posted November 26, 2002 08:53 PM              

The Saudis really do need to be erased from the list of people we work hard to please. We want their oil, so we let their openly anti- American and Semitic stance slide and call them allies. We patrol Iraq with (illegal) No-Fly Zones to make them feel safe. And when they sponsor terrorism against our country, our government looks the other way and lets them play their double game.

Bush is way too attached to oil; we should convert to hydrogen energy.

posted November 27, 2002 12:29 PM            

So, there was also a time when we were told that the radical Muslim community did not want to hurt the US or Israel, but instead just wanted to be heard. Maybe the victims of the homicide bombers should be informed of this new revelation.

There was a time when Osama bin Laden was just a misunderstood Islamic fundamentalist that stood up for his faith. Maybe someone should explain that to the victims of 9-11 and Bali.

Now, we are to believe that Saddam is only "pro-Arab". Do you not hear the interviews with people that have fled Iraq because of the persecution and "at will" murders that are instituted by Saddam?"

How many times does it have to relayed to us through interperters and Saddam's own family, former military leaders and scientists that he "HATES AMERICA"?

Saddam is EVIL, he is ruthless, unless you call the systematic murdering of his own people as a friendly tactic. If you call what he did to other nations in the name of "research" as being something that "sane" people do, then hey, maybe we should invite him over for a tea party.

The guy tried to devastate Kuwait by blowing to hell their oil rigs which our TEXANS..yes the horrible capitalist pigs that keep beef on our table and gas in our cars, had to go over a fix.

I guess Hitler was just misunderstood. He didn't hate America. He just wanted to take over the World (Well at least his region). He didn't hate the retarded, the old or the jewish, he just wanted to PROMOTE the Nazi party.

Wow, now that I Think about it, it really is about those bad money hungry oil people. Hell, here's to Saddam, may he continue to unleash his terror on the world.

For more info on Saddam and his policy of dictatorship click on the link below. I know it is a US publication, but one cannot change the facts:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq.pdf

------------------
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will."

posted November 27, 2002 03:00 PM              

From a discussion between long time friends of mine:

Politics is not going to be a good subject for us to be yakkin about in this day and age for several very good reasons. The first of which is that there is NO way we're going to agree with each other.

For example, I believe that Saddam (The Bloodthirsty Dictator) Hussein is amassing biological weapons because his regime depends upon a show of strength. It also depends upon him working his people into a lather about their sovereignty being stepped on by a society of obese, rich (as a society we are, it's in the news every day we can't deny it) people who pay to watch the very violence that these people have to live with every day, in order to entertain themselves (that's us too...Terminator 4 anyone?). We are seen as fat, lazy, meddling, indifferent a-holes by a very large portion of the world. So Saddam works his people into a lather about their sovereignty being stepped on..(which we are also doing, whether Saddam is a dictator or not..which he is)then he has a vested interest in assuring his people that he will NOT allow us to step on the sovereignty of the Iraqi people. Now the dictator has the go-ahead from his people to do WHATEVER he can to ensure that they are not treated like the U.S.'s birch ...which (since Iraq is MUCH smaller than us) means CHEATING ie. using weapons of mass destruction. In other words, if Bush goes ahead and attacks IRaq, we're screwed one way or the other. Either (or both) our troops are hit with Biochemical weapons AND/OR the entire Middle Eastern world along with OTHER small countries (all worried that the U.S. will later challenge THEIR sovereignty and replace them with puppet regimes) will sudenly become anti-U.S. (not that they aren't already.) So by playing into Saddam's hands, Bush (who I STILL believe was a MUCH better choice than Gore to handle this time in history) our "Guy with heart" alienates the majority of the middle eastern world creating huge havens for legitimized terrorism. Eventually that means the detonation of a nuclear device on U.S. soil. It also means that when the nuclear catastrophy HAPPENS here, we don't get ANY sympathy from about half of the free and about 90% of the oil producing world.

An alternative: We leave Saddam to be ousted by his own people using the same CIA covert ops that we used for years against MANY other countries. Result: Saddam PROBABLY will not launch a nuclear attack against mainland U.S., but some terrorist organization (possibly supplied by Saddam) does. We are attacked as in the FIRST (Bush desired) scenerio, but THIS time, it's hard for any country to find justification for being on the ATTACKER'S(The terrorist organization or Iraq's) side. Result, we do not alienate the rest of the world, but we are still attacked.

Another alternative: We leave Saddam be and allow Iraqi history to take it's course. Having backed off of our threats against Iraqi sovereignty, Saddam (a very unpopular leader, until we started threatening Iraqi sovereignty) has very little, or NO justification or REASON to attack the U.S. He really doesn't. These poverty stricken people do not WANT to go to war, but they WILL..for pride and patriotic duty. Saddam, if he attacked the U.S. after it no longer threatened Iraqi sovereignty would not only be waging a war that he KNOWS he would lose, but he would be doing so against the will of his people. This would ensure the end of his regime and THIS is Saddam's greatest nightmare. That his rule will end.

In conclusion: If we go to war with the Iraqi people at this time, we scare the crap out of the rest of the world because they can't be sure that their sovereignty isn't next if the U.S. doesn't like their government. Iraq becomes a martyr and we alienate a good portion of the world. The chances are GREATEST that we will be attacked with weapons of mass destruction.

If we stop PUBLICLY attacking Iraqi sovereignty, we MAY take Saddam's regime out using covert operations and avoid being attacked, but the chance still remains that we will be attacked because the fringe element will be very receptive to the "rumors" that we were responsible for the fall of Saddam and consequently, for the replacement of a government against the country's will. Fringe groups are ALWAYS receptive to conspiracy theories, true or not, the truer, the more receptive they are. This alternative results in a lesser, but still high probability of the U.S. being attacked with weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, if we leave Saddam (a bloodthirsty dictator) in power and let history take its course, we COULD be attacked with weapons of mass destruction, but the likelihood is the least of the three scenerios, simply because Saddam's people do not want to be drawn unnecessarily into conflict with the United States and for Saddam to do so, would almost certainly spell the demise of his regime. Saddam is crazy, but not stupid, and he values his power over even his desire to embarrass the U.S. It is highly unlikely that Saddam will risk his fat and happy position as absolute ruler simply to score pride points against the United States. Therefore, respecting the sovereignty of the Iraqi people, REGARDLESS of the fact that they are ruled by a lunatic results in the greatest likelihood of security for the American people. The LEAST LIKELIHOOD that we will be attacked. Period. If I'm wrong, I'll eat a bug.

However, since we're REALLY interested in replacing an unfriendly, oil controlling government with a FRIENDLY oil controlling government (our REAL aim in going to war with Iraq), my hypothesis on the third scenerio will never be tested. We will most likely go to war with Iraq. We WILL most likely be attacked with weapons of mass destruction. We will most likely LOSE the backing of about 40% to 60% of the world's governments. It's simply more probable...disturbing as that is to me.

So as you can see, politics is PROBABLY NOT something we should be discussing as a clan at THIS particular junction. IT has CEASED to be something we can rib each other about in a good natured manner. The stakes are too high.

Soooo...How about those Angels? (Let's not mention my White Sox...shall we?)

Daf

posted November 27, 2002 03:05 PM              

Of Eagles and Wolves

I saw this on the news today. Please, I realize that I'm long winded...CONSTANTLY. No matter how much this is NOT what you feel like reading, give it a read. Not so much for me, as for you, those you care about...and for us all. I thank you in advance from the bottom of my heart for your indulgence.

Federal Attorney Ashcroft urged quick passage of new police powers sought by the Bush administration, including:

1. The authority to detain aliens suspected of ties to terrorists indefinitely and without the right to appeal.
(Define terrorist. Now expand your definition. See how easy that was?)

2. The administration also wants wiretap evidence obtained in other countries in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be admissible in court.
(Sure, no problem. So wiretapping Americans without a court order is ok, as long as they are in other countries. Like Puerto Rico, Canada or the Bahamas. Think about it.)

3. In addition, the administration is asking for secret court authorization for wiretaps.
(Interesting, so once the judicial and executive branches have the approval of the legislative branch on this thing, we're pretty much at their discretion. I heard Ashcroft talking about this "secret court authorization". What it means is that they will be able to go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction with the SAME court order. A "cover all" wiretap order. It will allow them to wiretap the phones of anyone that is even ASSOCIATED or comes in CONTACT with a wire tapped suspect...WITHOUT getting any additional warrants or court orders. If you have a suspected "terrorist" come to your door selling newspaper subscriptions, you COULD be wiretapped. Your call, want that?)

4. Longer jail terms for terrorists.
(REPEAT from #1 : Define terrorist. Now expand your definition. See how easy that was?
I'm not against longer jail terms for VERY specific criminal activities related to terrorism. Going to pilot's school had better not be one of them.)

5. Access to users’ Internet information without a court order
(So now the script kiddies and the government will have something in common, they'll both be reading our correspondence without our knowledge OR the court's permission.)

6. Authority to review telephone voice-mail messages with only a search warrant.
(A search warrant is constitutionally required to be specific. It has to be specific about WHAT they think they will find and what areas they think that they might find them in. This is a CRUCIAL constitutional protection, that protects citizens in a country that believes in "innocent until proven guilty." Unfortunately, law enforcement needs to suspect EVERYONE in order to perform IT'S job effectively. So they think EVERYONE'S guilty, but the LAW says NOONE'S guilty without proof of guilt. Requiring specifics in search warrants, keeps overzealous law enforcement in check, to some extent. Allowing authorities to review personal telephone messages (without allowing the benefit of legal representation) could ALSO be a violation of a citizen's 5th Amendment rights. Remember, these are LAWS. They will apply to us ALL if they are passed. Not just "terrorists". That means yer grandkids too.)

Even MORE telling was this commentary about the scene of the hearings at the House of Representatives:

"But while Ashcroft’s testimony was open to television cameras, the committee’s Republican staff ordered camera crews to leave, including those of C-SPAN, the public interest network available on cable television systems nationwide, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported.

Print reporters and members of the general public were allowed to remain, meaning the speakers’ comments could be reported, but none of them would be available for Americans to see or hear for themselves."

This is in direct violation of House of Representative rules:

"Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means.."

THIS is what I have been expecting to happen. DON'T LET THEM DO THESE THINGS.

The time for sitting on our hands, letting OTHERS decide which freedoms we need and which we do not, is over. Do NOT allow this to happen. It is just another step in our ongoing journey away from self-reliance and independence. Another phase in our continuing metamorphasis into a culture of dependence.

Millions have died because they believed in this way of life. More folx are going to die for the same cause..will we NOW let all of those deaths be in vain? They will be, if the ideals for which those people died are allowed to be legislated out of existence.

These new rules amount to BROAD discretion for law enforcement in their pursuit of criminals and the evidence required to prosecute them. They amount to Big Brother Phase I, people. I wish I WERE paranoid, but whether intentionally or not, they ARE out to get us. In a way, THEY are a bigger threat to American citizens, over time, than Osama Bin Laden could ever be. Yes, let's get Osama, but let's watch our backs too. If government is a watchdog, and terrorists are the fox..then we are the chickens in the coop. Last I heard, dogs eat chickens too. The easiest way to keep it from coming to that, is to peck 'em on the nose, so that Uncle Sam knows, the freedoms of American citizens will NOT be an easy meal to digest and crap away.)

I have always asked folx to believe in what America stands for. I have NEVER asked folx to believe in the individuals that RUN America's government. Watch them...watch them closely...even if they DO seem honest enough. Never stop watching, that is the price we pay for what freedoms we still have. If we don't pay that price now, we will pay it later...with less freedoms to show for the effort.

If you value peace and you hate war, then stay alert, be vigilant and the American people will never have CAUSE to rise up in revolt as we once did 225 years ago. Rather than WAIT for it to get to that point, we should stop the slow but steady erosion of American liberties NOW...for surely we will lose the MEANS to stop it within the next generation's lifetime..

We have a common cause as Americans now, let's not start the fight against terrorism by equipping our OWN government to terrorize it's citizens. Keep yer eyes on our fellow wolves in Washington, lest they mistake us all for sheep.

These freedoms aren't just yours either. They belong to the many Americans who have yet to be born, as well. Don't let them down; they cannot speak for themselves, so we must speak for them. When we give up one freedom, no matter how noble the cause, we give it up for all Americans, even if the problem we hope to "solve" for OUR generation has disappeared by the time THEIR generation comes around. Meanwhile, the sacrificed liberty is still gone, they didn't want to give it up, we did. They pay the consequences, we pay the consequences, the bad guys? They rarely do.

I am begging you, if you've never given a crap about a thing in your life, care about this.
It WILL directly affect your life in one way or another, long after the terrorists have figured out ways around it. I guarantee that it will. Write, call...or spread the word...just passing the warning on to others is enough.

"We the people" are the 4th branch of government. We are the ultimate Check and Balance in this country, whether we want the job or not. We are charged with watching our government and telling it exactly what we will and will NOT tolerate of it, what we do and don't expect of it. When we stop doing that job, this country loses some of what made it worth dying for in the first place.

I'm an American. I believe in the ideals upon which this country was founded, and even if I do not approve of what we have given up since the beginning, I would gladly die to preserve what is left. It's not patriotic sacrifice to give up liberties, it's slow, deliberate, national suicide. I do NOT believe in America: the hunk of land. I believe in America: of the people, by the people, for the people. I believe in America: the ideals.

posted November 27, 2002 04:31 PM              

As far as discussing politics goes I don't find a problem with it as long as we all realize that these are just our opinions and not fact for the most part. As long as it doesn't degrade into a shouting match, as some discussions have before, we're all okay.

posted November 30, 2002 03:58 PM              

Big diff anyway. Personally, I'm expecting the Demos to lose in 2004- wartime presidency and all that, plus the fact that Democrats are W--K!!! and then Hillary and Co. will put together a really smashing takeover for 2008; unless the Green Party grows tremendously between now and then and puts Ralph Nader in the White House.

ah, to dream....

posted December 02, 2002 02:46 PM            

------------------
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will."

posted December 02, 2002 04:57 PM              

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"- Gandhi

Jakie

posted December 02, 2002 07:45 PM              

Second, I loved Clinton as a president but as a person, he was morally bankrupt

Three, I'm Scared to death with Bush being President.

Fourth, I think he's going after Saddam to get revenge for the fact that he has plans to kill poppa Bush when he was in office.

Fifth, dubbya will only do one term

posted December 02, 2002 09:10 PM            

1) I am a full member of the Republican party and I am proud to say Ithat when I was first allowed to vote at 18 I voted for Bush Senior.

I am probably one of the few American Indian / Female Republicans in the state of Maryland. AND I also voted for Ehrlich. I CHOSE the conservative party because I believe in what they stand for.

2) I thought Clinton was one of the worst presidents in this Nations history. As an American Indian he sold us out and made money off of the trust. I could care less about his morals, but I do know that if I gave a bj to anyone at my biotech company I would be fired.

3) I have full confidence in Dubya. He is a man that actually has a brain and a high IQ, contrary to what the mass media would have you believe, he did not get into school because of his daddy nor did he graduate from Harvard law because of his daddy. Now, Gore is another story.

4) Is Bush taking Saddam out because of his daddy. That is crazy! I am sure it would be icing on the cake, but please, did he really plot his way to become Governor in the hopes to run for Pres, to take out Saddam. No. He is just cleaning up the mess that kept gathering these past 8 years. Bush Sr. was wrong in not ordering the execution of Saddam.

5) Are we heading for a World war? Not like before, but yeah, and it has been declared in the name of Osama and his little band oj terrorists that enjoy killing innocent people for sport.

So, there we go. I guess that means I am another brainwashed conservative. But please save your arguments to save my elephant soul. It's nothing I haven't heard before when I lived in Portland, OR and now in the heart of democrat land Maryland.

Oh, the horror...the horror.

------------------
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will."

posted December 02, 2002 09:20 PM              

As far as the current admin goes: it is, I admit, remarkably politically adept. Sorry to those looking for dirt on Bush, JR - it's my bet anyone with legitimate trash to talk wouldn't/has not/will not make it to press sources in tact. And I'm not saying that that's not something that Clinton wouldn't've done, just that Bush and his people are more tidy.
I thought this was interesting (from slate.com):
"The NYT flags a coming Esquire interview with a former White House aide who says that the administration is obsessed with the political impact of things and doesn't give two-hoots about actual policy: John J. DiIulio Jr., who used to head the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and is, it should be noted, a Democrat, said, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.""
And in the Esquire article itself:
""Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking," he said. He called the Office of Homeland Security, created after last year's attacks, "remarkably slapdash.""

But wait, wait - Dilulio retracts: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=584&e=1&cid=584&u=/nm/20021 202/pl_nm/bush_aide_dc

You know, though - I can't help but wonder what really brought that about.

Getting back on track:
Iraq 'tried to break weapons sanctions' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2537275.stm
Excerpts: Bush's warning to Baghdad - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2537127.stm

posted December 03, 2002 11:27 AM            

Tash,

You are wrong in your assumptions. I do not hate Clinton because of his morals. Although I think what he did was tacky and he deserves his ass to be kicked for screwing around on company time, it does influence my opinion of his politics.

Politically, I think he is a hack. I think he used the minority vote to get ahead, when he really didn't give a rats behind about the cause or the movement. As a foreign leader, he did not do us justice and sold us out the door to countries that are our enemies.

As to Environmental policies? Well, why in hell did he lower the restriction on aresenic to levels not consistent to what nature already produces? Then his EPA dumped toxic levels of arsenic in a California lake to kill the pike fish? The pike fish are still alive, but everything else is dead. The body of water us useless for hundreds of years.

Why is it be signed into legislation, along with the help of a bunch of loser politicians in Ca, the port in Long Beach to China? Are we crazy? Did he not get the memo that they are communists?

Okay, well how about taking away the grazing rights of our nations cattlemen for the sake of calling it a National Park / monument? Our land needs to be grazed, since it perpetuates the laws of nature by spreading seeds through the manure and by keeping the cycles balances. Did we not learn anything from the early American Indian tribes? No, instead we can wait to crucify the cattlemen and other meat raisers as evil empire promoter and defilers of the environment, when they are actually keeping the land healthy for future generations.

But hey, lets beat up on the Oil companies since we think they run the administration. Well, hey what do you know...they aren't the biggest contributor to any policatal fund. Do you know who is? The UNIONS, THE ENTERTAINMENT companies and yes....the TRIAL LAWYERS. Any guesses where the money goes????? Not even the pharmaceutical companies can compare to the donatations provided by the Trial lawyers associations.

But hell, where would we be if we couldn't sure the hell out of McDonalds for making those evil quarter pounders and fries. Bad people for making fat people fatter. Why should we accept responsibility for our own actions when we can sue a big evil corporation. Can you imagine the hue and cry that would have gone up if McDonalds banned the sell the of their food to anyone that was 50lbs or more overweight?

Not everyone in the realm of politics is corrupt. That is a teenage belief that is perpetuated by hormones and angst. Corruption comes in many colors, races, and occupations. From the welfare recipient getting a little cash on the side and refusing to work, to the CEO that gives himself nice hefty raises, to the government worker that abuses sick time because they can't get fired.

------------------
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will."

posted December 03, 2002 01:19 PM              

That's what I say.
I'm definately not a Rep, but I'm not a Dem, either - so I can say that I think that it's pretty funny that Sen. Kerry (D) is the richest man in the Senate and he's running on the "people's platform", but hey.