Bush, in his speech last night, said something I firmly agree with. He said the war in Iraq represents a struggle between two visions, “one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life.”
The true tragedy of the Bush Administration is that he doesn’t realize the rest of the world is increasingly uncertain which one we are. We are an occupying force, mistreating its captives, claiming that we’re restoring control of the nation’s fate to itself while making clear that 130,000 troops are staying right where they are, with more to come if we decide it’s needed.
What’s frightening is that more than 40% of Americans still don’t grasp that.
By the way, check out this link. It’s eerily hypnotic. I think it’d make a great screensaver.
PAD
• 
Ben Rosenberg:
I liked your low carb diet so much I sent it out to my whole family. We’re going on it too!
Den:
“Funny how the very article you cite as proof of a connection states that bin Laden specifically rejected Saddam’s offer for asylum.”
I said “but not for want of trying”, meaning that Hussein was trying to establish relations, not necessarily that he succeeded.
But Saddam Hussein paid the families of Palistinian suicide bombers after the bombers blew themselves up, so he definitely had links to terrorism. Not Al Qaeda, but terrorism.
BrakYeller, sorry if my post was misleading. What I meant was that if insignifigant things got less coverage, then things like this would be taken more seriously without having to resort to reshowing the same pictures about fifty times a day. Just like after sept. 11 when they kept on showing the planes hitting the toweres and that guy jumping out of a window. They should be covering this more than other things; it’s just that they should focus on new information, not the same old, same old, 24/7. So in other words: If they stopped reporting on stupid things so much then they could report on this less, and they would still be reporting on this way more than everything else. I guess I’m just tired of the sensationalistic 24/7 media that lacks variety.
Hmmm… I’m finding a large amount of anti-American sentiment here. This entire thread will be archived and reported to CTU headquarters. Now off to search more boards for more discontent.
My name is Special Agent Jack Bauer and this, like every other day ever, is the longest day of my life.
Not anti-American. Pro-dissent. Anti-administration. Freedom of speech still lives! Uh, hold on, there’s a knock on my door….
You know the only reason I would ever consider Kerry winning would be so that the Left wouldn’t complain anymore about Bush did this or Bush did that or Bush didn’t do this…
It would give us a chance to complain for a change. Can you imagine 4 years of Kerry in office and us complaining the whole time to Peter about it. I wonder if we could be as intense in our dislike of Kerry as Peter is in his hatred for Bush. I hope not.
Nah, when I think about it, if you didn’t have anything to complain about, I wouldn’t have anything interesting to read.
So let’s stick with Bush for another 4 years.
WooHoo!!!
I want to see how many logs you can get slamming him for another 4 years.
First of Jam on why The Rest Of The World Doesn’t Matter:
“I mean, really, I don’t see what the obsession the left has with the PERCEPTION(and that’s all it is, not reality) the rest of the world has of the US. It’s a fool’s game to care what the rest of the world thinks about the most powerful country in it. There’s always going to be people who question our motives. I don’t care about those people, nothing would ever convince them of us being anything other than The Great Satan.”
So you give up before you start? You think its okay to have soldiers and civilians and representatives of your country all around the world and not care what the world thinks of it? You think the rest of the world has no buisiness being free to say they think the USA is wrong when they enact policy outside their own borders?
They aren’t. You don’t have to care what they think when you vote, its your perrogative and your right – but to pretend the free-thinking opinions of the rest of the world don’t matter because they aren’t the strongest nation is a load of bullsh*t. Not only that, its dangerous and as someone who appears to have had a basic schooling that much should be blatant.
We live on a planet, sometimes called Earth, never called the United Planet of America.
And Bill Mulligan on The Rest Of The World soon ‘needing help’:
“They are far more vulnerable to the threat of Islamofasism than we are. I suspect it will not be the United States that will be needing help.”
Oh how dare you, you conceited little sh*t. It’s the USA that’s seen as the heart of the West, this country’s actions are measured as the will and whim of the rest of the Western world – including most of Europe – so get your head out the trap and SEE.
SEE the priveleged, but weighty responsibility the USA holds.
SEE that – right or wrongly percieved – we’re all in the same boat if we hold to Western ideals, and the USA is doing the steering and the rowing.
SEE that the USA’s power isn’t in its weapons and soldiers, it’s in being the figurehead of Western life, and as such it had better understand the consequences of its actions for the rest of the West.
SEE that everyone else is raising hëll because they know they’re going down if the USA is.
and finally
SEE that they do care about your country because it IS a symbol of what their own people left to create. It’s a great experiment in democracy that stands for freedom and equality, whether its gotten there or not. It’s a place where you can break boundaries, live a good life and get a f*cking huge steak. If America lets itself fail here, by sticking it to the rest of the world because they’ve got a better army and more guns, then they watch that hopeful thing fall away. It’s like shouting at a wonderful bird not to peck at powerlines, and being thwarted because it just doesn’t care to listen. And then the shorted cables electrocute the rest of the birds up and down the line.
I care you ŧwáŧ, I care if my country gets attacked because it’s affliated with yours. I care that I am free to tell you that I’m scared and alarmed by what your country’s actions mean to mine.
And I am not about to let you get away with informing me that if my country gets attacked by these ‘Islamofasists’ (as you so inaccurately describe them) then I’ll want America’s help. You’re right, the rest of the world is infintely more susceptible to attack than the USA, and you seem to think this is apt because when Prague, or Berlin, or Sydney, or Manchester gets attacked we’ll all go ‘well that’s us shown up as whiney, foolish ingrates, best not disagree with the Americans anymore’.
Well up yours. Because if my country gets attacked it’ll be because of its status as a Western nation – as encapsulated by the USA.
“It would give us a chance to complain for a change.”
You mean like 1992-2000 inclusive?
Am I really the only one old enough to remember the appearance of the “Impeach Clinton” bumper stickers a week after the election, and two months before the man would actually take office?
At least the Dems gave Bush a couple of months to screw things up before they started the rhetoric…
And now, having read that WHOLE THREAD, I remember why I tend to skip Peter’s political posts. Not that I don’t have respect for everyone’s views…I do. But I get SO tired of watching people snipe at each other, cleanly falling along party lines.
A hint for the future, if you think something Peter’s going to say, or someone else is going to say, might make you embarass yourself by furiously barking at someone…excercise your right to simply skip it and read something less incindiary?
It sure helps ME sleep at night.
(Love the place, by the way, Peter. I hardly comment, because I rarely have anything to say that I want to bother you with.)
“We kicked Hussein out and killed his kids. Great, but now what?”
We’re going to Disney World!
(Sorry. Had to say it.)
“Try this in that big bombastic sports guy voice they used to do on Saturday Night live/
Bombs? Atom!
Fallout? Mutations!
Deaths? Many!
Idea? Bad!”
Where have you gone, Joe Piscopo? A nation turns its lonely eyes on you.
“You know the only reason I would ever consider Kerry winning would be so that the Left wouldn’t complain anymore about Bush did this or Bush did that or Bush didn’t do this…It would give us a chance to complain for a change.”
For a CHANGE? FOR A CHANGE?! Dude, the right has not STOPPED complaining for the last twelve years. Eight years of bìŧçhìņg about Clinton absolutely non-stop, even before he got into office, and four years of bìŧçhìņg about how everything that’s gone wrong since he left can be attributed to him.
And as a general response to why it matters what other countries think of the United States, John Donne said it far better than anyone here will:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
PAD
dámņ straight PAD!
I know it doesn’t count because it comes out of London, but let’s read a recent report anyway: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida&cid=540&ncid=716
The salient quotes:
The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror
You know the only reason I would ever consider Kerry winning would be so that the Left wouldn’t complain anymore about Bush did this or Bush did that or Bush didn’t do this…
Yeah, it’s much better listening to right tell us how everything is Clinton’s fault.
“Absolutely > NO RICE!”
Yeah, because for all its talk we know that the left can’t really stand to have a strong intelligent well-spoken african-american woman!
Don’t they know their place!!!
Yeah, you’re right. I guess we only let them run as a candidate for the presidency…
Hmm.
I’ve kind of scanned over things, so I’m sorry if I repeat anything anybody else said..
You know..I really don’t care for Bush as the President. I mean, all he’s really done for the U.S., it seems, is get us into a war.
And ya, he got Saddam and thats good..but we STILL don’t have Bin Laden, which is the guy who SHOULD have.
We should have gone after Bin Laden. He was the one responisble for 9/11. I have no idea why we don’t have Bin Laden. We got Saddam. IF we can get him, then you’d think we could get Bin Laden!!
Maybe Saddam was captured first cause more people know his name? *SHRUG* I don’t know..
Also and I know there are more important things to being a President..BUT…I think Bush is an awful speecher. Whenever he gives a speech, he seems so LOST and CONFUSED. Like I said, I know there are more important things..BUT..I think if you can’t even give a good speech and you can’t put forward your best foot when speaking to the public..then thats NOT a good sign.
I still can’t get that one Bush conference out of my mind. That one where people kept asking him what his biggest mistake was and a whole bunch of other questions that he dodged…
Also: has anyone else noticed that lately Kerry is telling us all the good things about himself and Bush, meanwhile, is telling us all the bad stuff about Kerry?
This whole campaign, at least on TV, seems to be about KERRY lately.
Think about it: Why can’t Bush tell us the good stuff about Bush? Maybe…cause there isn’t anything good about him??
*shrug* Ya, I know its typical political stuff..but it always makes me laugh when I see the two different commericals that Bush has up about how awful Kerry is and then w see the one commerical about Kerry telling us how great he is.
Personally, I’d rather see good propaganda, rather then the bad propaganda. I’d like to see Bush do a commerical about himself and telling us why we should for vote for him (and not why we shouldn’t vote for Kerry).
Then again..I guess I should remember how smug Bush was in that one press conference. How he wasn’t worried that he wouldn’t lose the reelction. So I guess he feels he doesn’t really need to tell us why we should for vote for him. Cause we already know..right..?
Anyway…maybe he does have a commerical about how good he is and I haven’t seen it…
DF2506
” And maybe Kerry has a commerical going about how bad Bush is. Hmm. I know there were some commericals like that..just not sure if it was Kerry…haven’t seen them lately.”
“Yeah, you’re right. I guess we only let them run as a candidate for the presidency…”
Really? How many has the left nominated for presidency? Because, only democrats vote in the primaries, yet they don’t vote the strong black women in…
Jerry
Andy:
the last paragraph of that article you linked to really jumped out at me:
“Mr Fandy said senior members of the Saudi royal family told him in recent weeks that they had received assurances from the Taleban leader, Mullah Mohamed Omar, that once the radical Islamist movement secured control over Afghan territory, Bin Laden would be forced to leave. “It’s a matter of time now for Osama.” He said Bin Laden would have a strong ideological aversion to accepting Iraqi hospitality, but might have little choice.”
I guess those assurances didn’t work out like the Saudi Royal Family thought they would. Who’d a thunk it?
Skii says:
“Oh how dare you, you conceited little sh*t.” and a whole bunch of other nice stuff at little old moi.
I hate to drag this back to reality, since your getting all mad at me obviously allowed you to work out some issues, but my sensitive nature just feels bad about having you think I’m such a big meanie and all. As i recall it, someone said that one of the bad things about the USA being isolated was that it would make us more vulnerable to attack.
I states that I thought that it would be other countries that would be the ones who would be in trouble if the ‘Islamofascists’ (and if you think the term inaccurate, try living under the regime they would set up for you if given the chance) win.
You immediately assume I meant Europe–predictable. But ok, let’s go with that. Certainly there is evidence that they would LOVE to avenge past “wrongs’ (like losing Spain) and the rapidly growing Muslim populations of some European countries would certainly make it easier to infiltrate. European borders are pretty dámņ near impossible control. Mass transit is common. The symbolic value is high. So yeah, Europe WOULD be a prime target.
Where exactly the hëll did you get the idea I thought that this would be a good thing? I guess that fits into some wacky world view you have but it just ain’t so. Even if I were the hard hearted guy you want to believe I am, if Europe falls it will of course embolden our common enemies and they will feel ready to go after the big enchilada–Las Vegas. Or maybe Kalamazoo.
I doubt that you’re a bad guy. We have different ideas on how to solve the same problem. The difference is that I have enough confidence in MY solutions that I don’t feel the need to boost my self-esteem by coming up with bogus reasons why folks who disagree must be shmucks.
That screen saver thing… Am I the only one who noticed that if you stretch just the right way, it looks like Dana Carvey?
Random Responses:
“If there had been WMDs in Iraq and we had found them, I’d probably feel differently, but none were found and I can’t help feeling that the whole of the US has just had the mother of ALL pieces of wool pulled over their eyes.”
“You are right, however, in that people seem to forget that no WMD were found (that old binary shell not withstanding)…”
“I wouldn’t worry about it. All we know that Saddam used were gas artillery shells that would now be long past their expiration date. It takes a lot of artillery shells being fired to make a WMD.”
Oh, so finding that mortar with mustard gas doesn’t count? What about the artillery shell with the serin gas? Do they not count? How much proof do you need to see there were and still are WMD’s hidden in Iraq? Only now, instead of being found by the UN inspectors years before, they are being found by terrorists. Just how many shells does it take to make a WMD? Here’s your answer…ONE. He was supposed to turn over ALL biological and chemical weapons.
“How come every one thinks that Clinton was lax when it came to terrorism?”
Because he chose to treat the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing and other terrorist attacks as police matters, not as attacks on America itself. Clinton’s solutions seemed to be “lob a few cruise missles at them…that will show them we’re serious”.
“We should have gone after Bin Laden. He was the one responisble for 9/11. I have no idea why we don’t have Bin Laden. We got Saddam. IF we can get him, then you’d think we could get Bin Laden!!”
News flash…there are soldiers looking for bin Laden. Here’s the difference. Saddam had a larger ego, and wouldn’t leave the country. It was only a matter of time before he was found. bin Laden, unfortunately, is smarter. He’s not staying in one place and moving around a lot. He’s not emotionally tied to one place like Saddam was.
“…I guess I should remember how smug Bush was in that one press conference. How he wasn’t worried that he wouldn’t lose the reelction. So I guess he feels he doesn’t really need to tell us why we should for vote for him. Cause we already know..right..?”
No. Because that press conference wasn’t about running for reelection. It was about the War on Terror. As much of an outcry there’s been about the speech, can you imagine the uproar if he made it into a “vote for me” event?
Because all I’ve been hearing lately is that critics want Bush to ditch the June 30th deadline, that it was something he was being stubborn about. So just when DID we promise them a transfer, if not june 30th?
I’ve said from day one that there was no way in hëll that we were going to get our troops out of Iraq any time soon, nor were we going to hand over power.
So, yes, I was right.
And I’m going to rub it in your face if you actually believe in Bush’s piss-poor planning of this war and continued bs statements about this and that, including the power transfer.
So, what’s the next date we’ll miss for power handover?
The problem is that Bush won’t admit when he’s wrong. Or admit when he’s lied. Or admit that he’s completely @#$^’ed things up.
“to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18–26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.”
Meaning that they’ll ship you off to whatever country they invade next in the name of “national defense”.
Maybe Saddam was captured first cause more people know his name? *SHRUG* I don’t know..
Oh, c’mon. Everybody knows who Saddam bin Laden is…
As much of an outcry there’s been about the speech, can you imagine the uproar if he made it into a “vote for me” event?
And you think that speech wasn’t a “Vote for Me” event?
The whole spiel about how great a job he claims he’s doing on the War on Terror. The whole point is for reelection so he can continue to blow šhìŧ up that has nothing to do with terrorism.
Cheap Shot:
“Also and I know there are more important things to being a President..BUT…I think Bush is an awful speecher. Whenever he gives a speech, he seems so LOST and CONFUSED. Like I said, I know there are more important things..BUT..I think if you can’t even give a good speech and you can’t put forward your best foot when speaking to the public..then thats NOT a good sign.”
And by your reasoning, your opinions should be ignored because you have a mistake. Speecher???
Or was it REALLY a mistake? Maybe you really think that’s an actual word? I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, if it was Bush that said “speecher”, it would be all over the news, Al Franken would spend an entire show on it, and the left would be on the summit proclaiming how Bush shouldn’t be reelected because of it.
And please folks, don’t get your panties in a wad. I’m just teasing, and hopefully making a point as well.
Me:
Because all I’ve been hearing lately is that critics want Bush to ditch the June 30th deadline, that it was something he was being stubborn about. So just when DID we promise them a transfer, if not june 30th?
Craig:
“I’ve said from day one that there was no way in hëll that we were going to get our troops out of Iraq any time soon, nor were we going to hand over power.”
“So, yes, I was right.”
“And I’m going to rub it in your face if you actually believe in Bush’s piss-poor planning of this war and continued bs statements about this and that, including the power transfer.”
“So, what’s the next date we’ll miss for power handover?”
Ok, let me rephrase the question:So just when DID we promise them a transfer, if not june 30th?
I mean, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there were lots of dates for power handover’s that we missed and I don’t know about them. Please share. You can “rub my face in it” if it makes you feel better, my fragile ego will just have to take it like a man.
Jeff wrote
“Oh, so finding that mortar with mustard gas doesn’t count? “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm
— Field tests conducted by British and Danish inspectors indicated that the shells – found on 9 January – contained traces of blister gases – including mustard gas compounds.
But further tests by the Iraq Survey Group in South Iraq and the US Department of Energy’s National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho proved these results were incorrect.
“The results show the shells from the Danish area did not contain chemical warfare agents,” the Danish Army Operational Command confirmed on Sunday. —
Jeff also wrote:
“What about the artillery shell with the serin gas?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm
— …a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.
He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained. —
And Jeff wrote some more:
“Do they not count? How much proof do you need to see there were and still are WMD’s hidden in Iraq? “
Nope and a lot more than whats been shown.
Derek,
the story on the mustard gas you have seems to be from a much earlier time–the mustard gas shell was supposed to have been discovered only two weeks earler than the sarin one (which would put it in early May). The story you have is from January.
However it is worth remembering that more than a few stories have turned out to be less than they seemed at the time so caution is wise.
PAD wrote:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Ah, you only bring that up because you had it on hand for that MadroX interview. 😉
Jeff wrote:
“Oh, so finding that mortar with mustard gas doesn’t count? What about the artillery shell with the serin gas? Do they not count?”
As others have pointed out, that’s rather thin “evidence” for Saddam’s alleged “massive stockpiles” of WMDs. Unless you really want to claim that it was worth starting a war that’s killed 20,000 civilians and 800+ US soldiers, and maimed countless others, just to find two shells that are over 20 years old…
If it bears repeating, then so be it:
THE REASON THAT SADDAM HAD ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE THE REAGAN/BUSH ADMINISTRATION SOLD THEM TO HIM IN THE 1980S.
As for Saddam’s support of terrorists, it should be noted there has not been any substantive proof of any link to the al-Qaeda network (unlike our Pakistani ally, General Musharraf). There IS a major difference between supporting terrorists and supporting al-Qaeda (after all, hundreds, if not thousands, of good Americans sent money to support the IRA for years). Also, no one ever denied Saddam’s support of terrorist groups (of course, the current Israeli Prime Minister allowed Lebanese Christians to massacre Palestinian refugees, and several top Israeli leaders–including at least one Prime Minister–were members of anti-British terrorist groups before and during World War II, so supporting terrorists is not all that really surprising; hëll, this very government has been a supporter of terror organizations, such as Iran’s SAVAK–which, of course, only terrorized Iranians–and the death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, whose only victims were leftists and Indians).
Concerning those soldiers searching for bin Laden, how much easier would their search have been if Bush hadn’t wasted the resources of the Armed Forces on this asinine vendetta against Saddam? What’s even more ridiculous is bin Laden’s physical condition: The man requires dialysis; he has kidney problems. And in nearly 3 YEARS, no one has been able to find the man? It’s easy to understand why Eric Rudolph was hard to find–the man was in pretty decent physical shape when he went into hiding, and is believed to have had a network of sympathizers in the mountain areas he was presumed hiding. But this country’s finest personnel cannot find a man who suffers kidney disease in an area that isn’t well known for its medical facilities? Sorry, but I blame George W Bush’s vendetta for that. (And any “success” in finding bin Laden between July 1 and November 2 of this year will be monstrously suspect.)
Bill:
I wasn’t sure what Jeff was talking about because the mid-May mustard gas bomb was completely innefective and according to military officials the insurgents were cluelessas to what they had found.
Either way none of it should be used as the smoking gun to prove that Bush’s WMD claims were all gospel.
News flash…there are soldiers looking for bin Laden.
Yeah, now that there’s an election coming up. Bush diverted money and manpower away from the hunt for bin Laden so that he could launch Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake.
Bin Laden is dead.
The WMDs were transported to Syria. And are still there.
Please note, when the above issues come to pass I will say I told you so.
Which is what the media is trying to do to Bush and inadvertently to the American public who supports him or might support him. We told you so. This is the unbiased media.
AnthonyX: “Bin Laden is dead.”
This isn’t the first time you’ve made this claim. Again, can you point the rest of us toward whatever sources you’re using to support your claim? Or are you merely speculating aloud?
Ben Lesar- sorry to have misread you. I will agree that the media often oversaturates the public with fluffy and useless stories… I, too, do not want to see the important issues (such as Iraqi prisoner abuse) buried by news of Micheal Jackson’s latest legal blurb.
tOjb
Convince me of a good, realistic reason why the Syrian government would accept transshipment of a massive number of devices certain to make them global pariahs when discovered. Something more convincing than “Arab brotherhood” is required.
Unless, of course, you want to try to tell me that Saddam was so stupid as to repeat the mistake he made with his air forces in Gulf War I, when he sent Iraq’s F-14 fighter jets to Iran, to the safety of his “Muslim brothers” (with whom he had recently concluded a war; said “brothers” laughed and thanked him for the new weapons systems…).
Bin Laden is dead.
So, how do you explain the new taperecordings of his voice that come out every few months, some of which have referenced events that have occurred since the fall of the Taliban?
The WMDs were transported to Syria. And are still there.
Let’s assume that this is true for a moment. Given that:
1) Syria is a known supporter of terrorism;
2) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to UN resolutions requiring them to submit to inspections;
3) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to an international trade embargo; and
4) The stated goal of Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake was to prevent the WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Wouldn’t this mean that OFDM has achieved the exact opposite of its stated goal, that is now easier for terrorists to obtain said WMD?
Way to go, George!
Is Bin Laden dead?
I’d guess that he still lives but there is one very major problem that puzzles me to this day–why is all of the evidence that he is alive only in the form of audio tapes? He wasn’t shy about showing himself before, why now? he could not have changed his appearance all that much–and if he did, say, shave his beard, it would be easy to wear a fake one for the video.
One possibility is that he is ill or was badly wounded and looks like hëll. I still think the propaganda points of being alive would be worth it.
The long shot is that he is dead…and the audio tapes are a black ops trick to possibly bring others out of hiding. If he is alive and they DO catch him I hope they spend a few days getting him to record various messages like “Let’s all meet at Ali’s Tuesday at noon for lunch.” or something.
Read some of these comments from Iraqis about Saddam. Then tell me that America is doing something wrong.
Example:
I’d guess that he still lives but there is one very major problem that puzzles me to this day–why is all of the evidence that he is alive only in the form of audio tapes?
The reason he stopped issuing video tapes is because the CIA was analyzing the background in the tapes for a clue as to his location. Why he didn’t just film himself in front of a blank screen, I have no idea.
“Read some of these comments from Iraqis about Saddam. Then tell me that America is doing something wrong.”
America is doing something wrong.
Would it be of any use to trot out quotes from grieving families of American GIs? Or angry families upon learning that their sons and daughters are having their stays in Iraq continually extended just when they thought they were coming home? How about the Iraqis who have seen mothers, wives, sons, daughters, husbands, lovers…people who were simply trying to survive…blown to bits under American assault?
Here’s a nice one: Let’s chat with the dozens of Iraqis who have relatives being sought by American soldiers…and when the Americans can’t find the people they’re looking for, they kidnap utterly blameless family members and literally hold them hostage as bargaining chips to try and get the people they want to surrender. Yes, you read that right: Dozens of INNOCENT IRAQIs are being held FOR MONTHS. Their captors–Americans–openly admit that they are suspected of nothing, have done no wrong.
The Ends-Justifies-the-Means crowd are unable or unwilling that American is seen as a hypocrite of the highest order. Spouting high flown moral rhetoric, it has been decided at the highest levels that the Geneva Convention does not apply to us. We have power, we are using it, and we don’t give a dámņ whether people like it or not. That is not the action of a high flown democracy; that is the attitude of tyranny.
No question that brutalities are being committed on the other side. But we’re supposed to use those actions as models of what to avoid, not excuses for what we want to do. And yes, I know that the quick excuse giving by Bush supporters is that these are the actions of a few random individuals. Uh huh. That was the party line given for Watergate, as I recall.
If anyone had said, when Watergate first broke, that it would lead to Nixon’s resignation, they would have been told they’re nuts. Mark my words, the actions in Iraq are going to be found to have originated at the highest levels of government, and it would not surprise me in the least if Bush advisors, or even Bush himself, were summoned to the Hague to answer for war crimes. Because holding innocent people hostage for months is a war crime, and yes, terrorists do it too. But the terrorists are not elected, and are not intended to represent the will of the people. Bush ostensibly is. And if it’s your will that America commits war crimes but it’s okay because a bunch of Iraqis are happy to see Saddam gone, then you really need to get your priorities in order.
PAD
Or read this blog:
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
Umma Raed *wants* to be happy about Saddam’s overthrow, *wants* to welcome the Coalition troops – but she’s starting to see the troops acting like the thugs they replaced, and starting to hear Bremer and Bush sounding like a kinder, gentler Saddam…
PAD: And if it’s your will that America commits war crimes but it’s okay because a bunch of Iraqis are happy to see Saddam gone, then you really need to get your priorities in order.
It is not okay that we commit war crimes and the end does not justify any means. However, things are better in Iraq than they were under Saddam. Saddam didn’t represent the “will of the people” in Iraq.
If you want to know if I am happy about the prisoner abuse, the answer is no, I’m not. I’m very interested in reports that Sanchez sanctioned and may have been present during some of the time.
However, while that investigation continues, I am also going to support the end goal of helping to create a real democracy in Iraq. Without Saddam, there is a chance of that happening. Before there was none.
“Mark my words, the actions in Iraq are going to be found to have originated at the highest levels of government, and it would not surprise me in the least if Bush advisors, or even Bush himself, were summoned to the Hague to answer for war crimes.”
Peter, dude, seriously… stick to the fiction and fantasy where you get to make everything up and no one has to question it. You’re just not cut out for the real world, like most entertainment industry folk. Leave it to the thinkers.
(Anyone else reminded of John Cleese at the end of the Bicycle Repairman sketch?)
Sorry M
And del, PAD has a lot more credibility than you do.
Just to throw in my two cents the shell with the gas was found HOWEVER,many sources feel the insurgents did not know what they had and quite frankly one shell does not a massive WMD program make.The ends justifying the means does not work and never did.We should be very concerned and embarassed as a country that other people think we are as bad if not worse than Saddam.I dont go with the screw em they cant stop us or insisting we are the good guys crowd.
The biggest issues i have are that Rumsfeld and others very arrogantly believe we are above the law when it comes to the Geneva conventions and human rights.Part of the reasons the Abu Gharaib and other incidents have occured is the demonizing of muslims ,and middleeastern peoples
by the administration,Limbaugh,savage and hannity
in the news media.If you look at a group of people as less than you it becomes easier to abuse and kill them.
Second beef ,all the lives ,money and time spent in Iraq has allowed the REAL terrorists and threats to hole up,get stronger and get organized.
So now when the next real incident happens we will have no one to blame but the Pres and his advisors Iraq obsession which i never quite get.
Our resources would be better utilized in counter terrorist missions and tactics than searching for WMDs that do not exist.
I felt from the beginning we should have focused on Afghanistan,Saudi Arabia,Pakistan ,and North Korea not necessarily in that order.
Okay enough serious talk ,I need to watch Spongebob:)
del, dude, seriously… stick to the commenting on weblogs where you get to make half-assed assertions and no one has to question them. You’re just not cut out for the real world, like most faceless internet drones. Leave it to the thinkers.
Sounds like bûllšhìŧ, doesn’t it? As much as I may rail against the Fiskers, I don’t pretend they should sit back and wait for some mystical sign from ‘thinkers’ (who, pray tell, would be these mythical folks who are supposed to think for us? Do we even bother with an election this fall, or do we just let the ‘thinkers’ select for us?) who will show them the way.
It’s our country. We’re supposed to be the ones in charge of it, which is why we call elected officials ‘public servants.’ I’m not waiting for some dámņ pundit to tell me what to think, and you shouldn’t either, and you sure as hëll shouldn’t be telling other people to.
Differences of degree are important when the subject is torture. The apologists for what has happened do have points that should be heard and clearly understood. It is a fact that every culture and every politics sometimes expresses itself in cruelty. It is also undeniably true that other countries have and do torture more routinely, and far more brutally, than ours has. George Orwell once characterized life in Stalin’s Russia as “a boot stamping on a human face forever.” That was the ultimate culture of cruelty, so ingrained, so organic, so systematic that everyone in it lived in terror, even the terrorizers. And that was the nature and degree of state cruelty in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
We all know these things, and we need not reassure ourselves and should not congratulate ourselves that our society is less cruel than some others, although it is worth noting that there are many that are less cruel than ours. And this searing revelation at Abu Ghraib should lead us to examine more thoroughly the routine horrors in our domestic prison system.
But what we do now, in reaction to Abu Ghraib will determine a great deal about who we are at the beginning of the 21st century. It is important to note that just as the abuses of the prisoners flowed directly from the policies of the Bush White House, those policies flowed not only from the instincts of the president and his advisors, but found support in shifting attitudes on the part of some in our country in response to the outrage and fear generated by the attack of September 11th.
From http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html/
Al Gore finally finds a heart.
Re: The Link
That’s a funny picture of Bush’s nose following the dollar sign, however, looking at how John Kerry has gone from one multi-millionaire wife to another, his photo would be a better one to have on the page.
Den,
Tape Recordings???
Really now, I am sure you are smarter than that.
Could you imagine the propaganda victory that is Usama dancing around via video with todays New York Post or whatever. It would sink Bush.
Every Tom, Ðìçk and Abdullah can get video to Al Jazeera (See the Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg PR Stunts) Why not the big guy!
And a video did come out recently with Usama and a fellow sheepherder touring the wilds. of course it came with a voice over that was not OBL’s.
Breathe in my friends you just might have OBL atoms floating through your sinuses.
Now to Syria:
YOU : 1) Syria is a known supporter of terrorism;
ME: Yup!
YOU 2) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to UN resolutions requiring them to submit to inspections;
ME: They never attacked another country have they? And with the UN, Syria is a model citizen.
YOU 3) Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Syria is not subject to an international trade embargo; and
ME: See above and they be under an embargo for there actions towards Israel. But of course you would be posting how horrible the West is for doing so. 50000 children dead a day!! Oh the humanity.
YOU 4) The stated goal of Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake was to prevent the WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Wouldn’t this mean that OFDM has achieved the exact opposite of its stated goal, that is now easier for terrorists to obtain said WMD?
Way to go, George!
ME: Don’t you mean way to go UN Dithering, UN delays, anit- “war” protesters, French posturing.
ALl of those who delayed and delayed what shopuld have happened years ago????????
Thought you did!
AnthonyX, you still haven’t answered the question: What support do you have to back up your claim that bin Ladin is dead? You claim we’re breathing in his atomized remains… funny, but I don’t remember any tactical nukes being used in Afghanistan. Are you simply stating opinion, or can you walk your talk?
tOjb
I bet we get 280 posts out of this thread, again, all of you arguing the same arguments done over & over during the last few months.
***sigh***
these are fun to read though.
Joe V.