- This topic has 1 reply, 22 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Maybe all the “liberal democrats” could pool their money and buy Kenneth a bus ticket to Managua. The US political pendulum is swinging away from you Ken, buck up and take it like a man.
ed fI want out so badly I can not stand it…but with my divorse I a traped in the U.S maybe forever…the U.S has made itself doomed. I see no possible outlet..our choices for president are no choice. both continue or bring new disaster. I am waiting until I reach 62..and then even thought it will be very minimal income..2 years I can escape this country which is doomed to self distruction…I would come now …in and out for 90 days but do not want to chance getting caught and be banned for 10 years….best of to all of us traped in the U.S.
terryThanks for the offer, Ed, but I’m quite happy here. How, exactly, is it that engaging my fellow expats in political debate is not taking it “like a man?”
If you care to answer the questions I presented to bradbard, I’ll be very interested in your perspective. Perhaps he is putting a response together right now.
Just one request for you, please. Please refer to yourselves as “liberal Democrats.” I, sir, am a democrat. The case of that d makes all the difference. Thanks!
Kenneth wrote:
“Conservative principles are what the United States was built upon. They made us strong. They made us successful. They made us a world power.”Gosh—I thought the US was founded as a result of a revolution against tyranny, and the strength and success of the US was based on principles of freedom.
After 8 years of the current admin’s spending the revenue from our grandchildren’s tax payments not quite sure how much longer the US will be able to sustain that “world power” status you seem so proud of. I can only hope you live long enough to read what history has to say about your twice voted for GWB, it ain’t gonna be pretty—maybe you can rewrite the history on that too.
ed fGosh you libs crack me up! Is there not a lib on this site who will dare answer my questions? It’s not like I have not asked them clearly.
You know… It’s starting to make me think that you HAVE no answers. ::snort-snort::
I don’t call myself a ‘democrat’ or a ‘liberal’ or ‘liberal democrat’ or whatever. I am a proud American and believe that if we are attacked we should respond and wipe the enemy out.
The problem is that we invade, intervene and slaughter without being attacked, and don’t give me the 9/11 story please Kenneth, if we were to take that as a legitimate attack on the USA we should have invaded and destroyed Saudi Arabia and not Iraq or Afghanistan.
Hundreds is plural of hundred Kenneth.
Therefore 232 years could be described as hundreds of years beginning with the decimation of the local population when our forefathers first arrived in the USA. But don’t worry Kenneth we can probably blame that on Scott’s ancestors, the “bloody British.”
A more recent example you might recall is that a country called Iraq has asked us to leave. You could not get more clear than: “Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable.” [ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4288108.ece ]
I don’t us leaving do you? And headlines like this below don’t help much do they Kenneth?
“Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control. Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors” [ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html ]
But let’s not cry over spilled milk Kenneth, forget the tens of millions dead in the past, please tell us the answer to the Iran question before we ask that one.
Do you think we or the Israelis (are they now officially a state of the union yet because it seems to me that the presidential candidates and the press pay far more attention to what they want than what US citizens want?) have the right to just bomb the crap out of these people because we feel like it, do you? Because “all options are on the table” and we have great intelligence right?
Ooops! I forgot the ‘intelligence about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been proven to have been a total pack of lies. [ http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/05/10809/ ]
But our politicians are telling the truth this time right Kenneth?
From [ http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8834/ ] “In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him – a monumental lie to the nation and the world.”
Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. His new book – The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder is out now …
“There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.” See his short video testimony [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU ]
I think if you have nothing to hide then let them check out your Lap top and other electronic devices. I have a home in Costa Rica and love traveling down there so if this little inconvience slows my trip home so be it. I think the real problem is if we as americans vote in this incompitent Demacrat who has no political experience we are in for more serious problems than the Government looking into my Lap top. The muslims are slowly doing to us what they have already done to Europe and if you don’t believe me read the book While Europe Slept it is chilling. I think when a Religion asks it’s followers to hunt down the author of a cartoon and you know the rest we need to worry.
Religions, all of them, have proven to have tremendous potential for insane behavior. I don’t trust any of them.
Regards our new Democratic presidential candidate; He is intelligent. Your current selection, GW, has very little intelligence by comparison, in addition to which, he is a religious man which adds to the dangerous mix. Stupidity and religion make a lethal mixture.I don’t have a thing to hide either and they are welcome to make brief reasonable searches when I use public transport or public facilities. The devil is in the details, though. Let’s see what they seize, from whom and for what real reasons.
‘Marching Off Into Tyranny’
By Paul Craig Roberts. Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, a 16-year columnist for Business Week, and a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service and Creator’s Syndicate in Los Angeles. He has held numerous university professorships, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by the President of France and the US Treasury’s Silver Medal for “outstanding contributions to the formulation of US economic policy.”
05/08/08 “ICH” — – In last weekend’s edition of CounterPunch, Alexander Cockburn updates the ongoing persecution of Sami Al-Arian by federal prosecutors. Al-Arian was a Florida university professor of computer science who was ensnared by the Bush Regime’s need to produce “terrorists” in order to keep Americans fearful and, thereby, amenable to the Bush Regime’s assault on US civil liberties.
The charges against Al-Arian were rejected by a jury, but the Bush Regime could not accept the obvious defeat. If Al-Arian was not a terrorist, then other of the Bush Regime’s fabricated cases might fall apart, too.
In open view, the US Department of Justice (sic) proceeded to trash every known ethical rule of prosecution. I don’t need to repeat the facts, as they are covered by Cockburn’s articles and in The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Instead, I want to point out another meaning of the Al-Arian case. The Justice (sic) Department itself knows that it is persecuting a totally innocent person for reasons of a political agenda–the need to convince gullible Americans of an ongoing terrorist threat. The existence of this threat is used to justify the Bush Regime’s adoption of police state measures, such as spying on Americans without warrants, arresting them without charges, and refusing to let go of them when they are cleared by juries.
Sami Al-Arian is a fabricated terrorist created by federal prosecutors and judges in behalf of an undeclared agenda. The Al-Arian case proves that terrorists are in short supply and that the Bush Regime has had to create them out of total innocents. The “war on terror” is a hoax used to justify war crimes and the overthrow of America’s civil liberties.
The anthrax scare is one more example of the Bush Regime’s use of disinformation to advance an undeclared political agenda. As Glenn Greenwald reminded us last week in Salon, the Bush Regime used Brian Ross at ABC News to spread the lie far and wide that US government tests proved that the anthrax mailed to various Americans, including prominent US Senators, was made in Iraq by Saddam Hussein. This lie was essential for scaring Congress into passing the Bush Regime’s Gestapo laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, and for overcoming opposition to invading Iraq.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/print.htmlWhen it leaked out that the anthrax actually came from a US government lab, the Bush Regime tried to frame a US scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, but failed. On June 28th, the Los Angeles Times reported that Hatfill, “The former Army scientist who was the prime suspect in the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings agreed Friday to take $5.82 million from the government to settle his claim that the Justice Department and the FBI invaded his privacy and ruined his career.” Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton allowed Hatfill’s attorneys two years to review all news reports and FBI evidence. Judge Walton stated: “there is not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with this.” http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-anthrax28-2008jun28,0,5742061.story
The anthrax matter was again news last week when another US government scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, “committed suicide.” Instantly, the deceased Ivins was fingered as the culprit. Overnight a man, liked and respected by his colleagues, who had worked on American biological warfare weapons for years, became a deranged homicidal maniac who decided to murder Americans at random in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 by sending them letters containing anthrax.
I don’t believe a word of it. But assume that it is true. Blaming the anthrax letters on Ivins does not resolve the issue of why the Bush Regime lied to Brian Ross and used ABC to put the blame on Saddam Hussein in order to invade an innocent country.
Wouldn’t a government that would lie about something this serious lie about other serious matters?
The Bush Regime stands against against the truth. That is why it pretends to have the power to prevent executive branch officials wanted for questioning by Congress from appearing before the people’s representatives. Nothing could make clearer the contempt that the Bush Regime has for the American people and their elected representatives than its arrogant claim that it is unanswerable to them.
Obviously, neither the President nor the Vice President respect their oaths of office. If they will betray such a serious oath, won’t they lie about everything, even 9/11 itself?
According to the discredited 9/11 Commission Report, a few Muslims hatched a multi-year plot that went undetected by the vast security agencies of the United States and its allies, and within one hour on one morning at four different locations defeated airport security, NORAD, the US Air Force, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Pentagon’s defenses and crashed three hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers and the heart of the US military. Muslims were able to achieve this fantastic feat operating out of caves in Afghanistan.
We now know for a fact that the “terrorist anthrax attack” had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim terrorists. Even the US Government now blames white American citizens, employees of the federal government, for the anthrax letters that, at the time, were blamed on the “Osama bin Laden al Qaeda plot against America.”
We now know for a fact that this was intentional disinformation planted by the Bush Regime on a gullible and incompetent ABC News reporter, who is a disgrace to journalism. No one denies this.
We also know for a fact that ABC News will not say who planted on ABC the lies that committed the United States to the dishonor of an illegal invasion, war crimes, and executive branch attack on the US Constitution. How can anyone anywhere in the world rely on ABC News when it serves as a disinformation agency for a criminal regime?
One logical conclusion is that the anthrax attack was part of the same false flag operation that pulled off 9/11. The anthrax letters made the “terrorist attack” seem wider and more general. This increased the sense of peril and Americans’ fear and anger, thereby opening wider the door for the Bush Regime’s attack on Iraq and US civil liberty.
Now that the dead Ivins can be conveniently blamed for the anthrax mailings, the Bush Regime can declare the case closed, thus protecting the false flag operation from further risk of exposure.
Many Americans lack the mental and emotional strength to confront the facts. The facts are too unsettling and many are relieved when the “mainstream media” spins the facts away. Many Americans find it too appalling that any part of “their” government, even a rogue operation, could possibly have been involved in any way in the 9/11 or anthrax attacks. No evidence–not even full confessions–could convince them otherwise. Many Americans have welcomed their brainwashing by the neoconservatives: America is pure; her shining virtue causes evil men to attack her; they hate us because we are good and they are evil.
For the sake of argument, let’s accept this make-believe. It does not explain why, in order to protect us from evil men, the US Constitution needs to be dismantled and civil liberties set aside. Our Founding Fathers said that dismantling the Constitution and setting aside civil liberties are precisely what would make us unsafe in the extreme. The Bush Regime has never explained how the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution interfere with any legitimate response to terrorism.
The fact still remains that the Bush Regime responded to 9/11 and anthrax letters with a comprehensive assault on US civil liberty. The Bush Regime’s assault on America has been much more successful than its assault on “terrorism.” Who remembers the promise of a “six weeks war”? Americans have been mired for 6 years in two wars without end which the neoconned Bush Regime, in alliance with Israeli zionists, seeks to expand to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Republican candidate for president has given his commitment to a 100-year “war against terrorism.” Many Americans will vote for this candidate who wants to fight against a hoax for 100 years.
In The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America, Jennifer Van Bergen explains the constitutional and legal principles on which American liberty is based and the Bush Regime’s intense assault on these principles. Part I of her book sets out the Constitutional principles that are under attack. Part II details the systematic attack on the US Constitution that is the heart and soul of the Republican neoconservative Bush Regime–and a Regime it is as it asserts that it is above the law and unanswerable to law, Congress, the federal courts, and the Constitution that it is sworn to uphold
Jennifer Van Bergan likens Bush and his brownshirt supporters to Julius Caesar in motives, though not in courage. She cites the poet Lucan who in his work Pharsalia described Caesar as he flouted the law of the Roman Republic and crossed the Rubicon with his army: “When Caesar crossed and trod beneath his feet the soil of Italy’s forbidden fields, ‘here,’ spake he, ‘peace, here broken laws be left; Farewell to treaties. Fortune, lead me on; War is our judge.’”
Anyone who believes that the Bush Regime’s “war on terror” is about terrorism, oil, getting even with those who attacked us, bringing freedom and democracy to Muslims–whatever rationale makes the gratuitous war crimes committed by the Bush Regime acceptable to gullible Americans–needs to read Jennifer Van Bergan’s Bush Plan for America. Nothing less than American liberty is at stake.
The hour is late. Gullible Americans are being marched off into tyranny as the promised land of safety.
Since the 1960s, I have been convinced that the concept of privacy in one’s personal life is simply a myth. There are too many forces, public and private, arrayed against the individual. My approach is a simple one: If you don’t want the entire world to know you did it, don’t do it because it’s likely that someone will know.
That said, Bigwood, the problem with Homeland Security’s approach to electronic devices with the capacity for information storage is that they have decided that they can inspect them, take possession of them for an unspecified time, remove them off-site for inspection, download any and all data, and share whatever they find with anyone, public or private, whom they choose. The implications for the owner’s convenience are obvious. How would you like to be a salesperson (say) who keeps his or her leads on the laptop which Homeland Security just took?
But what about others who might be affected? How would you like to be the client of an accountant who keeps your records on his or her laptop and whose laptop was just seized? How would you like to be the patient of a physician who keeps your medical records on the laptop? How would you like to be an engineer who keeps your company’s proprietary information on the laptop? How would you like to be . . .(the list goes on).
The writing is on the wall. The U.S. is well down the path to a dramatic and negative change for the average citizen. American citizens don’t care about what they are losing because they don’t have the civil education required to comprehend and they are blinded by irrational fear. They elected George Bush not once, but twice. The fact that they are even contemplating electing McCain to carry on the Bush regime is evidence of this. Why would they care or even be aware of the loss of constitutional rights? (which, as far as I know, do not preclude reasonable search and seizure of certain well defined incoming goods and information)
Edited on Aug 06, 2008 15:38
Thanks, bradbard, for a response where we can start to achieve a clear definition of our different views of how to achieve our shared goals. Your prior response led me to believe that you weren’t interested in a discussion that contained much depth, and I’m very glad to see that is not the case.
I would like to clarify that I’m aware of the definition of “hundreds,” but it sounds like 3 or more to me as my brand of English is Texan where we would be much more likely to say, “a couple of hundred” to describe two-hundred and, “a few hundred” to describe three or more hundred. I’m still not clear about how anyone could say that we were sticking our noses in anyone else’s business in the 19th century or earlier, thus I would question the use of the plural version of the word “hundred.” A single hundred would actually be an exaggeration by any definition of historical fact, but we can put that discussion on the back burner for now in order to give you the opportunity to clarify your claim of more than one hundred.
You may be surprised to learn that I think Iraq turned out to be a huge mistake that I very much wish we had not made. Our difference here is that I consider it to be a major error, not a lie. There were too many Democrats who mimicked the President’s view for this to have been as one-sided an error as it is being portrayed. Our intelligence was severely and embarrassingly flawed, and we had no clue of what the future held as a result. Fortunately, the surge has been effective to put down the insurgency, but I agree that the cost was not worth the benefit. Or at least it appears to be so today.
I’m not clear at all how you arrived at the conclusion that we should not be in Afghanistan. That was (maybe still is) Osama bin Laden’s hangout. You may recall that he is undeniably responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I wish we had put all of our effort into that country and left Iraq alone. At least for now. Saddam Hussein never wore a halo, I’m sure you’re aware.
Nouri al-Maliki has no option other than to ask us to set a timetable for departure. He wants to live and stay in control. The Iraqi populace wants to have some sense of independence and control over their own destiny. What we don’t know is what al-Maliki is saying behind closed doors. I’m sure he has no desire to see the country fall into the hands of the insurgents for many reasons.
You said “tens of millions of dead,” and imply that the USA is somehow responsible for that number of deaths with malicious intent. Would you clarify that claim please?
As for Israel, history has proven that their intelligence is as reliable as any in history. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has publicly proclaimed his country’s position that Israel has no right to exist, that the holocaust never happened and that they would like nothing more than to kill every Jew. If Israel knows that Iran is going to make a nuclear bomb capable of being loaded onto one of their missiles and wiping them out, then yes they have a right to attack them. Not because “we” feel like it, but because Israel has a right to exist. Israel is also a very valuable ally and if they face extinction we will help them avoid it upon request.
As for your authors and their claims that President Bush (Is this the same George Bush I hear is the dumbest President of all time?) was the ONLY politician in the world smart enough to know that Saddam didn’t really have any WMDs, well… Those authors’ stories have more holes than swiss cheese. Too bad their resumes don’t. They are solid, left-wing Democrats who simply don’t have the unbiased credibility to be relied upon. Many of their opinions are just that – Opinions (And I think I’m being kind with the use of that word). If President Bush lied, then so did:
Madeleine Albright – Secretary of State – Clinton Administration – Town Hall Meeting – Feb. 18, 1998 – “Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the risk that the leaders of a roque nation will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Bill Clinton – Remarks to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon Staff – Arlington, VA – Feb. 17, 1998 – “…or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he had made.”
Howard Dean – DNC Chairman and former Governor (D-VT) CBC/PBS “The Editors” – January 31, 1998 – “There are such things as international outlaws. I’m not sure China is one of them, but I’m quite sure Iran and Iraq are.”
Sandy Berger – Nat. Security Adviser – Clinton Admin. – Town Hall Meeting – Columbus, OH – Feb. 18, 1998 – “He will rebuild his arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way I am certain he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
Nancy Pelosi – Representative (D-CA) – NBC “Meet the Press” – November 17, 2002 – “Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”
Jay Rockefeller – Senator (D-WV) – Remarks on Senate Floor – Oct. 10, 2002 – “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons in the next five years. We also should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress which Saddam has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Joe Biden – Senatoer (D-DE) – NBC “Meet the Press” – August 4, 2002 – “We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There’s a real debate on how far off that is, on whether it’s a matter of years or whether it’s a matter of less than that, and so there’s much we don’t know.”
Harry Reid – Senator (D-NV) – CNN “Inside Politics – Sept. 18, 2002 – “Saddam Hussein has in fact thumbed his nose at the entire world community. and I think that the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”
Hillary Clinton – Senator (D-NY) – NBC “Meet the PRess” – Sept. 15, 2002 – Tim Russert asks, “Do you believe that it is possible to have disarmament without regime change?” Senator Clinton responds, “I doubt it. I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the best long-term interest of our national security.”
John Edwards – Fmr. Senator (D-NC) – MSNBC “Buchanan & Press” – Jan. 7, 2003 – “Seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple.”
Evan Bayh – Senator (D-IN) – Fox News “The O’Reilly Factor” – March 17, 2003 “I support the PResident’s efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The things we have learned following Sept. 11th are that we cannot wait to be attacked again, particularly when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, so regrettably Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we’re left with no choice but to take action.”
But then if you believe like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that, “Guv’mints Liiiiie…” then you may believe that the above list of distinguished Democrats were all somehow complicit in President Bush’s great cover-up.
As genuine and concerned about our nation as I believe President Bush to be, he is still a politician. In my humble opinion there are no politicians who do not have some kind of perverse desire for power and control. That being the case, can somebody please tell me what about lying regarding Iraq’s WMDs was in it for him? What personal gain did he accomplish?
“What is the question?” Gosh I hope you’re kidding, but just in case, there are two:
1. I would still like to know exactly where it is that we have been “poking our noses where they don’t belong for hundreds of years.”
2. I don’t see a response to my query about which of the “130 countries” have asked us to leave.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
