james
Full Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by james on Oct 8, 2005 8:33:23 GMT 4
There Were No WMD In Iraq, No Ties To Al-Qaeda, And No Ties Between Iraq And 9/11 No WMD In Iraqwww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stmwww.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...raq.wmd.report/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/www.usatoday.com/news/world/...02-un-wmd_x.htmwww.pbs.org/newshour/bb/midd...4/wmd_10-7.htmlwww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan11.htmlwww.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1307529,00.html No Ties To Al-Qaedawww.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122821,00.html www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jun16.htmlwww.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...911.commission/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stmwww.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stmwww.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/s...1006792,00.html Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jun16.htmlwww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jun16.htmlwww.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...911.commission/seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...bushiraq18.htmlwww.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain520830.shtmlwww.boston.com/news/globe/ed...o_911_no_truth/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stmLinks not completely blue will not work.Please copy and paste to your search window to view. Please forward to those blinded by the propaganda of the WAR machine. How do you feel knowing you and your great grandchildren will be paying for a WAR based on a pak of lies, The money I can get over. It's having to answer my great grand child some day,Why didn't your generation do anything to stop the genocide of million's old man? UM.........
|
|
element
New Member
All of us, children of nature, paint our own portraits!
Posts: 21
|
Post by element on Oct 8, 2005 14:05:11 GMT 4
COMMON GROUND, INDEED! James, I could not agree with you MORE! I often wonder how I, myself, will answer these questions. Unfortunately, our family has known so many who have given their lives for a cause that is UNknown!, for a cause with no definite purpose, other than hatred for another race of people with whom some of our leaders do not agree...and they dare say "we believe fully that we have no reason, nor right to interfere with other lands based on their seperate ideals of religion." (Ashcroft) Any ideas on how the minorities can possibly " stop the genocide of millions"? I would, truely, give them thought! As it stands, our "leaders" have made it so that we aren't so sure where our next meals are coming from. BUT, I would gladly give up MANY meals, and personal 'necessities' to be one of those who could be named in history : one of those Bush/Cheney minorities that had the intuition, and the know~how to stop the mahem!
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 8, 2005 16:33:19 GMT 4
ElBaradei locked horns with U.S. on Iraq By Louis Charbonneau Fri Oct 7, 2:08 PM ET VIENNA (Reuters) - Mohamed ElBaradei and his U.N. nuclear watchdog grabbed the world spotlight in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq by challenging Washington's argument that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. By locking horns with the U.S. administration, ElBaradei, a 63-year-old Egyptian lawyer, made powerful enemies but this did not prevent him winning a third term as head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Agency (IAEA). By awarding the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize to ElBaradei and the IAEA 60 years after two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, the Nobel committee gives them a much-needed boost in their efforts to fight the spread of nuclear weapons. "There have been two nuclear shocks to the world already," ElBaradei has said. "The Chernobyl accident and the IAEA's discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program. It is vital we do all in our power to prevent a third." Read the entire article: news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051007/pl_nm/nuclear_elbaradei_dc_1
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Oct 8, 2005 22:16:25 GMT 4
Ever notice our pet president dosen't get out much? He's the least-traveled president in living memory. I think it is becouse he fears being arrested and charged with Crimes against Humanity at the World Court... We should be so lucky. The nations where he would be fairly safe to go to have probably declined offers of a visit,becouse his crushing security bubble is disruptive in the extreme. They basicaly shut a country down to keep the most hated man on Earth safe. A cowardly megalomaniac,he never allows people with veiws different from his own to be within a mile of him. Compare this with Nixon,who would wander out to the White House gates at 3am and speak with(and LISTEN to)protesters... His desperate attempts to maintain the illusion of popular support only make him look ridiculous. Some great leader. Truly disgusting.
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Nov 1, 2005 5:35:09 GMT 4
While I attempt as a moderator not to copy/paste whole cloth, I must share this point,which gets scarce attention... Many thanks to Mr. Levine,and buzzflash.comI remember when I served in the Army during World War II, casualty reports included all aspects of pesonnel defects which were the result of military activities which were related to combat. These included deaths from armed fire, drownings, vehicular and aircraft accidents, drownings, sinkings and boobytrap and mine explosions, among other causes. And furthermore, a service man or women who survived the same kind of incidents and were, as a result, withdrawn from the theatre of operation, temporarily or permanently, were also regarded as a casualty. All wounded service people and those with battle fatigue or psychological disorientation were casualties. Prisoners-of-war were casualties. Whoever suffered a death or trauma that lessened the battle effectiveness of a fighting unit was a casualty. Last week I read that the Pentagon reported the 2000th (deceased) casualty of the Iraq war. Why, I ask, aren't the 18,000 wounded sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines, also included as casualties? Why aren't the service men and service women who are discharged or still on active duty, but with service-connected psychological disorders, included as casualties? I believe a concerted and deliberate lack of respect for the armed forces has been perpetrated by the Bush administration so it can sanitize the true statistics regarding total war casualties. Eugene M. Levine Briarcliff Manor, NY (Mod's note:The moment the skids lift off the Iraqi sand,servicemen who perish enroute to medical treament are off the books,so to speak.It's kinda like Enron.It should be pointed out that more American soldiers have died in Iraq than in the first four years of the Vietnam conflict).
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Mar 12, 2006 10:42:32 GMT 4
No One Knows How Many Iraqis Have Died
Published: 3/10/06, 4:46 PM EDT
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Three years into the war, one grim measure of its impact on Iraqis can be seen at Baghdad's morgue: There, the staff has photographed and catalogued more than 24,000 bodies from the Baghdad area alone since 2003, almost all killed in violence.
Despite such snapshots, the overall number of Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed since the U.S.-led invasion in spring 2003 remains murky. Bloodshed has worsened each year, pushing the Iraqi death toll into the tens of thousands. But no one knows the exact toll.
President Bush has said he thinks violence claimed at least 30,000 Iraqi dead as of December, while some researchers have cited numbers of 50,000, 75,000 or beyond.
The Pentagon has carefully counted the number of American military dead - now more than 2,300 - but declines to release its tally of Iraqi civilian or insurgent deaths.
The health ministry estimates 1,093 civilians died in the first two months of this year, nearly a quarter of the deaths government ministries reported in all of 2005.
The Iraqi government, however, has swung wildly in its casualty estimates, leading many to view its figures with skepticism.
At the Baghdad morgue, more than 10,000 corpses were delivered in 2005, up from more than 8,000 in 2004 and about 6,000 in 2003, said the morgue's director Dr. Faik Baker. All were corpses from either suspicious deaths or violent or war-related deaths - things like car bombs and gunshot wounds, tribal reprisals or crime - and not from natural causes.
By contrast, the morgue recorded fewer than 3,000 violent or suspicious deaths in 2002, before the war, Baker said. The tally at the Baghdad morgue alone - one of several mortuaries in Iraq - thus exceeds figures from Iraqi government ministries that say 7,429 Iraqis were killed across all of Iraq in 2005.
"The violence keeps getting worse," the morgue director said Feb. 28 by phone from Jordan, where he said he had fled recently for his own safety after he said he was under pressure to not report deaths. Freezers built to hold six bodies are sometimes crammed with 20 unclaimed corpses. "You can imagine what a mess it is," he said.
Baghdad, which has a fifth of Iraq's 25 million inhabitants, has been a main center of the violence, with insurgent attacks and sectarian tensions both high here.
Many of the Baghdad morgue's bodies arrive from the emergency room at Yarmouk Hospital, where Dr. Osama Abdul Wahab said his staff occasionally had to deal with groups of two or three trauma patients before the invasion. Now they must cope with dozens of casualties at a time, he said.
"All of a sudden the doors of hell open and 40 injured patients arrive and you are alone," said Abdul Wahab, a 31-year-old neurologist.
Regardless of the lack of a precise figure on deaths, virtually all studies agree that among Iraqi government security forces, the police are at greater risk than the army. But it is Iraqi civilians who bear the brunt of the deaths.
According to the government's own count, twice as many Iraqi civilians - 4,024 - died last year in insurgency-related violence than police and soldiers.
Part of the reason for the high civilian death toll is that insurgents prefer to strike in the cities, especially Baghdad.
There is no way to verify the Iraqi government death figures independently, as is the case with most statistics in Iraq.
In a dangerous country as large as California, journalists and academics rely on figures provided by police, hospitals, the U.S. military and the Interior Ministry. But reports on casualties from major attacks often vary widely.
Further muddling the issue, some outside estimates of the dead include Iraqi insurgents, while others do not.
Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution who has closely followed the war's casualties, estimates 45,000 to 75,000 Iraqis have been killed, including insurgents and Iraqi soldiers.
O'Hanlon, who teaches a Columbia University course on estimating war casualties, called Bush's figure of 30,000 "on the lower end of the plausible range."
Iraq Body Count, a British anti-war group, put its tally of war dead at between 28,864 and 32,506 as of Feb. 26, but that doesn't include Iraqi soldiers or insurgents. It compiles its estimate of civilian deaths from news stories, corroborating each death through at least two reports.
But if Iraqi officials standardize tallies days later, news organizations have moved on to reporting other violence and may be unaware that early figures have been adjusted.
A United Nations survey conducted almost two years ago - before the deadliest guerrilla warfare began - said 24,000 Iraqi civilians and troops had been killed from the war's beginning in March 2003 through May 2004.
In late 2004, a study published in the Lancet medical journal estimated the war had caused some 98,000 civilian deaths. But the British government and others were skeptical of that finding, which was based on extrapolations from a small sample.
The question of who is to blame for the Iraqi deaths has long been controversial. Some critics argue that with the United States and its allies unable to maintain order, Iraq has become a deadlier place for civilians than it was under Saddam Hussein.
Johnson, the military spokesman, acknowledged that possibility, but said future generations would enjoy better lives because of Iraq's current hardships.
Rand Corp. military analyst James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan, is among those who believe the United States bears some responsibility for the Iraqi dead, even if insurgents actually cause most of the deaths.
"The U.S. has never been able to protect the population, and has thus never won its confidence and secured its support," Dobbins said.
The Middle East Institute's Wayne White, who headed the State Department's Iraq intelligence team until last year, adds that regardless of whether Americans believe they should be blamed for these casualties, "many, many Iraqis hold the U.S. responsible for all of them."
Sarmad Ahmad al-Azami, a 35-year-old engineer, is an example.
His father died of a heart attack suffered during the U.S. bombing of a government palace next to his home in Baghdad. A year later, al-Azami's mother, 59, was killed in a car bombing.
"Our family has been devastated," al-Azami said. "Iraqis were living hard lives before this, but now things are much worse."
___
Associated Press writers Omar Sinan in Cairo, Egypt, and Jalal Mudhar in Baghdad contributed to this report.
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Sept 29, 2006 11:26:42 GMT 4
War in October? - Bush positions strike group in Gulf prior to midterm electionsBy Geov Parrish Sep 28, 2006, 08:21 axisoflogic.com It's an empirical fact that in modern America, two rhetorical devices must be used repeatedly by our president before we can invade another country. First, that country must be conflated with its leader, so that we are bombing one person, not, say, 70 million people. Second, that leader must be demonized. He must be Worse-Than-Hitler, an evildoer, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, a "devil," if you will. That stench in the streets of whichever country we've targeted isn't the smell of napalm in the morning. It's sulfur. Sometimes, our president can meet both propaganda objectives in the same phrase. As when, in the run-up to the Gulf War, Bush Senior would threaten to attack "Sodom" Hussein. And, so, I've been holding out the vain hope that the Bush administration is incapable of launching a new war against Iran. How can we nuke Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when most Americans can neither spell not pronounce his name? The Prince of Darkness has many names, but most roll easily off the tongue. Increasingly, however, it appears Bush is going to launch a new war anyway, an illegal war, not authorized by Congress, against a threat that does not exist, overseen by a man born immune to American pop culture ridicule. Last week, two ominous developments suggested a military strike, and the inevitable region-wide conflagration that will follow, may well happen before the November 7 elections. The first took place at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. While Bush-baiting by Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales got most of the press, both Bush and Ahmadinewhatever spoke. Neither was particularly conciliatory. Bush purportedly spoke "directly" to the Iranian people, another favorite rhetorical device of war-conscious American presidents. Bush, in this case, assured all Iranians that their leader was betraying their trust by pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and, like them, all Bush wants is peace and democracy and freedom blah blah blah. It all sounded dreadfully familiar. (How's that peace and democracy and freedom workin' out for ya, Iraqis?) Iranians, of course, generally don't share the religious fundamentalism of Ahmadinejad and the other hardliners now running things in Tehran, but they are wildly supportive of the country's nuclear program. So Bush's real audience was not Iranians (or Iraqis or Afghans, who he also "addressed"), but us. You and me. Americans. And his message to us: when I launch this war, it is only to give Iranians what they all crave. Iranians, apparently, have a unique affection for having cluster bombs dropped on them. Bush also, in his U.N. speech, pledged himself as determined to find a negotiated way to end the problem. That's actually another bad sign. When Bush gets around to talking about negotiations, it usually means he's arrived at the point where the formality of intentionally futile diplomatic gestures must be deployed prior to attack. That message was exactly what Bush was saying for months in 2002-03, well after he'd determined to invade Iraq. It was a lie then, and, judging by the actions of his own military, it's a lie now. The second, disturbing report to surface last week is that, as Dave Lindorff of The Nation writes, "...the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1." The Eisenhower Strike Group has been ordered to leave next week, at least a month ahead of schedule, after having been docked for refurbishment for several years. It will take a week to reach Iran's western coast, heavily fortified with Silkworm antiship missiles. That in itself indicates the Eisenhower group's deployment is not simply a provocation or bluff. You don't put such valuable vessels within range of enemy fire unless you're there for a reason. Bush would surely love to have the Iranians fire first, but even if Tehran doesn't take the bait, all signs are that Bush is giving himself the option of launching a military strike against Iran in October. The phrase "October surprise" has become something of an overworn cliché in American politics, but it may be about to return to its roots. The term was widely popularized in the 1980 election pitting President Jimmy Carter against Republican challenger Ronald Reagan. The Reagan camp purportedly cut a secret deal with Iran not to release the American hostages seized at the Tehran embassy until after a Reagan win, so that Carter could not benefit from their release during his campaign. Never in Modern American history, however, has a President pulled so brazen a stunt as to launch an unprovoked war, against a nonexistent threat, just before a major national election. In this case, polls show the president's party potentially losing control of one or both houses of Congress. Unless something happens before November 7 to change the current dynamic. To this end, 70 million Iranians are at risk of being sucked into a deadly regional war -- not to mention Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Israelis, Saudis, and an untold number of American soldiers. All these people may face having their futures ruined or their lives extinguished so that a political party halfway around the world will be less likely to lose an election. Last week, analyst and CIA veteran Ray McGovern, in discussing the Eisenhower deployment, stated flatly that "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening."It's now six weeks, and counting...
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Oct 18, 2006 4:40:52 GMT 4
Iraq War: Despair is Not an OptionPosted by the incomperable Molly Ivins, repuplished curtesy of AlterNet.org October 17, 2006.The administration has released three pages of the 30-page report. We may see the rest of it, but not 'til post-election. despair is not an option is because things can always get worse, and then what'll we do? I was actually trying to figure that out when I came across a remarkable article written for the The Nation magazine (known for its liberalism for 141 years) by Richard J. Whalen -- a conservative in good standing, a former Nixon staffer. Whalen has undertaken the singularly valuable task of talking to dissenting generals about the war in Iraq. I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq. "The only question is whether a war serves the national interest," one retired three-star told Whalen. "Iraq does not." Whalen writes: "The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation's last strategically failed war -- that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve." During Vietnam, senior soldiers kept quiet. But after it ended, officers, including Colin Powell, "vowed it would never happen again." But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the other civilians in charge overruled the military minds and ignored the possible consequences. Some of Whalen's and the generals' clearest points come from breaking the silent ban against comparing Iraq to the Vietnam War. Don't know if you noticed this, but from the beginning anyone who spoke right up and said, "This is just like Vietnam," had the experience of right-wingers landing on them, screeching: "This is not like Vietnam. This Is Not Like Vietnam. THIS IS NOT LIKE VIETNAM." Of course it is. We just haven't wasted 57,000 American lives yet. Odom tells Whalen that "our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases to defeat. These were (1) 1961-65, 'containing' China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with U.S. tactics, leading to 'Americanization' of the war and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding 'Vietnamization.' Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third." In late September, it was reported that the National Intelligence Estimate for April said the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists: "A large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists ... are increasing in both number and in geographic distribution. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide." The administration has released three pages of the 30-page report. We may see the rest of it, but not until after the election. It's difficult to argue this war with people who look straight at you and say: "Stay the course. Don't cut and run." We can't even get reasonable discourse on the report, the work of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and signed by Bush's man, John Negroponte. Meanwhile, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health now estimates about 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. All the work in the study fell to a knee-jerk response from conservatives, "Oh, that can't be right." Yet the methodology employed is the same as is used by the federal government to decide how to spend millions of dollars every year. It is, as they say, the industry standard. Speaking of money, though 'tis a pittance compared to lives, we are also wasting billions, as the new "showcase" Iraq police academy demonstrates. It seems we are trying to create a police force in Iraq loyal to the state by housing them in a place with water and feces running down the walls. Further, we're going to have to spend millions and millions to investigate how we frittered away billions and billions. Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Jan 11, 2007 11:04:00 GMT 4
(Here's more on the heads-up Fountainhead gave 2 years ago...) Troop Escalation and Iran Distracting Congress from the Real War PlanBy PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS counterpunch.orgIs the surge an orchestrated distraction from the real war plan? A good case can be made that it is. The US Congress and media are focused on President Bush's proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran. Commentators have expressed puzzlement over President Bush's appointment of a US Navy admiral as commander in charge of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The appointment makes sense only if the administration's attention has shifted from the insurgencies to an attack on Iran. The Bush administration has recently doubled its aircraft carrier forces and air power in the Persian Gulf. According to credible news reports, the Israeli air force has been making practice runs in preparation for an attack on Iran. Recently, Israeli military and political leaders have described Israeli machinations to manipulate the American public and their representatives into supporting or joining an Israeli assault on Iran. Two US carrier task forces or strike groups will certainly congest the Persian Gulf. On January 9 a US nuclear sub collided with a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups will have scant room for maneuver. Their purpose is either to provide the means for a hard hit on Iran or to serve as sitting ducks for a new Pearl Harbor that would rally Americans behind the new war. Whether our ships are hit by Iran in retaliation to an attack from Israel or suffer an orchestrated attack by Israel that is blamed on the Iranians, there are certainly far more US naval forces in the Persian Gulf than prudence demands. Bush's proposed surge appears to have no real military purpose. The US military opposes it as militarily pointless and as damaging to the US Army and Marine Corps. The surge can only be accomplished by keeping troops deployed after the arrival of their replacements. Moreover, the increase in numbers that can be achieved in this way are far short of the numbers required to put down the insurgency and civil war. The only purpose of the surge is to distract Congress while plans are implemented to widen the war.Weapons inspectors have failed to find a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Most experts say it would be years before Iran could make a weapon even if the Iranian government is actively working on a weapons program. Since the danger, if any, is years away, why is Israel so determined to attack Iran now? The answer might be that Israel has the chance now. The Bush administration is in its pocket. The White House is working with neoconservatives, not with the American foreign policy community represented by the Iraq Study Group. Neoconservative propagandists are in influential positions in the media. The US Congress is intimidated by AIPAC. The correlation of forces are heavily in Israel's favor. Part of the Israeli/neoconservative plan has already been achieved with the destruction of civilian infrastructure and spread of sectarian strife in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. If Iran can be taken out with a powerful air attack that might involve nuclear weapons, Syria would be isolated and Hezbollah would be cut off from Iranian supplies. Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to achieve its aims in the Middle East. How influential will Israel and the neoconservatives be with the next president in the wake of a US defeat in Iraq and Israeli defeat in Lebanaon? If the US withdraws its troops from Iraq, as the US military and foreign policy community recommend and as polls show the American public wants, the only effect of Bush's Iraq invasion will have been to radicalize Muslims against Israel, the US, and US puppet governments in the Middle East. Extremist elements will tout their victory over the US, and the pressures on Israel to accept a realistic accommodation with Palestinians will be over-powering. Now is the chance--the only chance--for Israel and the neoconservatives to achieve their goal of bringing Muslims to heel, a goal that they have been writing about and working to achieve for a decade. This goal requires the war to be widened by whatever deceit and treachery necessary to bring the American public along.The US Congress must immediately refocus its attention from the surge to Iran, the real target of Bush administration aggression. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Jan 30, 2007 2:50:38 GMT 4
I just endured Commander Terror's weakly address. Almost put my fist though the screen...Sorry,just gotta rant for a minute... Dammit!!!!!!!!!Can't somebody give him a dunce-cap and park his nose in the corner?Shut your lying face,George.Go away and let the grownups work this out. Your solution is the last one we will try,you smirking sack of waste... It enrages me to hear you attempt to sell us a third war,without opposition!!! We cannot have a discussion with Tehran,but Halliburton has an office building there... You park two carrier groups in the Gulf,bumping into each other like elephants in a bathtub, and expect us to think war is not on your mind? Your notion of diplomacy is absurd,reckless, and deadly. I call bullshit.I demand to see the evidence against the Iranian civilians you are trying to kill,Mr.Unitary Decider.... Show me some proof that the Iranian people are in any way"escalating"your Iraqi debacle.. Prove it to us that any Iranian citizen is threatening our troops. Excuse meX10 for not taking your word for it.In case you haven't noticed yet, your administration,reputation,political capital,and credibility, are in ashes,sir. The corporate war-drums are deafening...Drowning out discourse,debate, sanity..They must be challenged,and silenced. Get the bullys out of the room. While there is yet time,let us talk. Millions of lives are at stake!!!Why can't the 1%ers who want war,death and blood-money go fight it out themselves, leaving the rest of us in peace? War against Iran? WHY???They might build a nuke?We have hundreds, thousands of them,holding life on Earth at gunpoint,24/7... I could slice the hypocrisy with a spoon.Does might make right? Deep breath...count to ten...think about puppies... www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.htmlBig thanks to Steve M at dickeatsbush.com,and to the lone balladeer who sweeps the army off the stage,Mr.Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens). I am dt1,and I approved this rant. Thanks for listening.
|
|