Steve S.

July 18, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Quite a spirited debate this morning. I would like to chime in on the specifics of Ms. Feldhan’s rebuttal to Ms. Glass’ commentary.

It is rife with the sort of convoluted reasoning that marks so much of the right’s response to criticism of President Bush’s Iraq policy. She starts off with a red herring: “It wasn’t the U.S. that flew airplanes full of innocent civilians into buildings full of innocent people.” This assumes an Iraq-al Queda connection that most experts now agree did not exist in any significant way, despite Ms. Feldhan’s insistence that it did. These experts include the distinguished members of the 9/11 commission, which Ms. Feldhan cites; it is also a position that the administration itself has abandoned as untenable.

Secondly, she asserts that Ms. Glass posited that our invasion of Iraq is equal to the taking of “innocent lives in cold blood.” Ms. Glass did not write this. She wrote that the Iraq war is not an effective response to terrorism which is quite a different thing. Although I would have liked to hear more from Ms. Glass in support of her position, Ms. Feldhan’s retort is typical of the propanda-like rhetoric the right religiously repeats: vitriolic and off the point.

Lastly, she cites Saddam’s cruelty to his own people and his support of terrorism as justification for the Iraq invasion. If this is the case, why did we not attack Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Or a dozen other countries guilty of the same affronts? The players in this drama have given us a fairly clear motive as to why.

The well-documented, neo-conservative, Perle-Cheney idea that America can only truly be safe from terror by remaking the world in its own democratic image seems a good bet. This is exactly the sort of imperial thinking that Ms. Glass derides in her commentary and that the right, in their suport of the Iraq invasion either tacitly or explicitly condones. And while history will most certainly not judge this administration kindly, I believe it will be even harder on the Americans who allowed themselves to be led into a war that, while bringing some small measure of justice to a malicious dictator, destroyed the lives of thousands of families and ultimately strenghthened the very ugly and violent movement it was supposed to have ended.

By Archie

July 18, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Shanti just doesn’t get it and she’s lumping all the people from the Mideast together. She says we didn’t fly airplanes into a building full of innocent people. The topic is about the Iraq war and there was no connection to 9/11 so there was no reason to mention that incident unless you have a prejudice complex that sees all Mideast people or Muslims as evil. I was glad to see someone here say that Al Qaeda is not a country but if you believe that you are superior to someone then you can justify doing whatever you want to them. I think Diane makes the better points this week.

By Netbanker

July 18, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Joe…you need to do some research to disprove what you believe about the rise in the number of terrorist attacks world-wide. For the first time the State Department’s report on terrorism REMOVED the statistics because they have increased which doesn’t support the party line.

Try this on for size from The Washington Post

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers “significant” attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year’s total — a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration’s assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.

The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

looking around in distrust Joe? twisting mouth in uncertainty Are you for real? This would be the first time I’ve seen someone eat crow on one these here blogs…. shakes head Okay, I’ll bite and say I appreciate your sentiments.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Thank you Tony, for proving the bipartisan 9/11 commission, the CIA, MI5, and various other organizations absolutely wrong about Iraq/Al-Qaeda connections. How could we have taken the word of trained professionals over you? I am stupified at our ignorance.

www.truthout.org/docs04/100604A.shtml www.truthout.org/docs04/102304B.shtml www.truthout.org/docs04/printer102304B.shtml

Thanks, Neil Boortz, for your continued ignorance and credulity.

By Saul Olvera-Rubio

July 18, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

You know, there is a basic idea an idiology behind all this. I have to quote Gore Vidal’s comment from REAL time with Bill Maher:

“Well, everybody was wrong. And, I mean, there are people who objected, naturally, to our going in, as it’s no business of ours to rearrange other countries’ governments. Ours, yes. This is not a second Eden here that we’ve got on our hands. And I’ve never seen a period in which more people are just disconnected; they feel it’s not part of their business anymore when they read about the scandals. Either they’re all untrue, which half the people believe, or if they are true, it’s hopeless. Well, this is a very terrible state to get a country in…Well, we didn’t care before what Iraq became and we don’t care now. We’ve gone in and smashed the place to pieces so that Halliburton can make some money repairing it. What the Department of Defense knocks down, Halliburton rebuilds at the same cost as it was to knock it down.”

Brian Curtis’ comment at 7:39 AM about WMD should have been further stressed. Iraq didn’t have any. Here’s where coordinated intelligence would’ve been good. I think we pay a lot of tax money for satellite imaging. Then we just go in there like the Calvary THINKING there are WMD. You wonder why Korea is arming themselves - hummm. Yeah, people [Iraqi] are better now as a whole (I think…) but clearly, we could’ve avoided such a show down. War is never good. It brings unforseen consequences. All in all, there’s no simple or easy way of doing all this…its just messy.

By DeltaX

July 18, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Joe,

Like Jennifer, I find it on the verge of spiritual that someone has exhibited virtue on these blogs (may be one of the seven signs?). You are quite a person for your recant!

We may dissagree madly on here, but I appriciate your adult actions!

By Mara

July 18, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Joe - How do you get the correlation that Clinton was responsible for 9/11? I realize that conservatives detested Clinton (almost as much as we libs detest Bush) but had they supported him the way conservatives now say any president deserves to be supported, I doubt his response to the Trade Center Bombing (isn’t the perpetrator in prison right now?!), the Cole, and the embassy bombings would have been as tepid as you view them. Think of this, even with NO conservative support, he did what he could. Had he done more, would the conservatives (who now blame him for everything that’s ever gone wrong) have supported him? Or perhaps the outraged cries of “WAG THE DOG!! WAG THE DOG!!” would have been reverberating from mountaintop to mountaintop. At the least when Clinton left office, he and his transition team explicitly told Bush and the boys that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should be their number one priority. Shall we still blame him if Bush didn’t listen? Shall we also blame liberals for cutting the intel budgets, even though Republicans have been in power since ‘94, before the end of the Cold War?

And Ken - what Diane actually said was “Bush’s “fight against terrorâ€? is about as effective as Nancy Reagan’s “just say noâ€? campaign” It’s very clear that “Just say no” didn’t make a dent on drug use. As a matter of fact, they say that drug use, especially that of methamphetamines, is way up. It was that comparison of failure to failure that she was pointing out. And perhaps a small dig about the effectiveness of conservative “war on…” programs. War on Drugs? What a joke. War on homelessness? HA! War on poverty? We seem to have lost that one, if the poverty rate is anything to go by. And now we have the “War on Terra”…and it doesn’t seem to be going all that grand either. As for taboga…seems someone has been mixing the Kool-aid a bit too strong. And watching Fox News a little too much. Brian Curtis gave some fine talking points, well worth consideration and all taboga could do is tell us that the 9/11 Saudis didn’t come through the ports. Of course they didn’t. But that doesn’t mean the next batch won’t. So why wouldn’t we guard them? Why wouldn’t we implement better screening in airports? In the Immigration Department? Perhaps it’s not overt and violent enough…

By taboga

July 18, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Tony,

Al Qaeda members are in dozens of countries around the world. But no way they could have been in Iraq. No way!

They have obviously been connected, supported and harbored by many countries as well. But not by Iraq. Not possible!

Iraq is not significant in the War on Terror either. Yet terrorists are pouring in to try and stop our actions there!

We need to be out “hunting down Al Qaeda” according to the Left. But when they come to us in Iraq - this is considered a “failed strategy” a “Terrorist training ground” and a “hot-bed of terrorism”.

The Left wants us to defeat terrorism. Just don’t do anything that will actually defeat them - that might make them mad!

By Mara

July 18, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

GASP!! Civility!? HERE!? Jen even brought up religeon and nobody went ballistic! Am I on the right blog?

By JB

July 18, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Ken, I think its a mistake to classify Bin Laden as someone who simply wants more power. He is a true believer. That is why he is so dangerous. The reason he hates us has everything to do with his (and the Muslim world’s) perception that the US is a Christian nation and even worse in their eyes, a Zionist supporter. It is/was our presence in Saudi Arabia that created his hatred and the Al Queda movement. He believes our presence there soils the holy cities like Mecca.

By kimberly

July 18, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Regarding the earlier post blaming Clinton: (a) Hey, MAYBE if the FBI hadn’t spent all those years combing the trailer parks of Arkansas for tales of the Presidential DK, they might have had the time to investigate reports of Saudi students taking flying lessons in which they didn’t want to learn how to land the planes. YA THINK? (Yeah, stand by our president uh-huh.) (b) The Clinton admin handed over their intel. with urgent warnings that Osama was planning something and they should persue this aggressively. Condi & Rummy & ‘nem didn’t want to hear it, as they were preparing to invade Iraq. (c) IT’S BEEN FIVE YEARS ALREADY; STOP BLAMING CLINTON BECAUSE YOU VOTED FOR A DIP**!

By Antyler

July 18, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Joe, You may want to brush up a bit on your history lessons during the Clinton’s years in the White House. Your claims that he did not take is deceptive and misleading.

Clinton developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.

Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.

Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

Clinton did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.

Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

Clinton sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.

Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add taggants to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA. Republcians called terrorism “a phony issue”

Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.

Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism

Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

Of Clinton’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”

Paul Bremer disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.

Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”

The Republican attack machine undermined public support for Clinton’s strong efforts against the Bin Laden network. Republicans chanted, “Wag the Dog” when Clinton took military action against Bin Laden. Republicans claimed Clinton was trying to divert public opinion away from the important threat to national security posed by Clinton having an affair outside his marriage.

Maybe Clinton didn’t do enough vs. terror, but not for lack of trying. When Clinton went after terrorism, the GOP protected terrorists by attacking Clinton for “wag the dog.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis gave some fine talking points, well worth consideration and all taboga could do is tell us that the 9/11 Saudis didn’t come through the ports. Of course they didn’t. But that doesn’t mean the next batch won’t. So why wouldn’t we guard them? Why wouldn’t we implement better screening in airports? In the Immigration Department? Perhaps it’s not overt and violent enough…

Mara,

We could have ships backed-up in the harbors awaiting inspections until the cows come home. About all that would be accomplished: Black bananas and 2006 Toyotas not making it to the showroom until 2007!

And if you Leftists are bound and determined that Terrorists need to be stow-aways on cargo vessels rather than taking a couple dozen far easier means to get in the country, then at least consider the possibility that once you have severely damaged our economy with all the blockades at sea - A small walk from a Canadian port would do.

More hilarious by the minute!

By kimberly

July 18, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Antyler, WELL said! Git ‘em!

By Saul Olvera-Rubio

July 18, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Mara…CIVILITY!! HEAR HEAR! The whole reason this war lags on is because no one can reach an agreement. Whatever happened a compromise?? All in all, we just need to get out. They have their government now and A LOT of our $$$$$.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

People, let’s just ignore topeka from now on, since all he can do is call people leftists and say “Neener neener neener”.

Is he/she/it really worth the effort?

By Ken

July 18, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Mara… Lighten up! I know what Diane said and I was trying to lighten the mood a bit. This BLOG was way to serious for a Monday morning…!

And how do you know that it didn’t have any effect? That campaign was aimed at a very specific demographic of individuals, of which you may or may not be part of.

And please, don’t even talk about the Kool-Aid. Most of the libs on this BLOG spout leftist rhetoric the way that Taboga spouts the right.

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Nuthin but verbal crap outta your mouth, tab. Not one indole of contribution. You’re even making up your own conservative talking points. way to go.

As for my contribution to the topic at hand…I do believe that we are now committed to finishing what we started in Iraq. Unfortunately at the expense of our poor strata. As for 9/11…well, I believe bin Laden is directly responsible for that and he’s still at large and in charge, isn’t he? This leads me to believe that going after Iraq to get at him, in response to 9/11, was a poor choice.

This war has had a poor cost/benefit ratio…..

By JB

July 18, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Tony, wow I think you should win the Pulitzer Prize. You’ve broken a story with the connection between Iraq and Al Queda that AP, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, Al Jazeera, BBC and any other news organization failed to pick up on. How’d you do it Lois Lane? The fact is, if that were true it’d have been front page, lead story in every single big city paper, small town gazette, 24 hour cable news outlet. So where did it come from, a right wing website? Big shocker.

By Chilao

July 18, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

when your primary news source is Rush Limbaugh, you end up running around mis-informed and not really seeing the whole picture.

or so I would THINK….LMAO

By Antyler

July 18, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Joe,

Do you really not believe that global terrorists attacks are increasing? Using a more stringent definition of terrorism there were about 650 such attacks in 2004 - up from 175 in 2003. Using a broader definition the State Dept. reported 3200 attacks worldwide in 2004.

http://p134.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050705/apongoot/terrornumbers/nc:691

By taboga

July 18, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

In April of 1861 - there was one attack by the Confederate Troops. After the Union Army responded - the number of Confederate attacks went up significantly.

If the Union Army would’ve simply read books, done studies, written papers, made speeches and condemn the Confederate’s actions rather than fighting them - the attacks would never have increased as they did.

Of course, we wouldn’t be a nation now, but…

By Jack

July 18, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

You forgot to mention the fact that Clinton could have had Bin Laden and let him get away. Hindsight is 20/20. The war was a bad idea but we hosed up the country and we need to see it through eventhough it will come back to bite us just like it did in Iran.

By Netbanker

July 18, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Jennifer’s point about going to Iraq to get Osama raises the question in my mind that if we had finished in Afghanistan by capturing him would there have been a reason to attack Iraq? The current military commanders in Afghanistan have stated that at a time when they needed to troops to make sure the country was fully secured and to hunt for Osama they experienced draw downs in preparation for the Iraq invasion. Can we even say that we were successful in Afghanistan as recent reports indicate that the Taliban is making a come back?

By TT

July 18, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Still no answer to any of the questions posed to you, Tomato? What would you do to stop terrorism? Leave our borders and ports open and exposed, send our soldiers scurrying off to another profiteering battle to give freedom to a nation that neither asked for our protection nor or input into their system of governance. What about North Korea and Iran? Do we just invade everyone? Again, I posit that if you war mongers are so anxious to blow stuff up on foreign soil, then you should enlist your uneducated behinds in the military. Nice points, Antyler, it’s clear that this administration, much like our dear friend, T-bag, likes to hurl insults, use buzzwords, and smear others. Just don’t ask them to take any blame for their actions or connect American arrogance and imperialism and the motivations of Islamic terrorists. But they can connect Iraq and 9/11 all day long. WHAT ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA AND PAKISTAN?????? Hello, right wingers, should we add them to our “No Country Left Behind” List????

By lozen

July 18, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that. M.L.King, Jr.

By Netbanker

July 18, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

How exactly is the Civil War example with a defined army raised by a group of states who formed their own official government comparable to fighting stateless terrorism and our attacking Iraq in that effort?

By taboga

July 18, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

TT,

It’s so refreshing to read your posts. Your desperate attempt at trying to portray yourself as some intellectual deep-thinker - is incredibly amusing!

But don’t you stop on my account - please keep it coming!

Serious.

By TT

July 18, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

I don’t attempt to portray myself as something I’m not, T-bag, I levae that up to you. I am an educated professional, you are a blue-collar, sorry excuse for a hillbilly. Still haven’t answered any questions about what you would do to curb terrorism, have you? With all of the ducking and avoiding you’ve been doing, this is like a game of dodgeball!

By taboga

July 18, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

The British haven’t reclaimed the Colonies. The South hasn’t seceeded from the Union again. The Japanese haven’t attacked Pearl Harbor again and the Nazis still haven’t risen up from the dead.

I would say that violence is the best way to solve the problem - regardless of what the Leftist puppet and Uncle Tom had to say.

By TT

July 18, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

How refreshing, Taboga, that you prove what everyone else on this blog has already concluded: that you’re an ignorant, inbred cretin. Please, don’t stop using Civil War examples to justify the war in Iraq on my account. But perhaps you should honor the requests of other commentors and stick to subjects you know, like moonshine and coon huntin.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

How exactly is the Civil War example with a defined army raised by a group of states who formed their own official government comparable to fighting stateless terrorism and our attacking Iraq in that effort?

That was not the comparison. The comparison: If someone declares war on you by attacking you and you respond in kind - their attacks will increase. At least in the short term.

By TT

July 18, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

How about it, T? What should we do about other nations harboring Al Qaida—Pakistan, Saudi Arabia? I’ll give you a few moments to look them up… Should we just ignore our own borders? And have you enlisted yet? I hear the military has a unit for “special” people.

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

taboga, please, you’re hurting my brain. Please, man, get a grip. You have yet to contribute a single damn thing, man! Say something meaningful and not mean-spirited, for once!

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Yes, well, Bush Sr. had Hussein in his sights back in Desert Storm and let him skulk away, too.

Frankly, I’m tired of idiots who are buying into the “Liberals don’t want to fight the terrorists” myth currently being peddled by the Rove Propaganda Machine. Is anyone honestly so stupid as to believe that one’s political philosophy has anything to do with wanting to put a halt to the actions of murderous thugs? That is nonsense - we just think there’s a better way.

Let’s examine the Iraq-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else method, also known as the “Pretend this is a conventional war” method. This involves us fighting a never-ending war in Iraq which slowly kills more and more Iraqi citizens and more and more American troops, against an ever-increasing batch of al-qaeda-sponsored insurgents from other nations.

Interestingly enough, while our “war on terror” has dramatically boosted al-qaeda’s ability to recruit, it has substantially damaged the US military’s abilities to do the same, so we are faced with a war of attrition against our all-volunteer military which will eventually result in either a quick withdrawal a.k.a. Vietnam, or which will eventually necessitate a draft to maintain the needed numbers.

Meanwhile, AQ will continue to laugh at us as we train their fighters. Bin-Laden will still be at large, and AQ will STILL be using modern organizational structure concepts to develop and expand it’s de-centralized, flat, non-hierarchical structure and using elements of franchising and brand licensing to provide packaged do-it-yourself explosion training via the web.

All the while, we’ll be carrying on in Iraq running up massive national debt in both money and blood. But by all means, ignore the people who think that we should be neutralizing the causes of anti-American and anti-Western terrorism in addition to working surgically to remove active threats. What do we know.

By liz

July 18, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Antyler: APPLAUSE!!!!!!! I would add one point to the outgoing administration’s warnings to the new administration over Al Quada - John O’Neill, the FBI’s foremost expert on Al Quada was forced out of the FBI after Bush took office. He started a new job as Chief of Security for the World Trade Center on (wait for it) September 10, 2001. He was killed the next day. Oh, one more thing: Simply for their sexual orientation, scores of Arabic linguists have been forced out of various military intelligence positions. And if that’s not a conservative issue, I don’t know what is.

By TT

July 18, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Thanks E! It’s like the right wingers completely forget this is our second time into Iraq. George Sr. couldn’t get the job done the first time, so Jr. had to go back to finish it off. Oh, the irony. I wish I had the military at my disposal. “Alright, boys, there’s terrorist in dem dere hills, those unpatriotic libs have been talkin’ truth again. Now Git-R-Done!” Makes me long for the days of Reagan, and the No Big Government Republicans. This administration thinks money and soldiers grow on trees.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

TT,

I think we should do what Bin Laden and the Leftists want us to do: Stop destroying the terrorists!

After 9/11, we should have tightened our security so much - that we strangled ourselves.

After the next attack, we could constrict even more; close our borders, inspect every vessel that enters the country, strip-search every passenger on all 5 daily commercial airline flights.

After the next attack, we could divide ourselves into 2 groups: 1. Half of us could be government agents and inspectors. 2. Half us could be those that the agents and inspectors are guarding.

…Then, once our economy has hit rock-bottom and equaling that of your average third-world nation - it’s home free for the OBL’s of the world!

By taboga

July 18, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

taboga, please, you’re hurting my brain.

Of that - I’ve no doubt.

By Netbanker

July 18, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

the only contribution I see from Taboga are the statements that point out that our national borders are NOT more secure. Nor is our infrastructure. Let’s face it…if you really want to bring America to it’s knees then attacks on our completely unprotected power grid and power plants would do it. Miles and miles of high transmission lines just open and waiting to be taken out. The economy would come to a standstill. Just look at what happened in the NorthEast when the grid went down due to an error if you don’t think this would be a real threat to us.

By Paul

July 18, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Yes the War is needed……….BTW the Iqari death toll is way more than 40,000!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Just ignore the troll and perhaps it will crawl back under its bridge.

By Ken

July 18, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Wow…! I think the libs on this BLOG have a new person they hate more than Bush… Way to go Taboga… You have done what I previously thought was unthinkable…

It is obvious that many folks here are opposed to us being in Iraq, nor would I expect otherwise. Whether you like it or not Eaton, there is a perception that the left in this country would fall all over themselves to NOT use force and perception is 9/10 of reality.

Many of the arguments about whether Iraq was a good or bad idea simply do not make much sense to me. Have terrorist activities gone up? Sure. But I would have expected a retaliatory response. Has our military recruitment gone down? Sure. But I would have expected that as well. The question is, are we making long-term headway to solidify the terrorist issue.

I don’t know. We won’t know for several years. Too often we want instant gratification so we make rash decisions either to charge in or pull back. This is what I do know about Iraq… We tried a particular diplomatic tact with Saddam for nearly a decade. The weapons programs had been hampered, but he still continued with mass-murders, scamming oil-for-food, firing into the no-fly zone, etc.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Our nation can’t be protected - it comes with the territory.

You can’t be as large as we are, have all the things that we have, have all the freedoms and liberties that we have — and somehow pretend that are going to protect all the power grids, dams, electrical plants, chemical plants, nuclear plants, airports and airlines, ships and seaports, subways and trains, buses, military bases, government buildings…

…and millions of other things in this country.

You can’t defend yourself against terrorists with security. But you can deplete your economy with it. Which will achieve the goal for the terrorists.

By Chilao

July 18, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

since Bush and Rice were establishing a plan in March, 2001, to ‘regime change’ Iraq, what does Iraq have to do with the war on terror again? Since it seems to be mainly breeding MORE terrorists, not less.

liked that cartoon recently here at ajc about the monkey climbing the World Trade Center towers with the caption “Oh, he climbs it everytime he feels threatened”

By Paul

July 18, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

If you have not been there, then your opinion on the situation is not worth much. How about the fact that that over 90% of the country has electricity, water, and running sewage……or the 90% of the children not get educations….HAVE you been there????? All you hear is what the press wants you to hear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

First, Ken, tobago is an idiot, that is why we don’t like it. It’s easy just to make meaningless statements, but it doesn’t mean much. And…weren’t you mister Lets-not-label people a couple of weeks ago? Now you’re throwing the “libs” thing around a lot…

Second, the perception is wrong, and perception is NOT 9/10 of reality, fact is. The Bush admin has done an excellent job of making you and others think that the democrats are soft on terrorists, but it just ain’t so - we were all very happy to go into Afghanistan.

Third, if we were actually talking about the Iraq invasion in general, your comments might have some bearing. But we’re talking abotu whether Iraq was necessary in the War on Terror, and your comments are clearly in the “It was OK because he’s a bad man” camp.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

Breathe Paul, it’ll be OK. Really.

By Paul

July 18, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

now get educations sry

By taboga

July 18, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Our nation can’t be protected - it comes with the territory.

You can’t be as large as we are, have all the things that we have, have all the freedoms and liberties that we have — and somehow pretend that are going to protect all the power grids, dams, electrical plants, chemical plants, nuclear plants, airports and airlines, ships and seaports, subways and trains, buses, military bases, government buildings…

…and millions of other things in this country.

You can’t defend yourself against terrorists with security. But you can destroy your own economy with it. Which will achieve the goal for the terrorists.

By Sonny

July 18, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Let’s look at logic:

Is it prudent for the anti-terrorism leader (USA) of the world to committ the vast majority of its fighting force to one indirectly related country? A country that was not directly linked to those actions (9/11) that sparked what we now know as the War On Terror. The “Axis Of Evil” now has a yard pass to exercise it’s etremeist muscle in the public eye (see North Korea) knowing full well we are spread thin.

Oh, and before we begin patting ourselves on the back for liberating the innocent victims of Saddam, shouldn’t we have addressed the atrocities that continue today in Africa? Atrocities that make Saddams actions seem like a Sunday bake sale.

Like it our not, we now have Vietnam II.

By TT

July 18, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

So, T, You can’t defend yourself against terrorists with security, because that would cost too much. News flash: You can also deplete the national budget by fighting a war on foreign soil. So, T-bag, we can’t possibly protect our vast nation, so let’s give up and protect the Iraqis from insurgents instead. Let’s reduce domestic defense spending and fire our policemen and firemen. Let’s abandon Americans and start training foreign police forces. Anyone can get on an airplane with any manner of weapon they want. Free for all! Gosh. If you feel this way, you must not really care about our NATIONAL SECURITY. I’m glad you’re not running for any political offices, for more reasons than I can list here. Since when is it America’s job to give up its own security to police the world!!! T-bag, a conservative you are not. In fact, if you really believe we should be spending our time, money, and soldiers on Iraq, then you’re more liberal than anyone on this blog. So far, you’ve trashed everyone else’s solutions, but your answer is to stupidly adhere to this quagmire in Iraq. Wow. You really did buy the rhetoric: hook, line, and sinker. Again, why don’t you help the military with its recruiting shortfall and enlist. You could take your framed photo of Bushie into combat with you and gaze adoringly at it as you scour the streets for terrorists to torture and humiliate (any old Muslim will do). We sure wouldn’t miss you here.

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

I’ve got to hand it to you, tab, that was the smartest thing you’ve said all day.

At least you’ve started trying to contribute to the conversation.

By Paul

July 18, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

This is a very touchy subject for me, I have been there twice…..It sucks to have people back home think that our job over there is not important….kinda like Vets returning from Vietnam!

By Chilao

July 18, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

speak of the devil:

Terrorists bred as a result of Iraq War is the subject of following article:

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.html

now, I do not know if the Christian Science Monitor is considered ‘pink-commie’ or ‘Gestapo-boys’ so not sure where it fits with this liberal/conservative ‘labels’

By taboga

July 18, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

TT,

Do you ever have an original thought - or are you sacks just full of cliches and talking points?

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Paul, I understand. But please realize that just because I, or someone else, may not have agreed with the war in general, that does not in any way mean that we don’t support you or the work you are doing. Whether or not that work endures is another story, and won’t be your fault but the fault of a nation not necessarily ready for democracy yet.

This isn’t Vietnam - we learned enough from that debacle to know that, no matter our opinions about a war in general, that the soldiers are worthy of our care and support.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Oh…my…god…having a…hard time…breathing…too…taken…aback…by this…ultimate irony…the pot just called the entire cast-iron cookware set black…

*By taboga

July 18, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

TT,

Do you ever have an original thought - or are you sacks just full of cliches and talking points?*

taboga, do you REALLY think you are intelligent, or original, or in any way meaningful? Do you not realize what a complete buffoon you are? Good lord, it’s like listening to a three-year-old.

By Paul

July 18, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

You have the right frame of mind, but alot of people in this Country think otherwise……I got a Pen-Pal letter from a lady back home…….not what I expected….told me I was a baby killer, my family should be ashamed of me…..yada yada yada……

By taboga

July 18, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Just play with the Leftists - don’t take them seriously.

They’re not going to have any impact on anything. The American people understand what you and other are doing.

Don’t pay any attention to the Leftists - they are irrelevant and a dying breed. Just have some good fun with them.

By TT

July 18, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

You’re one to talk about original thoughts, T-bag, when you’ve been parroting Fox News all over this blog. But you’re right, I’m sure I am not the only person on this blog who would love to stick your sorry butt on the frontlines of the battle in Iraq. You still haven’t answered any of the questions asked of you. I’ll try to ask you one more time: What would you do to make America safe from terrorism? And what is your strategy for dealing with nations like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea? Careful, now, don’t overload the Google search. One at a time.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

keep it up toboggan…you’re going to run out of kettles to call black eventually.

Tell me, do you know what “transferrence” is?

By Jennifer

July 18, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Paul, no one, no liberal, doesn’t support the troops. Hell, my dad was in Vietnam and my bro-in-law just got decommissioned from the Army. No one with half a brain cell would tell a soldier that his/her efforts are for nothing. However, you guys/gals are NOT expendable. We do NOT want you going over there and dying for something we don’t have majority agreement on. Or a half-a* plan, like Vietnam.

The soldiers might fight a war that is in error but the soldier is doing a soldier’s job.

It’s the careless and cavalier administration that fires me up.

And dumbass tools like tab.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

What would you do to make America safe from terrorism?

TT,

Take your mouse and scroll up just a few posts and there - right before your very eyes, ol’ taboga laid it out in plain english. If you’d like - I will put it in Spanish next time. Glad to assist - just let me know.

By TT

July 18, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

Taboga— It’s you and your kinfolk that are a dying breed, literally and figuratively. I would venture that our military in Iraq is largely made up of folks who support the President. If you were half the man Paul is, then you would put up or shut up. Why don’t you ask him where you can apply to be soldier, since you looooove violence. Paul, we know you guys are trying to do what’s right, we just hate to see you play police all over the world when your friends and family need you here. It’s just a shame that the people who are pushing this war are the cowards who wouldn’t put themselves on the altar.

By TT

July 18, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Wait, let’s see, T-bag. I just see this statement of surrender, which you stupidly posted twice:

By taboga

July 18, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,

Our nation can’t be protected - it comes with the territory.

You can’t be as large as we are, have all the things that we have, have all the freedoms and liberties that we have � and somehow pretend that are going to protect all the power grids, dams, electrical plants, chemical plants, nuclear plants, airports and airlines, ships and seaports, subways and trains, buses, military bases, government buildings…

…and millions of other things in this country.

You can’t defend yourself against terrorists with security. But you can destroy your own economy with it. Which will achieve the goal for the terrorists.

Any solutions of your own yet, Crystal?

By Paul

July 18, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Guys,

Most the Men and Women in the military do it because we love our country and would die defendiung it……we do not care about what democrat said that, what republican said this……we don’t look at it as just a job we were told to do, the majority of us see it as defending the Country and we love doing it……Let’s take the war to other countries……God knows I don’t want if fought here, where my family and friends are in harms way!!!

By TT

July 18, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Oh wait, is this your solution???? By taboga

July 18, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

TT,

I think we should do what Bin Laden and the Leftists want us to do: Stop destroying the terrorists!

After 9/11, we should have tightened our security so much - that we strangled ourselves.

After the next attack, we could constrict even more; close our borders, inspect every vessel that enters the country, strip-search every passenger on all 5 daily commercial airline flights.

After the next attack, we could divide ourselves into 2 groups: 1. Half of us could be government agents and inspectors. 2. Half us could be those that the agents and inspectors are guarding.

…Then, once our economy has hit rock-bottom and equaling that of your average third-world nation - it’s home free for the OBL’s of the world!

Guess what, cretin!!!! No one wants to give up on fighting terrorists, we just want to stop wasting our resources on a futile fight and protect our nation rather than some place most Americans have never visited. Besides, with your measley income, your tax dollars aren’t paying for the War in Iraq. It’s easy to get fired up about kicking some a* when you’re living off your EBT card.

By Linda

July 18, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, sorry I didn’t answer your question last week about the timeline on the father of humanity called “Adam” by National Geographic geneticist Spencer Wells. “Adam,” according to Wells, “lived 60,000 years ago in Africa.” Wells points out diversity in the human species has all happened in the last 60,000 years.

My only comment on this week’s topic results from what I learned when I earned a master’s degree in political science/Middle Eastern studies when Jimmy Carter was President. There was great hope for peace in the Mid East region then because the leaders in Egypt and Israel were leading the way with the support of the West.

We know, however, that peace did not last. The reason it didn’t was not because the West, Israel, and the moderate Arab leaders did not want it. They all worked hard to achieve it and Sadat paid with his life for his role. The root cause of radical Islamic terrorism is the Muslim leadership which then and now indoctrinates its populations against Israel and the West to keep them enslaved and powerless. Sadam Hussein was just one example of the type of Muslim leader who betrayed his people while setting up Israel and the West as strawmen to draw the wrath of the people away from the true culprits who were victimizing them.

It is easy to illustrate the difference between us and them. Our troops are blown up while trying to give candy to Muslim children. On the other hand, only indecent and evil madmen would strap bombs to their own children so they can walk into a group of innocent Muslim children and cruelly end their lives by blowing them into pieces.

By Ben

July 18, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

Blah, Blah, Blah! This Taboga, Tobaggon freak is a moron. Answer a question for once you clown. And hey Paul, quit whining. I’ve been there twice myself and newsflash, we didn’t go there to play Georgia Power and SCANA. We went there to fight terrorism remember? We went to get rid of Osama and the axis of evil remember.

Of course we are providing electricity and water and all that junk. Do you know why? Because we helped screw it up in the first place.

The only way to effectively fight terrorism is to leave them the hell alone and mind our own business, which we have a hard time doing. Terrorist hate us because we stick our nose in their business, so how is sticking our nose in their business going to stop them.

The best way to do it is to lock the gates and let them make their own mess.

By taboga

July 18, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

TT,

I’ve finally decided to give in and have a debate with your intelligent Leftists. So here goes:

*”Bush lied!”,”No WMD”, “War for Oil and Halliburton”, “We still haven’t found Bin Laden”, “We should listen to the French”, “We support our troops - we just don’t SUPPORT our troops!”, “We should find out why they hate us - and I know a good book…”,

“We can’t be the policmen of the world”, “Iraq was not responsible for 9/11”, “We still haven’t got Bin Laden”, “We need to fight an intelligent war”, “Bush Lied”, “Halliburton Lied”, “Karl Rove lied”, “Cheney is running things - not Bush”, “Cheney lied”, “We’re not safer”, “The world is not safer”, “Cheney is not really the President - Karl Rove is”, “War-mongerers!” “Maybe we should send Karl Rove to Iraq!”

“Right-wing Jesus Freaks!”, “Bush is like Hitler!”, “Nazis!” “This is how Hitler got started!”, “Halliburton is a Nazi-led corporation”, “We still haven’t got Bin Laden!”*

…I don’t want to use all my intelligent debating points in one post - so I will wait for a response.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Wow, Ben and I agree on something. Who’d have thunk it!

By Paul

July 18, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Ben,

We never went to Iraq to get Osama….he is in Afganastan…….I doubt you have been there twice, otherwise you would care about the Power and Water that we provided for them, and YOU would know that 85% of the country did not have telephone, water, or electricity……the US did not screw it up for them, it was not there to begin with……..ok, we did take out some electricity in Baghdad….but not the rest of the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By jamie1

July 18, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Seems as if everybody needs to get a life!!

By Paul

July 18, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

BTW Ben,

If you were a Military guy, you would know that the US has always rebuilt countries after we invaded them……we are still in Germany, Japan, Korea, SE Asia, the Pacific…and gues what, we helped rebuild them all!!!!!!!!! You sir seem to be the whining jackass around here!

By TT

July 18, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, am I the only one who is confused? Did T-bag answer any of the questions he’s been asked yet? Or is he just posting from the Anne Coulter fan site again?

By taboga

July 18, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry, am I the only one who is confused?

Not at all - there’s plenty of them out there!

By JohnR

July 18, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Ol’ Abe was no freedom fighter, by the way, he had no intention of freeing any slave because he did not believe that he had the constitutional power to do so. The ultimate basis for going to war in 1861 was the idea that a union was indivisible and no state had a rigth of secession. The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in states in Rebellion, not in border states like Kentucky, Maryland, or West Virginia. I’m glad I could clear this up.

The war in Iraq has turned out about the way I expected it too when it began. We are in a situation where we will be forced to occupy it for years to come. And I say occupation because that’s what it is. It was a mistake compounded daily.

BTW why should Liberals offer any solutions to the war on terrorism, Repubs didn’t listen during the Clinton administration, I wouldn’t expect them to listen now. Clearly their big ideas are not working very well, the calls for “Anerica-Haters” (which by the way is incredibly dis-respectful)to offer up ideas reads more like thin skinned bullies who know that their course of action isn’t working and want to blame those not responsible.

By Ken

July 18, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Eaton… I think you need to rethink your ideas of fact and perception. Even you told a poster last week that a list of facts doesn’t tell the whole story…

Facts can be spun any way the spin doctor wants. That spin is perception and that pereption is what the public sees and believes. The bush administration has successfully painted the left in this country as being soft on defense. Is that true…? Maybe, maybe not. But that is the perception, therefore that is what folks believe.

And as for chiding me for not staying on topic, give me a break… You do that all of the time… I do believe the invasion of Iraq assists the fight against terrorism. It has removed in your words “a very bad man” as well as a potential safe haven for terrorists.

By Linda

July 18, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Ben, the problem with “leaving then alone” is that when Muslim populations are threatened (i.e. Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo) the rest of the world cries out for us to “come to the rescue.”

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

TT, you aren’t the only one confused. Tomato, or as he is known to the Lakota, Calls-the-Kettle-Black, keeps raving about “intelligent leftists” and making nonsensical, rambling posts, but has yet to actually say anything intelligent.

Apparently he feels that by repeating that phrase over and over and over without actually saying anything, we will eventually go insane and he will have “won” whatever it is he’s trying to win…

By TT

July 18, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, Taboga. Put up or shut up. You’ve yet to offer any intelligent rebuttal or solutions, and I don’t want to go back to making fun of your minimum wage job, again. BTW, are you any closer to enlisting in the armed services? Let me know how that reading test goes, kiddo.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Of course Linda doesn’t like Muslims. As a good Catholic, I’m sure she would love to launch a new Crusade and kill them all. Such loving people, those ultra-Catholics.

By Chilao

July 18, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

the West DID leave the Muslims in the Balkans alone, saying it was a ‘complicated affair’ and did NOT intervene until the Muslims actually got weapons and were able to fight back, and then suddenly it was not so complicated after all.

when the Christians were threatened with Death, it was time to take action, but when it was Christians killing Muslims, well, that was quite okay. and we wonder why we are hated so….

SOMEONE needs to pay a little more attention to actual history.

By Eaton

July 18, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Don’t worry Chilao, Linda has made various statements showing her inability to grasp actual history. She actually thinks the Catholic church serves as a bastion of independent thought and learning throughout the history of the West…despite its history of executing and burning free-thinking scientists.

By Jack

July 18, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Israel has done to Palestine what we did to the Native Americans only they haven’t killed as many as we. Jimmy “no nads” Carter did a fine job.

By DB

July 18, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

JB: You got it right, especially about USING alternative fuels and cutting off all money going to the Middle East. Then you get many birds with one stone. Saudi is cut off, Iraq, Iran. But for some reason, our administration thinks getting more involved is the answer. It did nothing more than unite Bid Laden and Zarquawi, and thousands of others in hatred toward America. Leave them alone. Take a peaceful but solid stance that if anyone attacks us, they will get rolled over, and then some. It gave them more motivation. Leave these countries alone and let them fizzle out in poverty when no one needs oil. Oh, I forgot, the whole Bush family is in the Oil business, and the Cheney family is in the reconstruction business. All the supporters of this Iraq fiasco are nothing more than a bunch of cattle. This conflict is going to continue on and on even after we QUIETLY remove our troops from Iraq next year.

By tommy beall

July 18, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

Iraqis didn’t fly the plane either…

By Paul

July 18, 2005 05:12 PM | Link to this

DB,

Why would you wait until someone attacked us here!!!! Besides they already have…..1993 WTC bombing, 2001 WTC suicide planes, USS Cole, Kobar Towers…what else do you want?????????? I have not seen 1 US troop loading a barrel of oil onto the USS Bush yet!!!!!!!! Dude, you really have you a* where your head should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Tommy

July 18, 2005 05:55 PM | Link to this

Americans are so simple tell them anything and they will believe you. What war on terrorist this man has changed agenda with this war so many time first it was weapon of mass destruction and then it became providing Iran with a demarcated society. Please start telling the truth what the war is really for OIL money, people are dieing so that the Bush clang can have lots of $$$$$$. Can I just walk in your house and just take over start telling you what, how and when to do it, I relly don’t think so. At any point and time is he going to look for his friend Bin Laden, I don’t think he is, this is really sad. When Clint was in the house I don’t remember any threat of Terrorism the only time Americans has had this issue recently is when a Bush moved into the house.

London was so well planed why not plant bombs in London at the same time as the G8 Summit, but make sure you don’t bomb where the president of the United States is located we are really trying to bust his popularity.

Really who is the terrorist here, Americans have enslaved a race of people, killed and stolen for what they want, and committed genocide America has an extensive list of cruelty. What would make me think that this has or will change nothing…

As China is now becoming the next supper power lets see if America is going to engage this fight or waist time helping the Bush clang become wealthier.

I really do feel that the president is abusing his powers and should be impeached. A US Citizen…

By taboga

July 19, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this

Tommy,

No Liberal could have put it better! Educated and smart as a whip!

And don’t hold back anything - you go boy!

By taboga

July 19, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

Tommy,

Come on - don’t stop now! We need someone out here to set the record straight with those right-wing, heterosexual religious fanatics!

Don’t worry that your intellect may be a little to deep for them - pour it on! Let them know what the “Bush Clang” is really up to!

By Lyrazel

July 19, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

Nice frothing folks! Shaunti is a historical revisonist. She fails to remind people that the USA supplied Taliban with weapons to assist their war against a Soviet invasion of Afganistan for about 10 years, indeed we were giving money to the Taliban. She also negects to admit the USA was giving weapons to Iraq to help fund their war against militant Iran. We were giving weaponry and money to the Shah of Iran for decades prior to the Carter administration and after. Big Oil companies have supplied the fuel of our economic grandness in America and ALL WESTERN NATIONS and for about the last 60 years no one really cared where we got that oil from nor HOW we got it. Shaunti also fails to render the historical truth of the relationships between American Oil interests in Saudi Arabian families that have been the foundation of arbitrary division of wealth in the Middle East.

When you look at non-western countries what do you see? Massive poverty? Ruined natural resources exploited by major corporations? A population riddled by massive debts, bad intrastructures, corruptions and a majority population of poor unemployed men in their twenties. When you have no job, when your home is rubble, when your streets are gutted, when your sewers are pits, you sit reading what spiritual text is comforting and daily see the HAVES as EVIL taking away all your livlihood. You get upset because your life has no future—and someone points out WHO has exploited your country, and shows you the scars across your country, hands you a gun and says: BE WITH GOD…that becomes your future.

In most of the Middle East, the HAVES so outgross the HAVE NOTS financially it is more like a totalitarian dictatorship than a free-market economy. In Saudi Arabia family controls not just all education but employment advancement within the country—and if you arent related to someone—you never advance. Schooling is religious instruction only. In a world so highly competitive the sadness is most cannot afford college to advance themselves in a way that makes them employable. Instead, they are idle, leave the country for a future, or take the dirt jobs, or sit for hours listening to pulpit speeches about who is to blame for their misery.

We are a very wealthy group of western nations who got rich on the backs and resources of other nations. Our past does not need to be revisionist, we need to see a future that does more for the surging population of unemployed. Not just America is to fault for the spread of this terrorism. Western nations are guilty for creating the insentive young man with a bomb on his back by being so selectively blind and covetous with our pleasures at others expense.

Yet here we are on our (made somewhere else than in the USA) computers, being told that terrorism is going to go away after Iraq—because of a good Fearless Leader—like it does in the movies—We drive our cars to work and buy our plastic-encased cola, we cant fathom a life without plastics, asphalt and fuel oil. We wear fancy diamonds to show our devotions to love but dont want to know about pitiless miners,mill tailings, or sledge dumped into water supplies of nations of have-nots. We can rally at rock concerts to feed world hunder—we can dance and sing pretending to feed the world…but we feed no one…just dance and sing la la la. The dictators, G8ers and gun runners never watched the Live 8 special…obviously neither did the London terrorists.

I for one understand that global terrorism is war of the future. Ask yourself if you see the world as it is. Once you do, terrorism is understandable and will not be gone from this world until the pot of gold is destroyed…or god is destroyed with the next plutonium enriched war. Rally! Rally is the call to terrorists with god on their side—Rally! Rally is the call to patriots with god on their side—god fights god—believers fight believers—haves fight have nots—same as it ever was.

Iraqi women pick up the shattered bones of their families and I wonder how Shaunti got 40,000 civilians dead out of 150,000. Talk about REVISONIST HISTORY!!!

By Linda

July 19, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

There you go again, Eaton, utilizing staid anti-Catholic rhetoric to discount the opinions of those who voice ideas not consistent with your world view. You have so much more to say when you stay away from that sort of discourse.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

As the Middle Eastern nations have been living in poverty (majority) for centuries ,who was it that stole from them and made money off their backs; which caused all their problems — prior to 1776?

By James

July 19, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Read Feldhahn’s bio; she’s a typical hypocritical Christian right-winger who condones killing in lieu of more Jesus-like solutions. Ironically, the more intellegent (liberal thinking) of the two has a masters in theology from Harvard. Plus, Glass is simpy hotter looking than Feldman, who appears to be hiding a big trailer by pulling her sweater down in the back.

By TT

July 19, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this

Let’s discuss a larger symptom to terrorism: our dependence on oil from the Middle East which makes the U.S., the most powerful nation in the world, beholden to authoritarian dictators in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that conservatives and liberals can agree on that point, but only the right wingers get outraged when someone suggests that they get off their fat butts and walk somewhere or points out the obvious connection between the oil supply and demand chain and the Bush and Saudi Royal families? Tobago said that terrorists want to weaken our economy by convincing us to beef up our border security and getting us tangled up in transportation regulations. But they’ve already infiltrated our economy. The terrorists have taken advantage of our lust for oil. The coffers of Saddam, Bin Laden, and the Saudis are overflowing with American dollars. The upper classes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran have lived in grandeur while the lower classes wallow in misery. Meanwhile, the upper classes manage vast terror training camps, send operatives into our society to utilize our own resources (flight schools, transportation network, higher education system), and laugh at our foolish attempts to track them from one U.S. “ally” country to another. How ironic that the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center merely had to board a U.S. commercial airline or drive a truck with explosives into New York City. In London, the bombers were mostly British-born, but they were trained in….Pakistan. So, if we are serious about protecting ourselves we start with lessening our dependence on foreign oil, we build some refineries in our own country, we open up drilling in ANWR and other potential hot spots, and we explore alternate fuel sources. We beef up our borders so that we don’t have terrorists pouring in with all of the illegals that already exploit our resources. And we break ties with wolves in sheep clothing (the Saudis and Pakistan, for starters). The conservatives want to take a hard line approach with Saddam and when it comes to putting our soldiers on the ground, but not when it comes to telling other authoritarian regimes “no thanks” or curbing their need to drive a six ton SUV in the suburbs.

By E. Lewis

July 19, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Before we went into Iraq it was a secular country where terrorist and others were kept in line by a despotic dictator. The United States and our “allies” went in, ostensibly to fight terrorists that it turns out weren’t there and WMD that also weren’t there. We did not go into Iraq to turn it into a breeding ground for terrorists, but that is, unfortunately, exactly what our politician leaders and bureaucrats have done. Now we have to fix it.

By Will

July 19, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Your tired arguments about the worth of our people dying in Iraq are just that: tired arguments. It is clear that the only thing we have accomplished in Iraq is to dump Saddam Hussein and he was not a viable threat to us anyway. Our Dear Leader Bush is so enthralled with his own rhetoric that he no longer connects with the majority of the American people (see recent approval polls which show him south of 50 percent).

It is only a matter of time, and I fear the time is short, until the terrorists stage a major strike, in multiple locations, inside our country. Will Dear Leader Bush continue to say then that we fight the terrorists in Iraq so that we won’t have to fight them here? Let’s ask the families of those who died in Spain and London what they think?

By mjfanner

July 19, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

On 9-11 we were attacked , we attacked Afganistan, could not find Bin Laden AND STILL CAN’T FIND HIM. Then we said that Iraq was holding WMD’S and they were a threat to our country. We attacked Iraq THEN WE FIND OUT THERE WERE NO WMD’S and then we make all kind of excuses other than why Iraq was a threat. If you look at those 2 incidents it is clear to me that as a super power we have failed the American people, lied to them and continue to make up stuff to keep them afraid of terrorist, who have set up camp in our country. Again we Can’t find Bin, and we could not find WMD’S 2 BIG MISTAKES TO OVERLOOK.

By TT

July 19, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

And, as we heard two weeks ago, the CIA knows where Bin Laden he is. SO GO GET HIM. Perhaps our troops are too busy cleaning up messes in Iraq and Afghanistan and God knows where else (because Tony says our troops don’t ever really abandon a crusade) to pursue the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden would have a better chance of being found if he issued a hit on George Sr.

By Lyrazel

July 19, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Taboga—Issues prior to 1776? Why not go all the way back and blame 21st century terrorism and middle east poverty on the invasion of the Mongolians under the great Khan? My issue is with Western revisionists and the selectivly blind who live in the 21st century….which are you?

By Blablabla

July 19, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel:

Shaunti isn’t revising history just by omitting our historical supplying of the mujahadeen and Iraq with weapons. Presumably everybody knows what we did. The reason was quite simple and obvious at the time: the Soviets and the Iranians were bigger enemies of the US at the time than Afghanistan or Iraq. What’s your point?

And with all due respect, quit telling me that Westerners are responsible Islamic suicide bombers - specifically that it’s all about the fact that these Muslims are poor and don’t have a future. Look at the backgrounds of suicide bombers - many of the 9/11 bombers were very wealthy, educated, and successful in their earthly lives. Many of them had a lot to live for. And I believe all four of the recent London bombers were raised in the UK by families that had emigrated to the UK years ago. They weren’t poor or uneducated, and didn’t come from broken homes where there was no future. So obviously these suicide bombers are driven by something more than money…THINK FOR YOURSELF. Instead of condemning the US and other western nations, why not condemn the people that actually strap on bombs and run around killing innocent people left and right. Why not criticize radical islam for programming people into thinking that killing their neighbors is OK. Why not criticize radical islam for the “honor killings” that are becoming alarmingly common in Europe these days? And why not criticize moderate muslims for not standing up to the extremists who are giving the majority of the religion such an awful name.

Please, put the bong down.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

TT,

What does “beef up” our border security - actually mean?

And let’s suppose that we could wave a magic wand and be totally self-sufficient in oil. How does that stop terrorists from their actions - which already have nothing to do with oil?

We already have “refineries” in our own country.

How many more decades are we going to talk about “alternative energy sources”? When are you on the Left going to actually create them?

What is the connection between the Bush and Saudi Royal Families?

And when did you; Jermiah Johnson, scrap your automobile and other accomodations which depend on foreign oil?

We’re not “tracking” them from one U.S. “ally” country to another. They’re coming to Iraq for us. Don’t you remember? You Leftists whine about the “hot-bed” of terrorism in Iraq incessantly!

President Bush has been trying to open ANWR for drilling. You Leftists have worked just as hard to obstruct it.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Taboga�Issues prior to 1776? Why not go all the way back and blame 21st century terrorism and middle east poverty on the invasion of the Mongolians under the great Khan? My issue is with Western revisionists and the selectivly blind who live in the 21st century….which are you?

Could someone please decipher that for me? Thanks.

By Chilao

July 19, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

the failings of understanding history again. the whole middle east domination by Turks, Germans, French, and British since say 1800. Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon borders orbitrarily drawn by Europeans and hardly reflect actual cultures in the area…Our (US) whole support for the brutalities of the Shah of Iran CREATED the Islamic state there.

But I certainly think it is the responsibilty of the Muslim community to clean up their act and banish the hate-mogers(radical clerics) within their ranks.

By TT

July 19, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

I’m not a leftist, T-bag, and I am certainly no whiner. I have offered solutions, all you have to offer are critiques. Sounds like you are the one with a laundry list of complaints about your opponents, but no substantial solutions of your own. The connection between Saudi oil profits and the funds used to run Bin Laden’s terror camps are unmistakable, unlike the faulty 9/11 and Iraq connection. But I know, you have problems with fax. Almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. So why not blow that country up? And as for freeing myself from dependency on foreign oil—I live in the city. I walk nearly everywhere, and I drive a tiny Honda to cover long distances, not to check the mail. I carpool to work and when I can’t do that, I take MARTA. We haven’t built a new refinery in this country since Carter was in office and you got Candy pregnant down by the levee in your Camaro. Your brain had gone soft from all those HoHos you’ve been eating as you cruise down the road in your F-150 plastered with Dubya stickers. And we certainly have been tracking Bin Laden all over hell and back, according to our intelligence agencies. Surely you’re not suggesting he and every other terrorist are hanging around in Iraq. Oh God, turn off the Fox News and get a reality check. You just parrot what the President says, “We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Well, guess what, T-bag? We were attacked on our own soil? The British took a hit in their largest city. It’s time we started looking at the terrorists living among us and make Visa restrictions stick. We should stop placating those who think our borders should resemble a block party. Hell, maybe we restrict the Mexican border alltogether. No American citizenship, no job, sorry no entry. Perhaps you are opposed to restricting illegal immigrants from entering this country too? Look who’s liberal now. Taboga: We can’t guard everything, so let’s roll over and play dead. Or let’s make ourselves feel better by blowing Iraq to hell and back. Just anything so I don’t have to walk to the grocery store and my cousin Qdoba can bring her 7 ninos into the promised land.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

I guess mustard gas, sarin gas and tons of enriched uranium are NOT considered WMDs. The media is SO on top of things. Wonder who Tom Cruse’s next girls going to be? Thats whats really important.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

TT,

I am beginning to understand now. You consider vague generalities: Solutions. So yes - you have offered solutions.

I don’t have an F150. They don’t use enough gas for me - so I’ll stick with an SUV.

The connection between Saudi oil profits and the funds used to run Bin Laden’s terror camps are unmistakable, unlike the faulty 9/11 and Iraq connection.

So you’re suggesting the Saudi’s are funding Bin Laden? That’s a strange relationship, isn’t it? Being that the Royal Family expelled Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia and all, hmmm….

Hey, when you “carpool” to work - are those automobiles using “alternative energy sources”…? Or oil from the Mideast?

Well, guess what, T-bag? We were attacked on our own soil?

I wish more of you Leftists would remember that!

It’s time we started looking at the terrorists living among us and make Visa restrictions stick

John Rocker “wondered what all the foreigners were doing in our country” - back in 1999. You Leftists called him: Racist. But hey, I see the difference. You’re not talking about all the foreigners, just that one’s that have Visas that say they are: Terrorists.

Yes - I am glad the Mexicans are coming. We need to replace Leftists with folks that want to be in this country. Besides, with all our brilliant teenagers going off to college; to get a good-paying job - who’s going to get the work done?

By Peter

July 19, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Hey, taboga (forgive me for interrupting and moving to the edge of the war on terrorism) it is rather difficult to abandon one’s automobile with the oil glutton mentality so pervasive in Atlanta (and elsewhere). Those of us who advocate public transit are thwarted by the macadam lobby. Tapping every last drop of petroleum won’t quench the thirst and the resource will be depleted in time. (ANWR won’t put much of a dent in the import balance.)

Do you have children and have you considered the legacy (not car) passed along to them (you advocate consumption of all the oil now and condone the huge financial burden we will leave them).

Reading books may not be an activity you put much stock in, but I would recommend “The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts to send a chill down your spine. We ought to consider future generations as well as our contemporary global neighbors in national policy. (We have not yet begun to wage war for oil … mere skirmishes at this point … leave that too for our children.)

I’m looking for an agenda that works at all levels. (If it were not about oil, we wouldn’t be in the middle east.)

By TT

July 19, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Well, I for one, think this country should not be a free for all buffet for illegal immigrants, but if you and Bush had your way, this country would be nothing but oil magnates and landscapers. And hey, I’m not the one whose job would be threatened by an immigrant worker, that would be blue collar folks like you. And you want my solutions: close the f*** borders. Restrict the Visas. Put our troops on our borders. I know, it’s a crazy idea, to keep terrorists from coming in our country instead of shipping our military off to Baghdad to wreck yet another country’s infrastructure. But you crazy compassionate conservatives think everybody gives two s** about democracy. Democracy is not an export, like oil. The Iraqi people didn’t ask for it and it’s not our job to give it to them. Please, God. Where are the hardliners who believe in making our country safe and secure and keeping our nose out of everyone else’s affairs? If we hadn’t been in bed with the Saudis, and then with the Taliban, and then Saddam, they wouldn’t have the resources to fight us. And as for the ties between the Bin Ladens and the Saudi Royal Family, see excerpts below from a Frontline News story on the two:

The relationship between the bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family is quite exceptional in that it not simply one of business ties: it is also a relationship of trust, of friendship and of shared secrets. This is particularly the case with regard to the group’s present-day leaders and the Soudairi clan. Thanks to the renovation of Mecca, Sheik Mohammed bin Laden did not become merely Kin Abdul Aziz’ official contractor, but his friend and confidant as well. This friendship has been handed down to their children. The bin Laden sons went to the same schools as the numerous offspring of King Abdul Aziz and they all followed the same path. Likewise, the Saudi authorities’ decision to issue an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden on 16 May 1993 does not threaten to affect the relationship between the bin Ladens and the royal family. Osama, one of Mohammed’s youngest son, has been known for years for his fundamentalist activities. …The arrest warrant was issued both because of his support for fundamentalist groups involved in terrorist operations in Algeria and Egypt and his ties with upstart religious circles that tried to establish an independent human rights organization in Saudi Arabia at the beginning of May. Contrary to appearances, the Osama incident testifies to the bin Laden’s influence within the kingdom.

Or perhaps an account of the Bin Laden family’s actions following the 9/11 attacks: Around two dozen members of the bin Laden family, most of them here to study in colleges and prep schools, were said to be in the United States at the time of the attacks. The New York Times reported that they were quickly called together by officials from the Saudi Embassy, which feared that they might become the victims of American reprisals. With approval from the F.B.I., according to a Saudi official, the bin Ladens flew by private jet from Los Angeles to Orlando, then on to Washington, and finally to Boston. Once the F.A.A. permitted overseas flights, the jet flew to Europe.

Need any more proof??? Or would you prefer to keep your head in the sand and believe that all of our friends are trustworthy? Saddam was our friend too in the Iran-Iraq War—funny how things change.

By Peter

July 19, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Shaunti -

As a Vietnam era veteran with two sons in their 20’s, I look for those who have made a commitment themselves before paying heed to lip service on this “war on terror.”

If an individual has convinced himself that this quagmire is worth fighting and has enlisted or sent his child, he or she gets my attention. But the hypothetical question posed by a lurker carries little weight.

As the effort is currently framed, I’m keeping my kids home.

By Kyle

July 19, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Good to see that there is a nice balance of opinions posted here. First of all, to think that liberating Iraq has nothing to do with fighting global terroism is just absurd. The importance of the U.S achieving victory in Iraq and instilling a democratic government in the heart of the middle east is essential to fighting terrorism - this fact is made clear by the terroists’ fighting the alliance’s effort with everything that they have. They understatnd the importance of this fight, and the damage it will do to their cause if they are to lose - and they will. Secondly, while Hussein had no direct connection to 9/11, he certianly had contact with terroist groups and even invited Bin Laden to his country for a meeting (I’m sure you liberals would give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they would be talking about the weather or how much they love the U.S.). Before the U.S. even entered Iraq the country was the home of several terroists camps (where people go and train to kill Americans). Thirdly, many nations thought that Iraq had or at least were developing WMDs. The previous point is well taken that no other country started a war over this belief, but is it really the U.S.’s fault that many of the larger European countries were in bed with Saddam (oil for food scandal). Your not gonna bite the hand that feeds you, are you? I for one am proud that the U.S, Britian, and Australia finally put their foot down and said enough is enough. Just because we didn’t find any WMDs, that doesn’t mean they were never there. Saddam had denied access to UN inspectors for several months leading up to the war. Why do you think he did that, and what do you think he was doing during that time? Cleaning up the plants so they could look their best? I think not. Also, threre is clear evidence, which not even democrats debate, that Saddam was trying to buy WMD material from Africa. The fact that he never completed a deal is irrelevant. If I know someone wants to kill millions of people, I would rather take action too soon than too late. And finally, America’s actions has not served to increase terroist recruit or terrorist actions. U.S. embassies and even navy ships had been attacked by terrorists groups around the world for several years leading up to the war. You may not like the war, but fighting this war over there is a hell of a lot better than the alternative - fighting the war at home.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Hey, taboga (forgive me for interrupting and moving to the edge of the war on terrorism) it is rather difficult to abandon one’s automobile with the oil glutton mentality so pervasive in Atlanta (and elsewhere).

It’s called: Standing on your principles! Walk, ride a bike, or do whatever — IF you’re going to complain about oil dependency. But I rather guess, that when it comes right down to it - you are not that concerned about it. Sounds good to say though, right?

Reading books may not be an activity you put much stock in, but I would recommend “The End of Oil� by Paul Roberts to send a chill down your spine. We ought to consider future generations as well as our contemporary global neighbors in national policy. (We have not yet begun to wage war for oil … mere skirmishes at this point … leave that too for our children.)

Well why didn’t you tell us this before? If Paul Roberts say that we’re running out of oil - that’s all I need to know!

I’m looking for an agenda that works at all levels. (If it were not about oil, we wouldn’t be in the middle east.)

If it were about oil - we would have never engaged Saddam to begin with! If it were about oil - we would have supported Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait! If it were about oil - Saddam would have his oil, Kuwait’s oil - and all we would have to do is sit back and buy it from him! Those actions would be far easier than starting wars for oil or any of that other nonsense!

I sure hope we don’t ever go to war in Colombia! We’ll never hear the end of: Big Coffee!

By lozen

July 19, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, we can’t solve any of the messes we’re in without looking at the root causes. That isn’t something many of us like to do. I applaud you for doing that. And, of course, you are being put down by the fools on this forum. Some of us really believe we can plunder this earth, use an outrageous percentage of it’s resources, support dictators around the world (until they refuse to play our game anymore and/or it’s time for a show of military strength) and still be the “good guys.” Jingoism never goes out of style! Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

A Democrat put us in Vietnam, a Republican took us out.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

TT,

What should we have done with the members of the Bin Laden family after the 9/11 attacks? It is not the entire Bin Laden family that is at odds with the Royal Family - just Osama. The Bin Laden family as a whole - is a prominent family in Saudi Arabia. I can’t figure out what is so scandalous about the fact that several members of the Bin Laden family was flown home?

Have you ever played Darts? If so, did you try to throw the dart at everything except the board?

By Peter

July 19, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

*But I rather guess … * (no need to tell us)

By TT

July 19, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Actually, if you had been reading any of the news, Kyle, even conservatives now debunk the story that Saddam was tyring to purchase uranium in Nigeria. You know, the whole Joseph Wilson and Karl Rove scandal, going on? But what about Iran, which already has uranium and has given us the middle finger when it comes to their nuclear activities. Or North Korea who wants to chat while they build their arsenal? Oh goodie! Are we going there next? I assume you and Taboga will be first on the list for fighting those battles, since you think it’s America’s job to go around spreading democracy and telling other nations what to do. Like Paul said, it’s easy to give lip service to Bush’s war if you aren’t willing to do the fighting yourself. Are you sure that we shouldn’t change the name to Cowardly Conservatives instead of Compassionate Conservatives? I guess it’s up to the libertarians and the liberals to secure our borders and investigate the terror cells forming under our nose (you know, like the ones the 9/11 hijackers actually belonged to). Ah, war makes strange bedfellows…libertarians and liberals, dictators and democracy.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Iran or Korea…eenie, meenie, mynie, mo….

By taboga

July 19, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

I guess it’s up to the libertarians and the liberals to secure our borders and investigate the terror cells forming under our nose (you know, like the ones the 9/11 hijackers actually belonged to). Ah, war makes strange bedfellows…libertarians and liberals, dictators and democracy.

Boy wouldn’t that make for great comedy!

By William

July 19, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Who is tobago or Brian? Are they part of some idiot think tank? Are they veterans? Have they done anything for this country other than speak dribble? If you can read, pick up a history book. If you can speak/read English, thank a veteran. You could be speaking French, Japanese, Dutch or Spanish.

By TT

July 19, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

William—Tobago is just your good ole’ trailer park trash, another fat-bellied coward who thinks American soldiers ought to be in the trenches dying for our dependency on foreign oil and to settle some pansy-a* President’s personal vendetta. You know what, T??? I think the entire bin Laden family should have been detained, just like millions of innocent Arab Americans were after 9/11. I guess the Patriot Act should only be used for harrassing legitimate citizens, though? Besides, look how close Jeb and Dubya are. What makes you think Osama and his brothers aren’t just as tight? I’m still waiting for you, Wacky Jacky, and Kyle to enlist. Where’s Ben when you need him?

By taboga

July 19, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Speak dribble…?

What does Basketball have to do with any of this?

By Lyrazel

July 19, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Blahblah, I gave reasons why some young-people might prefer strap-on diplomacy rather than obey rhetoric from by rich western nations. Why should they continue to support the puppet dictators and despots western nations give weaponry to for the gains of Western interests? Osama feels he beat the Russians in Afganistan—and there are many who want ALL Westerners to experience the same kiss-of death strap-on style of guerilla war. Prior to 1980 Osama Bin Laden and all his Taliban were our friends and even helped us on the War On Drugs. (See Ronnie Raygun years and you will find accolades toward Taliban…heaped high…) Excuse me if I dont believe the sort of revisionist rhetoric Fearless Leader and Shaunti spew. Accusng me of drug use hardly proves your argument.

By TT

July 19, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

North Korea, Jacky, I know it’s tought to tell the difference because there are two. Jesus, it’s like deja vu. How many wars are we going to have to fight in the same places because Republicans can’t finish the job.

By Ben

July 19, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Paul - That was kind of my point. I’m not whining about anything. This whole fiasco started after 9/11 and we decided to get Osama. Saddam was the curveball waiting to happen. If we spent half as much effort looking for Osama as we did Saddam, my friends and your friends would be at home drinking beer with us.

Did we go to Iraq to restore power, or take it? Other countries and people are far worse off than those in Iraq, hell, some of them are right here in our OWN country. We went to Iraq because we were told to, not to help the Iraqi people. We are fighting to survive and make sure that our friends survive. Helping the people is the humanitarian part of our mission (back to the irony).I don’t have to prove to you that I was there and for how long or how many times. If you were there, you would know that before we took the long desert ride from Kuwait, our planes and ships were blowing the hell out of the infrastructure. Of course we rebuild it, but that is part of the irony you fool.

You mention all of the places that we are still in, but you fail to realize that all of those places either attacked us, or as Linda pointed out, the international community wanted/needed us there. So spare me your garbage!

And for Tobaggon - what sane person would take you or anyone else that would call MLK an uncle tom seriously! You are a moron!

By Ben

July 19, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

I’m here TT!

By taboga

July 19, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

Where have “millions of Arab citizens” been detained?

And I think the latest census only has about a million and a half Arabs in our country. Total.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

TT I’m sorry. I meant North Korea. I should know that since I was in NORTH Vietnam. Duh.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Ben,

You know nothing of MLK. You’re just another rube that was told he was a great man. So you repeat it because you think you are supposed to.

By JB

July 19, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Why does no one ever talk about the most dangerous country in the world? Iraq? A country that quits every time it is challenged. North Korea you say? Not even close. Kim Jong Il is an eccentric, but has more bark than bite. If you’ll notice, every time N. Korea disappears from the front page, they make some outrageous threat in order to get people’s attention. “Hey wait, look at me!!” They may have tried to create nuclear weapons, but their actions suggest they just want everyone to believe that they do. No the real danger is Pakistan. But they have a friendly president. Yes, but there have been at least two attempts to assassinate him since 9/11. He runs a country that already posesses nuclear weapons. A country that allowed Khan to sell the nuclear technology to N.Korea, Iran, Libya without punishment. This is a government that does not even control all the regions inside their own borders. Al Queda operated and operates out of Pakistan on a regular basis, as demonstrated by all the operatives who’ve been tracked to Pakistan, including the London bombers. Plus Pakistan has an enemy in India that has their finger constantly on the nuclear trigger aimed at Pakistan. And all our administration can ever talk about is Iraq.

By joe

July 19, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Soccer Moms have to realize that these people we are dealing with are the same ones that would drive a car bomb into their child’s school if they could. The world is a dangerous place and unfortunately the things that we have to do to protect ourselves are sometime unpleasant. Let our soldiers do their jobs.

By TT

July 19, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Taboga, you dolt. Are you denying the government’s crackdown on the civil liberties of Arab Americans following 9/11? And did you really just insult Martin Luther King Jr. and call Ben, a black man who has served in our military and has achieved a wealth of professional success that you can’t even imagine from your holler’ a rube?

By TT

July 19, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

God Jack, if you were in Vietnam, no wonder it was such a mess! You probably smoked more ground then you actually covered.

By JB

July 19, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Oh and Pakistan is the only country that ever recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

By Kyle

July 19, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Actually, TT, I keep up with the news just fine and am well aware of the Wilson/Rove “scandal” (funny how liberals call this a scandal, but Clinton getting serviced in the Oval Office and then commiting perjury is just “personal business”). By the way, she was not undercover overseas at the time of Rove’s conversation. She was working here in the U.S., which would make it impossible for Rove to commit the crime of which he is accused - but that’s not important info according to much of the media. What your left wing media conviently neglegted to tell you is that Wilson only reported that there was no evidence that Saddam “had purchased” uranium. Evidence is quite clear that Saddam “sought” to purchase uranium - please quote some of these debunking conservatives you speak of. Wilson went over their with an agenda and framed his story in a manner best suited to further said agenda. To be honest, I’m not sure if the U.S. knew the magnitude of the threat that Iran and North Korea posed before they entered Iraq. But if they did, and they decided to take action against either of the two countries, I’m sure you and your left wing “we’re so intelligent we can reason and negotiate with anybody, even terroists” buddies would have found something to complain about. Also, I don’t believe that America is “telling Iraq what to do” by taking down an evil dictator. One family,who does nothing but oppress the will of an entire nation, does not speak for that nation. If you ever actually went to Iraq, you would see that the majority of the people are very happy that American forces are over there helping them create a democracy. “Cowardly Conservatives”? I myself am not in the military. However, my father, brother, and uncle are all currently serving abroad. Oddly enough, they are all conservative republicans, feel very similar to the way I do on this whole subject, and support our president 100%. In fact, a vast majority of the military identify themselves as conservative republicans. I agree with you on one thing though. I think the president should be doing more to secure our borders. But The Terminator voiced his opinion on his desire to tighten the borders, and California liberals basically called him a racist. And do you honestly believe that Bush’s administration isn’t doing everything in their power to investigate terror cells here at home. Democrats calling for the death of the Patriot Act isn’t going to help us too much in that department either.

By kimberly

July 19, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Joe, how are the soldiers protecting our kids when they are in the desert, far far away, fighting an “insurgency” of people who never attacked us here.

Why couldn’t our soldiers be doing their jobs HERE? Is the Savannah River nuclear plant guarded? How much nuclear (pronounced NU-klee-ar) waste and dangerous chemical stuff do we have in this country that could be used against us the way that innocent, every-day commercial flights were used against us? How are we safer by making more enemies someplace else every day? How are we safer when our own NATIONAL GUARD is fighting abroad like infantry? The National Guard is supposed to be protecting us HERE, and they’re not even HERE anymore!

Let them do their JOBS? Sure! Love to! But those LYING A—H—-s in Washington decide what jobs they’ll do, and THIS year, it’s guarding the pipeline the grateful Kukwaitis built across Iraq so the oil companies could make record profits while raping US in the process. Cha-ching!

Support the troops? Absolutely! Support the LIES? Stuff it up your exhaust pipe, dude.

By kimberly

July 19, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Kyle, are you saying sex in the White House is unforgivable, but LYING and COMPROMSING national security from the White House is worth supporting?

To all you frustrated, sex-deprived repugnicans: STOP BRINGING UP CLINTON’S HUMMER as a defense for your lying, thieving, AWOL, deserter, drug-addicted, blinks-while-he-talks-because-he’s-lying, stuttering, big-money-puppet of a president! It’s NOT PERTINENT anymore. Go get your OWN hummer and get OVER it!

By DB

July 19, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Paul: The one attack you mention(9/11), was on our soil. It had nothing to do with Iraq. So my point is why are we there? Iraq was not considered by our govt. to be a training ground, but thanks to us, it now is. Insurgents coming across the borders, etc. We created it, and the only way out is to attack all the countries involved, but we can do that because we’re strapped for troops. Good move U.S.!!! The plan for attacking Iraq was on the drawing board for over 10 years, so 9/11 has nothing to do with it. Besides, wasn’t is WMD’s? Hmm… We attacked the Taliban for the one attack, and we should have. As for all your other attacks, it was because our ships or troops were in places where they should not have been according to my proposed solutions. That’s my whole point. Sure, my proposals may not be perfect, but at least they don’t include starting wars that only make things worse and only creates more hatred toward us fueling terrorists. Let’s see how well they do when they have no oil money coming in through the channels. Our govt. has finally realized that as an option, and all the sudden alternative fuels are being pushed. The only problem is it’s about 20 years late. Maybe it’s time for people like you to get their heads from where the sun doesn’t shine and start to think a little more without blazing guns.

By TT

July 19, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Thank you Kimberly. It’s unfortunate that conservatives like Kyle are more interested in Clinton’s sex life than the loss of life in Iraq. I’m only sorry that his entire family has to pay the price for Bush’s Bombs over Baghdad crusade. And Kyle, I don’t give a s** avout Karl Rove. I just care about getting the facts, and the CIA can’t give them with the way this administration likes to massage the evidence to make a case for War in Iraq. It’s like that old country tune, “Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places.” When we get our troops out of Iraq, maybe then we’ll start catching bin Laden and shutting down the terror cells in our own country. Thanks to JB too, for trying to enlighten us about Pakistan. Although, I bet Kyle won’t listen, if it came from that damned liberal media that we all own. News flash, Kyle, the media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own it. What a joke, “I don’t like the news I am hearing, so the media must be liberal.” The media has consistently endorsed conservative candidates for President. And ask former POW John McCain what he thinks about the African uranium quest? Where did you get the idea that that deal went down? Not from the liberal media, but from our forthcoming government, no doubt. Thanks to Bush, the CIA can’t wipe its a* without asking for Presidential permission.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

I decided to be nice today TT. Try not to take it out on us that you possess such a small intellect and weenie.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

And I didn’t inhale. LOL

By Tom

July 19, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

This is obviously a very personal issue for many of you. It is unfortunate you have to resort to name calling instead of debating ideas.

One of the questions I pose to people when this issue comes up is this: If you were given $300 bln and were told that 1700+ American soldiers were going to give up their lives for a decision you are going to make, how would you make the world a safer, better place?

When posed that way, I think you will find some answers that are significantly different than the situation we now find ourselves in.

By DB

July 19, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

The oil war isn’t just to line the pockets of the Bush family, Cheney fam, or thousands of other govt. families. Sure, it’s more likely a plan by our govt. to be able to control the Middle East in the future when oil supplies dwindle. Remember, Congress is in control, not Bush. Control the oil, control the world. However, when alternative fuels get big, that will not even be an issue. All the small countries will be using oil, and all the developed ones will be using alts. It will put us in no more control than before. It’s just another reason alternative fuels should have been pushed 20 years ago.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

“W” should have just waited until Saddamn (sic) and his sons and generals were all in a meeting and sent a smart bomb to take them out instead of trying to do the right thing and get the blessing of the UN before enforcing their resolution.

By Netbanker

July 19, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Maybe the ‘Leftists’ will develop alternative energy when the OIL lobby isn’t intimately involved in the V.P.’s energy policy committee meetings and the Righties aren’t controlling the budget. Maybe the Righties can explain why we’re giving massive tax breaks to the OIL industry instead of funding an alternative energy manhattan-type project? It takes 2 to tango taboga…you can’t demand that one side fix the problem when the other side won’t fund the project.

Oil consumption is exponentially rising in China while world-wide production hasn’t changed that much. The pressure on oil and the prices are only going to continue to increase. Folks point to ANWR, but it’s been admitted that we won’t see a drop of oil for 10 years! And even if it was sooner the figures show that the supply from ANWR is less than 10% of our current consumption needs.

Has it occurred to anyone else that by developing alternative energies not only do WE stop supporting the oil producing nations, but that we could become exporters of energy? Energy enables modern economies. Without the need for their oil we could give the MidEast a giant F@#$ OFF!

By Jack

July 19, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

You sure don’t talk like one. Probably don’t look like one either. I don’t live in Australia TTroo. Call me something else. Anything will do. I took my nice pills today. Eaton would have a time angering me today so I know you won’t.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Right on Netbanker. Our real enemy is our dependance on oil.

By Eaton

July 19, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Too busy at work to contribute to the madness today, but had to pop in to say I always KNEW Jack suffered from emotional problems.

Thank god for thorazine and lithium.

By Paul

July 19, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Ben,

I am in a field called Pshycological Operations…….we take down power and things to put strain onto the enemy. We kinda of did go to Iraq to help them out (not the main reason), but Saddam was hurting his people by not staying true to the UN resolutions put on him after 1991. You and I both know we found things in that country to support the war! Iraq has always been supporters of terrorism, maybe not directly against the US, but they did support the Palestenians!

Afganistan is a whole different fight, rugged terrain and territory Warlords has alot to do with not finding Bin Ladin….if one of the Blue 82’s did not bury him in a cave somewhere!!!!! We have had no real credible evidence he is still alive, just old ratty tapes have been release since the last major offensive in the North Eatern region there 2 years ago! I was not trying to rattle your cage, for that I am sorry.

DB,

We did not overthrow the Taliban for the 9/11 attacks, it was because they harbored Terrorists and let them use Afgan as a training ground!

BTW, I’ll take my M4 over politics anyday!!!!!!!!!

By Tim

July 19, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

TT… Jack is right… he doesn’t live in Australia… he lives in Munchkin Land :)

By JB

July 19, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

On a lighter note, does anyone know what the “W” stands for? My guess would be “Where’s bin laden?”. Or “Who leaked the CIA agents identity?” Or how about “Wanted: A Clue.”

By Jack

July 19, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this

Follow the yellow brick road.

By Ben

July 19, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Paul - I am well aware of what PSYOPS is. And you can’t possibly tell me that Iraq justified leaving or diminishing our mission in Afghanistan. No one has said that Iraq wasn’t a bad place, but we basically disabled Saddam the first time we whooped up on him. There were and ARE more prevelant threats than Iraq was, and you know it!

Tobaggon - I guess I’ll just have to be a rube then. But I suggest you figure out what an Uncle Tom is because MLK was anything BUT an Uncle Tom. But better be an Uncle Tom then an ignorant fool like you. I know plenty about him and I repeat nothing. But I guess with your head up your a* it’s kind of hard for you to comprehend much of anything.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

I knew the secret would get out about my emotional problems. Darn! We need Norman. Norman where are you? How bout Rocky? Nice to see you guys haven’t run Ben off.

By taboga

July 19, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

TT,

I couldn’t care less if Ben is Black. And in case you haven’t noticed - I don’t play by the rules you Libs set. You want to hold MLK in high regard - you go right ahead. But because you do - does not require that I do.

By lozen

July 19, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Ha, ha, ha! Ben knows nothing of MLK! And I suppose you Tbag do know all about MLK? It is so obvious from your many posts how educated and learned and privy to “true” information about everything you are. I’m sure you have a bag full of one-liners about Martin! Ignorance is such a sad thing.

By Ben

July 19, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jack. But even if they combined their super-ignorant powers like the wonder twins they couldn’t get rid of me.

By Ben

July 19, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Tobaggon - No one is calling foul on the rules, we just simply comment on how you project your ignorance. The only person who would called MLK anything resembling what you have said is a sheet wearin, coward with a hood!

By kimberly

July 19, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Jack, I gave up my nice pills last year. I feel much better now!

By Bruce

July 19, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

TT,

It seems that you have the facts… well… wrong about the media. Have a look at the link below and also remember Dan Rather when you make statements like, “The media has consistently endorsed conservative candidates for President.”

tp://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML

I second Netbankers motion too, Jack. I think I read somewhere that there is enough oil in Alaska that we wouldn’t need oil from anyone else. Problem is the tree huggers won’t let us get to it…..

By Bill

July 19, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

We can throw rhetoric at each other through eternity…but there is one simple truth that we as Americans (can all you PC folks try to handle that term for once, not Italian-Americans, African-Americans, etc. Just by God [oops, no religion intended] Americans) need to think about. Make no mistake; not now, or ever, have other countries in the world, as a whole, liked us. They have tolerated us. Because of our strength and prosperity. Because we share that prosperity, and through strength, a certain protection for the weaker ones. They don’t like us, but WHO CARES. The world is a big block…every block has a big boy. I am thankful that now, and prayerfully for always, that the United States of America is that big boy on the block. Because we as Americans are doomed when and if a bigger one comes along.

By Peter

July 19, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

taboga has expressed his comtempt for book lernin and would rather guess at the answers. (We should expect no more success than a blind squirrel.)

My July MARTA pass number is 60849.

By Kyle

July 19, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

TT and Kimberly, I knew right when I pressed enter that I shouldn’t have brought up Clinton. In no way was trying to equate the loss of life in Iraq to Clinton’s sex life. Also, I have no problem with our presidnet having sex in the White House. What I do have a problem with is our president lying under oath - and then getting away with it (and I know that you will say accordingly that i should have a problem with Bush, but there is a difference between lying and just being wrong). BTW, my sex life is just fine. But I do wonder about your’s TT. Sexual frustration can manifest itself in crazy mood swings and angry, uncalled for tirades - all of which you have exhibited recently. Too much “Desperate Housewives” and not enough actual attention? No liberal media? C’mon. It’s got to be quite clear to everyone that the NY Times, NBC, etc… are left leaning. I admit that Fox News is right leaning which is why I choose to watch Fox. Unless you’re honest about your news source, you can make your own decisions and your just drinking the cool-aid. Finally, Netbanker has had the most logical post of the day, and I agree completely. But until we find that alternative source of energy, why not allow our companies to drill in the Alaska reserve. Bush only proposes to drill in a small % of the area - all of which is practically uninhabitable anyway.

By Peter

July 19, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Bill, the giant is sleeping in China.

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

July 19, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Tobago,

I felt compelled to read every post you have written on this particular blog and I have come to the conclusion: (1.) you are stubborn and do not listen to your own reasoning and (2.) you are doomed to repeat history because of your reasoning.

You pointed out that our past enemies have not risen from their demise, but you fail to realize that we are just fighting the same war with different people. War does not solve anything, it just continues. The so call war on terror will have another name and a different group of people in the next 100 years or less.

The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I and II, Vietnam, etc……..today is just history repeating itself.

By Bill

July 19, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Indeed…but at that time, hopefully, America will be called Goliath.

By Jackie

July 19, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

I propose that all of those that are really intrested in making an intelligent determination about the reason(s) for the incursion into Iraq, do research on the the Iran-Contra affair and especially Iraqgate. A review of the principals in those sorry episodes then and their positions of power now will give you an idea of what we have been drawn into. Ask yourselves, why is it only the US and the UK are the only ones that have taken it upon themselves to “right the wrongs of other soverign nations?” Take that question a step further and ask how Israel is given a pass when they have attacked US ships in International waters; invaded soverign countries and commited human rights violations prior to their formation as a country; a major contributor to the development of the nuclear bomb in South Africa and Pakistan; a major violator of the Geneva Convention in refusing to return land acquired in war (Golan Heights, Shabbath Farms (Lebanon), Gaza Strip (Egypt) and West Bank). Ask yourselves, why is all these things done with the blessing of the US and UK?

By Netbanker

July 19, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Bruce…I didn’t say we should drill in ANWR. I pointed out that our own government reports show we would NOT see any oil from ANWR for 10 years after permission is given to drill. Even if we could pump today the estimated production would account for less than 10% of our needs TODAY. Who knows what our needs will be in 10 years.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t consider ANWR oil reserves, but given the nature of the limited supply of oil on the planet does it make sense to commit 10 years and billions of dollars to a project that will supply less than 10% of current needs and perpetuates the oil demand scenario? We seem to be making the same mistakes as my previous employer…long-term solutions sacrificed for short-term needs. We need to be funding a long-range plan NOW. I read an article about nuclear fusion not too long ago and a top researched stated that had funding and focus not been cut back after the oil crisis of the 70’s we might actually be bringing fusion power plants online now. Instead it will take approximately another 20 years to resolve fusion on a commercial scale.

And you righties are going to LOVE this one…the consortium of countries pursuing this includes the U.S. and the test center is going to be in FRANCE.

By Bobb

July 19, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

When in doubt, blame the Jews! When does the pogrom start, Jackie

By taboga

July 19, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Tobaggon - No one is calling foul on the rules, we just simply comment on how you project your ignorance. The only person who would called MLK anything resembling what you have said is a sheet wearin, coward with a hood!

Ben,

Of course. Anyone who doesn’t prescribe to the Leftist doctrine, nor hold their heroes in the highest regard - must be a racist!

By Blablabla

July 19, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel:

how is shaunti trying to revise history by not mentioning that we supplied osama with weapons previously? i would have thought everybody knows that. nobody denies it. how is simply not mentioning it in the article above REVISING history?

I agree with some of what you are saying, but the facts of who the suicide pilots/bombers were in both nyc on 9/11 and london bear little resemblance to the hopeless lot of people you’ve described. who is it that is revising history?

if your argument about people with no future and no hope choosing strap on diplomacy is so true, why are there not tons of suicide bombers in zimbabwe or other african nations where the situation is just as dire as in the mid east?

furthermore, why do you not repudiate the actions of those that kill their neighbors through suicide bombings or female family members through “honor killings”? your post said that the west is responsible for these people behaving the way that they do. do you not believe any of the fault lies with those who actually commit the atrocities? are western nations 100% blameless - of course not. are we 100% to blame - not even close.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Thats good that it is in France, that way, they can be vaporized instead of us.

By Bruce

July 19, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Net,

I apologize if that is how my post read. I was not implying you were saying that. That was my own opinion. ANWR is ours and if dependencies on oil from other countries only lead us to war then close the borders and use what we have. At the same time develop an altenate and keep it for ourselves….. But I can see were even that would cause us problems when the rest of the world teams up and tries to take it from us. In other words we are doomed no matter what we do. The sky is falling, the sky is falling……….

As for Iraq. The UN had resolutions demanding Iraq do certain things. They refused to do it. We called the UN’s hand and they refused to enforce their own resolutions. Either the UN should stand up and be the force around the world it claims to be or we should pull out of the UN and stand alone. The only reason the UN didn’t enforce the resolutins is because Annan was in bed with Iraq.

By Ben

July 19, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Tobaggon - Further proof you have no idea what you are talking about. Those that know me, know that I don’t choose sides, left or right, conservative or liberal - I don’t subscribe to either!

But I guess that’s rightist of you. Whoever points out your flaws is liberal or leftist.

By taboga

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

When in doubt, blame the Jews! When does the pogrom start, Jackie

So we blame: Muslims, Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, East, West, Americans, Arabs and probably even the employees at Waffle House.

But dare not blame Jews, right? If you do that - that means you’re like Hitler!

By rick

July 19, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

BUSH SUPPORTERS ATTACK THE MESSANGER RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE MESSAGE. THAT WHY THEY DON”T HAVE TO ANSWER FOR ALL THEIR WRONG DOING.

By Paul

July 19, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Ben,

I know Iraq was not worth abandoning Afgan….we never did, the ops tempo over there is still pretty huge, the Media just stopped covering it as much, they only report when something goes wrong over there it seems. The whole world is filled with threats, just recently there was an advisory to be careful in Mexico because of a rash of kidnappings. One at a time, well 2 in this case!!!!!!!!

By taboga

July 19, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

Ben,

You don’t have to “choose sides” - you are what you are. The fact that you see my opinion of MLK as a “flaw” - says it all!

By Bobb

July 19, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

Taboga, do you even try to make sense?

By Paul

July 19, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

LETS TALK UGA FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Ben

July 19, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

Paul - We definitely abandoned our original mission by not providing the resources in Afghanistan that we sent to Iraq. Several units were pulled from the Stan to go to Iraq, but they were replaced by smaller units or not at all.

I see your opinion as flawed because it is. Perhaps, if you knew what Uncle Tom meant, you could speak intelligently, or use it correctly!

By Amazed (Independent Woman)

July 19, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

**Tobago,

What exactly did MLK stand for, that makes you dislike him so much?**

By Brian Curtis

July 19, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

quote from Bill: “…the United States of America is that big boy on the block. Because we as Americans are doomed when and if a bigger one comes along.”

By that logic, we were “doomed” when we weren’t the most powerful nation around, and all other nations are currently “doomed” because we’re today’s biggest bully. Is that about right?

C’mon, think these things through a little! Don’t be like Taboga.

By Bruce

July 19, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

I’m with you Paul. Do you think they have a chance this year? Losing Greene and Gibson is really going to hurt them I think.

By Tim

July 19, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GATORS

By Kyle

July 19, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Good call, Paul!

Some magazines and analyst shows are saying UGA is solid at every position except for reciever. With the dawgs massive o-line and a full stable of damn good backs - not to mention a good running back playing qb - why does UGA even need to throw. Just run it down everyones throats. And if you have to throw, just play 500 with L. Pope - can’t go wrong woth that.

sorry for the sidebar everyone, i saw uga football and got a little excited

By Jackie

July 19, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Tobago

The saying “hope springs eternal…” has no meaning for you. In my humble opinion, you are helpless and hopeless. You are a typical neo-Facist; you take a sentence, pick out one word, one theme and FAIL to understand the gist of the entire statement to try and make your innae and nonsensical point. I have a saying that is very appropriate for you; “how do you rationalize with an idiot?”

By Bill

July 19, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

Ok. I attempted not to be pulled in but oh well.

BRIAN,

Exactly!!!!!!! Think about it you narrow-minded…aaggghh!

We rose to the British first…now we have their respect. The next foreign influence to test us militarily was Japan..we may have , and unfortunately so, sold them half the damn country, but you can bet they won’t (not to mention, aren’t able to)attack us again. Next, and follow this if you can and not get sidetracked by Vietnam or Korea or whatever. The next foreign threat that came towards our country was the Soviet Union…we’re still here. Still following Brian? The next direct threat was religious fanatics (I’m not going to mention the religion, I think you’re at least broadminded enough to figure that out). And yes, I know, not all the people of that religion necessarily feel that way. Just because there is no particular ‘state’ that attacked; there are particular ‘states’ that sanction it and protect the purveyors of it everyday. If we don’t fight that, then they will end up being the biggest on the block. That goes back to the big boy analogy. I personally want the United States to be that. Oh, and to answer directly your question, “Yes, that’s exactly right.”

By Linda

July 19, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

I think it is instructive when considering the root causes of Islamic terrorism, to look at the Freedom House study released at the end of 2001 before we went into Iraq. Freedom House is a nonpartisan, nonprofit group founded nearly 65 years ago by Americans concerned about democracy. Eleanor Roosevelt was a founder. Bill Richardson was the President of the group when the study was done. The study rated 192 nations based on political rights and civil liberties enjoyed by their citizens. In that study 28 Islamic countries received the organization’s lowest rating, “not free.” Only one majority Islamic country, Mali, was rated “free.”

The study was conducted by 14 people who met with advisers and groups from around the world, rating nations “based on their records in granting citizens political rights, such as allowing them to form political parties that compete for positions of power, and civil liberties, such as respecting religious, ethnic, economic, gender and free press rights.”

Tyrants who deny their own citizens these rights use the demonization of outsiders to control their victims. They are the root cause of terrorism against the innocent. This study also should serve to point out how fortunate we are to live here in a free country.

By Jackie

July 19, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Bob,

Not blaming the Jews, just pointing out that our total support for Israel is not warrented. We have used the Israeli military as an extension of our military and they have demand reciprocity for their actions. The USA, as one of 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, has the ability to block any actions taken by the UN body; One negative vote from the Security Council overrides that majority of the UN body.

By Lilith

July 19, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Well, this has really turned into a “boy to boy” forum. Pretty damn boring stuff with you guys fighting about … (under the guise of arguing about politics as usual)! Now, one of the boys suggests UGA some-kind-of-ball! Go to it boys. You have ruined this “Woman to Woman” forum with your pseudo-intellectual dick wrestling already.

By Dave From Woodstock

July 19, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Shaunti said: “You’ve got to be kidding me. Just who has escalated the violence, here? It wasn’t the U.S. that flew airplanes full of innocent civilians into buildings full of innocent people.”

Quiz yourself Schaunti, it wasn’t Iraqi’s either.

By Ben

July 19, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Lilith - … .let me fill you in on a little something. This blog is entitled Woman-to-Woman because of the authors. I guess you could call it Shaunti to Diane, or Diane to Shaunti, but it doesn’t have the same ring. So I guess it is your un-intellectual spouting that’s ruining it!

By Jack

July 19, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

I bet its important to you! LOL

By DB

July 19, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Why do we bother with this? Everyone seems to know the answer, and no one seems to think critcally or concede that he(or she) may be wrong and maybe re-worked his/her ideas a little. Wouldn’t it be cool if this were to work toward a solution of some sort instead of everyone defending his or her opinion to the death? I’m beginning to predict this blog is a microcosm of Congressional hearings on foreign policy.

By DB

July 19, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

Besides, I would rather the U.S. be that quiet boy on the block that always ends up beating up the Big Boy. Sooner or later, the Big Boy is going to pick on the wrong quiet boy, one of the quiet boys is going to get bigger, or all the boys are going to gang up on the Big Boy.

By Ben

July 19, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

You got me Jack! It is. lol. But to me it’s the biggest and best!

By Bruce

July 19, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Lilith

The web is a big place you don’t have to stay here. Find a site that makes you feel good and have a good time.

By Bruce

July 19, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

DB,

We bother with this becuase we all love each other so much…….

By TT

July 19, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Nice one, DB. Except to be a member of Congress, you probably can’t live in a a trailer like Jack or Taboga. And Wacky Jacky: I’m more of a woman than your wife will ever be (esepcially since she puts up with your I’m the boss s**). I’ve got blond hair, green eyes, a tan, and I look good in a mini skirt. Wait, I better stop before I get repressed Kylie over there excited. Never fear, I get plenty of attention from the men I know, K dawg. Problem is, they’re not much fun to talk to. They see a pair of legs or boobs, and their good points just fall to the wayside. I’ll talk Georgia football with you all day, though, sweetie. (Except, I actually had the grades and intelligence to get in to law school there, what about you?) And for the record, for any of you conservatives who try that “A real woman doesn’t stand up for herself or smart, tough women must be lesbos,” crap, save the witch hunt for another day. You’re just p** because Kimberly and I have the bravado to take you to task like the scared, sad little boys you are. I apologize in advance to Ben, Netbanker, and other men on this blog, but I just had to out the women bashers. But back to Bush’s Bombs over Baghdad campaign.

By robb

July 19, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

first of all, the Hussein regime had WMD, we gave them to him. He used them against Iran and against the Kurds. Also, two years ago a terrorist plot from a group in northern Iraq was stifled in London after it was revealed that chemical weapons were going to be used to contaminate the British drinking water. Those chemical components came from Baghdad. Certainly the war in Iraq hasnt been sold properly to the US because of the detachment of George W Bush. But if you dare look at the big picture: Lebanon is establishing a Republic after Syrain occupation. You combine that with an Iraqui republic and the whole region can stabilize. As for why they hate us, the fundamentalist want a theocracy based on radical islamic law and that is desired on a global scale. so appease all you want you spineless little ignorant liberals. Dont let the truth fog your idealist glasses. and this comes from a radical moderate.

By Paul

July 19, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Tim,

The GAYTARDS (GATORS) SUCK!!!!!!! Sorry man, they just do!

UGA will have a pretty good year! We are not as down at receiver as everyone thinks….think about it 6 on the line (C, 2 G, 2 T, 1 TE) 1 Rec, OQ, and 3 backs…WISHBONE!!!!!!!!!!!! UGA will run it down peoples throats this season, and use the pla action every once in a while!!!!!!!!!!

DAWGS SIC’EM…WOOF..WOOF…WOOF!!!!!!!!!

By Jack

July 19, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

TT. Yes I believe everything you just posted. If I had a beard, I would be Abe Lincoln. Really, I’m blond also. 6’4”, 220lbs. I cook, clean and earn mega bucks that I gladly hand over to my wife. I have perfect teeth,and I can dance up a storm. I eat quiche too.

By Paul

July 19, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

QB, not OQ……………duh!!!!!

By Tim

July 19, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

I haven’t said this about a woman in a long time… but I think I have a crush on TT

yeah we’ll see Paul come November lol

By Bruce

July 19, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Tim,

Get a picture first, just a suggestion….

The wishbone sounds good but I still like the long bomb every now and then.

By Kyle

July 19, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Aw, ya got me there TT. I only had the grades and intelligence to get into UGA for undergrad - currently at state for law school. Am I still allowed to debate your obviously superior intellect? How ‘bout we throw this question out there: Does anybody seriously believe that this country would be better off if Gore, or Kerry for that matter, were in office during 9/11? Hell no! We’d still be tring to make friends with the terroist while they blow up our embassies around the world.

By Paul

July 19, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

TT,

Wow you sound Nice!!!!!!!! Wanna date!!!!!!! 6ft 225lbs, green eyes, blonde hair, very muscular build!!!!

J/K

By Jackie

July 19, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Robb,

The USA did give chemical weapons to Iraq AND Iran during that period because we wanted to use Iraq to get back at Iran. Secondly, if you add chemicals to water, don’t you think that you would dillute those chemicals to such an extent that we would not be effective enough to kill the masses? After all, water is purified by a chemical process. The Bush Administration has not sold the war properly because most people understand that you CAN NOT force people of a soverign nation to bow down to our wishes to have a government that is reflective of their wishes. Muslim fundamentalist wants lots of things they can’t get; what is new and different about that? As for spineless liberals, the question is asked of you, “when have you gone to your recruiting office to sign up for military service?”

By TT

July 19, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Jack, you liar. We all know you’re an old man, because you’ve told us so many times when you defend your cross burnin’, sheet wearin’ ways. My description of myself was an accurate one though, you just don’t like the fact that a pretty girl can stand up for herself. I guarantee you, if we met face to face, you’d eat those words, you fatty. Right back at you Tim. Just lose that Gator thing and you’re a dream date. Could someone help me convince Bruce that just because Rush Limbaugh repeats the words “liberal media” over and over again doesn’t make it true? Who do you crazy right wingers think Hannity, Limbaugh, and Boortz work for? Just because you don’t like the news you’re hearing doesn’t change the facts. Now you fundies are going to tell me that Iraq is a great big success. Cmon’ please. Tell me again that “we’re fighting terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” I love it when you lie to me.

By Paul

July 19, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Keep dreaming Tim, Urban Myer is a good coach, not a miracle worker!

UGA will still have the Deep Threat, Shockley can sling the ball alot further than Greene could!!!!

TT, I need to move back to GA!!!!!!!!!

By Blablabla

July 19, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

thanks for the visual, tt. there are plenty of men out there not intimidated by good looking women with capable brains. don’t settle.

By Eaton

July 19, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Tim, as a Bulldogs fan I apologize for Paul’s moronic and offensive comment.

That said, I look forward to seeing the Gators eat turf this year, as Shockley does his little dance out of the pocket and Pope hauls in everything thrown is his direction with those albatross arms of his.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

cross burnin’, sheet wearin’ ways…Honey you really don’t know me at all. I’ve never trashed anyone due to race or sexual orientation. o back over the past few weeks blog and find where I have and I’ll eat my hat. I am a male chavanist yes. Racist NOT.

Tim, RS is gonna be jealous!

By Tim

July 19, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

TT… and Jack also is not that tall (said that in a previous blog)… can’t change the Gator thing though… sorry… born and raised in Fl… only 3 teams I would be allowed to root for :)

like I said Paul… we’ll see come November… just cus UGA has won 2 in what 14 years or so… don’t start gettin cocky lol

By AngelsCrest

July 19, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Actually I think many of us are GLAD Kerry lost…. makes this(Iraq) mostly a Bush/Republican problem, almost a guarantee Democrat win in 2008. hahahahahahah

unless of course the Diebold electronic voting machines “Guarantee a win” for Republicans, which the CEO/Diebold “Guarantee”d an Ohio win in 2004 and certainly delivered.

By Tim

July 19, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Jack… RS doesn’t need to worry… plenty of luvin from Tim to go round

we’ll see Eaton… we’ll see

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

What do UGA alumni call Ga Tech alumni 5 years after graduation?

Boss.

By TT

July 19, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

Not Shockley, Paulie. He’s a thug. Soon we’ll find him down on Finley a la Charles Grant. Sorry, Kyle, for the low blow. Law school is law school, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t one of those rabid redneck fans that could talk the talk but not walk the walk. Fact is, you can’t make friends with terrorists, but you can spend resources on your own country, rather than on another one. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is still a wreck. That’s what happens when we try to police the world. Sometimes I think it would be best to leave them to kill each other off, especially if we’re losing our guys in the name of some shaky government where we try to make 3 different groups agree. It just will not work. The military has better things to do, and I would think you would want your loved ones home rather than fighting in some hellhole for the freedom for Iraqis to make their state a theocratic power.

By Paul

July 19, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

C’mon, don’t take it out of context….it had no other meaning except it is a ribbing we use for Gator fans on the ESPN message boards!

If it offended you, I am sorry.

The UF/UGA goes a long way in my family, My dad grandfather and brother played for UGA, 2 of my sisters cheered at UF and I played at GSU.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

What are 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A GOOD START.

By Tony

July 19, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

There are two days in every week about which we should not worry, two days which should be kept free from fear and apprehension.

One of these days is Yesterday with all its mistakes and cares, its faults and blunders, its aches and pains.

Yesterday has passed forever beyond our control. All the money in the world cannot bring back Yesterday.

We cannot undo a single act we performed; we cannot erase a single word we said.

Yesterday is gone forever.

The other day we should not worry about is Tomorrow with all its possible adversities, its burdens,its large promise and its poor performance;

Tomorrow is also beyond our immediate control.

Tomorrow’s sun will rise, either in splendor or behind a mask of clouds, but it will rise.

Until it does, we have no stake in Tomorrow, for it is yet to be born.

This leaves only one day, Today.

Any person can fight the battle of just one day. It is when you and I add the burdens of those two awful eternities Yesterday and Tomorrow that we break down.

It is not the experience of Today that drives a person mad, it is the remorse or bitterness of something which happened Yesterday and the dread of what Tomorrow may bring.

Let us, therefore, Live but one day at a time.

Author Unknown, but greatly apreciated!

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Never liked Spurier. Dooley was a class act. Lucky he had Herchel or number one would never have occurred.

By TT

July 19, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Jealous Jackie? What college accepted you? ABAC? You’ve got to stop setting yourself up. Besides, I have attended both UGA and Tech, and I’d take living it up in Athens any day. Tech looks like the United Nations, while Georgia looks like a Banana Republic catalog. Besides, which one has nationally ranked law, business, and journalism schools? Sure, Tech is good at math and engineering, but most of my classmates looked like vampires and had an addiction to video games. And I think you better start chewing that “Who farted?” hat of yours, because I know that you don’t like homosexuals. Either that, or your hatred of Eaton really is a manifestation of your secret lust for his body. Shame on you, shorty pants.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

TT if you saw me you would not think I look like an old man. I feel like an old man but I’m not one! This is a blog so if you want to picture me as a troll, go for it. I can picture you as Miss Piggy too. Love Ya.

By Netbanker

July 19, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

Bruce..no need to apologize and we probably should do both at this point. I don’t know about that sky is falling scenario, but so far all experiences have taught me that putting off addressing or planning for a known issue is never the right course of action and ALWAYS comes back to bite you in the a*.

Rick…ain’t that the truth! Interesting how there is more effort to attack the character of Bush critics than in addressing the points made or questions raised.

TT…give ‘em hell, girl!! They’ll call you a b*** because they’re afraid of you. And you sound like you could be my twin sister except I have blue eyes.

Jack…that description almost makes you sound like one of us gay boys. (Grin)

By Bryan

July 19, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this

To all:

The Foreign Policy of the European man is driving terrorism all over the world. Democracy is only a facade. Ask the native people of any country where the majority of people are of a darker hue, i.e. Australia, Africa, or the original people of this land. This is about imperialism; or Darwinism if you will. Bush is but an extension of a plan that was put into effect hundreds if not thousands of years ago. This war is an extension of those same policies. Let us all try to find the very elusive “PEACE”. As someone stated previously, though, it can’t be obtained at gunpoint. The best defense we have against terrorism, as American citizens, is to get educated on American Foreign Policy. Once we know what’s going on(even if it is on the surface), then we can begin to heal within the country which will in turn have a healing effect on the outside world. As long as we look at it from a one sided view, there is no understanding. Remember people, there are two sides to every story. We all want PEACE, let’s not let a warmonger decide what that is for the rest of us. I served this country in wartime so believe me when I say that I am all for PEACE. Thanks

By TT

July 19, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

It’s Herschel, Wacky Jacky, and Spurrier. Even lawyers can spell that. Besides, what I used to tell my friends who went to Auburn probably applies to your children. “That’s all right, that’s OK; you’ll be working for me someday.” Let’s not go through the same tired routine. You make a stupid comment, usually involving a diaper. Then someone calls you an idiot and insults your lack of an education. Then you lash out at their career. Just admit that you’re envious that most of us will make enough in our lifetime to buy and sell your trailer ten times over and let us get back to the issue.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Yes I am in love with Eaton and Tim. Darn, the words out. What’s a “who farted” hat?

By Kyle

July 19, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

damn, Tony! That was pretty deep. It fits in nicely right after those UGA/UF rants.

UGA may not have a good record against UF in the previous 12 to 13 years - that’s true. But ask yourself why Spurrier said he hated UGA most of all. Answer: he never beat them. I’m not sure of the exact number, but I think UGA leads the all time series quite convincingly. GO DAWGS, and here’s to a happy visit to the Landing this year.

TT, I see what your saying about just letting them kill themselves and bringing our troops home. But we already tried to just leave it alone, and they just grew and continued to hate us. They hate us and everthing we stand for. If we just leave, they’ll hit us again. At least this way we give ourselves the opportunity to confront and defeat the enemy instead of pretending they don’t exist.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Yeah. You wish you had my money sweetie.

By Tim

July 19, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

it must have been my friendly personality that won Jack over

By TT

July 19, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Jack, I’m just basing my perception of your appearance on your ignorant comments. I bet you have a hare lip too. Besides, how can you picture me when your head is always full of Eaton? I would post a picture, but then I bet you’d fantasize about me too, you dirty old man.

By kimberly

July 19, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Must…. ignore…. baited college comments… must.. wait.. for football…… to begin…..

BRYAN has an excellent point. It’s the imperialist mentality that makes people think peace begins at the point of a gun. It was wrong before and it’s wrong now. It was wrong when the British did it, and it’s wrong when WE do it!

Until people start visualizing whirled peas… I mean real PEACE, then we’ll never see it.

By TT

July 19, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry Jack, I’ve got plenty of money on my own. And I earned it, unlike your wife who just counts on you for a daily allowance and a dose of verbal abuse. I hope she takes you for every cent of it when she gets tired of pushing your gut out of the way to roll over in bed.

By Jack

July 19, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

I’ve made up my mind to be nice on the blog from now on. It is not good to let invisible people get me mad. I can and will agree to disagree. I will not argue. You think I live in a trailer but I have stated before that I don’t live in a trailer because they don’t do well in storms. Under a bridge is much safer in high winds plus I can scare little children while I hide.

By kimberly

July 19, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

TT, gurrrrlfriend… you KNOW his wife earns it! Hahaha! He doesn’t NEED the hat; she KNOWS who farted! Hahaha!

By Jack

July 19, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Alright. Who else wants a shot? Go ahead. Please. Beat me….more…more. I still like you eventhough you hate me. :(

By Bruce

July 20, 2005 07:20 AM | Link to this

TT,

The news media speaks for itself, you are just to blind to see it. I don’t need you are anyone else to tell me what I hear coming from the tube at 6:00 every night. All we hear is the body count, well what about the hero’s, what about the good things happening? Were do you hear about that? Certainly not the liberal media.

I can’t believe you are so shallow that you have to tell us how good looking you are, how much money you have and how well educated you are. Haven’t you figured out yet that it is your OPINION we want to hear? Opinion not looks, who cares how beautiful you are? You are a legend in your own mind. It’s people like you that really keep this country divided with your I’m better than you attitude.

By Ben

July 20, 2005 07:30 AM | Link to this

You kids are funny! And TT, no need to apologize, I know about shoes fitting and those comments weren’t my size. But since, I’m not a UGA or Florida fan, I feel the need to change the subject to something that really bothers me.

We were all kids once right? And some, if not most of us played little league sports or some other kind of extra curricular right? Well back in my day, we had to pay to participate, and if we needed money for tournaments or whatever, we washed cars, sold candy, collected old newspapers and cans and junk!

So what is with the kids nowadays begging for handouts at stops signs and red lights? Don’t get me wrong, I want to help the kids out, but give me a break. No better way to teach them to get something for nothing! I would buy 10, $1 candy bars to help out before I just gave a random dollar!

By Peter

July 20, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

Just a reminder … .

The topic of this forum was Is the Iraq war necessary to fight terrorism?

By Tony

July 20, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this

TT, typically I ignore your rubbish, but this time I felt complied to reply!

Wise men and philosophers throughout the ages have disagreed on many things, but many are in unanimous agreement on one point: “We become what we think about.” Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “A man is what he thinks about all day long.” The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius put it this way: “A man’s life is what his thoughts make of it.” In the Bible we find: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

One Sunday afternoon, a cranky TT was visiting her family. As she lay down to take a nap, her nephew decided to have a little fun by putting Limburger cheese on TT’s upper lip. Soon, TT awoke with a snort and charged out of the bedroom saying, “This room stinks.” Through the house she went, finding every room smelling the same. Desperately she made her way outside only to find that “the whole world stinks!”

So it is when we fill our minds with negativism. Everything we experience and everybody we encounter will carry the scent we hold in our mind.

By taboga

July 20, 2005 07:56 AM | Link to this

Bryan,

Great post! It’s all “Darwinism” folks! Ol’ George Bush is just carrying-out the thousands of years old imperialistic domination of people of color!

The evil White man is marching on:

He wants to kill-off all the Blacks and Jews, enslave the women, work Hispanics to death in the fields, turn everyone into a Christian, poison the air and water, see to it that all animals become extinct, starve children to death, throw the sick and elderly out their homes, get rich off the backs of the people, persecute Gays, steal oil from the Arabs, discriminate against any and everything, force his views on everyone that might be left, turn democracies into theocracies and solely responsible for global warming, hunger, poverty, starvation, oppression and tyranny…(just to name a few)

And you can trace it all back to: Darwinism!

When some of you Libs bent over - they filled you up!

By Tony

July 20, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

That should of been compelled. Sorry!!!

By Tim

July 20, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Ben… that annoys me too… whenever I wanted to do something extra I went out and busted my butt to raise money… if a child is selling something I will buy it everytime… but if they just come up with their hand stuck out I say no… I am not going to teach them to just go out and try to get something for nothing

Tony… all I have to say to that is paaaaaaalease

By taboga

July 20, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

… if a child is selling something I will buy it everytime…

Why?

By Tony

July 20, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

Now that’s funny, I don’t care what anybody sez, that’s funny!!!!

By Jack

July 20, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Good Morning folks. Lovely day.

By Tim

July 20, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Tony… too bad you couldn’t ever be the one to actually say something funny… if you did it would have been cut and pasted from somewhere else

By TT

July 20, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Bruce, in case you’ve never read my posts before, I typically stay on topic. But I refuse to lay down and take it from a bully like Jack (even though, you, no doubt, expect women to be seen and not heard). Conservatives think all tough, smart women must be trollish lesbians, and I wanted to debunk that myth right here and now. I am sorry if you interpret the truth as arrogant, and I agree that appearances don’t make the man (or woman), but I am no longer going to sit idly by while conservatives slaughter strong women. Ask yourself why you don’t like Hillary Clinton? Maybe you’re more comfortable with Condi Rice or Laura Bush. Well, they are becoming more outspoken as well. Next conservatives are going to call them ugly for having opinions and intellect. And I feel like only you, Jack, and Taboga seem to be threatened by higher education, so why not set the record straight that education increases marketability, which allows workers to take better-paying jobs. I get tired of conservatives tossing around buzz words like communism, when most of the liberals (and the libertarians) on this blog are doing well for themselves in our capitalist economy. And the news rarely shows the body counts from Iraq. In fact, they can’t show pictures of the body bags coming home because the President thought it would dampen morale for the war here at home. The truth hurts. If you want to live in your own little rosy-colored world, then take Tony with you. But I like having all of the facts before I pass judgment on a situation. Only those who are afraid of the truth seek to hide it. And Tony, typically I ignore your rubbish, as well. Especially since you enjoy cutting and pasting long, praise-Jesus narratives from other sources on the blog. I’ve never attacked you, so turn the other cheek. At least that’s what they teach me in Sunday school, but perhaps you go to another church. I am an idealist, sir, but I am also realistic about our situation. No amount of religion can blind me to the fact that our troops are dying in error. My apologies to Peter and others for the off-topic route the posts took yesterday afternoon, hopefully today we can discuss the topic in a more civilized manner.

By nurse nancy

July 20, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Oh, how quickly they forget! ‘Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Appeasement and diplomacy does not stop madmen-it was tried with Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930’s. Too many times ‘the West’ has waited far too long to act when mass genocide was known to be occurring-ever hear of the Holocaust? Yugoslavia? Cambodia? Iraq? even? The United Nations has proven itself impotent far too many times to be relied upon (Soviet missiles in Cuba, Korea, Milosovich, etc. etc.) Do we ‘scale back’ our standard of living to try to ‘appease’ people who want to kill us simply because, as Americans, we have the freedom and means to live well and to want this for others? This is the most philanthropic society in the world. Who else, consistently sends food, medicine and help to suffering parts of the world except the U.S. and Britain? No other nation in history will, time and again, go into your country, take out the murderous regime, and then GIVE IT BACK to the people? (Historical reference: France, Germany, Italy,Japan, and now Iraq just to name a few. It is impossible to stop people who are determined to commit suicide in order to achieve these acts. The only way to stop this is to go in and remove those who are promoting this as an honorable and ‘glorious’ thing to do. The U.S. accomplished this in Japan during the occupation after WWII. Not only must we stop the perverse ‘education’ of young men and boys in the Middle East to become killers, so must the Muslim leaders who claim that their religion calls such acts ‘hateful to God’. I wish that we did not have to police the world, but historically only the free and democratic societies are willing to do so. And the liberals are free to continue to criticize and protest as they wish without fear of being shot or sent to ‘reeducation’ camps, thanks to the leaders like Bush and Blair who have the guts to call terrorism what it is: just another name for mass murder.

By Jack

July 20, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Yes. I who possess a higher education am threatrened by higher education. TT you may change my mind about women serving on the front lines in combat. Tell me again about my fat stomach and trailer living. My wife got a kick out of that yesterday. Maybe you should scrape the cheese off your lip.

By taboga

July 20, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Conservatives are “slaughtering” strong women?

It used to be that we just wanted to keep them: “Barefoot in the kitchen and pumping-out babies”!

By taboga

July 20, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this

Oh boy! Hold on will I grab my popcorn and Coke! The delirious Lib responses heading Nurse Nancy’s way - ought to be a thing of beauty!

By Jack

July 20, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Nurse Nancy - Great post. Spoken like a true American.

By TT

July 20, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

No cheese here, Jack, but your outdated opinions sure are growing some mold. I didn’t know your wife was entitled to an opinion. You must have taken the duct tape off for the night. You are such a geezer, I almost feel bad making fun of you. It’s like making fun of the mentally challenged or senior citizens. BTW, I’m still curious what place of higher learnin’ would dare take on the challenge of edumacatin’ you and your kinfolk. Care to respond? But in regards to more serious issues—again, I have no desire for America to play policeman all around the world. But why deploy more and more troops, when we could be using our covert operatives to take out dictators and regimes? Additionally, with the bad calls our administration makes in prioritizing conflicts, I would assume keep women off the battlefield. Why is it that conservatives can’t see the forest for the trees? Why do you think the Saudis and Pakistan are choirboys? And what about the new threat (buzzword alert) the Red Giant, China? Why don’t you get fired up about all of the terrible things occurring in Uganda, Burundi, Sudan, Nepal? Geez, you guys never thought playing policeman would be so darn tough!! And Taboga, the word slaughter was used metaphorically; try to keep up. But I suppose a more accurate description of the conservative Christian view on women is, “If you can’t keep ‘em in the kitchen, then keep ‘em quiet.”

By Kyle

July 20, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

TT, nice to see your already getting rilled up this early in the morning.

-Conservatives are frightened by strong outspoken women? Have you ever heard of Ann Coulter. She is about as outspoken as it gets and has a strong conservative following.

-The news rarely shows the body count from Iraq? The majority of news shows and newspapers keep a running tab and emphasize such every chance they get. What they always seem to leave out is the progress that is being made (schools being built, people voting, infastructure being improved, etc…)

By TT

July 20, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Actually, Nancy, I think your post makes some wonderful points. I’m just surprised that conservatives are actually interested in other parts of the world besides Iraq. Why, pray tell, won’t our President deploy troops to Sudan? Why do you think Clinton refrained from putting troops in Rwanda? He was pressured to pull out the ones in Somalia once things weren’t going our way and we lost a handful of our men. If we’re going to be policemen, then we’ve got a lot of ground to cover. In fact, since Taboga thinks our own country is too large to secure, how do you think we can make the whole planet safe? But Nancy, what disturbs me most is that your viewpoint is liberalism at its core. Open trade, the spread of democracy, freedom of religion, help for the poor and disenfranchised, human rights…it seems you are in the wrong party. Because men like Jack just want to blow things up and tell others how to live their lives. They’re not really concerned about women or minority rights in the U.S., so they are certainly not going to export them abroad. The new Republican party is about big spending, big debt, big business, restricting freedoms here, but awarding them to Iraqis. But if you’re on welfare, black, female, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or anything but a WASP, conservatives will tell you, “Well it’s unfortunate to be in the minority, but you’ll have to take some responsibility for yourself.” Ever heard of the expression “Charity begins at home?”

By Paul

July 20, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

I’ll be the 1st brave one……here is my AOL hometown Page!!!!!!!

http: // hometown . aol . com / bigdawg0118

no spaces.

By SteveSC

July 20, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

Regarding the alleged links betwen Sadaam Hussein and al-Qaeda: Megalomaniacal dictators who are obsessively self-protective (e.g., Stalin) don’t usually sponsor freelancing bands of killers who are willing to die to kill others. That sort of weapon can easily be used against them. The links between al-Qaeda and the government of Saudi Arabia are much better documented. In fact, Saudi Arabia has been against our Iraq policy because they don’t want another Shiite-dominated state on their borders.

By TT

July 20, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

From the BBC (hope it’s not too liberal of a source for you Compassionate Conservatives)

World ‘ignores’ Niger food crisis

Some 150,000 children will die soon without aid, out of 2.5 million who need food, said Jan Egeland. “Niger is the example of a neglected emergency, where early warnings went unheeded,” he told the BBC. The UN’s Niger appeal in May initially failed to attract a single pledge.

Any conservatives want to send troops to Niger? There are plenty of Islamic militants there too, I promise!

And yes, Kyle, I read Ann Coulter. Here’s one of my favorite quotes from the sweetheart of the conervative camp. “My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.”—MSNBC 2/8/97. I admire the fact that she’s outspoken, but I wonder if Republican men are admiring her for more than her mind. In fact, I think they’re so blinded by the blonde hair that they tune her voice out. Let’s just hope one of them never domesticates her!! Actually, the body counts are becoming more prevalent on the nightly news, but there are just as many feel good stories about our progress. In fact, I think our troops have done an excellent job, with what they’ve been given to work with: a shortage of men, screwy equipment, a lack of knowledge about the cultural divisions present in Iraqi society, and a commander in chief who thinks Putin is a gerund. I support our troops, it’s the cowards in the administration (who wouldn’t go to war themselves when called) that I abhor.

By taboga

July 20, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this

Steve,

If I wrote down that you flew a kite last night in your underwear - it could be considered: Documented.

A lie, but documented.

By Ken

July 20, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

TT…

Stop drinking the lattes. You need to focus. Your last post poses some interesting but contrary points.

Many people, including myself, don’t like that America acts as the world police but why do you think the Saudis, Pakistan and others like Libya are acting like choir boys? Maybe it’s b/c we have shown the willingness to use force.

You ask about China…? The Pentagon has just indicated that we have serious concerns about their military strength and are working to keep up an arms embargo to prevent the EU from selling weapons to the Chinese. Another interesting question, if the EU was our ally, why would they sell weapons to China… I still remember Tienamman Square and their repeated threats against Taiwan.

And please, stop with the pot shots against “Conservative Christians.” It seems odd that you would make any comment about that group but neglect the way other cultures here in America treat their women. How many Christian women are forced to cover their face? Wear certain apparel? Sit in the back seat of a car? Not speak? I see that routinely in the Indian, Muslim and Asian cultures and religions right here in Atlanta.

By Tom Broadwater

July 20, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

By taboga

July 20, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Some 150,000 children will die soon without aid, out of 2.5 million who need food, said Jan Egeland. “Niger is the example of a neglected emergency, where early warnings went unheeded,� he told the BBC. The UN’s Niger appeal in May initially failed to attract a single pledge.

Looks like the vaunted United Nations - can’t seem to get much done without the United States taking the lead!

They just need to turn to the French, Germans and the Russians for help - they know exactly how things ought to be handled!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

TT,

I do think we should also care about the starving childeren around the World……but we need to fix it here at home 1st. Thanks for supporting us as well!

One thing I have noticed……For a few months after 9/11 I was traveling alot…..I was in uniform as well…..alot of people would come up to my buddies and I and thank us for the job that we are doing. We still get that every now and then, but the support that we were getting is not there anymore, at least not like it was. Alot of people view us as barbarians now, they forget that we are doing the job we are told to do.

By TT

July 20, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Ken: None of those countries are acting like choirboys, despite the fact that Republicans paint it that way. Perhaps it’s to take credit for “whipping them into shape.” My experience in a Conservative Christian church growing up is what lent bias to my view on how they treat women. But now I am a Presbyterian, and we have women ministers, as much as other sects try to fight us. I do not discriminate. Any culture that denies women the right to be out in public, to socialize (or to make decisions regarding their body, which is where your group comes under fire), freedom of speech, or the ability to enter the workforce and earn an equal wage (new blog topic for Shaunti and Diane) is to be criticized. In fact, in America, or in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, restrictions of human rights should not be tolerated. But that might interfere with that whole “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are our allies” two step the administration likes to perform. And no lattes for me. Southern girls like Diet Cokes for breakfast =)

By Paul

July 20, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

Tom,

It was cut off.

By Jack

July 20, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this

TT You must enjoy ripping me. I love it. I don’t like to use duct tape, it leaves too much glue. I prefer a gag tied around the head. At least I have a spouse. Now I guess you will expound upon how dedicated and attractive your husband is. Typical shark. One call does it all?

By nurse nancy

July 20, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Thanks, TT, for noticing my ‘wonderful points’. Actually I am a 47 year old white female, born in Plains, GA, who would define herself as a ‘moderate conservative independent’ and does not swear allegiance to any particular party. As for your reference to minorities, tell the ones who DO take advantage of what this country offers just how ‘disadvantaged’ they are! 80% of ALL new businesses are started by women (Wall Street Journal). We now are supposed to learn Spanish as a second language in order to make things easier for the Hispanics who choose to come to this country for its economic opportunities but refuse to learn English. The Constitution provides for any babies born on U.S soil to be automatically citizens and therefore, entitled to welfare, medicaid, voting and all other privileges unique to this big bad America. Remember the influx of pregnant women to California just before Hong Kong was released back to China by the British? This was so that their babies would have U.S. passports. Also, ask the midwives who serve the border towns in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona about the women who cross the river to give birth and then get welfare and medicaid benefits sent back to Mexico. The Jews who survived the Holocaust founded the state of Israel in 1946 and are some of the toughest fighters in the world-ALL citizens, women and men are required by law there to serve at least 2 years in the military. Those in this country run most of the media and financial markets (check the Fortune 500 list). I work with many Muslims who left their homelands because they wanted freedom to live and work and raise their families here. Martin Luther King urged blacks to ‘bring themselves up’ through education-not street gangs and violence. (Yes, I remember seeing him back here in the 1960’s). The Constitution guarantees the ‘freedom to PURSUE happiness’, but happiness is not something that is automatically bestowed upon us. Neither is success or academic achievement-those you have to seek for yourself. The most famous ‘atheist’ in this country-Madalyn Murray O’Hare was murdered by a colleague over (gasp?) her financial fortune. I wonder what she thought when she finally DID meet God? I have watched and learned in my tender years that typically there are differences in Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats- southern Democrats are really Republicans at heart and will occasionally come out of the closet like Zell Miller. We believe in equal pay for equal jobs; health care whether you can afford it or not, or deserve it or not; community responsibility for its own citizens needs; raising children that you bring in to this world to be fit to live with; and just in general ‘the American way of life.’ It really is different ‘up north’, in Atlanta, Massachusetts, California, and Oregon. The Government never really GIVES anybody anything. Welfare was NOT designed to be a multi-generational lifestyle, but as long as people are convinced by the liberals that they ‘just can’t’ make it on their own bacause of their birth situation, then why would anybody try? Here endeth the conservative lesson…

By Paul

July 20, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

BREATH

By Ken

July 20, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

TT…

What are you referring to when you say “your group”? I can only assume that you are lumping me in with what you consider “Conservative Christians.” If so, then having women Pastors, supporting a thriving food ministry, building Habitat for Humanity Houses, etc. would mark your definition.

the point was, if you are going to criticize a particular group (i.e. Christian Conservatives) you should be mindful of other groups, right here at home that do as much or worse than what you criticize. By not including said groups, you portray an image that you dislike the group rather than the actions.

My wife also likes Diet Coke in the morning. She wasn’t raised in the South but her mother was so that would qualify, right…?

By Jack

July 20, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

Nancy you go girl!

By Kyle

July 20, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Ok, it seems preety obvious that nobody is changing anybodys minds here on what position you take as far as why we went to Iraq. But we can all agree that now we are there we must finish the job and ensure the saftey of Iraq’s newfound democracy, right? Please tell me we can agree on at least this.

-and to add on to nurse nancy’s blog: democrats never really want to solve any problems (i.e. poverty, racism, etc..), b/c if they did, their party would no longer have a platform, and all their voters would realize that they really don’t need them at all

-And to respond to TT’s comment a few back: yes, the BBC is to liberal for me. Any news organization that refuses to call a terrorist what they actually are, a terrorist, even in the immediate aftermath of an attack on their country, doesn’t get any of my attention.

By Shaunti

July 20, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, let me be the first to suggest that you take the rest of your summer vacation relaxing on a little bit of this infrastructure you’re talking about. Don’t get hurt though, I think you might have a long wait for some of this awesome healthcare you are bragging about because they will be sewing up another few dozen blown up policemen from that day’s bombing. Stay away from police stations and you should be ok. And as a woman, things are much improved for you too! It’s not like Iraqi women used to have more rights and education than other middle eastern country or anything (ahem), so the fact that they can’t walk anywhere now without a male relative accompanying them is nothing new, and the rapes are just something you get used to.
People like you are the types that say, “how are we supposed to find what we said was there in a country the size of California??” Ok, I’ll give you that (not), but what if California also had 800+ people killed by bombings since the end of April, like Iraq? Is that ok since they are similar sizes?
You haven’t got a clue. There’s nothing, no number, no disaster, no bombing, no amount of lost civilians or soldiers that could change your mind about what you feel. If we had lost 10,000 men it wouldn only reaffirm your belief that we are doing the right thing. And you’re not the least bit embarrassed that not one WMD was found.

By TT

July 20, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Sounds like our churches support similar causes, Ken. There’s too much divisiveness within the church nowadays, anyway. I just wish some sects would not be so caught up in who can and can’t serve and more interested in welcoming everyone to the Lord’s Table. But you are right, my efforts to ensure equality for women should be redirected to cultures where women cannot even drive a car or be seen with men unrelated to them in public. The problem is, fundamentalism of this sort is state-sponsored in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, whereas Iraq was a secular government under Saddam where women could work outside of the home. This is not to say he was a saint, but in my book, it beats keeping women confined to the home. Your wife passes the Southern test, even if she is not a card-carrying GRITS. Jack, I’m 24 and I’m not married. Why get tied down (or up in your case)? I do like teasing you, as I’ve met many men of the older generation with your view. Secretly though, they have a “Honey Do” list a mile long. And Nancy, it seems we agree on the differences between Southern and Northern Democrats being worlds apart and on what constitutes equal treatment and what is a handout. I too think our immigration laws should be enforced. Ask our President why our borders are so porous (because the men in my family are considering signing up to guard the border on a volunteer basis). I think you’ll find our loose immigration standards are tied to big businesses, their need for cheap labor, and the Mexican-American lobby.

By Tony

July 20, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Paul,

From the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU my Brother.

One song can spark a moment One flower can wake the dream One tree can start a forest One bird can herald spring One smile begins a friendship One handclasp lifts a soul One star can guide a ship at sea One word can frame the goal One vote can change a nation One sunbeam lights a room One candle wipes out darkness One laugh will conquer gloom One step must start each journey One word must start a prayer One hope will raise our spirits One touch can show you care One voice can speak with wisdom One heart can know what is true One Life can make a difference Author Unknown

By nurse nancy

July 20, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Jack and Ken: Bless your hearts! As much as I do enjoy occasionally posting a thought or two on this blog, I’m afraid that duty calls and I must attend to my other chores today. However, I must also reveal that I was raised a Southern Baptist who has since converted to Anglicanism. I have learned from the Gospels that when Jesus was on this earth, he would hang out with ‘fallen women’, lepers and other ‘unclean’ and undesirable persons. He never attended a state dinner or bothered with trying to practice diplomacy or appeasement with the leaders of the time. Anyone who has a problem with Christianity as a whole does not understand these things. The oppression of women or other acts of abuse are NOT what it is all about, but there are always flies in the ointment just as in all faiths (Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Scientology, etc.). By the way, those kinfolks of mine who have served in war have also assurred me that there are NO atheists in foxholes. Neither have I ever seen one on death row. I just received a joke which I will leave you with today: Two Iraqi spies just arrived in Atlanta and met at a Starbucks. One began to speak to the other in Arabic. His partner said quickly “Be quiet! Do you want to give away our cover? We are in America now! Speak Spanish!”- Peace and blessings to all today. Drive safely and practice random acts of (anonymous) kindness please.

By taboga

July 20, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

No other group of people, society or nation; male or female - have ever had it as good as women in the U.S.!!!

Have their cake - eat it too - and have it again!

Yet, a sour-puss Lib who lives to be bitter, can find some injustice; perceived or real - and thus sees bondage, oppression and discrimination running rampant in our society!

The Liberal psychosis is an astounding thing to behold!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

I just don’t understand where the patriotism went????? It is sad that it takes Americans, the lose life at home, to spark a unity that we should always have. I used to drive down my street and see American Flags hanging on every other house! Now may be 1 or 2. People stopped put them up on July 4th as well!

I think it is great that we all live in a country where you can say whatever you want about the government, in public, and not have to worry about your family being taken in the middle of the night, shot in front of you, then beheaded yourself for treason!!!!!! That still happens in many places around the world.

Just me rambling!!!!!!!

DAWGS SIC’EM…..WOOF….WOOF….WOOF!!!!!!!!!!!

By Amazed

July 20, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this

Before this country can fix the problems of the world, “many of us” need to take the speck out of our eyes. This country is not as free as many of you like to point out. Women are not free to make their own personal decisions without input from the government or their church. You do nothing but complain about other ethnic groups and religions. Even the Christian church have problems with fanatics and hate mongers. Terroristic acts were committed in the 60’s during the civil rights movement and as late as the 90’s in Oklahoma and by Eric Rudolph. The majority in this country have only painted a picture of a terrorist as someone who is muslim or from another country. There are serious issues with people in this country who covet hate and speak ill of people who are different from themselves. Yes, many of us Love, Honor and Obey the laws of this country - but must accept that not everyone wants to be like us. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that…..

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this

Ah, yes… the willingness to acknowledge our country’s flaws in an effort to make it better… is “psychosis.” I’d expect that sort of incoherence from Taboga.

Nancy: You’ve made some fairly reasonable points (though you should try to include some paragraph breaks once in awhile), but I’m struck by the comment that

quote: “And the liberals are free to continue to criticize and protest as they wish without fear of being shot or sent to ‘reeducation’ camps, thanks to the leaders like Bush and Blair….”

Come on; you’re not seriously suggesting that dissenters should be weeping with gratitude over the fact that Bush is actually complying with the Constitution and respecting citizens’ rights, are you?

This is the inverse of the so-called “entitlement mentality”—comparing Bush’s regime to that of notorious tyrants and terrorists just to say, “See, he’s not quite THAT bad!”

We don’t hold our president to the standards of Vlad the Impaler; we hold him to the standard of American law and justice. So he doesn’t condone quite the same level of torture as Idi Amin—we’re supposed to be impressed by that? Of course not! This is America; we’re supposed to be better than that.

And when we’re not, it’s always up to us liberals to point out our mistakes and push to make things better. Because the far-right reactionaries would rather plug their ears and say “La la la, anybody who criticized our perfect nation is a traitor who doesn’t belong here.” Which is fine in grade school, but adults are able to recognize real problems that require real action—not posturing—to solve.

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Paul: I’m just guessing, but it may be because more and more of the public are realizing that our leaders are betraying the ideals America stands for. When you see Bush break the law again and again, and lie about it; when you see how he’s busily tearing down freedom and selling out the working class who build and support this country…

Well, it’s hard to work up the enthusiasm to cheer. We’re looking at a government that’s been out of touch with the common man for decades now, and a current administration that’s inherently anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and anti-American. Who wants to wave a flag in that situation?

By taboga

July 20, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

I think you’ll find our loose immigration standards are tied to big businesses, their need for cheap labor, and the Mexican-American lobby.

No, I think you will find that “big businesses” need labor - period.

I think you will find, that with our obsessive paradigm of education - we still need people to: Work. If you can see a blue sky above you - look under it and this need will stick out like an elephant in the living room!

Immigrants come here because there are jobs here. There are jobs here, because our young people are too good to do them. They are sitting in a classroom. Many lazy adults won’t do them either, because they can just as easily draw Welfare. Many folks between jobs won’t do them as well, because they can draw Unemployment and then Extended Unemployment.

The immigration problem is of our own doing! We’ve put ourselves in this position!

It has absolutely nothing to do with some notional idea of: “Mexican-American lobbying” - or any other such nonsense!

By Peter

July 20, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

I have been waiting for the topic to get back to the war on terror, and apologize for getting sucked into this banter …

In my humble opinion the current patriarchal culture we live in (how much different from the male dominated society of Afghanistan?) where our founding fathers were the authors and endorsers of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (Women only assumed the minimalist of participation in representation in the 1900’s. It won’t be until equal/proportional participation of women in government that gender equality will be realized.) When women (and other disenfranchised/minorities) are equal participants we may then see progress. Until that time there is little likelihood that the good ol’ boys will listen to reason.

By Jack

July 20, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

When did Bush break the law again and again?

By taboga

July 20, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this

Brian,

Your last post illustrates how you Libs view the nation.

We Americans don’t base our pride, respect and celebration of our nation based on what the Government is doing.

We Americans celebrate our nation as a reflection of the People, our pride and our home. What the Government is doing has no bearing on our pride as American people. That’s how we Americans see it.

You Liberals see it a bit differently…

By VIETNAM VET

July 20, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

THE REOCCURING THEME HERE IS THAT WE HAVE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT WAS “PICKED” FOR ITS OIL. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. WEITHER YOU SUPPORT BUSH OR NOT IS NOT THE PROBLEM, HE WAS LEAD INTO THIS WAR BY THOSE WHO COULD PROFIT FROM IT. GREED HAS NO FRIENDS. THE REASONS FOR GOING INTO IRAQ HOLD NO WATER. THE FACT IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE JUST AS EASY AS THE WAR THAT THE FIRST BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD. THIS WAS A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN. THEIR WAS NO PLAN, NO WMD’S, NO OBJECTIVE AND NOW NO END. NOW THE REASONS FOR WAR CHANGE AS MUCH AS THE DEATH COUNT OF SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS. THOSE OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THIS WAR, SEND YOU CHILDREN AS THEY NEED TO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY TOO, NOT JUST THE POOR.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Brian,

You can still love your country without liking the leader, I guess that was my point. People don’t like the President, then say it, but don’t forget he did not create the flag, he did not found this country, he did not shed blood for this country, and just because you dislike Bush, don’t forget where you are from! We should love our country for the diversity that it has, the history (all history), and the future.

Taboga,

Just something I observed yesterday……. I went to the Burger King on the base that I am stationed at to grab one of those Grilled Chicken Cesar Salads (quite tastey).

I was standing in line behind 10 or 11 Mexicans. They were laborers for a Company doing construction on base. They were speaking to each other in Spanish the whole time…..the guy directly in front of me turned around and started talking to me. I asked him if they were from our neighboring State of Texas (lots of Texas company’s have contract on our Military base).

The Guy then proceeded to tell me that he and his friends came from Mexico last year to do work in FL after the hurricanes…..on their way back to Mexico earlier this year, the were offered jobs withg a Texas Contracting Company that had been working in FL.

We continued to talk until his food had come up and he joined his buddies….after I grabbed my salad and went to sit down, I looked around the establishment…..several guys were in Uniform sitting down with their families….

The thing that got my attention was this one Kid who looked about 19 was begging his Dad for money and making a scene.

The kid was not small by any means….about 5 10 around 250 275………I thought to myself, why is this kid not doing the job that the guy from Mexico was doing….then the answer slapped me in the face, his father handed him 2 twenties…..

You see, as parents we try to keep our kids happy….alot of times this means giving them whatever they want…..when I was growing up, if i got money from my Dad, you can bet your @$$ I had to do something to earn it…..When I was 16, I was told to get a job to buy the Gas and Insurance for my car……That does not happen today, people tell us how to raise our kids, we can not even spank them anymore without being told by an outside person that is abuse……

Food for thought~!

By Ben

July 20, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

TT - I think I love you! lol

By nurse nancy

July 20, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

Oh my goodness, Brian, I did not mean to mislead you by suggesting in some way that Bush and Blair are keeping the liberals from being shot or locked up! No, no, that was put in place in the 18th century by such radicals as Thomas Jefferson and his cohorts. I will often disagree with the liberals’ ranting and raving, but will defend their right to do so under the First Amendment, so long as they are not seeking to incite violence or an overthrow of the government. Of course there is no such thing as being 100% safe AND 100% free at any time or any place. During times of national crisis or war, the President has certain powers which do not require the consent of the Congress or a Constitutional amendment. FDR suspended habeas corpus in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor, in effect instituting martial law on the island. (And HE was a Democrat!) For those who slept through American Government in high school, habeas corpus is your basic civil rights. JFK and Ronald Reagan both drew their swords in their time to stand down foreign threats and eventually defeated the ‘peoples’ government known as the Soviet Union. Communism was supposed to be ‘everyone equal, peasants to aristocrats’, but even in the USSR the working class was never elevated to such status and is not in Red China today. That is why communism is doomed to fail-the people have no way to better themselves by means of private ownership of their homes or businesses. Now the post WWII generation there is trying to figure out what to do with their newly acquired freedom.(Oops, better make a paragraph here). By the way, which of your citizen’s rights has Bush taken away? You still have the right to come and go as you please without permission from the government, the right to vote, the right to make a living and spend money when and where YOU decide to, the right to speak your mind on these pages or elsewhere, the right to keep a gun and defend yourself, etc. Look around the world, and keep track of what you enjoy here!

By Tony

July 20, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Facts on US OIL imports It’s not all coming from the middle east! In fact, South and North America are our biggest suppliers!

May 2005 Import Highlights: Released on July 15, 2005 Preliminary monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in May 2005 has been released and it shows that two countries have exported more than 1.5 million barrels per day or more to the United States. Including those two countries, a total of five countries exported over 1.0 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top sources of US crude oil imports for May were Mexico (1.755 million barrels per day), Canada (1.702 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.447 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.273 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (1.111 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (.588 million barrels per day), Angola (.341 million barrels per day), Ecuador (.238 million barrels per day), Kuwait (.201 million barrels per day), and United Kingdom (.194 barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 10.157 million barrels per day in May, which is a decrease from April of .157 million barrels per day. The top five exporting countries accounted for 72 percent of United States crude oil imports in May and the top ten sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports.

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Paul & Nancy: Fair enough. We should probably remind the Fox News types that liberals love America, too—probably more than they do. We just don’t pretend it’s perfect.

As for the laws Bush has broken and the rights we’ve lost… well, that could sustain a whole separate forum for much more than a week. (Lying to the American public surely counts, though, doesn’t it? Especially as an excuse to launch an unneeded war and getting soldiers killed? And don’t even get us started on the civil liberties that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo have damaged….)

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this

One needs only read the comments on this Blog to see why the abundant sense of unity and national pride we shared after 9/11 has faded.

Tobago - “That’s how we Americans see it. You Liberals see it a bit differently”

Jack - “Nurse Nancy - Great post. Spoken like a true American”

Kyle - “democrats never really want to solve any problems (i.e. poverty, racism, etc..), b/c if they did, their party would no longer have a platform, and all their voters would realize that they really don’t need them at all”

There are more, but I don’t have the patience or the time to go back and find them. The far Right has used 9/11 as an opportunity to paint anyone who disagrees with its tactics as un-patriotic, un-American.

It’s not the actions of our leaders that makes it very difficult for some of us to wave a flag and cheer - it’s the actions of our neighbors. It’s the way that people like Jack and Toboga and Nancy and Kyle who treat anyone without an Black and White “W” on their bumper.

Personally, Paul, my desire to jump up and down and cheer began to flag, if you’ll pardon the pun, the moment my own government, both Federal and State, began to introduce legislation specifically designed to discriminate against me.

I love this country because it stands for freedom and equality. Unfortunately, right now we’re not doing much to live up to the ideals.

By TT

July 20, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry guys, but I am not buying into this whole “Immigrants take jobs Americans don’t want.” True, maybe I wouldn’t want to work construction or landscaping, but if I couldn’t find a job, I would take what I could get. My parents raised me until I was 18, and it’s been my job to support myself the rest of the way. The existence of a powerful Mexican-American lobby group is not a myth, but a fact. And a business (such as a carpet factory in Dalton or a chicken plant in Gainesville) would much rather hire cheap, immigrant labor than shell out minimum wage for working-class Americans. How many of you drive on the Interstate? Know who’s doing the construction? Illegal immigrants. Ever been to Smyrna or Doraville? It doesn’t look like your white bread America; if you can’t comprehend Spanish, then you can’t read the signs at the grocery stores. We have to enforce the immigration laws now, before our system goes under from the extra strain of supporting our neighbors. I don’t understand how any true conservative could see it any differently, unless of course, your brother was married to a Mexican American and your family owned businesses that profited from cheap labor on their oil rigs. Hmmm…who am I describing? And what kind of Compassionate Conservative defiles the legacy of Martin Luther King, a great American citizen, and defends illegal immigrants and authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Taboga, maybe cousin Qdoba has been letting you smoke too much his earnings. The smoke and mirror show in Iraq can’t make up for the fact that our healthcare system is crumbling under the weight of these new residents and American workers are losing their jobs to people who send the money back home across the border. Taboga, why are you so in favor of freeloaders but so against women’s equality and civil liberties for Americans born in this country? Better be careful with your flip flopping, you might be branded unpatriotic. And in the Republican handbook, that would make you a liberal. GASP!!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Brian,

FOX can say what they want, if you do not like them, turn your TV off, watch a cartoon, or maybe another news source….BTW Bush was influenced to go to War with the INTEL that the military provided……..don’t be so sure that we did not find WMDs either!!!!!!!!! You should not believe everything you read or hear!

BTW, don’t you think for one minute that we, the military, were not itching to get our hands at Saddam one more time!!!!

We know what we get ourselves into when we signed the dotted line!!!!! We don’t need others reminding us about the body count, which is pretty low considering we actually went to the heart of a country and stabbed it!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

But the government is not the only thing to this Country!!!! I am not asking anyone to jump up and down to support anything, but a little pride in where they came from!

By Netbanker

July 20, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

TT…”Only those who are afraid of the truth seek to hide it.” Very true statement and it applies equally to all. I do agree that we should have ALL the information possible in order to make good decisions. Unfortunately this doesn’t happen because each political party seems to practice the ‘sin of omission.’

Nancy…”This is the most philanthropic society in the world.” There are statistics that show that our donations to other countries are one of the smallest as measured by GDP. That said, there is no measure of how much is given within each of the measured countries for their own disasters. When has America received a single donation for any of our own natural disasters from another country? I don’t recall any outpouring of money or donations from other countries after last year’s hurricane disasters in Florida. Where were the volunteers from other countries traveling to the Gulf coast to hand out food and water and medical supplies?

There are a couple of things that we need to be honest about. Arab cultures believe in ‘an eye for an eye’ (why they aren’t all blind by now is beyond me, but that’s another topic) so using military might isn’t necessarily the BEST approach for that type of culture. Needed in Afghanistan, yes? Iraq…still very questionable as someone pointed out Iraq was a secular society without extremist religious institutions PRIOR to the invasion.

I was reading the liberal rag Newsweek last night and there were some interesting points reading the difference in response from the Muslim world to the London bombings vs. 9/11 attacks that indicate changes in the world. Almost ALL Muslim groups (even the fundamentalist groups) decried the attacks on civilians, yet there was an overwhelming silence after 9/11. I understand that the Iraqi population is tiring of the attacks against civilians (especially children) and finally starting to speak out against these attackes as well as becoming more open about fingering terrorists. What can we do to foster and encourage Muslims to speak out against terrorism perpetrated by those in their midst or in the name of their religion? What opportunities to thwart terrorism exist by getting Muslims behind the idea that random violence against civilians of any nation or culture is not acceptable? I’m not advocating no use of military force, but trying to use a traditional military structure to fight guerilla tactics alone has never worked. We need to be identifying and using every viable method possible.

By Jack

July 20, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I voted for Bush because like all of the other elections it comes down to the lesser of the two evils. I don’t consider myself extreme right. What is wrong with this country are not enough people in the middle. The Republicans worship Reagan saying he didn’t raise taxes. No he didn’t raise taxes, he just screwed the entire middle class by taking away our deductions. Most if not all elected officials think the non campaign contributing public as a bunch of mindless sheep. For the record, I am pro choice and pro marriage. Did you see on the news that today only 63% of children born in this country are being raised by parents who are not married? What a shame.

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Paul: And why are we there, exactly? Was Saddam a threat to us? Did he possess the means to attack us? No, and no.

Was it to “bring democracy to Iraq”? Heck no; Bush specifically ruled that one out, and only trotted it out a couple years later as Lame Excuse #26; it was FAR down the list of priorities back when he was whipping up the war-frenzy. (And our Congress and media rolled over and played dead.)

Was Saddam related to the terrorist attacks of 9/11? Again, no. Was he working with Al-Qaeda? sponsoring them? in cahoots with Bin Laden? No, no, and no again.

So the question remains: Why was there suddenly a need to go barging into Iraq with military power, overthrow its government (regardless of our opinion of it), and set up a permanent occupation that’s created new terrorists every day?

Instead of, oh, for example… capturing the terrorists who actually attacked us?

By TT

July 20, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

No offense, Paul, but the military cannot take the fall for the administration concerning the Iraq war. The President never took the fall for anyone, and he certainly never exercised bravery in combat (unless you count his single-handed efforts to stand down the War on Drugs with his nose candy habit). The State Department and the CIA also provided intelligence, but that intelligence was manipulated to make a case for war in Iraq. If you guys find the WMDs, let everyone know. But I am sure that CNN, the BBC, Fox News, and all the major networks would cover it. I pull news from all of those sources, and they pretty much offer the same thing when it comes to news. It’s when Fox and CNN put the talking heads on that opinions start flying. The facts are as follows: The Middle East is chock full of oil, and with our dependency on oil to function as a market economy, it would be useful to have more of it at our disposal. Saddam was a terrible dictator, but he was not as authoritarian as the Saudi royals, the Iranian leadership, the North Korean leadership, or the Chinese. I’m glad he’s gone, but we’ve lost a handful of our troops in Iraq, and a lot of Iraqi innocents to boot. We have to stick it out now. Was it worth it? It’s up to you to decide. Are we safer? Make up your own mind. You’re right Paul, you can’t believe everything you read. But you can’t trust a man who won’t put his own neck on the line for his country to tell you the truth either. Interesting numbers, Tony. What’s your source?

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Paul, I think you missed the ENTIRE point of my post.

By Jack

July 20, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Good post TT.

By taboga

July 20, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

There are more, but I don’t have the patience or the time to go back and find them. The far Right has used 9/11 as an opportunity to paint anyone who disagrees with its tactics as un-patriotic, un-American.

I don’t need “9/11” to paint as you “unpatriotic” or “unamerican” - I have been calling you what you are for many years: Communists.

You can change your name to “Liberals”, “Progressives”, “Moderates”, “Centrists” or whichever name you pick next month - but your origin is Communism and your ideas have never strayed from it!

By TT

July 20, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this

BTW, Fox News fans, I’ve found the story on the crisis in Niger on CNN, as well as the BBC. No coverage yet on Fox News, but there are features on Whitney Houston, the Colin Farrell sex tape, and outing gay actors in Hollywood. How are conservatives going to police the world if Sean Hannity and Neal Cavuto don’t let them know where the hotspots are?

Also, news from Iraq, courtesy of the NYT:

Iraqi Constitution May Curb Women’s Rights

By EDWARD WONG Published: July 20, 2005 BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 19 - A working draft of Iraq’s new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women’s rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance. The document’s writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.

The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not “violate Shariah,” or Koranic law. One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family’s sect or religion. Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families’ permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives’ presence. Article 14 would replace a body of Iraqi law that has for decades been considered one of the most progressive in the Middle East in protecting the rights of women, giving them the freedom to choose a husband and requiring divorce cases to be decided by a judge. If adopted, the shift away from the more secular and egalitarian provisions of the interim constitution would be a major victory for Shiite clerics and religious politicians, who chafed at the Americans’ insistence that Islam be designated in the interim constitution as just “a source” of legislation. Several writers of the new constitution say they intend, at the very least, to designate Islam as “a main source” of legislation.

Are these the freedoms are soldiers are fighting to give Iraqi women?

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

And the Continued Willful Ignorance award goes to…I can’t stand the suspense…taboga!

By Jack

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

Taboga,remember as Nancy pointed out, our founding fathers were considered radical, liberal extremists. Liberals are not Communists, they want more govt. not all govt.

By taboga

July 20, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

TT,

And I bet you were one of the Libs that kept screaming over and over again that we were going to turn the Iraqi Government into a “puppet” government of the U.S.!

Now that the Iraqis might be making law as they see fit - you complain about that!

By Kyle

July 20, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

Eaton, to begin with, I don’t call anyone who disagrees with me unpatriotic or unamerican (but thanks for putting words in my mouth to make your argument stronger). I DO call people unamerican and unpatriotic that throw out vague generalities of conspiracy theories (“the President lied to us” or “blood for oil”) solely for the purpose of political gain, or simply to strenghten their argument - but it really on serves to further divide us. I am certianly open to listen to all points of view about this subject, as long as they are well thought out and based on some facts or evidence. I could make up all the battle cries or talking points for the right that I want and repeat them over and over, but your not gonna listen to that, and neither am I. People are more prone to listen to arguments with a little bit of substance. Come with some facts to back up your points and I will be happy to listen and consider what you are saying. Until then, save your liberal slogans

-and yes I do have a big “W” on the back of my SUV that reads “still President” - I’m sure seeing that p** you off when you probably still have some faded KERRY/EDWARDS sticker on your Volvo

-Question #1: How did Bush lie to us? Isn’t their a difference between lying and just being wrong? Several other contries genuinely believed that Iraq had WMDs. Were they all lying? There seems to be a fundamental difference here. Clinton lied - Bush, from the looks of things now, was wrong

-Question #2: What is the meaning behind chanting “No Blood for Oil”? Say you have several countries that are being oppressed by a ruthless dictator. One of these countries ALSO has a large supply of oil. Is the U.S supposed to help all the other countries first, just so they don’t get accused of “Blood for Oil”? I would say no. It seems pretty logical to me that if we can’t help all of these countries at once, then it makes sence to go after the country that can benefit us in the process of that country being liberated - seems like a win/win to me?

By TT

July 20, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this

Good God! Taboga’s ignorance is contagious. I meant the freedom our soldiers are fighting for. Thanks, Jack. I am happy to know that we’re in agreement on choices for women. Taboga, do we need to make you define communism again? You’re a liberal in conservative clothing. You’re so nuts, you make Howard Dean seem tame. Get over it, McCarthy, not everyone likes the President, and you can dislike the President and still love America. How much propaganda can your small wittle noggin hold? Did I mention that I love capitalism and freedom? I loooove making money in a free market society, and I bet Eaton, and Netbanker, and Ben, and Lozen do too. Here’s a little equation to help you understand the basic terms that you have been throwing around in the debate. Capitalism = free markets. Communism = state-owned property. Democracy = civil liberties, freedom of speech, religion, press. Communism = big bad State with crazed spending habits, no dissent. Were you home schooled or something?

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Kyle, I didn’t put words in your mouth, I quoted your words. If you don’t like the way they come across, perhaps you should reconsider them.

By TT

July 20, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Again, Tobogo and Trinidad (since you have two crazy personalities—one that loves illegal immigrants and one that hates liberals, Communism, and carpooling), I’m not a liberal, I am a libertarian. Please try to exercise some proper use of English vocabulary. If you like the idea of living in a theocracy, I can give you a one-way ticket to Riyadh.

And Kyle, if the President was just wrong, did he give George Tenet a Medal of Freedom for making a big mistake? If it’s all because of faulty intelligence, why do we keep hearing the reasons for going to war change? “Oops, no WMDs. Well, then, we went there for human rights and democracy. Wait, the Iraqis want an Islamic theocracy. Uh oh. Bring out Colin Powell. Oops, he didn’t agree with us, so he’s gone. Who’s left? Condi, anyone with a few degrees?” If Bush made a mistake, then why won’t he admit it. Sure, Clinton lied about oral sex, but this President lied about war. And even if he was just wrong, as you say, it’s a hell of a mistake to make, especially when the lives of our troops are at stake.

And just a question: Why don’t you ride MARTA if you go to Georgia State? Only a fool would drive their SUV into the city with gas prices so high.

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Side note: You know what, folks? No matter how irritating or disagreeable we find the conflicting opinions here this week, we can all be glad of one thing:

Zack hasn’t come on here yelping about abortion this time!

Ahh…. isn’t that nice?

By kimberly

July 20, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

Jack, thank you for pointing out the difference between a “liberal” and a “communist” regarding how much government we want. But I think that assumption is outdated now. While I reject the labels in general, those of us who are called liberals generally want LESS government interference in the lives of individuals that whan we’re getting now from big, republican government. Probable cause and search & seizure protections have been reduced. The availability of access to medical procedures has been reduced. The local regulation of medical marijuana (states rights) was STRUCK DOWN recently in favor of BIG federal prosecutors who retain the right to go after sick people. Tommy Chong was dragged from his home in the middle of the night and spent several months in FEDERAL prison for selling glass beakers and rubber tubing — something “liberals” protested and conservatives lauded. Referendums reached the ballots last year to PREVENT people from getting married unless they meet the arbitrary, traditional conditions of being of different genders.
All the while the conservatives are screaming for “less government!” Hahaha! What they mean is less government ASSISTANCE for the unfortunate and tragic among us. What they mean is less government regulation of things that affect us ALL without our consent: Banks, insurance companies, the health care industry, and of course, those fine upstanding honest folks who fulfill our energy needs at an ever-increasing, alarming price. These liberals that are so hotly discussed here want individuals to be free, as long as they’re not bothering anyone, and we want the things that affect us all to have SOME measure of supervision for the purpose of protecting us. You’re right. This is not the same thing as communism. But it is also NOT “more government.”

In essence, the “conservative” cry for smaller government entails making it small enough to fit into our bedrooms, but not big enough to protect us from predatory lenders, insurance companies who take our premium money but don’t want to pay when things get ugly, and manufacturers who pad their profits by giving us substantially less than what we pay for. When Reagan said “Get big government off our backs,” he meant his rich friends’ backs, NOT regular working folks.

By Jack

July 20, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

You’re right as usual Kimberly. :)

By Netbanker

July 20, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

TT…based on those descriptions of Communision our Republican government is moving our country in that direction if solely based on the Eminent Domain decision and the fact that Mr. President hasn’t vetoed a single spending bill to date.

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Nicely put, Kimberly.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Saddam’s WMD have been found

New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear, ballistic arms

New evidence out of Iraq suggests the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein’s missing weapons of mass destruction is having better success than is being reported.

Key assertions by the intelligence community widely judged in the media and by critics of President Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all.

But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president’s critics continue to insist that “no weapons” have been found.

In virtually every case — chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles — the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found “hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited” under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.

“There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for.”

Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam’s regime was in “material violation” of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised “serious consequences” if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner.

The United States cited Iraq’s refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had “a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs,” the official said. “They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects.”

They found equipment for “uranium-enrichment centrifuges” whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, “Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors,” the official said.

But while the president’s critics and the media might plausibly hide behind ambiguity and a lack of sensational-looking finds for not reporting some discoveries, in the case of Saddam’s ballistic-missile programs they have no excuse for their silence.

“Where were the missiles? We found them,” another senior administration official told Insight.

“Saddam Hussein’s prohibited missile programs are as close to a slam dunk as you will ever find for violating United Nations resolutions,” the first official said. Both senior administration officials spoke to Insight on condition that neither their name nor their agency be identified, but their accounts of what the United States has found in Iraq coincided in every major area.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found “no stockpiles” of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice.

Among Kay’s revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:

A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and “that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N.” Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn’t have a biological-weapons program?

“Reference strains” of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. “We thought it was a big deal,” a senior administration official said. “But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of ‘starter set.’”

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, “not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit.”

“Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.”

“Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] — well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates].” In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made “clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles — probably the No Dong — 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment,” Kay reported.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed the ISG had found evidence of a “crash program” to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents.

The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a “high-speed rail gun,” a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq’s main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for “a clandestine nuclear-weapons program.”

In taking apart Iraq’s clandestine procurement network, Duelfer said his investigators had discovered that “the primary source of illicit financing for this system was oil smuggling conducted through government-to-government protocols negotiated with neighboring countries [and] from kickback payments made on contracts set up through the U.N. oil-for-food program.”

What the president’s critics and the media widely have portrayed as the most dramatic failure of the U.S. case against Saddam has been the claimed failure to find “stockpiles” of chemical and biological weapons. But in a June 2003 Washington Post op-ed, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus called such criticism “a distortion and a trivialization of a major threat to international peace and security.”

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction concluded that Saddam “probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons [MT] and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW [chemical warfare] agents — much of it added in the last year.”

That assessment was based, in part, on conclusions contained in the final report from U.N. weapons inspectors in 1999, which highlighted discrepancies in what the Iraqis reported to the United Nations and the amount of precursor chemicals U.N. arms inspectors could document Iraq had imported but for which it no longer could account.

Until now, Bush’s critics say, no stockpiles of CW agents made with those precursors have been found. The snap conclusion they draw is that the administration “lied” to the American people to create a pretext for invading Iraq.

But what are “stockpiles” of CW agents supposed to look like? Was anyone seriously expecting Saddam to have left behind freshly painted warehouses packed with chemical munitions, all neatly laid out in serried rows, with labels written in English?

Or did they think that a captured Saddam would guide U.S. troops to smoking vats full of nerve gas in an abandoned factory?

Stockpiles found

In fact, as recent evidence made public by a former operations officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority’s intelligence unit in Iraq shows, some of those stockpiles have been found - not all at once, and not all in nice working order — but found all the same.

Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a civilian analyst in Iraq last summer, he worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and Technology, which was responsible for finding new, nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists.

In an interview with Insight and in an article he wrote for the online magazine AmericanThinker.com, Hanson examines reports from U.S. combat units and public information confirming that many of Iraq’s CW stockpiles have indeed been found.

Until now, however, journalists have devoted scant attention to this evidence, in part because it contradicts the story line they have been putting forward since the U.S.-led inspections began after the war.

But another reason for the media silence may stem from the seemingly undramatic nature of the “finds” Hanson and others have described. The materials that constitute Saddam’s chemical-weapons “stockpiles” look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble.

“Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena,” Hanson says. “In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the ‘grandfather’ of modern-day nerve agents.”

The United Nations was fully aware that Saddam had established his chemical-weapons plants under the guise of a permitted civilian chemical-industry infrastructure. Plants inspected in the early 1990s as CW production facilities had been set up to appear as if they were producing pesticides, or in the case of a giant plant near Fallujah, chlorine, which is used to produce mustard gas.

When coalition forces entered Iraq, “huge warehouses and caches of ‘commercial and agricultural’ chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists,” Hanson writes. “What was surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings of our ground forces and how silent they have been on the significance of these caches.”

Caches of “commercial and agricultural” chemicals don’t match the expectation of “stockpiles” of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. “At a very minimum,” Hanson tells Insight, “they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly.”

Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment’s notice. At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large “agricultural supply” area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a “camouflaged bunker complex” that was shown to reporters — with unpleasant results.

“More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent,” Hanson says. “But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The ‘agricultural site’ was also colocated with a military ammunition dump — evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG.”

That wasn’t the only significant find by coalition troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai’ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin — a nerve agent.

Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site.

“Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up,” Hanson says. “It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that ‘no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.’”

At Taji — an Iraqi weapons complex as large as the District of Columbia — U.S. combat units discovered more “pesticides” stockpiled in specially built containers, smaller in diameter but much longer than the standard 55-gallon drum.

Hanson says he still recalls the military sending digital images of the canisters to his office, where his boss at the Ministry of Science and Technology translated the Arabic-language markings. “They were labeled as pesticides,” he says. “Gee, you sure have got a lot of pesticides stored in ammo dumps.”

Again, this January, Danish forces found 120-millimeter mortar shells filled with a mysterious liquid that initially tested positive for blister agents. But subsequent tests by the United States disputed that finding.

“If it wasn’t a chemical agent, what was it?” Hanson asks. “More pesticides? Dish-washing detergent? From this old soldier’s perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy.”

The discoveries Hanson describes are not dramatic. And that’s the problem: Finding real stockpiles in grubby ammo dumps doesn’t fit the image the media and the president’s critics carefully have fed to the public of what Iraq’s weapons ought to look like. A senior administration official who has gone through the intelligence reporting from Iraq as well as the earlier reports from U.N. arms inspectors refers to another well-documented allegation.

“The Iraqis admitted they had made 3.9 tons of VX,” a powerful nerve gas, but claimed they had never weaponized it. The U.N. inspectors “felt they had more. But where did it go?” The Iraqis never provided any explanation of what had happened to their VX stockpiles.

What does 3.9 tons of VX look like? “It could fit in one large garage,” the official says. Assuming, of course, that Saddam would assemble every bit of VX gas his scientists had produced at a single site, that still amounts to one large garage in an area the size of the state of California.

Senior administration officials stress that the investigation will continue as inspectors comb through millions of pages of documents in Iraq and attempt to interview Iraqi weapons scientists who have been trained all their professional lives to conceal their activities from the outside world.

“The conditions under which the ISG is working are not very conducive,” one official said. “But this president wants the truth to come out. This is not an exercise in spinning or censoring.”

By Paul

July 20, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

June 16, 2003

WMD Found In Iraq

Weapons of mass destruction were quietly found in Iraq earlier this month. For reasons that will be revealed in this column, the Bush Administration has been reluctant to promote the discovery of a very large number of offensive missiles. The find was reported in the “Periscope� section of the June 9th, 2003 issue of Newsweek in a short article titled, “Return to Sender.�

While the current Bush Administration is pushing the likely fictional notion that two mobile labs discovered in Iraq were WMD weapons factories, most experts disagree. It looks increasingly likely they were really designed solely to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons. See www.truthout.org/docs_03/061603A.shtml for details. The hydrogen use has been verified by investigators for the British government.

The offensive missiles discovered are an entirely different matter. The weapons are offensive in nature and definitely threatened peace in the region. They could have killed many civilians in surrounding countries. These WMD missiles were legally sold to Saddam by an irresponsible Western government seeking profit and influence. The sales strengthened the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. They helped protect Saddam from international pressure and made international pressure against his government for killing his own people much less effective.

The most shocking element in the WMD missile story is the country of origin for the missile hoard. Bush Republicans stirring up hatred for our French and German allies for opposing the Iraq Invasion predicted that those Countries would be found to be suppliers to Saddam’s WMD programs. Neither sold the missiles nor did China or Russia. They were sold to Saddam by the United States of America during the Reagan-Bush Administration!

We all know the Reagan-Bush Administration supplied missiles illegally to the mullahs of Iran during the Iran-Contra Affair. It now looks like this was not the only WMD export to rogue nations under Reagan and the senior George Bush. We need public hearings into their actions during that time. The current Bush Administration has restricted public access to the official papers of the Reagan-Bush Administration by executive order since long before the 9-11 attacks. Why? What crimes or mistakes are being covered-up? Are we doomed to repeat them under Bush-Cheney?

This column written by Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence (hosts of Democratic Talk Radio). Confirmation of copy: call 931-438-1500 or write Democratic Talk Radio, 7A Planville Drive, Fayetteville, TN 37334.

Sincerely, Stephen Crockett Al Lawrence Co-hosts: “Current Affair� News Talk Program WEKR 1240 am radio (931) 433-3545

Not to mention all the Sarin and Mustard Gases that were found!

By kimberly

July 20, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

Gosh…. i’m blushing now. Seriously, folks. Discussion is healthy, but it won’t make a difference unless we’re willing to get OUT among the people, educate the uninformed, demand the truth from our government officials, (call BS on the lies), and organize for the purposes of taking back the values that made America great in the first place. We have become a sound-bite nation, of which the percentage actually discussing the issues is SO SMALL we could all probably pile into one gas-guzzling status-symbol Hummer limo. And that could lead to some strange bedfellows… {;-> Please…. think about joining your local organizations to hold government accountable, educate your neighbors, and get some more responsible legislators elected next year. It’s NOT too early to start, and I hope and PRAY it’s not too late!

By DeltaX

July 20, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

Can I get a “HOOYAAA” from everyone here that agrees that taboga is a dipsh*t?

(Just so he knows exactly who agrees/dis-agrees with his ignorant blog trolling.)

By Paul

July 20, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

HOOYAAA

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Ahh, the famous “weapons-related program activities.” They simply must have been for chemical and biological weapons testing, right? Because we can’t conceive of any other possibility, down here in our survivalist bunkers telling each other paranoid conspiracy fantasies.

Yep, that’s “evidence” all right….

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Hooyaa

By Paul

July 20, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

I am just giving everyone different points of view…

By lozen

July 20, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

LONDON (AP) - A British research group said Tuesday that about 25,000 civilians died in violence in Iraq in the two years after the start of the U.S.-led invasion.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Once again Brian, until you see it yourself, how can you base an opinion….let me guess off what you have been told or read!

By Tim

July 20, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

hooyaaa… and a yeehaw just for good measure

By Paul

July 20, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

It does not clarify the % of terrorists in that 25,000 either! Or how many were killed by terrorists!!!

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Paul: Using that same logic, why did you post the article? Surely you weren’t expecting anyone to read it and believe it, yes?

By TT

July 20, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Paul, could you please give the websites for that information. And Tony, I’m still waiting for your sources for oil imports and exports information, because your numbers don’t look like any figures I’ve ever seen. Thanks to Kimberly for a great analogy. Kyle, I’ll put up the money for your MARTA pass and write it off my taxes as a charitable contribution if you’ll stop driving to the mailbox. P.S. Do you have a Ducks Unlimited sticker? And if so, please tell me that you’re not from Cobb County. I hope you aren’t one of those guys who wears a North Face mountain parka when the temperature drops below 50.

By Kyle

July 20, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I wasn’t talking about the words you took directly from my post when I said you put words in my mouth. I was talkiing about the “unpatriotic and unamerican” comments that you accused me of throwing around so aimlessly. I’m pretty sure that those words never appeared in any of my previous posts. I’m quite happy with how my words come across, thank you. I happen to think calling someone unpatriotic or unamerican is a pretty severe insult and would not do so without some ligitimate reason - but thanks for throwing me into your stereotype of right-wingers.

TT, are you saying that there can only be one reason for going into a war? I would think that you could enter one war for several reasons. True, the WMD thing was touted as the main reason, but can’t the liberation of a countries people be a valid secondary reason? And if the president was indeed wrong, then yes, he most certianly should take responsibility and admit that he was wrong. The fact of the matter is that he could have been right. Didn’t Saddam use forms of WMDs on his own people? Maybe we just haven’t found them yet? Maybe we gave Saddam to much time to hide them while we were waiting for the UN to enforce it’s own rules? Who knows. And yes, this certianly would be a hell of a mistate to make, but what if he was right and he took no action? I think the consequences could have been much worse for us in the latter scenario.

-and I drive my car b/c I’m clerking this summer (can’t u see how hard I’ve been working) - when I’m heading to class trust me, I’ll be on MARTA

By Paul

July 20, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

I was just putting stuff that can be found on the internet about WMD……no real point, just that you never hear anything about that in the news!!!! Jsut info for people to form their own opinions about!

TT, I just did a yahoo search on Iraqi WMD found…….BTW, I have a DU sticker on my truck + I am a DU committee member!!!

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Kyle, you clearly stated that Democrats, and hence Liberals, are power-hungry maniacs who have no purpose but to manipulate the poor and needy in order to maintain that power. You dismissed roughly half the population of the United States as being utterly corrupt and lacking in any merit with one sentence, and you don’t think you deserve to be lumped in with my “stereotype” of Right-wingers?

Exactly what do you think distinguishes you from any other Hannity-listener?

By Paul

July 20, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

OFF TOPIC again……

Anyone going to the UGA vs MISS ST Game in Starkville on Sept 24th????? I bought my tickets yesterday from UGA online for 35 each!

By kimberly

July 20, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

must…. resist…. football banter….. too early…. foaming at mouth…. must… resist….

By TT

July 20, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Paul, No offense to DU members, every male in my family is a member. Every hunter I know that can find their way in and out of a tree stand has respect for conservationism and the environment, no matter who they voted for. I was just teasing Kyle in case he was one of those camo-wearing boys from the suburbs who’s afraid to get a little mud on the tires of his new Tahoe. I still don’t understand why the Bush administration would keep a WMD find under wraps to protect Reagan. Sounds a little far fetched, even for a liberal conspiracy theory.

And boys, even if we find some WMDs, they are nothing compared to the dirty bombs that Al Qaida already has or the nukes of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan. Saddam should not have been a priority after 9/11. Bin Laden, and the terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan should have been our MO. Moreover, I’m a realist, an isolationist even, because practically, we can’t save everyone. Even if we were in Iraq on a humanitarian mission, it wasn’t the place to start. Didn’t you boys ever study the rules of engagement? Iraq doesn’t stand up on a cost-benefit scale.

By Brian Curtis

July 20, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Paul: Again, fair enough. Sorry.

Kyle: Actually, no; “liberating people” is NOT a good enough reason to go to war, especially since that’s the excuse used by invaders and conquerors throughout history.

There are darn few legitimate justifications for war: when your country is attacked; when an ally is attacked, and asks for your help; or when you can prove an imminent threat and all other options are exhausted.

Options 1 and 2 obviously don’t apply here, since Saddam didn’t attack us and wasn’t attacking our allies at the time of our invasion. So that leaves the “imminent threat” as the only possible reason, under the law.

Unfortunately, that imminent threat was never proven. Colin Powell’s diagrams and artist’s renderings of what were “probably” weapons labs didn’t do it. Condi’s ominous statements about “mushroom clouds” didn’t do it. And Tenet’s cocky assurances that ‘we know where the weapons are’ didn’t do it—obviously proven false by the fact that we had to search for them, and we still haven’t found any.

The inescapable conclusion, then, is that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was, at best, a tragic and costly blunder. Or at worst, it was a preconceived act of imperial aggression in violation of both U.S. and international law. Take your pick.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

KIM,

Come to the darkside…..Its never to early!!!!!!!!!!

TT, I love seeing Tahoes in the woods!!!!!!!!! Everyone of those guys try to drive around the mud! Here is a good thing about being in Iraq and Afaganistan…..Iran is in the middle and Syria Pakistan are on the outside looking in!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

TT,

I still want to see a picture of you!

By Christy

July 20, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

I am most disappointed with the way people cannot think for themselves. The war was a horrible, rushed disaster, but to say that suddenly makes you “unAmerican” or “Liberal” or even worst “a nonsupport of our troops”. The truth is, we went to Iraq on false pretenses, and today, we still havn’t found any “weapons of mass destruction” and we are no safer today than we were 9/12/01. This fear propaganda is making me sick. How can we go to Saddam’s country and arrest him for “killing at least 15 people” when we have the blood of thousands on our hands. People have got to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. We always talk about the tragedy of the Americans who died 9/11, but how dare we be grief-stricken up then, but today see that thousands have died in other countries either by “terrorist” or by the “War on Terror” and simply turn the channel without even thinking about the lives lost. Everytime someone dies in a car bomb or children die in vain, we should be saddened and be prayerful. After careful consideration and deep thought, it finally hit me …….. God isn’t an “American”. He doesn’t root for one contry and condem another. Supporting the war does make me more “godly”. Geesh!!! I wish we would have had a “War on Terror” during slavery.

By Jack

July 20, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

HOOYAAA!! Kimberly, say over and over to yourself…this is not a football blog, this is not a football blog, this is not a football blog, this is not a football blog. LOL!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

I am trying to make it a football blog!!!!!!!! I want to push my views onto everyone!!!!!!!! HA HA HA HA HA (dr evil laugh) ;)

By taboga

July 20, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

But let’s try and find out why they “hate us” and then maybe we can do something that will make them “like us”.

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

I just hope Richt is a little less conservative on the play calling this season. Seems like everytime UGA got in a tight spot last season he just started running carries up the center over and over.

I confess I am going to miss Greene’s patented play-fake, though. He pulled off that exhausted slump better than anyone I’ve ever seen.

See - I used the word “conservative”, that makes this on-topic.

By Christy

July 20, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Taboga - You’re kidding, right?!?!

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Oh you’re soooo right tomato. Actually addressing the root causes of terrorism is silly and illogical. We should continue creating MORE anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. After all, there’s still room for us to increase al-qaeda’s recruitment numbers even more than we already have.

Personally, toejam, I’m not interested in making people “like” us, I’m just interested in reducing the hostility to the point where they no longer feel compelled to blow us up.

But hey - you keep thinking “critically”. Every post of yours makes the rest of us look even smarter. Do you…even know who Machiavelli was?

By Bruce

July 20, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

TT,

I apologize for my delay in responding to yor post from this morning. I think if you will read my post from this morning you will see that I WAS asking for your OPINION. It was not your looks, money or education I was looking for. You apparently missed a few reading comprehension class while in school.

I never said anything about showing body bags either. Read again and if you need more clarification let me know.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I think we are going to be a 65% running team this year….Richt was pretty balance last year…….they are constructing the new offense around Shockley……

Going to be nice to see a change of style in the offense for the DAWGS……may be the same style football that Ol Tom Osborne used at Nebraska!!!!

Defense is never an issue at UGA….rock hard as always!!!!!!

Hpefully the DAWG nation will make an occupation of our own…..the National Championship Game!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Netbanker

July 20, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Football is such a religion in the South I’m sometimes surprised that the Southern Baptists don’t call it worshiping a false god. Maybe in the churches where the pastor doesn’t have season tickets they do?

By Chilao

July 20, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

I think the weapons of mass destruction have been found, they are being destroyed in Anniston AL.

when the incinerator began burning, there were some protestors. One’s sign said “No ill-will over GA”(since the wind usually moves East from there) and another said “We found the WMD”

By TT

July 20, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Uh oh T! You’re pulling out the big guns—Machiavelli!! Who’s next on your list of role models? Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini? So, let’s go crashing through the world like a bull in a china shop and see how many more of our skyscrapers are attacked. See, the reason the terrorists don’t like us is that they want to be left alone, without Britney Spears on their billboards and the frills of democracy. You forget that 9/11 brought this country to its knees. Remember how vulnerable you felt watching smoke pouring out of the Pentagon. David fell Goliath. If we go trouncing around the world like we’re the big bad superpower, we’re bound to pay for it in the blood of innocents. Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Bush must have gotten it confused when he took us into Iraq with too few troops and a “Bring it on mentality.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

TT,

We went over there with plenty of troops, we just left too few in place after the Major combat stopped……….

BTW, Has anyone checked out my hometown page……I am such a goober!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Kyle

July 20, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Eaton, sorry if my comments came across like that, but I was just trying to make an observation. It seems to me as though democrats reach out to the poor and underprivilleged by promising to solve all their problems - and portraying the rich man as evil (even though most of them have no idea of the plight of the average american). Democrats seem to be for more government because they feel the government, and not the people themselves, are better equipped to solve all our problems. But once those problems are solved, why would the people need them?

TT and Paul, sorry to disappoint, but i don’t have a DU sticker on my car (never really even knew what it meant), don’t own a piece of camo-clothing, and I haven’t been hunting since my parents made me go all the time with my grandfather (and even then all I would do when I got out into the woods at some god awful time in the morning was find a nice place to go back to sleep), and I usually only get my Jeep dirty when I take my dog to the river.

can we please talk about the DAWGS now?

By Kyle

July 20, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

……and I’m from Alpharetta, but what’s so bad about Cobb?

By Tim

July 20, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

my favorite thing about hunting was dove huntin with my dad… I would get the ‘dead’ ones and rip their heads off… then I would save the heads and give/throw them to/on my sister when we got home… ahhh memories

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

DAWGS DAWGS DAWGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DAWGS SIC’EM….WOOF…WOOF….WOOF!!!!!!!!!!

Boise State is talking trash…..they think they are going to walk between the hedges and come out with a BIG win……..

They have never been to GA in early Sept………….rude awakening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Tim,

My dog is to old to retrieve now, want to come to LA in Sept and pick up the dead ones for me? I promise there will be lots of trips into the field and back!

By Tim

July 20, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Paul… no I don’t do that anymore… once I realized that he was using me as his dang huntin dog I got mad and wouldn’t go anymore

By kimberly

July 20, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Okay, I checked out Paul’s page. Cute…. Nice muscles. Nice tat…. LOVE the little cherry apron! Ahhh, to be young and naive again…. I would SO make use of that time if I could get it back. sigh

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Yeah Paul - got a brother? ;-)

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Tim,

Dang it, you got smart to our ways!!!!

Kim,

Believe it or not, I am 30!!! I was cooking (grilling) that day……that apron is over 40 years old!

By TT

July 20, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Bruce: You asked for my opinion, and you got it. If you don’t like criticism of the war, then go back under your rock. Even a staunch Republican like John McCain thinks we’re in a fix in Baghdad. We don’t need the death toll or body bags to know that. Paul, you may be right, but too few troops is still too few troops. I wouldn’t send you out in the woods to kill a buck and then take your rifle. And even if you got your butt spanked by said buck, I wouldn’t go on television and tell your family that you’re doing great and they could expect venison for dinner. Can’t check out your website. Post it again, without spaces. Kyle, I’m just teasing. But I grew up on the Southside where there are woods still left to hunt in. I had to sell my Cherokee when the gas prices started climbing, and I still miss it. Jeeps are like dogs, they need fresh air and some dirt to feel at home.

By Tony

July 20, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

TT

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I have 7 brothers…..all are married and older…..

By taboga

July 20, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

TT,

No little girl - I didn’t feel like “David had defeated Goliath”. We Americans don’t have that defeatist attitude that is at the core of you Liberals. We Americans inherently know that a murdering coward crawling from cave to cave - doesn’t dictate to us who we are, or what we do.

Nor am I interested in the least as to why they hate us, or what they think of us. They, in time - will be rendered irrelevant!

And speaking of irrelevant. Your ideas and thoughts - are meaningless. I couldn’t care less about your self-proclaimed: education, looks and money, you’re just another pitiful societal misfit, prancing around on message boards pretending to be enlightened and intelligent - looking for applauses from faceless and nameless cyber-aliases.

And in case you haven’t noticed, I come out here for amusement and to have a ball making fun of you Useful Idiots — fartherest thing from my mind being to debate you morons with your repetitive “Bush Lied” and “War for Oil” childish chants - making complete and total fools of yourselves.

Grow up little girl - you’re being left behind!

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

aw, shucks

By kimberly

July 20, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Whoa, THIRTY! Time to get fitted for your Depends undergarments! Amazing you can still stand and hold a drink at the same time! Remember the good ol’ days… the NINETIES? Good gosh, the things I’ve learned since I was 30. Seriously… you only THINK you’re getting freaky now.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Here you go TT…….

http://hometown.aol.com/bigdawg0118

I never thought of the hunter in the woods comparison….I see your point.

By kimberly

July 20, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

TT, he called you “little girl.” He’s got fetishes, if you knowwhutImean…. {;->

By Kyle

July 20, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

no way boise state is talking trash? they’re not going to be playing us on the smurf turf for the season opener, but their boys are gonna be dwarfed at every position, especially when the Dawgs massive o-line just runs right over them.

-A soon to be conversation on Sept. 3rd. Boise, “damn are these guys in the NFL already?” Dawgs, “no, boise, this is just what a good team looks like from a real conference.”

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

I don’t know about fetishes, but he’s certainly got issues.

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Kimmie,

30 is old for me, I had an on the edge lifestyle after my dad died when I was 19……..I am pretty FREAKY now…..but always willing to learn more!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Issues????? We all have some type of issues!!!!

Kyle,

Yup, go to the ESPN College Football Message boards (boise st and UGA)……they started their crap back in Feb 05!!!!!

By Eaton

July 20, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

That blue monstrosity is the ugliest field ever…, but I still loathe the sight of orange and white checkerboards more.

I hope they don’t get cocky - Boise state is going to be tough regardless and it’s going to be their first time out with the new offensive make-up.

By TT

July 20, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

I’m no misfit, Taboga. Perhaps you’re having flashbacks to your playground days. When you stop living off your EBT card and get over your misperception that the U.S. can do whatever it wants without repercussions, then maybe we’ll chat. I’m the future. It’s creepy relics like you that will be left behind in a society that is becoming more global by the minute. Pray tell, what made you feel so superior as to label us idiots? Was it because you successfully manipulated google to find a quote to support your arrogant and ignorant view? Machiavelli is in the past and so are you. I hope you eat your words the next time this country is attacked, T-bag. You can’t have a logical debate with anyone on this blog because you don’t have the intelligence. Now go back to your foxhole, Ted Kaczynski.

By kimberly

July 20, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Pop Quiz: Which SEC football team had THIRTEEN consecutive wins last season?

By Tony

July 20, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Monday, July 18, 2005

Good news from Iraq, part 31

Note: Also available from “The Opinion Journal” and Winds of Change. As always, many thanks to James Taranto and Joe Katzman, and all of you readers and fellow bloggers who keep supporting this project. Please note that because of the changes in recent publishing schedule, this installment contains the good news from the past three, instead of usual two, weeks.

Traveling overseas can definitely broaden your horizons, not to mention make you appreciate your home even more:

[Spc. Christopher] Bean, 20, of Port Gibson, finished up a year-long stint in Baghdad as a truck driver with the 594th Transportation Co., a 101st Airborne division. His time in the military has given him a different perspective on the Fourth of July.

“In Iraq, we’re not fighting for ourselves,� said Bean, from his home base in Fort Campbell, Ky. “We’re over there fighting so the Iraqis can have their own Fourth of July.�

One of the things that struck Bean most about his time in Iraq was the people themselves. Most of the Iraqis he met were proud to have the Americans there, he said, and watching them go through their daily lives made him appreciate the historic significance of our Independence Day.

“Being there really opens your eyes to what our forefathers went through to get the freedom we have today,� he said. Nation-building is never quick and never easy; hard-work and heartache are today, and the results often only years if not decades ahead. But the Iraqi people, with the assistance of the Coalition, have commenced their journey, and despite all the hardships, every day is another step forward. Below, some of these often much under-reported and unappreciated steps from the past three weeks.

SOCIETY: According to the latest survey conducted by the Euphrates Development and Strategic Studies Center in provinces of Karbala, Najaf, Babel and Baghdad, while the opinion is almost evenly split on the question whether the constitution drafting process will finish on time, 53% of those polled thought the performance of the presidency council acceptable, 20% considered it as very acceptable, and only 26% thought it unacceptable. 51% of respondents trust the government to some extent, 21% have very strong trust in it, while 27% of surveyed do not trust it at all.

To obtain the whole file go to http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/07/good-news-from-iraq-part-31.html

Get educated, but I doubt most will. You’d rather parrot your talking points!!!

By Paul

July 20, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Speaking of hating Orange and White….I have a Baby UGA (DAWG in training) lifting his leg on a Tenn helmet with a nice yellow puddle on my right calf……..

Gonna be a good game in the 4th when we put in the 3rd string!

By Netbanker

July 20, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

Why is it to some finding out why they hate us and want to destroy us is the same thing as making them like us? Personally, I think getting to indifference is mission accomplished. I could care less if they like us or not, but so long as they don’t hate us to the point of wanting our total destruction that meets my librul criteria for success.

Kimberly…you pretty much nailed by point of view on politics. Less spending, smaller government, more personal responsibility, helping out the disadvantaged (with strings and time limits clearly defined), keeping an eye on big business, and keeping government OUT of private relationship and family matters (think bedrooms and Terry Schiavo)

By Paul

July 20, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

BSU actually have Geese that will land on the field in the winter because they think it is a pond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Bruce

July 21, 2005 07:11 AM | Link to this

I usually don’t get too concerned about the Dwags if they are full of returning starters but man they lost quite a few very good players last year. However, BSU will just be another dog on the porch………but they will have company…

By Brian Curtis

July 21, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this

Paul: “with a nice yellow puddle on my right calf……..”

There’s just something odd about that sentence!

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

Paul, we do all have issues, but toboga has entire subscriptions.

By Jeff Breedlove

July 21, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Diane and liberals like her are either stupid or they just hate freedom and America. Stop trying to attack President Bush and start attacking the extremist Islamic fanatics who are the evil ones. Diane owes her freedom and her life to President George W. Bush she ought to thank him instead of attack him.

By Ben

July 21, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this

Tobaggon - If being an a***** is your idea of fun, then I guess we have a better understanding of how ignorant (there you go Eaton) you are!

Furthermore, I think Bush is an a***** too, and I am the last person you should call unpatriotic and un-American, for it is people like me, Paul and our friends that have defended you the right to run your fat suck. It’s just too bad it would be illegal for me to take that right away from you — fool!

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this

Oh look. It’s another mindless drone entering the fray.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

All I can say is D@MN!!!!!!!!!!!

Brian,

I use it for Jellyfish Stings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

No, that’s OK Ben - that’s a proper use of the word ignorant. Good show, old man, good show!

By Ben

July 21, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this

Breed Ignorance - What has Bush done to provide life and freedom for anyone?

By Kyle

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

I don’t know if she’s on this message board today, but judging from her last comment yesterday, I’m thinking we may have an a.u.b.u.r.n. (alabama usually beats us red necks)fan on our hands. C’mon, that fact alone has hurt her credibility, right?

By Kyle

July 21, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

kimberly, that is

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

I mean…what the heck IS a War Eagle, anyway, and why isn’t ONE mascot enough for them. Why are they so special that they get TWO mascots?

By Jack

July 21, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Auburn should have played in the big game last year. They were screwed. Why can’t they have playoffs in college football like they do the other sports? $$$$

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Uh oh y’all. I think the world is about to end. I agree with Jack on something.

By Tim

July 21, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Kyle… I always heard it as Alabama Usually Beats Us Round November… but I liked the ‘red necks’ version

Eaton… they have a dumb story that goes along with the ‘war eagle’ thing… something about an eagle flying around the stadium and everyone pointing and saying ‘war eagle’ and then the eagle dropped dead… I know that isnt the exact story but it is something like that

Jack… they definitely need to figure something out… almost every season there has been one team that has gotten screwed

By Jack

July 21, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

The sky is falling. LOL

By Paul

July 21, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

College baseball has playoffs (tournaments), soccer, basketball, golf…etc…..WHY NOT FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I must say AU got robbed last year……..West Coast ball sucks!!!! Imagine if UGA, UF, or AU played in the PAC 10…….

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this

Heh Tim, I’ve heard that story - I was just being facetious ;-). I don’t care, Uga could eat both War Eagle and Tiger and not break a sweat. Then he’ll take out Smokey or whatever Tennessee is calling that wannabe dog of theirs. Grrrrrrrrrr.

By Caire

July 21, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

We can never win the war on “terrorism.” Because it isn’t against terrorism, its against an ideology, or basically an entire religion. The only way to win this “war” is for muslims around the world to stand up and denounce the violence declared on anyone who is not a muslim. Even now muslims in London are defending the actions taken by the suicide bombers that killed over 50 innocent people. Diane’s numbers quoted of the Iraqi’s killed are proof of that…think like us or be killed. Now how do you change that opinion? This is a violent, narrow-minded ideology that allows no room for diversity. Until muslims take action against their own, this “war on terriorsm” can never be won.

By TT

July 21, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this

I have the most tragic story: I am a huge Georgia fan, I bleed red and black, and I dress up on game days, as any good Southern girl should do. But my baby sister, traitor that she is, will be heading off to Auburn in the fall. I’m torn, but I am a good sister. So I must know: Should I start buying her camouflage sheets and mud flaps? Is it just a phase she’s going through? Can someone please help? My father looks like a DOT worker in his new Auburn gear and my mother won’t stop stammering about tractor pulls. But seriously, y’all: I was at Georgia-Auburn (note proper ordering of opponents, as in Georgia-Florida)last year and I was quite disappointed with the low turnout from the Bulldog nation. Although I feel Auburn got the short end of the stick and was more deserving of a national championship title than those tacky Trojans, I hope we have more support this year when we take the Tigers between the hedges. And on another note—it’s a damn shame that I, as a young alum, can’t get tickets without sacrificing my first born, but Bubba, who couldn’t get into UGA when it was a chicken coop, can bring all 7 of his cousins up from the holler’ to Athens on game day. Not that this issue takes precedence over our discussions of global politics, or anything.

By Netbanker

July 21, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

Paul…you might want to try grabbing a handful of sand to lightly scrub where the jellfish got you to remove the stinger cells and if it’s still bad after make a paste of H2O and meat tenderizer to slap on there. works great and no p** smell! BTW…if that’s your daughter in the pic with you she’s real cutie! You’re going to be beating the boys off her with a stick in about 10 years. And you look pretty good in an apron too although a set of pearls would have finished the June Cleaver look quite nicely.

Eaton…what are you doing asking about brothers?! You’re already hitched.

What’s up with ‘Diane owes her freedom and her life to President George W. Bush she ought to thank him instead of attack him’? Hmmm…is W secretly a Green Beret who goes on clandestine missions or is actively fighting terrorists and defending our borders in between speaches, state dinners, press conferences and town hall meetings? Our thanks belongs to our fellow citizens in uniform who put their lives on the line every day, you moron! Flying into Iraq to serve Thanksgiving dinner in the mess hall, while a wonderful morale booster for our troops, isn’t quite the same thing as strapping on body armor, grabbing an M16, and pounding the pavement in Baghdad or Fallujah.

By Tim

July 21, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this

well as anyone who grew up in Florida knows… a favorite snack of gators is lil dogs :)

By Jack

July 21, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Bubba and his cousins probably sent some money and some “shine” to those distributing tickets.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

**TT,

There are UK and MISS ST tickets avail for $32 and $35 each. I just bought my MISS ST tix the other day!!!!!!!**

HOW THE HELL ARE YOU LETTING YOUR LIL SIS GO TO AU!!!!!!!!!! SEND HER MY WAY, I’LL STRAIGHTEN HER OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Tracy

July 21, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

For anyone interested.

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Did Clinton miss shot at bin Laden?

Former Christiansburg resident stirs up controversy.

By JEN McCAFFERY THE ROANOKE TIMES

A 1979 Christiansburg High School graduate is at the center of a firestorm over whether the Clinton administration missed a chance to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.

Mansoor Ijaz, now a New York City-based investment banker who traveled to Sudan more than a half dozen times in the mid-1990s, says he repeatedly relayed offers from the Sudanese government to the Clinton White House to share intelligence on bin Laden. In one case, the president of Sudan offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden and turn over information about global terrorist networks, Ijaz says.

The Clinton administration declined to take him up on the offer, Ijaz has argued in a Los Angeles Times commentary, in the pages of the January issue of the magazine Vanity Fair, and on national television shows.

He blames the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on what he says were the Clinton administration’s foreign policy failures.

Ijaz, the son of Pakistani immigrants, has become a fixture on national television shows since Sept. 11. His late father was a physics professor at Virginia Tech and his mother still lives in Shawsville.

“Four thousand Americans lost their lives as a result of a single-minded pursuit of a single policy,” Ijaz, 40, said in a phone interview Friday. “Our approach was ‘contain and control.’ It was the same policy from Indonesia to … Afghanistan. Well, it blew up on September 11.”

Clinton’s former National Security Advisor, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, called Ijaz’s allegations “ludicrous and irresponsible.”

“We were trying to get bin Laden with everything we had, including firing 60 cruise missiles at him in August 1998,” Berger said in a phone interview Friday. Clinton ordered an attack on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that was thought to be linked to bin Laden and suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons.

Former Clinton administration officials don’t dispute that Sudan - which is on the State Department’s list of terrorist nations - sent messages that officials were seeking better relations with the United States. But they do dispute whether the Sudanese ever offered to arrest bin Laden. They have also questioned the veracity of the Sudanese government and of Ijaz himself, arguing that he had business interests in Sudan.

Former Clinton White House officials have also accused Ijaz of representing himself as an agent of the U.S. government in his interactions with foreign governments. And they also question whether Ijaz, who donated almost $1 million to Democrats during the 1990s, is angry that his donations did not influence the Clinton administration’s foreign policy.

Ijaz, who has celebrated Christmas at the White House in recent years and says he had good access to Clinton administration officials, disputes that he had business interests in Sudan. He also disputes that he represented himself to foreign governments as an agent of the U.S. government during his forays into private diplomacy in South Asia, Africa and other locations.

When Osama bin Laden arrived in Sudan from Afghanistan in 1991, he was welcomed by government leaders. Bin Laden began investing in public works in the African country. According to a Los Angeles Times commentary by Gayle Smith, another former senior Clinton administration official, the government also started terrorist training camps and provided a safe haven for extremist Islamic groups. It also did little to try to stop the country’s civil war, which has cost 2 million lives, Smith argued.

Ijaz has said that he met with Sudanese leaders and repeatedly came forward with counterterrorism offers to the Clinton administration, but that he was rebuffed.

Susan Rice, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 1997 to 2000, said Friday that Sudanese officials never followed up with any substantive change in behavior. And they never gave U.S. officials any intelligence files, Rice said.

Ijaz is not alone in criticizing the Clinton administration for failing to engage Sudan.

Former Sudan ambassador Timothy Carney said in a phone interview Saturday that from 1996 to when he left his post in 1997 the dialogue between U.S. officials and the Sudanese government “petered out.” The Clinton administration then rejected Carney’s suggestions about how to re-engage the Sudanese, Carney said.

“The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren’t taking them up on it,” Carney told Vanity Fair. “The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan’s willingness to engage us on serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications - at the least for what happened at the U.S. embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization.”

Rice countered that diplomatic channels to Sudan were always open and that ambassadors, administration and FBI and CIA officials met repeatedly with Sudanese officials from 1994 to 2000. The White House was not looking for foreign policy assistance from Ijaz, a wealthy investor with business interests in oil-rich Sudan, Rice said.

“We did not need, nor would it have been appropriate for us to use a private citizen, particularly one with business interests,” Rice said. She added that Ijaz did not disclose his business interests to administration officials when he met with them in 1996.

Ijaz disputed Rice’s claim, arguing that when he met with Berger and Rice at the White House in 1996, he had “absolutely no business interests in Sudan whatsoever.” The Washington Post reported in a 1997 story, however, that “Ijaz also acknowledged his commercial interests in effecting a reconciliation between the United States and Sudan.”

In 1997, Arakis Energy Corp., a Canadian company with oil fields in Sudan, announced Ijaz’s appointment to an advisory committee to the company’s board. Ijaz said he did not get paid for the position.

But he said “it wouldn’t be the first time that an interested party lobbied Mr. Berger, the White House, the National Security Council or other organs of our government for business purposes.”

Rice and other senior Clinton officials have suggested that Ijaz’s recent criticism stemmed from Ijaz’s frustration that the administration did not listen to his foreign policy recommendations, despite raising almost $1 million for the Democrats during the 1990s. She recalled that at the 1996 White House meeting Ijaz was basically saying that Sudanese leaders weren’t “bad guys.”

“He seems to have expected that his views would become policy because he gave a lot of money,” Rice said.

Ijaz has said the entreaties on the part of the Sudanese government also involved a letter he delivered to the Clinton administration from one of the country’s most powerful politicians, Hassan Turabi, who was later placed under house arrest for criticizing Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s government. The letter, according to New York Newsday, offered to “usher in a new era of improving the understanding and attitudes of all elements of the Islamic world.”

Ijaz delivered another letter from al-Bashir to Rep. Lee Hamilton, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1997. In the letter, al-Bashir offered to open up the country to FBI counterterrorism units and to provide the United States with access to the government’s intelligence files. The Clinton administration did not respond, Ijaz said.

Rice has suggested that the Sudanese government was attempting to “rewrite history.”

“Their lobbyists, business partners and other friends are engaged in an effort to convince people that they were Boy Scouts who wanted to help the United States if we would only let them,” Rice said.

Carney, a former ambassador to Sudan, points to the letters from Sudanese leaders to Clinton and Hamilton as evidence of efforts by the Sudanese to open a dialogue with the United States.

“That’s where the evidence lies,” Carney said. “That is history, it is not rewritten history.”

Berger questioned the timing of a Dec. 5 column in The Los Angeles Times in which Ijaz claimed that the Sudanese government had been trying to share intelligence about terrorist networks.

“Why did this all happen after Sept. 11, when President Bush is talking about targeting state sponsors of terrorism?” Berger asked.

Ijaz wrote in the column that he met with Clinton, Berger, and other administration officials and Sudanese leaders. Sudanese President al-Bashir offered to arrest bin Laden and supply intelligence about the operations of other terrorist groups, Ijaz wrote.

“Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center,” Ijaz continued. “The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.”

In July 2000, Ijaz wrote, he brought a proposal to the Clinton administration from a counterterrorism officer of an Arab nation friendly to the United States that he declined to name. The Arab official offered that bin Laden would be extradited to the unnamed country first and then extradited to the United States if Clinton would make a state visit.

Rice countered that she was “not aware of Bashir ever offering the arrest and extradition of bin Laden.”

Ijaz has claimed he had access to the White House, often meeting with National Security Council staffers. Berger said he recalled meeting with Ijaz twice, once about Pakistan, then about Sudan.

But after the second meeting with Ijaz and Rice in 1996 and before Berger’s appointment as Clinton’s National Security Advisor in 1997, Berger said he was advised by his staff not to continue to stay in touch with Ijaz. Ijaz, however, has said he remained in contact with Berger.

“More than one foreign government, including the Pakistanis, came to the United States government and said Mr. Ijaz was asserting that he was acting as an agent of the United States government,” Berger said. “That was not true and we told them that. And my staff after that suggested that we should be careful in dealing with him.”

Ijaz replied that “the governments that would do that were the ones who wanted to contain and control me.”

Jen McCaffery can be reached at 981-3336 or jenm@roanoke.com.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

Well they hit London again. We need to make sure to get all of the fingernail clippers off grandma when she is at the airport. It makes us so much safer. Those dangerous bic lighters too, they need to go. We’ll let the figurines made out of C4 thru. We don’t want to offend anyone.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this

Netbanker,

I guess you went to my profile on AOL……if not, there are pics of my daughter there……the kids in the background (of the Webpage Pic) are my nieces……

BTW, Daddy has alot of guns…….not sticks needed!

By Paul

July 21, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

no sticks

By TT

July 21, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Yet another bombing in London. It really brings home the point that we need to secure our own infrastructure and interests, rather than focus on the needs of the Iraqis.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Haha… I knew I’d get harassed. Yes, I was fully indignant about the BCS last season UNTIL I watched USC totally SPANK Oklahoma in the the Orange Bowl. As those poor okies were getting smacked around all over the field, down after down after down, I thought, “WOW, am I glad that’s not Auburn out there!” A thirteen-win season? I can be happy with that!

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Net, I’m not hitched. Unfortunately. I live in the benighted NW GA region.

Tim, as anyone who grew up in GEORGIA knows, Uga ain’t no “lil dog”.

TT, you have to face up to the fact that your sister was born this way and learn to love her despite her newfound love of orange and blue. Don’t keep giving her red and black things in the hope that she’ll “come around”…it won’t happen.

By TT

July 21, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Paul—Lil’ Sis doesn’t have the grades for UGA. She is the baby of the family, so she’s a bit of a wild child. Auburn’s a good fit for her, but if she starts chewing SKOL, I’m disowning her. I can’t go to Starkville!! With all of those trailers, it’s like tornado alley. (Sorry, but I would take tailgating in the Grove in Oxford over Dullsville anyday). Ever been out to visit Ole Miss? They make tailgating a sport. They put silver on the table and the best bourbon you’ve ever tasted. They’re almost as hospitable as Dawg fans.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Twenty years ago it was the other way around. I couldn’t get into UGA because my SAT scores were too high! The lottery has made a big difference in education in Georgia, and as such, our main university has attracted better faculty, programs and students. Alabama still stubbornly refuses to find new ways to fund their schools, and as such, the quality of education suffers. They make up for it by charging out-of-state tuition for the full four years, as opposed to the one year I had to pay it. Now all the kids here who can’t get into Georgia are bleeding their folks dry at Auburn, where there are exactly four things to do for entertainment.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Auburn vs. USC would have been a MUCH better game. The powers that be are threatened by the SEC. UGA would fair better in the ratings if they had a tougher schedule. (hard to celebrate a victory over Mexico State, Appalacian State, Etc.)

By Tim

July 21, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Eaton… you may be right… we’ll see come November :)

TT… Starkville is a frightening place indeed

one observation I do have to make… I was at the Florida/Tennessee game 3 years ago… most college guys from Fl were much better looking than the UT studendts… lord help some of them needed to stop picking up dates at the family reunion (the friend I went to the game with agreed and he was a student at UT)

oh and wish my younger bro luck… he is a freshman this year and will be playing football at FIU (school in Miami… picked it b/c they gave him the best scholarship)… he just came in at 6’9” and 335 lbs

By Paul

July 21, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

TT, I have never been to Oxford, but I went to the Ole Miss vs Nebraska Independence Bowl a few years back……they were pretty nice…….I think we offended a few with our tailgate party (lots of beer, scantly clad ladies, filet mignon, brats, and lots more beer)!!! I don’t think it helped that my truck is covered with UGA stuff either! I think the Miss St game will be pretty cool, I have never been to Starkville, but hey, I have been thru Tuscaloosa!!!!!!!!!!

By Paul

July 21, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Jack,

We have a pretty good Schedule this year…..if we could just get rid of Vandy and UK….maybe put LSU and ALA back on there!!!!!!!!!!!

By Paul

July 21, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

The SEC is going to have alot of sleeper teams this year…..UGA (only because everyone is putting them outside the top 10 preseason), LSU, ALA, SC, and maybe UK…..should be a pretty tough year for everyone in the SEC……I do not see a single team that stands above the rest……….YET!!!!

By Paul

July 21, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

BTW,

Who the heck wants to go to Tenn two times this season anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YUCK!

By Vince

July 21, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

You’ve got to be kidding… Well, Shaunti, where is the evidence to prove it wasn’t an inside job? There’s plenty of unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. For instance, there is no physical evidence of a Boeing plane ever hitting the pentagon. With all the video cameras surrounding the pentagon, you’d think we would have seen something to prove it. Close up of the video of the 2ns plane to hit the trade center shows that plane has no passenger windows. And the list goes on and on and on. Fighting Iraq is a joke. The CIA funded and built Saddams palace and empire in the 70’s. This war is simply for nothing more than oil. And, am I the only one that finds the terrorist attacks in London rather odd timing? Didn’t they start up just as Karl Rove was starting to get into hotter water?

By Sage

July 21, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

How many brilliant minds and billions of dollars are dedicated to perpetuating and expanding the myth of American superiority and the resulting necessity to protect ourselves from those murderously envious “others” who wish to destroy us? What if all that brain power and all that money were spent to discover the path to understanding, economic justice, sustainability, mutual respect and peace?

We are all one race, the human race, and we are careening toward destruction with blinding speed. Maybe the image of our earth exploding will be captured by the cameras of an unmanned deep-space probe — but who will be left to analyze the data?

By Paul

July 21, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

OK, time to change this to the UGA Blog…..I think we have beat the dead horse enough!!!!

BTW Vince, You telling me that my buddy (Navy PEntagon Briefer) was killed by his own government???????????

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this

Hey, I know - let’s come up with the wildest conspiracy theories we can and see who wins the “Lunatic Fringe” contest.

By Vince

July 21, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Hi Paul,

I do not want to think 9/11 was an inside job. Makes me sick on my stomach. But, there are so many unanswered questions that nobody seems to want to answer.

As a former resident of Manhattan, I did not know anyone who died in the WTC that day, but I do have two friends who lost loved ones.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this

Vince,

You can not have all the answers all they time, you have to realize alot of the 9/11 crap is still classified!

By Jack

July 21, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

9/11 was staged just as the moon landing was.

By vince

July 21, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

Eaton - a conspiracy theory is an idea based upon formulating conclusions by manipulating evidence. For example, I believe Americans have walked on the surface of the moon. There are some people that examine photographic evidence of that walk, and try to see things in a way to back their claims. What I am suggesting is this…. Their were construction trucks outside the area of impact at the pentagon. Those trucks should have toppled over from the wings. The nose of a Boing jet is extremely thin, so radio transmissions can come and go. How could that thin material burst through three, two and a half concrete walls? The lawn in front of the pentagon was never roughed up. It should have been torn to pieces. Where is the tail of the plane? The seats? The passenger bodies? So, Eaton, I am not trying to find something that isn’t there… I am asking why it isn’t there.

By vince

July 21, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Paul, Classified information has to stay classified. I’m not talking about that.

I’m wanting to know answers to simple questions. One of them is, where is the evidence at the Pentagon? The media had no problem showing the WTC planes over and over. So, why was the VA DOT, The Sheraton Hotel and the Exxon Station’s video tapes seized on 9/11 by the FBI? Why are the photos of that day void of plane parts? Or a lawn torn up?

By Paul

July 21, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

It was Col Mustard in the Ballroom with the rope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

Paul, Hon…. NO ONE wants to believe in that kind of betrayal, not even us libruls. My father was a fighter pilot in the Air Force in the 60’s. He has seen a lot of plane crashes. He too expressed concern that what happened at the Pentagon didn’t look right or seem right with regard to what our government said happened, and what the photographs and time lines suggest. And we know there are lots of unanswered questions.

Any time you have a mystery, ask: Who benefits? The suspicions and “conspiracy theories” wouldn’t have any weight if no one were benefitting. But there are well-connected people getting filthy rich off these tragedies. I’m just saying it deserves our scrutiny.

By vince

July 21, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Thank you Paul for that intelligent response. I imagine since you are unable to answer simple questions that you must resort to jokes.

I know now not to reply to your postings.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Eaton,I think we found a winner.

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

When all else fails, Vince, try Snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Or another favorite of mine, Vince:

Occam’s Razor (also spelt Ockham’s Razor), is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

In its simplest form, Occam’s Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says The simplest explanation is the best. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam’s Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this

Snopes rocks! I use it all the time when I get these stooopid emails about how Starbucks “doesn’t support the troops” or “the ACLU is trying to stop Marines from praying” or “Pepsi is taking God off their cans” or other such nonsense requesting me to sign my name to the bottom and forward to 100 people RIGHT NOW before democracy and freedom are doomed. http://www.snopes.com

By Bobb

July 21, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Vince, what is mystifying about 250,000 pounds or whatever of airplane flying at 300 mph being able to smash through some concrete walls? Hell, if we could get you up to 300 and aimed you at a concrete wall, you’d probably at least make an impression.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Vince,

True, but I look at it this way, plane train, auto…..does not matter….I lost a friend there! I’ll admit it does not look right, but strange stuff happens……I passed by a wreck on I-20 one day…..pretty burnt up car in the median……a few days later I learned it was 4 18 Wheelers and 2 SUVs…..too me it looked like on a single car accident…….maybe a crop duster hit the pentagon…….fire can make things vanish!

Kim,

You are right, we should know……but hey if the government wants to keep it under their tounge…then so be it, it does not change the way I wake up every morning…..I have never given it any thought…that was 4 years ago…..all I care about is we lost alot of people that day….

TT,

So what did you think of my sight?????

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Bobb, Vince’s questions are valid. First of all, most of us have never SEEN what happens to a building when a fuel-filled jet liner smashes into it, and many of us are still not able to wrap our minds around what happened that day. But there ARE unanswered questions — VALID questions about the confiscated tapes, the undisturbed areas around the outside of the building, the lack of body parts lying around like there were in New York, and the fact that no one reported or filmed a low-flying commercial jetliner headed for the Pentagon during the height of rush hour.

Asking questions is not the same thing as saying, “I KNOW what happened!” and pointing a finger. Asking questions is a valid response to a situation that, from all appearances, does not exactly add up.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

He would probably make more of a stain than an impression.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

They say the plane that hit the Pentagon was meant for the Capital building but the pilot got turned around and decided to hit something he was able to recognize. I’m pretty confident that a plane did hit the Pentagon, I do not think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

By Bobb

July 21, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why, but I’m going to ask anyway. What person or persons are you suggesting faked all this and why? And don’t just say, “well connected people”. Is this all leading back to Bush’s insatiable taste for oil, or was it the Israelis, or maybe Halliburton wanting another big reconstruction contract? Make it good, please.

By Bobb

July 21, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Jack, I was trying give him the benefit of the doubt.

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

No matter how much I despise George Bush and the members of his administration, I would never in my wildest dreams believe that they willingly and maliciously encompassed the mass-murder of thousands of Americans.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

How long do you think before we’re hit again? I say before the end of September. Hope not. My son takes the train everyday.

By Kyle

July 21, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Ok, I’ve been gone for a few hours, but I can’t believe what I’m reading.

Vince, what exactly are you saying? Since the gov’t wants to withhold certian evidence - probably for security reasons - that we should immediately jump to outragous conclusions and blame our own government for one of the worst acts on our soil in history? You say you just want answers to simple questions, but how ‘bout a question for your theory. What exactly did our gov’t have to gain from this? Let’s see, their thought process probably went something like this: Hmmmm, I really want to threaten our peoples’ sense of safety, bankrupt the airline industry, destroy the stock market, and just generally s** on the american economy for the next few years. I’ve got it!

Kimberly: nice to see their are a few reasonable AU fans out there. But, you can’t say you were happy that the war eagles/tigers/plainsmen/etc….. weren’t getting a shot in the big game! Gotta have some confidence in your team. I HATE USC!

By vince

July 21, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

I do not want to think Bush’s people did this. I DO NOT WANT TO THINK this was an inside job. The point of my asking these questions is for someone to explain to me why the wings didn’t knock over the trucks, why the lawn didn’t get torn apart, why there is no video coverage, why are there no bodies or plane parts and how could a thin sheet of alum penetrate three two and a half concrete walls. I just need to put that together so I WOULD NOT THINK otherwise.

And, if this was an inside job, it wouldn’t be the first. Leaders have staged terrorist attacks against their people for thousands of years. They do it for the sake of creating a patriotic support to go to war with a manufactured enemy. In this case, a failed Texas oil man wants control over the world’s largest supply of hydro carbon fuel.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Where was NORAD? Why was the August 6th memo ignored? If bunnypants was so bent on spending a month at his ranch, couldn’t he have AT LEAST warned the FAA that there was SOME SORT OF THREAT to airline security? You know, a MEMO that said, Hey, watch for suspicious passengers! And why did he sit there reading that goat book? And why is Bin Laden still at large, apparently healthy and well-fed? And WHY were forces pulled from Afghanistan and put into a country where Bin Laden was NOT? And why did the story change SO MANY TIMEs? And BTW, WHERE was NORAD? Payne Stewart’s lear jet fails to respond on the radio, and suddenly it’s surrounded by our finest in air defense. FOUR… count ‘em FOUR commercial airliners are hijacked, and NO FIGHTER PLANES ARE ANYWHERE. I’m not saying I know anything. I’m saying something smells funny. I’m not saying all our leaders are lying murderers. I’m saying something smells funny… then, and four years later the smell is getting worse.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Kim,

There were f-16’s in pursuit of the plane that went down in Penn…..I was stationed at USSTRATCOM (United States Strategic Command)at the time, we had f-16s and f-15s (over Omaha) flying CAP within 25 minutes of the 1st tower being hit….FYI, it is where the Pres came after he left Barksdale(

By Jackie

July 21, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

If anyone in this forum does not believe that our government has kept secrets about this matter, I ask any of you to try to get some information from the Federal Court Building in Atlanta concerning the trial of the manager of the branch of the Bank of Italy, whose is in jail today, for making a $2 billion dollar loan on his own determination to Iraq. I would submit to you that those proceedings are still SECRET and your research will find that it was so SECRET, the government would not allow the documentation to be REVIEWED by the Federal Judge handling the case. My point being, the Government will do what it chooses if we do not hold it accountable.

By vince

July 21, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have made the same connection with Payne Stewart’s plane, and have been ignored. And in regards to Norad, there were 61 deployments in 2001 prior to 9/11. And nothing 9/11. And, even more bizarre, if you go to the FAA website and input the “N” number from the tail of United Flight 93, the FAA shows that plane is still in operation today. I thought it crashed in PA.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

All you have to do is submit a FOIA request to any Office of the Government…the worst they can do is tell you know, and of course they are not going to release CLASSIFIED info to open sources…….that is not good OPSEC.

By vince

July 21, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Again, I am not concerned with secrets or classified information. And I am ignoring anyone who resorts to name calling.

Someone answer these questions which are NOT related to security or classified information: Trucks not toppled by wings No plane parts Lawn not torn up Thin little alum nose makes a hole through three 2.5 concrete walls. No body parts, or luggage.

And while regarding United Flight 93; if you input the N number into the FAA Website, the FAA shows that plane is still in operation. I thought it crashed in PA.

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Apparently Vince has no interest in actual answers to his questions or he would right now be reading the debunking of this particular myth on Snopes.

By Jackie

July 21, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

Paul,

The information they release is usually redacted and of little use to anyone. As you are aware, our government has and will continue to keep items secret that should be open and avilable to the public. Why is Jose Padilia not charged and being kept in solitary confinement, even though he is an American citizen and was arrested on American soil? Should our democratic republic be strong enough to withstand the sunshine of the truth?

By vince

July 21, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Hi Eaton,

I just read snopes. Thank you for that link, I’m glad I got to read it. Here’s what I learned:

For the first time and only time in aviation history, an entire plane and its contents were consumed by fire; this event would defy the laws of physics if consumed by jet fuel. Thank goodness for snopes. Finally a resource that makes everything all right. Forget the laws of physics, we have snopes.

That light-grey smoke which is always seen as a result of a DU warhead strike, is misleading on this physics law breaking event. This time the light grey smoke is from jet fuel. Snopes doesn’t explain what happened to the video tapes from the Sheraton, Exxon or VA DOT, but do we really need video proof at this point?

One can conclude that for a single event, jet fuel makes light grey not black smoke, planes can evaporate and burn themselves up completely, and the grass at the Pentagon is a special grass that doesn’t get torn up when a plane makes an incredible slam (by a poorly skilled pilot I might add) into a building only a few feet away.

Thank God for snopes. I feel like an American again.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I have read the snopes de-bunking. I love snopes, as I said. However, with regard to this particular “urban myth,” it still leaves a lot unanswered. Shall we begin to look at the collapse of WTC building number 7? The one that came down several hours later in the exact same manner as that of a controlled demolition, even though it was neither struck nor burned that morning? And what exactly was inside that building? These questions were lost in our collective shock and horror. These questions were unanswered in our desire to “GET” whoever did this. Of course, as you know, our President later said he wasn’t all that concerned with Bin Laden, you know?

By Paul

July 21, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

http://www.williamstownfd.com/images/crashsite.jpg

Crashsite of an A10 Warthog…….not much left of the plane, but the trees are still there…..must not have happened

By Bobb

July 21, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Now I’m worried about all those airline workers, airport workers, FAA employees, emergency/medical/police personnel, military personnel, Pentagon employees, reporters, and the victim’s family members who are going to have to die one-by-one over years in order to keep the truth from us…..or maybe…. they are keeping them in underground bunkers at Area 51……….

By vince

July 21, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

And what ever happened to the anthrax letter investigation? I guess when the only federal employees who received anthrax laced letters were the two top Democrats, an investigation isn’t worthy. Nice to know that the terrorists spared the Republicans those nasty letters.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

here are somemore…..

http://www.lubbockonline.com/images/010903/PLANE_CRASH.jpg

http://www.lubbockonline.com/images/083000/f16parts.jpg

http://www.lubbockonline.com/images/083000/f16_crashsite.jpg

you see, there is not always alot left after a plane crash……..BTW, did they ever release a passenger list of the plane that hit the Pentagon??????????

By vince

July 21, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Hey Bobb,

Look up Stanley Hilton and read about him.

Again, I do not want to believe it was an inside job. I want to know why there are so many discrepancies.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Funny Joke I just heard…..

If the Arabs comitted 9/11 and the recent attacks in London….then why did they not do them on 7-11!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! LOL

By Jackie

July 21, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

When the space shuttle had a problem with re-entry a couple of years ago, it was traveling at more than 17,000 mph and it was being consumed by plasma, which is well over the 4000 F temp produced by JP4. The frame of the shuttle is made from roughly the same material as a commerical jetliner. They were able to put together more than 65% of the space shuttle, yet, they say the Pentagon crash site plane disintergrated. Keep in mind a commerical jet CAN NOT travel at more than 650 mph. Can anyone explain this magic as to how the majority of the shuttle was found and the Pentagon crash disintergrated? Magic, huh?

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this

Building seven: http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/14922.php You can look at the clips yourself. How come no other skyscaper in history turned from a tall, fire-safe structure into fine powder in a matter of seconds, when it had not even bit HIT? I remember watching this live on the news and thinking, Hey, WHY is THAT building falling down? There ARE things being covered up here. I’m not saying who and what, but when my kid lies to me, I know it, and when a man lies to me I know it (please hunny, LIE to me!) and when something is this fishy, there’s a lie in there someplace.

Paul.. hunny…. Lubbock Texas is not the world’s greatest bastion of unbiased news.

By Vince

July 21, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

Great point! Excellent point. Remember, by asking that question, you may quickly be considered dumb. Be prepared. Dumb is icky.

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Vince, Snopes is considered the pre-eminent site for debunking rumors. It has credibility across party lines and is often recommended by journalists and other professionals as an excellent resource.

That you would so cavalierly dismiss the information provided suggests to me that you really aren’t interested in having this theory of yours debunked, that you would prefer to believe the, frankly, unbelievable.

Ask yourself the REAL questions - If planes did fly into the WTC, as we know they did, then A) If the government were somehow involved, what would prevent them from flying a plane into the pentagon as well? Why would they need to fabricate this when they had already accomplished it in the first place. Or B) If the gov’t weren’t involved with the WTC, but were responsible for the Pentagon, then how did they know to co-ordinate their phantom plane strike with the real one?

It’s not a matter of coming up with a couple of questions for which you can’t find answers and claiming that these questions point to a conspiracy, it’s a matter of asking the rational, logical questions. It’s why I quoted occam’s razor for you. I can probably come up with five reasonable-sounding questions about the construction of the pyramids, but that still doesn’t mean that they were built by aliens.

Vince, ask yourself - under what circumstances would the theory your describe be rational?

By Paul

July 21, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

I saw some of fthe parts from the shuttle, they were stored at Barksdale…….the shuttle did not sit in one place and burn either……they are also designed to withstand the HEAT of re-entry to Earth……HEAT Shields…..Not many parts without those heat shields were recovered…….maybe they were consumed by the swamps of Louisiana???? Also, Shuttles are made of different material than planes…..

Kim,

I did an internet search on plane crash…that is one of the 1st sites I came upon…..

By Jack

July 21, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

If the plane did not hit the grass, it would not have been torn up. Bldg #7 fell because the devastation from the towers falling took out the supportive structures beneath. Do you also think the moon landing was staged?

By TT

July 21, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Hmmm…I never thought about this being an inside job, even as cynical as I am about this administration. After the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the attacks on embassies in Africa, there were plenty of signs that Al Qaida was planning on striking out at Americans and hitting us hard. Judith Miller, one of the reporters jailed in this Karl Rove/Joseph Wilson mess, was talking about bin Laden long before Bush could locate Afghanistan on a map, and Clinton was warned repeatedly as well. This is a simple matter of an apathetic, arrogant, and ignorant American public that said, “It can’t happen here. We’re a superpower.” Not to mention, two different presidents that ignored intelligence and inherited a legacy of aiding untrustworthy allies. It’s only fitting that the hijackers manipulated our own airlines and the Taliban shot down U.S. planes with rockets supplied to them by Americans 20 years ago. Terrorists formed cells on our turf and took flight lessons on our soil—right under the nose of the FBI and the CIA. Guess we were too busy turning our snouts up at the rest of the world to notice.

By Christy

July 21, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

In 1967 I was a young officer in a Scottish battalion engaged in peacekeeping duties in Aden town in what is now Yemen. The situation was similar to Iraq, with people being killed every day. As always, those who suffered the most were the innocent local people. Not only were we tough, but we had the power to pretty well destroy the whole town had we wished.

But we had a commanding officer who understood how to make peace, and he led us to do something very unusual, not to react when we were attacked. Only if we were 100 percent certain that a particular person had thrown a grenade or fired a shot at us were we allowed to fire. During our tour of duty we had 102 grenades thrown at us, and in response the battalion fired the grand total of two shots, killing one grenade-thrower. The cost to us was over 100 of our own men wounded, and surely by the grace of God only one killed. When they threw rocks at us, we stood fast. When they threw grenades, we hit the deck and after the explosions we got to our feet and stood fast. We did not react in anger or indiscriminately. This was not the anticipated reaction. Slowly, very slowly, the local people began to trust us and made it clear to the local terrorists that they were not welcome in their area.

At one stage neighboring battalions were having a torrid time with attacks. We were playing soccer with the locals. We had, in fact, brought peace to the area at the cost of our own blood. How had this been achieved? Principally because we were led by a man whom every soldier in the battalion knew would die for him if required. Each soldier in turn came to be prepared to sacrifice himself for such a man. Many people may sneer that we were merely obeying orders, but this was not the case. Our commanding officer was more highly regarded by his soldiers than the general, one must almost say loved. So gradually the heart of the peacemaker began to grow in the man and determination to succeed whatever the cost. Probably most of the soldiers, like myself, only realized years afterwards what had been achieved. David Christie

By Jack

July 21, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

One question. Do you really think the govt is smart enough to pull off something like what you are implying? If you do I have some ocean front property in Iowa for sale.

By vince

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

Eaton, I do want my theory debunked. That’s why I want answers….

Light grey smoke from jet fuel…?

Only time in history a plane crash defies laws of physics..?

Where is the video proof? Lord knows we saw the WTC stuff over and over.

If the plane missed the lawn (BIG IF) then why weren’t the construction trucks in front of the area of impact toppled over?

I only want those questions answered. That’s it. And so far, nobody has answered them. Which makes me wonder…

So, forgetting 9/11 and the Pentagon….

Someone answer the questions….

By Jackie

July 21, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I am know that the heat shields protected some of the parts in the shuttle and the heat shields did their job. I am also aware that the material used to construct the shuttle is composed of different formulation of material for the frame. My point is, the frame of the shuttle is composed an aluminum composite as is those of commerical and military aircraft. My point is, if the shuttle is able to be reassembled using only those parts retrieved after the crash, can we do the same thing with the crash at the Pentagon.The government contends the “black box” was lost. Pure magic.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Jack, now how would I remember the moon landing when I was just a tiny lil’ tot?

Paul, good plane crash pix. Thanks. Now I’ll be sure not to forget my tranqs next time I fly. As if Delta didn’t scare be bad enough last time I was stuffed into one of those rattling little Folger’s cans they call an airplane…

Everybody, why are we being ridiculed for asking questions? Hello? It DOESN’T SEEM RIGHT. Every self-defense instructor will tell you to listen to that little voice inside that says, “Something is wrong here!” Since when does blind faith equate to intelligence?

If you’re a soldier, you’re trained to do the blind faith thing and the “our leaders are right no matter what” thing. A soldier is hard-coded to believe and obey his superiors. Okay then, but what about the rest of us? If it doesn’t add up, then count again. A piece is missing somewhere.

By Vince

July 21, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Did I ever say I thought they could? If I did, I’ve got ocean front property in Kansas for you.

Just answer my questions and stop evading.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Christy, that was beautiful. Thank you.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

I don’t think the cell phone conversations by the doomed passengers were made up. I was happy when they quit broadcasting those. Those brought out the horror the passengers and their kin went through. Kim, I thought TT was the devil’s advocate! LOL

By Jack

July 21, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Vince you are sounding quite foolish. I’m not evading as you say. Do a little research. You have a computer…use it.

By Bobb

July 21, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this

I think Vince and Kimberly have their own little conspiracy going and we’ve all fallen for it.

By TT

July 21, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Go easy on me Jack, I’m just a little girl, remember. LOL. I’m just grateful that we’ve moved away from vitriol and onto conspiracy theories. I don’t have the answers to those questions, Vince. But in my opinion, September 11, including the attackes on the WTC and the Pentagon, and the downed flight in Pennsylvania, were not perpetuated by the government. Bush is not that bright and Rove likes to stick to spreading rumors. Checked out the site, Paul. Did you play football at UGA? Please tell me you left that apron at home for training camp!

By Jack

July 21, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this

The late great W.C. Fields once said : There are two reasons for drinking. 1. When you are alone. 2. When you are with somebody.

By Dakotawoman

July 21, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Were there cell phone conversations recorded from people on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon? Where was NORAD? The defense system in the “greatest country in the world” failed? A group of men could take over that many planes and fly them into four different sites and we are not protected by NORAD? The organizations supposed to keep us safe, CIA, FBI, all failed? The country was attacked and our prez sat for 10 minutes reading a book and then made a speech? Wouldn’t you think the secret service agents would have immediately rushed him out of there thinking there might be a plane headed for him? Where was NORAD? No, nobody wants to think it was an inside job. That makes me sick. And nobody wants to think there were some people who knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen so there would be an excuse for war, etc. But I agree that something just doesn’t add up. Remember those disease infected blankets the white man gave to native american children? I don’t think human life has ever been terribly important to men dazzled by power and $$$$$$.

By vince

July 21, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Thank you Jack. By taking the time to say you are not evading, you once again… evaded.

I use my computer, which is why I have questions.

you see, physics tells us jet fuel burns black, not light grey. I got that from a website. So, why didn’t the crash at the pentagon make black smoke? (You’ve got a compueter Jack, use it)

Where are the plane parts? The bodies? The seats? The video tapes? The lawn being torn? The trucks getting toppled over? (Come on Jack, use that computer to find your answers)

And as far as WTC falling down because of the WTC towers….? I used to work on Liberty Street in NYC, in a 53 year old, six story office building. About fifty feet from Tower One. That building remains standing today.

And yet, WTC 7, way far away, collapses. That would be the only time in history a steel building of its kind ever fell due to fire. But, then again, 9/11 was a day of exception, wasn’t it?

(Jack, I got the following from a website, from my computer. Its a website from the US Government)

WTC 7 collapsed completely in less than 7 seconds, a time almost equal to that of unimpeded free-fall. If a brick were dropped from 570 feetâ€â€?the height of Building 7’s roofâ€â€?in a vacuum, it would hit the ground in 5.95 seconds. Thus, the building’s falling mass encountered almost no resistance, showing that its structure had been destroyed before it fell.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

**TT,

I played at GSU (until kicked out of school) and then for the Nebraska Trail Blazers in the NAFL…..**

Vince,

I showed you pics of how planes can just disappear!!!!!!

By Jack

July 21, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Vince I’ll refrain from calling you a name. But it begins with an I and ends with a t.

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Now Jack, what happened to being nice to everyone.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

I think Vince is really Mel Gibson……his eyes are taped open now…………………………

By Paul

July 21, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

TT,

I only use that apron for special events……it is over 40 years old….

By Mike Cantrell

July 21, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

What a silly thought process, look at the countries where there have been terrorist attacks that doen’t even have people in the country. What about Keyna? The most absurd statment made is that we need to hunt these terrorist down and bring them to justice. We need to hunt them down and KILL them.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

I’m trying Eaton. Hard not to get aggravated.

By Jack

July 21, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Bless your heart Vince. Be patient. The men in the white coats will be there soon.

By Paul

July 21, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

I am going……if anyone wants to continue…my email is bigdawg0118 @ aol . com or bigdawg0118 @ cox . net

I am going to cut my grass before it rains!!!!

By Paul

July 21, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

or you can always find me here……http://www.collegefanatics.com on the Georgia board of course as BIGDAWG4126 Check it out, lots of good football talk!

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Vince, some people cannot even consider the possibility of a betrayal of that magnitude. Much like mothers who don’t see their husbands rape their children for years right under their noses, it’s just inconceivable, therefore, “it cannot be.” Never mis-underestimate the power of denial. It’s an excellent strate-gery. Just ask Rove!

By Jack

July 21, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

You’re egging Vince on Kimberly. Naughty.

By kimberly

July 21, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this

Vince seems perfectly sane to me, even if I am naughty. {;->

By Eaton

July 21, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry if I cling to the principles of rational thought. Unless someone can make the proposed conspiracy make more sense than the currently accepted explanation, I’m going to have to discount it.

Chaos theory tells us that the more complex a system, the less predictable it is. A crashing plane represents a VERY complex system, so for me a few so-called inconsistencies like fuel burning with the wrong color smoke don’t outweigh the results of applying occam’s razor. Sorry…

And Paul, you’re a brave, brave man to be handing out your e-mail address to us. Didn’t you know we’re all crazy? ;-)

peace out, all. Until tomorrow.

By Jackie

July 21, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Jack,

As a matter of background, out of the 4 planes involved in the 9/11 fiasco, most of the pilots and flight engineers were former military officers. On EACH plane there were no less than 43 people aboard with one plane having more than 100 passengers. 1) When you fly, the first thing they tell you about an emergency is dropping the oxygen mask. Do you think those military men would not have thought of that? 2) The hijackers were not very large, therefore, I find it hard to believe that 2 of them guarding the door could protect the two that were flying the plane. Ask yourself the question, if you knew you were going to die, would you die on someone else’s terms?

By Ben

July 22, 2005 07:57 AM | Link to this

There was a security video released from one of the gates at the Pentagon. It caught “whatever” hit the Pentagon on video and it was showed frame by frame. And in my opinion, it definitely wasn’t a plane.

I’ve seen several F-16 crashes and I can’t even count how many helo crashes, most are extremely messy. I’ve also seen the damage caused by large missles that hit buildings. The fact that the impact zone and hole in the Pentagon is pretty circular leads me to believe that it was a missle of some sort. I don’t think there is anyway a plane that size hit the Pentagon and didn’t make a bigger mess than it did.

By vince

July 22, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this

I’m not participating with the week’s discussion anymore.

Here’s why… I’ve asked the same simple questions over and over, because I want someone to explain to me that this was not an inside job, and yet the only thing I get are stupid comments like, “Do you think we went to the moon?” or” you’re an i and ends with a t”.

I was hoping for intelligent conversation, but none to be found here.

So, good luck folks. Just remember, jet fuel burns light grey when the government tells us so. (All other times it burns black, like at the WTC on 9/11) The laws of physics can be broken when the government tells us so. (9/11 is the only time in history a plane completely vanished and was consumed by jet fuel). The thin alum nose of a boeing suddenly takes on new properties when commandeered by terrorists, and has the strength to make perfect holes in three of the five rings at the Pentagon. I don’t know, but thin alum usually tears apart, and doesn’t puncture 2.5 foot thick concrete walls, but then again, it was 9/11, and as we’ve learned over the last two days, physics didn’t count that day.

So, good luck folks. And remember, stay away from intelligent logic, or you’ll be labeled an …”it starts with an I and ends with a T”.

Such intelligent debating skills. I will so miss this blog.

By Ben

July 22, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

Vince - Are you taking your ball and going home too?

By Eaton

July 22, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry Vince, but are you a chemist or a physicist? You think your questions are intelligent because, I’m guessing, you’ve seen them on a website.

How do you know the laws of physics were broken in the crash - because you read somewhere that they were? How do you know the properties of jet fuel? Because you read somewhere that it burns one color? No possibility that when other substances are involved in the combustion that the color of the smoke changes? Hmm?

I’m neither a chemist nor a physicist, so I can’t answer most of your questions with any accuracy, and neither can anyone here. The problem is, we don’t know that they are legitimate questions. And truthfully, I don’t think you really want answers, despite your protestations that you do.

Here IS one answer for you, however. F=M*A. This will explain how a plane crashing can do substantial damage, even though it’s made up of what you call flimsy material.

Here’s another one for you - motive, means, opportunity. We know that al-qaeda had all three of these, but where are they for the government conspiracy you are positing? Where is ANY logic in that conspiracy?

By Paul

July 22, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this

OKAY………..BYE!

Eaton,

I love people in white jackets!

By Archie

July 22, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

“Chaos theory tells us that the more complex a system, the less predictable it is. A crashing plane represents a VERY complex system, so for me a few so-called inconsistencies like fuel burning with the wrong color smoke don’t outweigh the results of applying occam’s razor.”

That’s represents the way I look at this thing. It’s possible that some of us don’t know as much as we think when it comes to physics. Those buildings may have fallen the way they did on 9/11 because they weren’t made the way that we think. The president did not need 4 planes to crash in order to justify war because he was going to attack Iraq anyway. Bush’s mind was made up from the day he took office and I can’t think of a purpose for an inside job with 9/11.

By Kyle

July 22, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Nice! Vince is leaving. What a great way to start the day. Although I’m guessing that is just going to continue to read the posts and pop in later with some other brilliant theory.

I’m sure everyone here is planning on going out and supporting our President today while he makes his stop in Atlanta, right?

By manon fancher

July 22, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

So, using the right wing logic, if someone comes into my house and kills a family member, I can just go out and kill anyone, it doesn’t matter who. It doesn’t have to be the right person. I just don’t understand why the right insists that the war in Irag is just. I don’t know how often they have to hear this: Irag had nothing to do with 911. Nothing. so all of the people that have died, have died in vain. During WW2, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Imagine if we would have then proceeded to invade Canada, bomb the country and kill its citizens. Well, that is what the US is doing. It always comes back to the same thing. We lied to get into Irag and now that is just brushed over. I wonder what the right wing will do for an encore. I mean, if invading, occupying a country and killing it’s citizens and then lying about it is o.k. what is left for us to be outraged about?

By Tim

July 22, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

Kyle I hope that was a joke… that man makes my stomach turn

By Eaton

July 22, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Don’t get crazy, Kyle. Just because I don’t buy into Vince’s conspiracy theories doesn’t mean I detest that man any less.

By Archie

July 22, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Eaton is right to suggest that we base our opinions on what we read and some of what we know and what we believe. If what we read is wrong then there will be a flaw in our conclusion if we use the wrong information. We do know that Saddam Hussein lead Iraq at one point and Iraq received various supplies including weapons from the US and we also know several experts said Iraq did not have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and we know the inspectors did not find any weapons of mass destruction and we have not found any at this time. We also know that Mr Bush could not have known what Iraq had because our own government has said that the intelligence wasn’t very good and finally a bipartisan committee has said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Basically Mr Bush equivocated when speaking to the public about Iraq. That is a hard thing to say but it is what it is. The possibility that there no weapons of mass destruction was first put out there by Joseph Wilson who was retaliated against via his wife in a sort of slick way. No laws were broken but we’ll make sure she can’t go undercover,in other words, we’ll damage her career.

By Kyle

July 22, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Ok, obviously I didn’t get my sarcasm through on my Bush message. I’m glad to have Bush making a stop in our city, but I never dreamed that you guys would be excited in the least - yes, it was a joke

manon fancher: I would definately consider myself a “right winger”, and I don’t think that Iraq was directly connected to 9/11. However, I do believe that Iraq was and is connected with the larger movement of terroism that ultimately did cause 9/11. Iraq had multiple terroists camps located within its borders. What do you think those people do after they leave the camps? Also, to say those soliders died in vain is ridiculous. Those soliders are fighting to ensure the saftey of our people, as well as liberating a country from a brutal dictator.

By Jack

July 22, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Jackie, The passengers initially thought that they were just being hijacked and not about to be flown into buildings. The passengers on the flight that crashed into the field in PA caused the crash after they learned what was about to happen from their cell phone conversations with their kin. I am sure, had the passengers on the other planes knew what was about to happen, they would have fought too. I guess you and Vince also think the govt created the AIDS virus too?

By Jack

July 22, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Ms. McKinney will be right up there in front ready to kiss the pres.

By Paul

July 22, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

Ok Guys and Gals……..I am off to my COMPANY picnic……got to go burn some burgers and brats in the “Cherry Apron” of mine (see other post if you have no clue as to what that meant)!!!!!!!!! Have a great weekend and be safe!!!!!!

DAWGS SIC’EM…….WOOF…….WOOF…..WOOF!!!!!!!!!

By Archie

July 22, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this

Archie: First of all, the reporter called Rove. Not the other way around. Secondly, the entire conversation was about a different issue until the very end when the REPORTER asked Rove about the story Wilson had released. Rove merely cleared up Wilson’s inaccurate claim that the VP’s office sent him over there to investigate. Rove told the reporter that Wilson was sent by the CIA and that he had heard that Wilson’s wife also worked their. Basicly, Rove was clearing up Wilson’s inaccurate statement and trying to save this reporter frim printing false information.

-BTW, I’ve seen several CIA members interviewed since this thing broke, including Wilson’s wife’s boss, and they all say that her career has not be damaged and that she we be able to go undercover in the future if she chooses.

By Kyle

July 22, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

sorry, Archie. I think I put your name in my name box when I posted that last message

By Jackie

July 22, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Jack, Do you believe the passengers who witnessed the stewardess and pilots being killed were sitting there believing they were going to be taken on a lovely journey to Cuba? Put yourself in that situation and apply logic to form a conclusion. Killing the pilots would indicate that something other than a “ordinary” hijacking was occurring. Just another question for you. How did the hijackers all manage to turn their planes in roughly the same area - Detroit/Cleveland and head back to New York and Washington, DC without a flight plan and the coordinates to input into the plane’s computer? You do know that most jetlines fly on automatic flight controls?

By TT

July 22, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

I, like the majority of Americans, am not terribly concerned over this whole Karl Rove affair. Know why? Because it’s a tremendous waste of time on an unimportant issue. It reminds me of the attempts to impeach Clinton. I know Rove is shady, but I am too cynical to believe that this administration cares what the American public thinks. Nor do I think that Rove will be removed from his position, despite the findings of the DOJ. This administration is notorious for making false promises, misinformation, and backpedaling. For my own blood pressure, I can’t get worked up about this scandal, because there are larger issues for me to worry about, like terrorist attacks on our infrastructure and our civilians, our porous borders, the great loss of life in the Iraq war, and the religious right and efforts to stomp on abortion rights.

By Archie

July 22, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Kyle apology accepted. This thing is being investigated so we will see but reporters do print inaccurate information often so I just wonder why that reporter’s questions were answered the way they were.

By vince

July 22, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

conspiracy theory: claims an event or series of events is the result of secret manipulations by two or more individuals or an organization, rather than the result of a single perpetrator or natural occurrence. Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of events, and proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic.

Folks, anyone calling my inquiries the elements of a conspiracy theory does not have a clue as to what a conspiracy theory actually is.

I DO NOT THINK 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

And because of that, I don’t think the government has anything to hide. And when you have nothing to hide, you should be able to answer questions, that not only myself have asked, pertaining to those events.

And does one have to be a chemist to understand grey smoke doesn’t come from jet fuel? the photos from the WTC fires looked very black to me.

By vince

July 22, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Saw a great bumper sticker yesterday….

“I’d rather have a president that screwed an intern than screw his country”.

By Kyle

July 22, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

TT, it’s fine by me to not talk about the Rove “scandal” at all. Because, in my opinion, it’s not a scandal, or even newsworthy for that matter. The Democrats smelled blood and they pounced. I won’t bring it up anymore, but if someone else throws it out there as a scandal, I feel inclined to at least give both views on the situation.

By Tim

July 22, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

I just wish they would stop showing Rove’s picture… he is creepy looking

By Kyle

July 22, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this

Vince, I thought you had given up on us? Couldn’t find an intelligent conversation elsewhere?

By Archie

July 22, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

I have to side with Jack about the plane situation. I mean you don’t get on a plane thinking someone is going to hijack the plane and you don’t think a hijacker will ram it into a building. You can’t always react logically because you’re not always dealing with logical situations. We don’t know verbatim what the hijackers told the pilots,etc. but again we do know they are dead. For what purpose would our government participate in such a murderous plan?

By Jack

July 22, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Jackie bless your heart. How long had it been since an airliner been hijacked prior to 9/11? 10, 15, 20 years?

By TT

July 22, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

Creepy is, as creepy does, Tim. Rove is like Pig Pen from Peanuts, everywhere he goes, he leaves a dirty cloud behind. Just ask Ann Richards or Cindy McCain. I did my part to get this administration out of office, now I just have to stick it out until I can vote again. But Rove likes to follow the money trail, so he might end up running the next hopeful’s campaign. Anyone up for making predictions about who are the frontrunners for the Dems and the Republicans in 2008? I’ve heard many impossibles suggested, what do you all think?

By Tim

July 22, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

TT… that is a perfect description of him! and it is much nicer than what I thought he looked like hahaha… I don’t know about front runner but I am sure that Hillary will be running for prez… on the other side I honestly have no clue… I am sure that McCain will make another run at it in 08… Frist will probably give it a try too (Lord help us all!)… obviously a lot is going to depend on how the 06 elections turn out… your thoughts?

By Jack

July 22, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Dems= Hillary or John Edwards Rep= God only knows.

By Eaton

July 22, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Y’all are assuming that Bush won’t secretly re-write the Constitution making himself President-for-Life.

By Philip Burnette

July 22, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Exactly what response to 9/11 would you have taken Ms. Glass ? Why are we always the “BAD GUYS” in this. Why are there no alternative “SOLUTIONS” given by critics with your opinions instead of constance “You’re doing it wrong , but I have no idea what to do, but critize . ” If anything the Brave Soldiers deserve better.

Phil. Burnette : Torrance , Ca. 90501

By Jack

July 22, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this

Ronnie wanted to do it and he couldn’t so I doubt “W” will try it.

By Jack

July 22, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this

That bothers me too Phil. They should offer some other solutions. Hindsight is 20/20.

By Tim

July 22, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Jack… most people didn’t have a problem going into Afghanistan after 9/11… the problem a lot of people have is invading Iraq when there were no direct links with the 9/11 attacks

By Jack

July 22, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Yes Tim. If someone feels qualified to advise that something is done wrong, they should be qualified to advise the right way to do it.

By Jack

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

BTW I’m not keen on the war in Iraq either. We do need to finish what we started eventhough it will end up biting us in the a$$.

By Tim

July 22, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

how bout… not go into Iraq

By Kyle

July 22, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Hillary will get the Dems nomination easily in ‘08. I don’t even think the chairman of the GOP knows who the hell their gonna throw out there yet. I’ve heard people talking a lot about the govonor of Mississippi, but I don’t know his name. Please not Frist, that guy is about as monotone and boring as it gets. Also people think Gulianni (spelling?) may give it a go. I think McCain might be getting a little too old, but he will still probably run anyway - he seems fine with me. Unfortunately, Condi Rice keeps saying that she won’t run. I’m afraid Rice may be the only Republican that could beat Hillary. Can you guys actually picture Bill being the first man of our country. Just sittin’ back, watching tv at the white house, and plenty of interns running around. Like him or not, that’s a pretty funny picture.

By chilao

July 22, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

conspiracy theorists: read a lengthy thing yesterday about a new tower in Perth, Australia, built like the SanFran TransAmerica tower. “End-of-the-world/devilish/Masonic”. I thought us Americans were ‘out there’ when it came to conspiracy theories, but that one beat the cake. over a piece of simple architecture. Brings up the power of suggestion, (in alot of things, really)

oh, I thought it was established that the hijackers intentionally crashed the plane in PA, while being rushed by some of the passengers. (but not while fighting directly over the plane’s controls). think one was saying in Arabic to another hijacker “Put it down”.

By Eaton

July 22, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Anyone else noticed that it’s noon on Friday, and with a couple of rare exceptions, we’ve all gotten through the week being civil to each other?

Crazy.

By Jack

July 22, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Tim I agree on that. Eaton I knew we could do it. Everyone have a great weekend.

By Tim

July 22, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this

Kyle… I think Hillary has a chance at the nomination but I don’t think it would be a done deal by any means… and I find all the talk over Condi interesting… yes she is definitely an extremely intelligent woman but she has never held any sort of elected office whatsoever… I would think it would be difficult for her to overcome something like that (IMHO)

Jack… and I agree that since we are already there we need to finish… must learn from the past

By Archie

July 22, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Hillary won’t win the presidency if she runs against a man and I certainly wish Rice would run. The republicans knew they had a chance against Kerry, and it’s a fact that republicans have owned the presidency 16 out of last 24 years. People vote republicans for president most of the time over the last 25 years. Prejudice sells. With the democrats it’s about charisma which is why some said Kerry was not an exciting candidate as if being president requires one to play the sax and chase women. Conservatives vote republican and they don’t care how boring or stiff their candidate is and thus they win the presidency time after time. The south isn’t progressive enough to vote for a woman president inspite of Texas and progressives have get out and vote and stop intellectualizing.

By Tony

July 22, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

London - At this writing it’s too soon to tell what effect today’s events will have on British public opinion. It seems clear that this second round of attacks are a pale imitation of those just two weeks ago.

Considering how rapidly the political consensus here unraveled, it’s hard to believe these incidents will lead to an enduring resolve to do what’s necessary. Indeed, prior to today, the 7/7 attacks were already becoming just another talking point in the battle over Iraq.

Whereas in the first days after the murders, only the irredeemable left was claiming the bombings proved the war in Iraq was a mistake, now pliant liberals and activists are falling into line. The mayor of London, “Red Ken” Livingstone, is reverting to form, blaming the attacks on British and American foreign policy in general and Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support for George W. Bush in particular. Islamic groups are getting into the act as well, saying that such terror attacks, while (wink, wink) “inexcusable,” are in fact “understandable” given Britain’s loyalty to the U.S., steadfastness in Iraq, etc.

Tony Blair, meanwhile, resolutely refuses to even consider the idea that these terror attacks are the result of the invasion of Iraq. He can’t make that concession, because to do so would play into the hands of his own party’s doves who’d say “I told you so!”

This is all a prime example of how politics can distort a serious argument. After all, it is obvious that the attacks in London were a result of Iraq, and in a more straightforward debate this would be an inconvenient fact for the opponents of the invasion.

For years we’ve been told that the war in Iraq was a mistake because the real enemy was al-Qaida or jihadism. Iraq is a “distraction” and all that.

And all along Blair and Bush have been saying the exact opposite: Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.

And yet, when terrorists strike at the heart of London, the pro-war crowd says this has nothing to do with Iraq and the anti-war crowd says it does.

This has it exactly backward.

Indeed, isn’t the determination of jihadi fanatics to defend Iraq by attacking London exactly the sort of evidence required to demonstrate a linkage between terrorism and Iraq? If America and Britain invaded Canada, Islamic terrorists wouldn’t care. But when we invaded Baghdad, they immediately declared it to be the defining battle of their movement. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaida in Iraq, has flatly declared that the future of their cause depends on the outcome of the fight in Iraq.

Doesn’t this suggest in the teeny-weeniest way that maybe, just maybe, the war in Iraq and the war on terror are inextricably bound together?

Now, some may object and say I’m missing the point. The real objection is that the war in Iraq was supposed to make us safer and instead it’s aroused even more terrorist attacks.

But this formulation is deeply flawed, logically and morally. First, al-Qaida was attacking Western interests for years, well before both the Iraq invasion and even before 9/11. American embassies in Africa were blown up in the late 1990s, and al-Qaida’s first attempt to topple the World Trade Center was in 1993. There have been attacks against Jews around the world, horrifying terrorist attacks have taken place in Russia. The British consulate in Istanbul was bombed in 2003. If Britain wasn’t the main target of the jihadis, that doesn’t mean their interests weren’t at stake. The World Trade Center bombing wasn’t merely an attack on the United Kingdom’s closest ally (in which British subjects died), it was an attack on a central institution of Western economic life, costing the global economy untold billions.

To say that this wasn’t Britain’s fight is to say that virtually no fight is.

And then there’s the problem of saying that an effort isn’t worthwhile if murderers oppose it. Nobody ever says it’s not worth prosecuting the mob after mobsters murder policemen or judges in an attempt to intimidate them. And yet, even Blair is buying into the argument that if it were true that the London bombings were the result of the Iraq invasion, then the Iraq invasion would have been wrong. By this logic, it was wrong to declare war on Hitler because of the Blitz.

Sure, the invasion of Iraq was supposed to - and will - make us safer. But few said it would make us safer right away, and those who suggested otherwise were foolish for doing so. But why anybody should be shocked or outraged that terrorists are striking back even as they lose the war is beyond me. The only shock and outrage should be over their willingness to murder innocent civilians indiscriminately. And, perhaps, a little shock and outrage is called for in response to those who think such terrorism is justified at all.

Author: Jonah Goldberg

By Eaton

July 22, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

Tony, have you ever considered actually commenting for yourself?

By lozen

July 22, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Tony, puhleeeeeeze! I don’t have time to read long, long, long pastings you put on here. Please, just give us the website and let us decide whether we want to read this stuff or not if you can’t think of anything to say yourself!

By lozen

July 22, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

On to conspiracy theories …. Some people are saying our gov’ment could not get us into another war after Vietnam without creating some excuse to get us afraid so we’d go along with it… I do not know what to think about 9/11. I would never tell anyone they’re an idiot for questioning what was really going on. Yes, Bush and his puppet masters wanted to go to war in Iraq for a long time. Yes, the events of 9/11 got them what they wanted. As Netbanker says, “Follow the money (the Haliburtion and oil money in this case?) It is terrible that we’ve all heard so many lies, half truths, reasons for the war changing every few months from our gov’ment, that we have a lot of people in this country who are convinced it was an inside job or something known but allowed to happen. I think it is a good question: Where was NORAD?

By Rene

July 22, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

“Sheik Tantawi, said the London blasts could not be justified as an Iraq war backlash. “This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians.â€?”

This is the funniest comment I have seen in a while. I wonder what logical reasons he imagines the killers might have. Isn’t blowing yourself up along with a bunch of innocent people almost the definition of irrational behavior?

By Kyle

July 22, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, I still have to ask this question: What is NORAD? I really have no idea what you guys are talking about.

Rene, are you saying that the London bombings could have been avoided if their was no war in Iraq? I understand that these recent bombings are very likely a result of the war in Iraq, but we were hit in our own contry long before the Iraq war even started. Could it be that those fanatics just genuinely hate our way of life, war or no war?

By Scott

July 22, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Well it’s been a while but I thought I would read up on some of the repsonses on here and see what was said….

I thought Brian Curtis had some interesting thoughts…I think there are some good ideas there, though they have flaws, if not in the logic but the implementation and the willingness of the American people.

The effectiveness of seaport/airport/border/immigration checks is hampered mainly by the fact that we don’t want to actually take the steps it requires to be safer, we just want to feel safer. We don’t want to actually take the steps to remove the illegal immigrants or prevent further illegal entrants and/or goods into this country becasue it costs money to do so. In labor hours, in various administratvie expenses and most of all that the enforcement of sanctions on companies that violate these laws gets passed on to the rest of us and we LIKE the fact that we can run businesses on the backs of cheap labor rather than pay a unionized american $30 an hour to pick onions in Vidalia or oranges in Florida. Until we value our safety and security more than the almighty dollar then we will continue to face the same problems.

Alternate fuels development when help us out in many ways…cleaner environment and making the Middle East an irrelevant sandbox when we dont need their oil some of the top reasons…but again, we are back to money issues with major coporations (auto industry, etc) that want us to rely on fossil fuel.

Security checks that single out likely candidates for inspection at airports? It’s called profiling, but we can’t do that remember?

Restrict weapons sales…absolutely correct..if it ain’t humanitarian aid, you aren’t getting it from us so shop elsewhere

I say shut the doors, lock ‘em, throw away the key until further notice. Participate in helping the world’s poor and hungry and sick and oppressed. Assist on equal ground our allie’s in hunting terrorists that threaten every nation. Trade on equal footing or not at all. Want to protect this country? then protect it by doing what is neccesary.

By Jack

July 22, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Scott - Political correctness is going to bring this country down. The politicians need to grow some gonads and do what is right and quit pandering for votes.

By Scott

July 22, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Jack - pandering for votes is what politicians do….it keeps them from having to get a job and work for a living…what we need are legislators and lawmakers, not politicians.

I agree that p.c. will bring this country down..I’m just not sure it hasn’t already

By vince

July 22, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

From 11:46am til 4:12pm I have been enjoying wonderful intelligent conversation. People that talk without name calling, and people who answer questions. So, Kyle, I did. And to clarify, none of the intelligent people were from this area. Some from Florida, Tenn., Virginia, NC, Kansas, Arizona, Washington, and Minnesota.

By Jack

July 22, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

I know. Good forbid we offend anyone.

By Netbanker

July 22, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Hi all! Hope everyone has a good weekend and manages to stay cool. I’ll take hot and sunny over rainy and humid any day.

That said, let’s get down to brass tacks. I don’t believe there was a government conspiracy surrounding 9/11. Vince raised some very valid questions that should be answered. If you don’t believe that the government is capabable of such a thing or that they don’t hide all kinds of information from the citizens then you need to wake up and smell the coffee. There are parts of our government that operate without express knowledge of the Administration and will continue regardless of which party is in control.

Before you call me a whacko, I make those statements based on personal experience. My father was civilian researcher for the DOD. He’s admitted to me recently that what I do know about his career and work activities is all true, but that there are many activities he can not and will not ever share be able to share with us. He’s made statements to me (as have several personal friends who worked in Military Intelligence) that let me know there are plenty of government secrets out there…some of them for good reasons of national defense, etc. and some merely for the good of those who keep the secret.