[$tinkle]

whelp, looks like the inmates wanna run the asylum:

washington post:

Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War

By Dana Milbank

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war. As luck would have it, all four of the witnesses agreed that President Bush lied to the nation and was guilty of high crimes -- and that a British memo on "fixed" intelligence that surfaced last month was the smoking gun equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Conyers was having so much fun that he ignored aides' entreaties to end the session.

"At the next hearing," he told his colleagues, "we could use a little subpoena power." That brought the house down.

As Conyers and his hearty band of playmates know, subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House. But that's only one of the obstacles they're up against as they try to convince America that the "Downing Street Memo" is important.

...sadly, there is more

if you think this is uncomfortable to read, try watching it on c-span

 

[Changleen]

http://news.google.co.nz/nwshp?hl=en&gl=nz&ncl=http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq18e_20050618.htm

 

[Changleen]

Here's a review of all the other Memos that are floating around besides the original 'Downing St. Memo'

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000964304

LONDON When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.

 

[Changleen]

This is long, pay attention.

Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.

"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."

Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.

The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.

Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.

On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.

On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration's case about Iraq's weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.

Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.

Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.

It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush's secretary of state.

"It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.

Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."

A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."

The British worried that, "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: "We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

Blair's government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.

On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."

 

[Changleen]

Excerpts from material in secret Downing Street memos written in 2002. The information, authenticated by a senior British government official, was transcribed from the original documents.

In a memo dated March 14, 2002, Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, tells the prime minister about a dinner he had with then-U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who's now secretary of state. Manning is now the British ambassador to the United States.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

____

"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. ... From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; How to coordinate a U.S./allied military campaign with internal opposition; (assuming there is any); What happens on the morning after?"

____

From a memo dated March 22, 2002 from Peter Ricketts, British foreign office political director, to Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, on advice given on Iraq to Blair.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase scepticism about our case. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document. My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US. But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapon) fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

____

"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending out troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

____

"We can make the case on qualitative difference (only Iraq has attacked a neighbour, used CW and fired missiles against Israel). The overall strategy needs to include re-doubled effort to tackle other proliferators, including Iran, in other ways (the UK/French ideas on greater IAEA activity are helpful here). But we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq. This is something the Prime Minister and President need to have a frank discussion about."

____

"The second problem is the END STATE. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Kosovo, it was: Serbs out, Kosovars back, peace-keepers in. For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability. For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

____

From a document dated March 8, 2002, on Iraq from the Overseas and Defense Secretariat to Cabinet Office:

"Since 1991, our objective has been to re-integrate a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam Hussein in power."

____

"Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD, although our intelligence is poor. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened, though there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD."

____

"The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change."

"A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult."

"Saddam is only likely to permit the return of inspectors if he believes the threat of large scale US military action is imminent and that such concessions would prevent the US from acting decisively. Playing for time, he would then embark on a renewed policy of noncooperation."

"The US has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. ... The US may be willing to work with a much smaller coalition than we think desirable."

"We have looked at three options for achieving regime change (we dismissed assassination of Saddam Hussein as an option because it would be illegal)."

"Of course, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law."

___

From a memo dated March 25, 2002, from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Blair:

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL (Osama bin Laden) and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses sic on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate."

Speaking about the difference between Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he said: "By linking these countries together in the "axis of evil" speech, President Bush implied an identity betwen sic them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea. The heart of this case — that Iraq poses a unique and present danger — rests on the facts."

"A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We also have to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better."

"Iraq has had NO history of democracy, so no one has this habit or experience."

____

From a briefing paper dated July 21, 2002, given to Blair and government officials before meeting on July 23, 2002, about Iraq:

"Even with a legal base and viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective. ... A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Futher work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime's and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

____

From minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials. "C" refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service.

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

____

"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun `spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."

____

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

 

[genpowell71]

Yeah we all know your on the kick Bush's ass out of the white house bandwagon. Too bad your cant do anything about it from that island you call a home except run your mouth.

 

[The Misfit]

This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will.
Before God I swear this creed: my rifle and myself are defenders of my country, we are the masters of my enemy, we are the saviors of my life. So be it, until there is no enemy, but peace.
Amen.

 

[enkidu]

Yeah we all know your on the kick Bush's ass out of the white house bandwagon. Too bad your cant do anything about it from that island you call a home except run your mouth.

Yeah here's what one 100 % American has to say about the war:

Born on the Fourth of July: The Long Journey Home
By Ron Kovic
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/22181/

What the USA does affects the whole world, especially if "democracy" and "liberty" are what USA is claiming to spread. Freely expressed democratic opinions should be exactly what USA welcomes from the world, including "that island" beyond the four seas.

 

[The Misfit]

From Enkidu

Yeah here's what one 100 % American has to say about the war:

I'm not sure where you got that idea bub, most of the Americans I know still prefer the idea of bombing every country in the "Axis of Evil" into the stone-age and hanging American flags on all the oil rigs.

If you aren't an American Citizen we really don't give a rats ass what your opinion is of our president or our policies. The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are the only nations the average American considers allies anyway. When the going gets tough they are the only ones with the balls to stand beside us.

The only flaw I saw with attacking Iraq was sending in ground forces too soon, we should have let the U.S.N. and the U.S.A.F. decimate the whole region first.

 

[kinghami3]

Yeah we all know your on the kick Bush's ass out of the white house bandwagon. Too bad your cant do anything about it from that island you call a home except run your mouth.

I can tell who you voted for just by your utter display of ignorance and contempt for foreigners. As the leader of a super-power, Bush's actions affect the entire world and it's everyone's business, it comes with the territory whether you like it or not. When you involve another other countires in a war, you give them the right to speak up.

I'm not sure where you got that idea bub, most of the Americans I know still prefer the idea of bombing every country in the "Axis of Evil" into the stone-age and hanging American flags on all the oil rigs.

I think he was saying that a person who is 100% American said...., not 100% of American's say....

 

[$tinkle]

Here's a review of all the other Memos that are floating around besides the original 'Downing St. Memo'

have these people learned nothing of the past year?

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

so, instead of putting them in an al gore lockbox, he destroyed them???...along with any shred of credibility, to boot. If they want the originals, they can always ring up sandy berger.

how many "fake but accurate" stories until the left wakes up? and is the irony of the charge of corruption seen by anyone else here?

 

[Changleen]

have these people learned nothing of the past year?so, instead of putting them in an al gore lockbox, he destroyed them???...along with any shred of credibility, to boot. If they want the originals, they can always ring up sandy berger.

how many "fake but accurate" stories until the left wakes up? and is the irony of the charge of corruption seen by anyone else here?

The information, authenticated by a senior British government official, was transcribed from the original documents.

You can bury your head if you like, but there's still '597 similar' on Google.

Edit: Oop, Sorry - 670 now.

http://news.google.co.nz/news?ncl=http://www.newsreview.info/article/20050619/NEWS/50617027&hl=en

 

[Silver]

From Enkidu

I'm not sure where you got that idea bub, most of the Americans I know still prefer the idea of bombing every country in the "Axis of Evil" into the stone-age and hanging American flags on all the oil rigs.

Any chance I can get an invite to one of your parties? I have a research grant to study apes in their natural habitats, but it's not big enough to take me out of the country, unfortunately.

 

[ioscope]

I hope he is impeached, dems need to buck up and do their jobs

 

[MikeD]

Changleen, all the evidence in the world that Bush SHOULD be impeached doesn't make the basement play-trial any less pathetic...and in reality, mock their own powerlessness instead of their intended target.

MD

 

[Changleen]

Changleen, all the evidence in the world that Bush SHOULD be impeached doesn't make the basement play-trial any less pathetic...and in reality, mock their own powerlessness instead of their intended target.

MD

It's a start. You could take it as a measure of the Rep's nervousness that they felt the need to schedule it in the basement at the same time as 6 other votes. But yeah it was pretty lame.

 

[Silver]

Changleen, all the evidence in the world that Bush SHOULD be impeached doesn't make the basement play-trial any less pathetic...and in reality, mock their own powerlessness instead of their intended target.

MD

I think it's equivalent to that sneaky move off the back of the peloton during a climb...maybe the Democrats are playing possum?

 

[genpowell71]

I can tell who you voted for just by your utter display of ignorance and contempt for foreigners. As the leader of a super-power, Bush's actions affect the entire world and it's everyone's business, it comes with the territory whether you like it or not. When you involve another other countires in a war, you give them the right to speak up.

I think he was saying that a person who is 100% American said...., not 100% of American's say....

I dont think you know jack SHIAT about who I voted for. But since you want to make the accusation that I voted for the current Jagoff I'll tell you that I didnt vote for EITHERof the idiots that ran. Bush cant tell the truth about anything and Kerry cant tell anyone where the money for the "put America back on track" programs was coming from. I didnt think that either of them would make a good president. And Holy Shiat, I was right.

 

[Changleen]

I dont think you know jack SHIAT about who I voted for. But since you want to make the accusation that I voted for the current Jagoff I'll tell you that I didnt vote for EITHERof the idiots that ran. Bush cant tell the truth about anything and Kerry cant tell anyone where the money for the "put America back on track" programs was coming from. I didnt think that either of them would make a good president. And Holy Shiat, I was right.

I think he was talking to 'the misfit'...

 

[genpowell71]

No, he quoted me on top of his post.

 

[Changleen]

You're right... That's what assumption'll do for you. I guess he hasn't seen your soft cuddly side yet.

 

[$tinkle]

You can bury your head if you like, but there's still '597 similar' on Google.

Edit: Oop, Sorry - 670 now.

http://news.google.co.nz/news?ncl=http://www.newsreview.info/article/20050619/NEWS/50617027&hl=en

argumentum ad populum?

sorry, but just because phrases may have been google-bombed - even inadvertently - makes not a convincing argument. But don't let that stop you from wearing your powdered wig & pretending to be a barrister. Do you have a tree house w/ a "no gurlz allowed" sign out front?

 

[Changleen]

No I don't have a treehouse. I wish I did. If I did it'd have a sign that said "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

Anyway the point I was trying to make is that no matter that you might mock and deride it, this issue is now gaining traction in the popular press. So there.

 

[kinghami3]

I dont think you know jack SHIAT about who I voted for. But since you want to make the accusation that I voted for the current Jagoff I'll tell you that I didnt vote for EITHERof the idiots that ran. Bush cant tell the truth about anything and Kerry cant tell anyone where the money for the "put America back on track" programs was coming from. I didnt think that either of them would make a good president. And Holy Shiat, I was right.

Fine, I shouldn't make that assumption then, but my point still stands that it is his business as well as ours. Other that that, I think both parties need a serious overhaul so we could get some dignity into office. As far as I'm concerned, Nader would just be the next Jimmy Carter, a good solid man but wouldn't do much for the office.

 

[$tinkle]

Anyway the point I was trying to make is that no matter that you might mock and deride it, this issue is now gaining traction in the popular press. So there.

i can't mock it anymore than it does on its own; along the lines of "never help a man who is killing himself". I agree that it's getting traction (aggregation?) in the MSM, but do we need to see what other anti-bush "news" has gained traction? i expect it'll be explained away, or at worst so muddied up it won't be sufficient to convict in the court of public opinion.

to prepare your dark heart for yet another disappointment, think of Booshie McHitler as your michael jackson.

<cue evil republican laughter>

 

[McGRP01]

I'm not sure where you got that idea bub, most of the Americans I know still prefer the idea of bombing every country in the "Axis of Evil" into the stone-age and hanging American flags on all the oil rigs.

If you aren't an American Citizen we really don't give a rats ass what your opinion is of our president or our policies. The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are the only nations the average American considers allies anyway. When the going gets tough they are the only ones with the balls to stand beside us.

The only flaw I saw with attacking Iraq was sending in ground forces too soon, we should have let the U.S.N. and the U.S.A.F. decimate the whole region first.

Are you for real? I seldom venture into this forum, and this post is a perfect example why. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. Unbelieveable.

 

[$tinkle]

Are you for real? I seldom venture into this forum, and this post is a perfect example why. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. Unbelieveable.

that's not very patriotic of you
2 demerits

 

[MikeD]

(If anyone's wondering why I deleted my post above, well, I just realized I simply don't want to bother with it anymore. Nothing I haven't said a million times over and an argument I just don't need to have online...got more valuable things to do with my time.)

MD

 

[genpowell71]

Fine, I shouldn't make that assumption then, but my point still stands that it is his business as well as ours. Other that that, I think both parties need a serious overhaul so we could get some dignity into office. As far as I'm concerned, Nader would just be the next Jimmy Carter, a good solid man but wouldn't do much for the office.

Nader as president? Now there's a nightmare. Jimmy Carter is a humanitarian person and God bless him for promoting peace thru out the world. I remind you of one thing that about sums up his presidency. The hostages in Iran were released the day Reagan took office.

Nuff said.

 

[genpowell71]

You're right... That's what assumption'll do for you. I guess he hasn't seen your soft cuddly side yet.

Dont piass me off, my paranoia is ragin today...

 

[valve bouncer]

(If anyone's wondering why I deleted my post above, well, I just realized I simply don't want to bother with it anymore. Nothing I haven't said a million times over and an argument I just don't need to have online...got more valuable things to do with my time.)

MD

Pussy.

 

[enkidu]

Are you for real? I seldom venture into this forum, and this post is a perfect example why. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. Unbelieveable.

(If anyone's wondering why I deleted my post above, well, I just realized I simply don't want to bother with it anymore. Nothing I haven't said a million times over and an argument I just don't need to have online...got more valuable things to do with my time.)
MD

Why bother to speak up against a sickening simplistic virulent punk like The Misfit? I certainly have more valuable things to do with my time as well. It's tiring to have to put up with the discordant abrasive vituperation of the ilk like $tinkle.

It's because I hear the cries of the wounded soldiers like Ron Kovic. (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/22181/) I hear the maddening cries of devastation of mothers, fathers and children of those who died while attacking or being attacked by nonsensical "shock and awe" and other "strategic maneuvers" of all kinds. It's because I want to believe that love and forgiveness are more powerful than hatred.

When Ron Kovic writes "No one will ever again be my enemy, no matter how hard they try to frighten and intimidate me. No government will ever teach me to hate another human being", it profoundly resonates in me.

 

[McGRP01]

When Ron Kovic writes "No one will ever again be my enemy, no matter how hard they try to frighten and intimidate me. No government will ever teach me to hate another human being", it profoundly resonates in me.

And that is exactly what George W. Bush is teaching. A legacy of hate.

 

[N8 v2.0]

And that is exactly what George W. Bush is teaching. A legacy of hate.

B.S.

.

 

[genpowell71]

And that is exactly what George W. Bush is teaching. A legacy of hate.

I'd lean more towards distrust more than hate. There are things in his presidency that actually make sense. I do think that there has to be some kind of control of who comes into this country, especially after 9/11. Do I think that the Patriot act is a good idea? Yes and no. There are parts that are not needed, and there are parts that are. You can call it a legancy of hate if you want to, but I think maybe you need to remember the 9/11 footage of the planes flying into the trade center. It aint a friendly world anymore. As much as we dont like it, its time to play hardball with the rest of it.