The government has announced that we can expect a terrorist attack from Osama bin Laden (whom the President swore to bring in “dead or alive” before we couldn’t find him) utilizing a weapon of mass destruction (the kind that Saddam Hussein had when we turned our attention from Afghanistan to bomb Iraq so we could find Saddam’s WMDs except several months later they’re nowhere to be found and Tony Blair is being raked over the coals for it) sometime within the next two years, which would take the current administration well beyond the next election year.
Now of course no one, absolutely NO ONE, would be unpatriotic enough to even consider the notion that a public kept fearing for their lives from terrorists would be even more reluctant to consider trivial matters like the economy and the environment come 2004 and want to stick with the administration which is protecting us all from evil terrorists plans (like 9/11 which happened during that same administration’s watch.) In fact I would be shocked–SHOCKED–to learn of such blatant and cynical manipulation on the part of the government.
PAD
• 
Mr. David,
Although the pretense may have been wrong for the govt to switch its view to Iraq because of WMD, the end result is the same: A country of oppressed people have been liberated from someone who ruled by TERROR on his own people. Maybe they haven’t found the WMD yet, that still doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The desert is a very large place. Ever been there? I have. It’s huge.
And what is wrong with giving a warning to the people? If anyone in the govt had given a public warning before the 9/11 attack, would anyone have listened? I certainly wouldn’t have paid much attention to it. Nothing like that had ever happened before, we’re the USA, who would dare? (rhetorical). And I work for the govt, in an intelligence capacity. (Don’t blame me, I’m just maintenance). But now that we get warnings, we’ve gone from “whew, thank god we’ve got a warning now” to “The President that cried wolf”. Is there a political agenda behind it? I wouldn’t doubt it. Is it solely a political move? I don’t think so.
You, above all others, should see how things can play out. Things aren’t always what they seem. What may appear to be a political ‘castle’, may just be what it is on the surface; a warning to the public.
Please don’t become so jaded against a political office that you would put further at risk the safety of the American Public.
Thanks for reading.
My biggest problem (other than the percieved obvious politiking, but I don’t particularly want to argue that one this morning) is that we’ve been getting “warnings” nonstop since 9/11.
Heck, the Terror Alert hasn’t gone below yellow. At one point in time someone put forth the idea we needed another color up there. Well we wouldn’t if people wouldn’t limit themselves to using yellow and up.
Blue does mean “guarded” why don’t we make BLUE the defacto color and raise it to yellow once in a while rather than yellow and raise it to orange.
I might take orange more seriously then.
Well the USA has WMD we are in a recession, we have racial violence, intolerance towards gays and lesbians, social problems up the ying yang, but hëll Im so glad we wasted billions saving strangers over seas
Let me just go back to watching Harrison Ford in Air Force One.
What good is a warning to the public about this? This seems to imply, to the contrary, that there is nothing we can even do to stop this. All this kind of pronouncement does is to stir up fear. The government wants to stop Al Qaeda? Fine by me. But they would be better doing so without scaring us, again.
I look at this administration and I wonder if it has any clue at all about how to fight terrorism. This is how it feels: Orange-Yellow-Orange-Yellow-something’s coming!-get the duct-tape-we’re winning the war on terror-Orange-Yellow! And all the while, I keep seeing article that question if Bush’s people really are doing anything, if it’s all just lip service.
And deep down I wonder, why are they acting this way? Why aren’t they doing more to fight Al Qaeda? Why did we fight a war against anyone by Al Qaeda? Is it possible that at some level, some hidden subconscious level, the people in Washington really don’t think they can stop the worst? Or that at some level, they don’t really care if New York gets attacked again? Or that they so desperately want to curtail civil liberties that they will let the worst happen and then use that a new bludgeon? I don’t reaaly believe any of these possibilities, but I also do not understand this administrations’s policy on fighting terrorism at all.
It’s almost enough to make me want to vote for Bob Graham.
Peter David: the Rush Limbaugh of the left.
Steve, I agree with your analysis.
My first instinct was to wonder whether there was anything the Bush Administration could possibly do that Peter would approve of. Then I was wondering why anyone would think the administration is doing nothing about Al-Qaeda when every month or so we learn about the capture of some high level operative. Then I wondered why the American people should place issues such as the environment over national security, and why the Democrats think they are doing themselves any favors treating national security as if it were a distraction from the real issues such as, well, nationalizing health care.
Instead, I wanted to focus on the word “unpatriotic”. I’ve heard numerous complaints about liberals being called unpatriotic when they question the President. I’ve never heard that actually happen, but I’ve heard lots of complaints. After John Kerry was criticized for implicitly comparing Bush with Saddam by calling for “regime change” he defended his patriotism by saying he went to Vietnam. Of course, nobody questioned his patriotism.
So, I want to know where all of this questioning of patriotism of people who aren’t doing things like calling for a million Mogadishus or applauding the destruction of the Pentagon is coming from.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re all just cattle. We’re being kept afraid, then milked for political gain. I can probably work in a leather or beef reference into this metaphor, but I’m lazy.
That being said, despite my distaste for this quasi-legitimate-at-best administration, I think that this is just the Republican Party siezing an opportunity, rather than actually manufacturing one. And while I am inclined to think that the Democrats wouldn’t stoop to such methods, it’s only because they’re less savvy at manipulating the public and less capable of closing ranks over party agendas. The Republicans are scary in that regard- they’re become absolutely brilliant at playing the media.
Every time I watch the news I can feel a little bit more of my idealism die.
One more thing- I must admit that I can’t see how Mr. David’s questioning of the government puts the safety of the American public in danger. I always thought that asking questions of the government is both our right and patriotic duty. When we stop, we get what we deserve, such as Bush.
“In fact I would be shocked–SHOCKED–to learn of such blatant and cynical manipulation on the part of the government.”
The minister of propaganda is here to see you, sir.
“Ah, thank you.”
Peter,
Peter, I love it when you state your political beliefs on your webpage. It amazes me that people critisize you for writing about what you think/believe on your own site. It amazes me even more that it has never stopped you. I choose to come here and I choose to read what you have to say, you always make me think. I agree with many things you say (and disagree on others) but you always say it so much better than I could have, thank you for that.
No, we don’t have bin Laden (or Saddam Hussein, for that matter) “dead or alive.” But hey, at least we’re bringing Martha Stewart to justice.
I feel safe now!
Does it bother anyone else that
a country with all those WsMD
didn’t bother to use any of them
when their country was being
invaded?
How crafty can they be? Allowing
their regime to be toppled in
order to throw us into a false
sense of superiority.
–Ed
Robert Kagan had an excellent column in this Sunday’s Washington Post about the absurdity of the notion that WMDs were some boogeyman scare tactic Bush created from whole cloth; you can read it at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26671-2003Jun6.html .
I’d have a lot more sympathy for “Freeing Iraqis from oppressive goverment” if the Iraqi’s has put more than 1/2 ounce of effort into it themselves rather than US doing it for them.
At least in America we started and fought most of our revolutionary war OURSELVES…
Bush is a dirtbag but the dems seem to be totally unable to get their act together and put forth a decent candidate. I’d rather have Bill Clinton back in office than Bush. Hëll, at this point I’d settle for Reagan, at least with Alzheimer’s it’d be entertaining as hëll…
9/11 was the best thing that could have ever happened to Bush and his Nazi-attack-dog Ashcroft.
The whole thing reminds me of the pilot episodes of the very short-lived “Lone Gunmen” spin-off from the X-Files….
Well, I could state the obvious… but it is obvious, right?
The question on all of this is:
Do you trust the government?
Now, if that answer is yes (whether or not it is the Dubya or Clinton regime), then you should… to paraphrase Lewis Black… draw yourself a hot bath, relax, and then drop in an electrical appliance or two…
No… I’m not a conspiracy nut… but the office of the president and the senate and house… their main job is to maintain their jobs.
Dubya’s main focus is to get re-elected… the poor slobs in the house… they have one year to work and one year to get re-elected… Senators… well they have a little time to get re-elected.
So, Travis, you ask… what is it you’re saying?
Well, Bob, I answer… Everything a politician does is to get themselves re-elected and/or to make them look good.
There are few exceptions to this.
Travis
Screw you and your hack writing.
Robert wrote:
>>Then I wondered why the American people should place issues such as the environment over national security, and why the Democrats think they are doing themselves any favors treating national security as if it were a distraction from the real issues such as, well, nationalizing health care.<<
I don’t agree with that.
Governments don’t do anything for the protection of the environments because that would be expensive. So they let everyone know that “environmental problems” aren’t a big deal, there are always worse problems.
The problem is:
The environment is in real danger and so are we. But like 09/11 there has to be a great disaster until people wake up and see for themselves what they did with a world that is – for me at least – a living being, which cares for us like no other and still gets ignored when it needs really us to change.
Pascal
Al Queda made 9/11 happen using box-cutters. Nukes don’t seem like their kind of thing; they’re a little more low-rent than that.
Suicide bombings, maybe. WMD? Doubtful.
PAD,
I don’t generally agree with your political viewpoints, but it’s a free country and you should be able to say whatever the hëll you want without your patriotism being questioned (of course I’m canadian, so take that as you will).
That said, I’m glad you keep wiriting, ’cause this was dámņ funny. Thanks for the early morning chuckle.
-L.
PS – Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. Every side needs their crackpots.
I believe the Bush administration (let’s not give George W. alone the credit) has to hype the terrorism aspect of government because that’s all they have. The economy keeps getting worse and worse (though the rich will be getting the breaks, which is like giving medicine to the most healthy instead of the sick), the environment has gotten no attention (notice how there was NO administration of oil and gas conversation while at war with Iraq), and our civil rights are being stripped left and right.
As for the idea that we topped a corrupt regime so we don’t need to worry about WMDs, there are two problems with this. One: Bush pitched this war as being done, first and foremost, to prevent another 9/11 (despite the war with Afghanistan being done because they caused 9/11). What was the line? Something like “If we don’t act now, we may be facing a mushroom cloud in a few months.” Two: What other corrupt regimes have we felt morally obligated to topple — including the ones without oil? The Congo, where hundreds are massacred each month? Saudi Arabia, which remains as anti-American as ever? North Korea, which actually HAS those weapons of mass destruction which we kinda thought Iraq had? I’m not sorry Hussein is out of power, but I don’t buy that we’re suddenly guided by morality.
>>I don’t generally agree with your political viewpoints, but it’s a free country and you should be able to say whatever the hëll you want without your patriotism being questioned
See, this is exactly what I was talking about. When has Peter’s patriotism been questioned? I certainly haven’t, and I haven’t seen anybody else in this thread question it either. It’s almost like you can’t question what a liberal says without being accused of questioning his patriotism.
Now, I have certainly seen no reason to suspect PAD is unpatriotic, but if questioning his patriotism is out of bounds than certainly calling John Ashcroft a Nazi attack dog is also a bit extreme.
Again, I have a problem with calling someone a Nazi… I think it takes away from the pogrom of World War II…
Ashcroft is a Fascist from my point of view… but a fascist does not necessarily mean nazi…
Travis
>>The economy keeps getting worse and worse (though the rich will be getting the breaks, which is like giving medicine to the most healthy instead of the sick)
Really? Prove it. Spending is up, the stock market is rebounding (and not through speculation), interest rates are low, and companies are staring to hire again.
>>the environment has gotten no attention (notice how there was NO administration of oil and gas conversation while at war with Iraq)>>
I guess you won’t be buying a hydrogen car?
>>our civil rights are being stripped left and right.
How EXACTLY have your civil rights been stripped? What are you talking about? What can’t you do today that you could do 5 years ago?
On one hand, you indicate that we only did went to war with Iraq for oil, but then you suggest we go to war with North Korea.
Travis wrote:
>>Ashcroft is a Fascist from my point of view… but a fascist does not necessarily mean nazi…<<
That’s right.
There were and are fascists all over the world and Nazis didn’t invent such hatred against minoities.
I am german and when I go on holidays to England – for example – I get often insulted as being a Nazi just because I’m from Germany. I think it is kind of ironic that these people don’t actually get what the fight against discrimination is about.
So calling every fascist Nazi is almost like calling every german Nazi.
Pascal
That was sarcasm, wasn’t it? 😉
I am also sick of the warnings. I am getting to the point where I would have to see the explosion coming at me before I’d take it seriously. Of course it’s just a matter of time before there is a huge terroist attack on this country. But these warnings seem unfounded and part of an agenda.
Anyone read the Doonesbury where at the White House press conference they announced that from now on the answer to all questions would be 9/11?
I think that while it is important to be aware of potential threats to ourselves and that we need to protect ourselves it is equally important to not become paranoid and to not allow ourselves to become what we fear most from others.
We have to temper our actions with reason and not let fear and hysteria govern our actions which is what I see happening right now.
In the interest of protecting ourselves, certain members of the government want us to develop “usable” nuclear arms that could be deployed against an enemy as we would any other type of missile. These weapons are called “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators” and they would be used to burrow underground to attack underground facilities and explode “safely”, supposedly only killing the target. This strikes me as an incredibly bad idea, possibly the worst idea ever in the history of mankind. I truly wonder if they have considered the ramifications to the environment and to the planet itself. How long would that land be poisoned? How far would the underground radiation spread? Would it really be contained underground? Would it cause a chain-reaction of earthquakes? I think it is hypocritical to talk of disarming other nations’ WMD and then want to build something like this.
http://www.usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa083102a.htm
The Patriot Act is also something to be concerned about. I believe that people embrace this document because they believe it will protect us. It gives the government quite a bit more power to look into our private lives than just looking for terroists. There is still a big push to increase governmental power to keep an eye on its citizens. Do we really want the government tracking the movements of all its citizens all the time? Do we really want them to have the power to imprison someone for an indefinite period of time without trial or even charging them with a crime? Giving the government this type of power assumes that the will not abuse it and that they will only catch people guilty of terrorism and no innocent people will be harmed. Nice in theory, but even under the old system people have been imprisoned mistakenly and that was under innocent until proven guilty laws. Should we trust the government with this kind of power? Think about it, if you trust Bush with this power would you trust any president? Clinton? Carter? Nixon? Do you really believe that there will never ever be a person elected who will abuse that power? Its easy to give up your freedoms, its harder to get them back, so lets think a little before we give up our freedoms so quickly in the name of protection that won’t really be guaranteed anyway.
One more thing- I must admit that I can’t see how Mr. David’s questioning of the government puts the safety of the American public in danger. I always thought that asking questions of the government is both our right and patriotic duty. When we stop, we get what we deserve, such as Bush.
Hey Dan, does that mean that if we DON’T question the government, we’re being UNPATRIOTIC? I stopped playing that game because no matter which side you’re on, the other side is always at fault for how bad things are. And things are always worse when the other side is in charge.
Anyone remember the movie “Wargames”? Aside from being an interesting time capsule on computer technology (I love that MODEM Broderick’s character uses), but the computer has the proper context in the end. “An interesting game, with no way to win. How about a nice game of chess?”
So calling every fascist Nazi is almost like calling every german Nazi.
Well, gee, I won’t want to hurt the feelings of those poor fascists!
Read the article yourself. It wasn’t an announcement, it was a report to the U.N. Security Council: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/10/alqaeda.threat/index.html. I suppose they’re part of the conspiracy too. Wasn’t the criticism of Bush last week that he was too quick to declare al-Qaida finished. Maureen Dowd even fudged a quote to that effect.
It hasn’t been months since we captured Iraq, but weeks. Only a third of the suspected sites have been checked. We haven’t found Hussein either. Does that mean he didn’t exist? We have found those trailers Colin Powell talked about in his report. An Iraqi general told the LA Times they did have a program: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2CF610E4
BTW, where are those hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis?
As for the Iraqis doing it themselves, they tried in 1991. That was the source of those mass graves, including a special one for children: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M27F320D4 The Congo may be bad, but Hussein was evil on a global scale.
Why don’t we attack North Korea, which probably has nuclear weapons? Doesn’t that question answer itself?
At the end of the day, after all the discussions, posturing and counter arguments it’s easy for to comment, most of us posting here didn’t lose a family member over there in Afghanistan or Iraq.
What do you say to a wounded vet or widow or orphan?
They gave their lives to protect our freedom too bad they haven’t found Osama or those pesky WMD , oh, and by the way — we’re still not totally safe from a terrorist attack, the deficit is up again and — just so you know — we’re in a recession.
Normally I disagree nearly 100% of Mr. David’s political rants, but I have to see the truth in his diatribe today. I think there is a huge problem in that we have hundreds (thousands?) of people running the office of Homeland Security, and they haven’t clue one about how to go about doing it. Tom Ridge might be a good guy, but running NJ is a far cry from running an international and domestic security and intelligence group, featuring so many employees. While I disagree that this was a blatant move to try to win votes in 2004, I do agree that the Homeland people really just aren’t up to snuff, and are embarassing themselves and those that put them where they are.
In the past, Iraq used WMD against Iran. Then Iraq used it against it’s own people.
Back in the 90’s, the then President claimed that Iraq’s WMD, and failure to turn them over to weapons inspectors, were justification to fire cruise missles into the country. And all of the leaders of the congress in his party agreeded that this was the right action.
Iraq’s own letter to the UN following UN Resolution 1441 claimed to have biological and chemical weapons.
The UN inspectors were unable to find such weapons, yet the same people that are clamoring that the UN needed more time are the same people that are complaining that the US hasn’t found these weapons yet.
Where are the WMD? My guess would be they are hidden in someone’s home (most of the chemical and biological weapons are very small), hidden in another country (Syria anyone?), or dumped in the rivers (want to go take a drink of water from the Tigris or Euphrates?). Just remember that a few GRAMS of anthrax killed several people here in the US, made lots more sick, and practically shut down congress (not that the last part was a bad thing).
I think that this all boils down to whatever the current administration does will be wrong to some people. Period. End of story. However, isn’t it nice that folks can feel that way and express their feelings without fear of the police kicking in their door in the middle of the night? Unlike Iraq 6 months ago…
As someone outside the US, but who sees the news dominated by the US and its position within the world, can I make one observation?
Where a much hyped end result (“a world without Evil Ones Inc.”) may seem like a good idea (albeit 1960s Marvel Universe) and a worthy goal, it does seem that we’re starting to live in a world where we’re taking ‘the lesser of two evils’ as a standard given mission statement rather than the often sad compromise it is.
If we *have* to go after someone/thing/country pre-emptively (and, okay, I can think of scenarios where that might have to be an option)then explain the whys, wheres and whereforarthous clearly and decisively.
Do not speak in terms of great warnings, vague threats, theoretical links, and colour-coded levels of nervousness. Give facts. More importantly demand facts from others.
If you can’t be specific before an event (security and all that) then do so as soon as possible. Do not claim to have definitive proof and then when it’s demanded say you are still gathering it.
Frankly, in a world whee *fluid* is a given political phrase for ‘we’ll be changing our mind shortly’ a two year warning seems too ambigious for words.
Let’s cut out the sound-bites and hear some facts about the acts of the recent past and the imminent future.
THEN we’ll all be informed enough to make a decision based on information, not the strange lack of it. Until then, however right or wrong history shows it to be, the rest is opinion and like an a**, we’ve all got one.
John
John, I’m reminded of an old Wizard of Id strip.
“The situation is very fluid.”
“Meaning?”
“We’re up the creek.”
…Meanwhile the message would seem to be, “Be afraid…be very afraid.” Right now I would be giving some thought to the question of who my/our “being afraid” best serves.
Otherwise: how’s tricks, PAD?
Best — D.
>>> THREAD_JACK IN PROGRESS<<<
.
.
.
.
.
I was just in a bookstore and saw a Buffy novel called “Chosen”, It covers all of season 7 in one paperback. Maybe it will explain the first better than the show did.
>> Return to Bush bashing <<<
Looking at the hysteria springing from the frustration at Bush’s quick victory (no hundreds of thousands of civilian dead, no Stalingrad repeat), I’m afraid of what might happen if WMDs are found. Tony Isabella might take hostages.
Robert un patriotic? well a good example would be to look at the reaction the Dixie Chicks got the were called un american and un patriotic more than once.
Screw you and your hack writing.
Posted by Pat D @ 06/10/2003 10:48 AM ET
Great comeback. Maybe you could put some thought into your next remark, instead of just insults?
I keep wondering about this concept of “Anti-American” or “Un-American.” I have a cousin who is in jail for being a bank-robber; if I were to find out that he was trying to ply his trade again and tried to stop him would that make me “Anti-relative”? I live in Los Angeles, which has had it’s history of dirty cops; if I don’t support all cops including the dirty ones does that make me “Anti-cop”?
But somehow, if I think that the current administrations is full the equivalent of dirty cops, and I don’t cheer them anyway, this makes me “Un-American”
“How EXACTLY have your civil rights been stripped? What are you talking about? What can’t you do today that you could do 5 years ago? “
Have you bought a book in the last 18 months? Well the government can put the person who sold it to you in jail until he or she tells them what book it was or they get a lawyer to get them out.
To answer your question: “Buy a book without fear of getting someone in trouble for selling it to you and not telling someone about it.”
For the record I don’t trust this administration. I didn’t completely trust the last one either but I think Dubya’s group is playing the only cards they have.
By the way for the “stock market is up” people…unemployment is still climbing (doesn’t say much because it’s a lagging indicator) and consumer confidence is at a 15-year low!!
OT: B:TVS Season 4 DVD is out today!! Woo Hoo!!
“How EXACTLY have your civil rights been stripped? What are you talking about? What can’t you do today that you could do 5 years ago?”
My 84-year-old aunt has dual citizenship, U.S and Canadian. Born the latter, she married an American and lived in NYC for many years before becoming a widow and moving back to Canada. She spends months each year in a home she owns in Florida. This time, she had the unpleasant experience of being strip-searched at the border. They did apologize afterwards, but explained that it was orders from on high to do so to each nth person coming through.
Was that in place 5 years ago?
Five years ago, one could spend time in a lot more places without having Big Brother looking over our shoulder via surveillance cameras.
– Iraq using “weapons of mass destruction” in the war years back. Would someone kindly explain to me just how gas qualifies? It doesn’t destroy anything. It does kill, but not very efficiently. One, well-placed ‘dumb bomb’ can total a building as thereby kill as many people as a gas attack. So why aren’t conventional bombs labelled “weapons of mass destruction” but gas is? Anyone who has seen the results of a B-52 carpet bomb run will tell you that ‘iron’ bombs can be pretty massively destructive, too.
And, as for going after Iraq because they MIGHT get atomic weapons but not going after North Korea because they have them, doesn’t it make sense to go after them NOW, while the worst they can do is hurt us, instead of waiting until they can stockpile more and really cripple us?
Look people, you don’t go using a seatbelt violation to incarcerate someone on a suspicion they are selling drugs. Just as you don’t go toppling a regime that you don’t like on a suspicion they’re harboring WMD.
To address Mr. David’s diatribe of the Bush administration’s political campaign for 2004, I can certainly see how they might use the fear of more terrorist attacks to keep themselves in office. With an administration that seems to be OK with sidestepping ethical political protocol to achieve their agenda, I wouldn’t put it past them. Thanks for the intriguing political commentary PAD, as always. To mirror the gratitude of others in this thread, I for one am also glad you continue to post your political thoughts and feelings without regard for the criticism it brings.
Cheers!
-Jon
>>Well, gee, I won’t want to hurt the feelings of those poor fascists!<<
I didn’t say that!
Fascism is a terrible and sick excuse for belittled people to feel better than others. I didn’t defend the feelings of fascists. I just wanted to warn about generalizing people – because it makes it sound like there is only one truth. And the roots of people generalizing other people can be found – I assume – in fascism.
Pascal
“Screw you and your hack writing.”
So, Peter David states an opinion that is different from yours, and suddenly, he’s a hack writer?!?
Of course, you could say he was a hack writer before he stated his opinion, but then, why would you bother to come here and read his ‘blog?
I just don’t understand people who disagree with other people. It’s like that Stephen Crane poem “Think As I Think.”
I’d rather be a toad, too.
Jeff spewed:
However, isn’t it nice that folks can feel that way and express their feelings without fear of the police kicking in their door in the middle of the night? Unlike Iraq 6 months ago…
YET. Ashcroft and Bush are heading that way as fast as they can. When the next “big” terror strike occurs, that step will be advanced…
“How EXACTLY have your civil rights been stripped? What are you talking about? What can’t you do today that you could do 5 years ago? “
Wiretaps and surveilance that used to require court orders in advance don’t anymore. Your library is REQUIRED to let teh goverment know what you’re reading. Herr Bush wants you to report anything “suspicious” your neighbors are doing… Secret Police and Hidden Trials are NOT conductive to American Freedom.
Teknosys:
Look people, you don’t go using a seatbelt violation to incarcerate someone on a suspicion they are selling drugs.
Actually police are using things like the “seat belt stop” and now the “You’re withon 100 miles of a national border stop” and using it as an excue to invade people’s privacy…
Copy and pasted from somewhere elso, but very relevant…. Comments made circa 98.
In Canada, our Prime Minister gloats about there being no evidence of WMD, that rogue regime leaders must not be interfered with and that the will of the UN is to be respected. Parading like a peacock on the world stage he references his principled decision on war in Iraq. Who can forget? “A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof it’s proven.” Regrettably many Canadians believe this hooey. Others have gone into therapy trying to figure what he meant. No one in the national media has countered with reference to Chr
Three thousand two hundred and forty Iraqi civilian deaths at least according AP today.
That makes more civilian deaths in the war against Iraq than were killed on 9/11.
That doesnt even take into account US, allied, and yes even Iraqi military deaths.
We are not more secure now than we were before 9-11. Nothing GWB has done has made us more secure, just less free.
You can try and justify this war anyway you want. All I see are the dead.
Brothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, mothers, parents, husbands, wives and friends who will never be going home again.
<<<
Was that in place 5 years ago?>>>
Don’t know if it was every 9th person but I had friends in college who were stripped searched at the border reentering the country during the years of “the war on drugs”. This would have been in the 80’s, (around 87-88). I also know a co-worker who was harrashed at the boarder over the contents of his car, (his wife’s shoes were in the back seat, perfectly reasonably explantion except the boarder partrol didn’t accpept that a guy driving alone might be driving in a car his wife left some clothes in). Both of these happened long before 9/11. My belief is that things like this go on far more often then most of us are aware of. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not so good reason.
“You can try and justify this war anyway you want. All I see are the dead.
Brothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, mothers, parents, husbands, wives and friends who will never be going home again.”
Are only those who die during an American invasion worthy of your sorrow?
Do a little reading on the atrocities of the now-dead regime. You can even stick to left wing papers if you like, the facts are so obvious that nobody denies them. The number that died because of the war is a fraction of those who died during the “peace”.
But as I said, maybe they were not worthy.