« there's got to be a morning after | Main | hands on your head and spread 'em »

run away!

run away!

From Indymedia:

The wartime politics of the Administration have proved effective in distracting the voters from the dismal economic conditions in America. In almost every other case, the party of the President loses in off-term elections, particularly when the economy is bad. In this case, it appears that the Madison Avenue-driven war campaign has succeeded in reframing the debate onto grounds that Republicans found electorally fertile. It also appears that Democrats who ignored their political base and cast a 'Yes' vote on war in Iraq have not benefited by their votes.

The far left is blaming the sweeping victories of the Republican party on the Republican campaign.

How about blaming the non-campaign of the Democratic party? Every article I read from the left leads me to believe that leftists are in a state of denial.

I'm waiting for one of these lefty sites to have a headline that says "Democrats Screwed Their Constituents By Acting Like Assholes And Running Shitty Campaigns" rather than "Republicans Have Taken Over The World!! Run Away! Run Away!"

Make no mistake. The results of this election speak one thing very clear and very loud: Saddam is a dead man. The people have spoken and they have voted for war.

Comments

Earlier today you quoted Kathy Kinsley: "I hope you Republican politicians will keep in mind that a lot of people held their noses to vote because of the war on terrorism." One paper had a chart of Donkey and Elephant positions on eight or so domestic issues, and I lined up with the Dems on 5 or 6. But it's 1938 all over again, except that I can read up on the goose-steppers in real time.

Indy-mediums, use your crystal ball to peer into this former-leftist's mind. OK I'm distracted, easily fooled, etc. etc.

But I still vote.

Have you considered changing the name of the blog to something like "A Big Victory?" ;)

Just stumbled on to your site. What a breath of fresh air. Enjoyed my stay.

Here's my take.. We all want republicans in charge when there's fighting to be done. For better or worse, they are the badasses in this country. I always figure we can fix the financial troubles after we finish grinding our enemies into the ground. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but the time for half-ass measures and diplomacy are over. A lot of the world has declared war on our way of life; not just on us. It's time we declare it back. I mourn for the innocents that will be lost in this, and I do want there to be world peace. But there can never be peace as long as there are people willing to kill anyone to make a political point. The time for talk is over. They don't want to talk.. The two most powerful forces in history, I believe are democratic capitolism, and fundamentalist Islam, and we are either going to have to learn to live together or one of us can't go on. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming this fight on everyone that believes in Islam. Just on those that insist on sticking to an ancient interpretation that worked well in the 13th centuries during all the regional conflict that governed so much of the arab world at that time, and now use it as a reason to spread their beliefs to the world no matter who dies.

Sorry, Michele, this got longer than I intended for it to, but I think a lot was said last night at our voting centers, and it's time the leaders listen to us, and get this show on the road. I want to feel safe again.

Can Canadians be members of the VRWC, or do you have to be a USAian?

We do have a Canadian Division. Welcome aboard!

You might check Oliver Willis who is a lefty that puts the blame squarely on the Democrats for running a purely tactical campaign.

You might check Oliver Willis who is a lefty that puts the blame squarely on the Democrats for running a purely tactical campaign.

I have yet to hear on any "news" source the REAL reason for the Republican victory.It's not the economy,stupid,I haven't seen any evidence of a poor economy at the grass roots level,(I work for a living too). It's not voter turn-out either. It's voter cross-over!!!With the country seemingly evenly divided(remember 2000?)and turn-out not even approaching Presidential levels,it is obvious (at least to me) that a great number of registered Democrats (like myself) crossede the party line and voted with their minds and wallets,instead of just their hearts.Not everywhere mind you(pigs were voted human rights in Florida)but in the races that called for leadership and vision. When all is said and done,that is the legacy of the 2002 election.

You don't think Karl Rove knows that during wartime Americans want Republicans in charge - (because they have no hearts). So he created the war with Iraq. Why do you think the Defense contractors and oil companies bankrolled GWB's presidential campaign? If he doesn't deliver what they want he'll end up as dead as Paul Wellstone. There is money to be made now and GWB may be an idiot but he's no fool.

I want a Republican in charge at wartime, but it's not because I have no heart. If I had no heart, I'd want the military in charge, and there would be about 300 states in the USA right now.

I want peace when it can be had without us having to pay with American lives endlessly. I have a brain, and enough experience fighting to know that when a fight is coming, and make no mistake, whether Gore or Bush had been elected, this fight was coming. It's better to fight to win. Fighting to look nice and hurt as few people as possible while we sacrifice our people is just stupid, it's not kind. We didn't start this war. Whether you think it's been carried on with more vigor than you'd like might be a subject for debate, but I don't think Americans as a whole give a rat's ass who a person worships. See the difference?

You can condemn us for wanting oil to drive our cars, and for spreading capitalism when we see people that want it, but the people that attacked the Cole, and hit us on 9/11, they did it because they believe we deserve to die for not believing in the religion they do. Their proof that we don't is that we spread capitalism, and so that is the basis they use to justify attacking us. This is a holy war, a Crusade, whatever you want to call it. Only this time, it was fundamentalist Islam that decided the infidels and their children deserved to die.

I'm sorry if this seems blood thirsty to you, but I have a 8 year old son that doesn't yet know what he believes. His mother and I raise him to be a good person, and to love people. To respect people that respect him, and respect others' beliefs. If there are people out there that want him dead just because I don't teach him from the Koran everyday, and follow their religious customs, then it is my heart precisely that wants them dead.

We have the most powerful military force the world has ever known. I pay for it with my taxes, and right now I demand that it defend my son's life. If that means killing everyone that believes in the Jihad against Americans, then so be it. If it can be done with less killing, that's even better. But you're damn right I want the republican leaders in this country to put the full weight of the military right on the head of anyone that targets my son because he goes to Fellowship of the Woodlands Church. If that makes me heartless in your eyes, then you need to open them a little wider.

Again sorry, Michele, I didn't mean to hijack your comments, but I couldn't help but feel the heartless remark was aimed at me..

Robert wrote:

I want a Republican in charge at wartime, but it's not because I have no heart. If I had no heart, I'd want the military in charge, and there would be about 300 states in the USA right now.

>> You forget that the military is actually against the war in Iraq. Colin Powell seems to be the only statesman in the regime and he seems to oppose the war, as do many of the generals who fought in Desert storm. It’s the civilians in the Bush regime that are the hawks or should I say “chicken hawks” due the fact that they are gung ho about war yet refused to serve during their own time of war.

We didn't start this war.

>>How naïve you are to think that.

You can condemn us for wanting oil to drive our cars

>>no for driving 9mpg SUV’s yes.

but the people that attacked the Cole, and hit us on 9/11, they did it because they believe we deserve to die for not believing in the religion they do.

>>You are so naïve. You must watch FOX. Fundamentalist Muslim are a small minority. 99.9% of Muslims could give a rat’s ass about a holy war. Osama is calling it a holy war because it’s the easiest way to get the ignorant ot do his bidding. Bush has turned this into a holy war. Why? Well, it’s worked out well for him hasn’t it? The enemy is Al-Qaeda. They are a terrorist group. Bush is using the work of a terrorist group to pay back his defense contractor and oil buddies. They hit on on 9/11 because we are hypocrits. Osama’s enemy is Saudi Arabia. We condemn despotic governments like Iraq’s yet do noting when the same abuses happen in Saudi Arabia. You tell us why.

This is a holy war, a Crusade, whatever you want to call it. Only this time, it was fundamentalist Islam that decided the infidels and their children deserved to die.

>>What children have al-qaeda killed so far? Listening to Bush are we? You are playing into Bush and Osama’s hands with that kind of thinking.

But you're damn right I want the republican leaders in this country to put the full weight of the military right on the head of anyone that targets my son because he goes to Fellowship of the Woodlands Church. If that makes me heartless in your eyes, then you need to open them a little wider.

>>It makes me sad that you and your ilk are the ones that have put Bush in the position he is. Oh, and can the whole “my son” crap. If you only feel this way because you have an 8 year old son you are forcing your own religious beliefs on then you are a hypocit. Either you love all humans or none. Don’t call yourself God-fearing otherwise Bob.

Vance

First of all Vance, It's Robert, not Bob.

Now let's take this one step at a time, and I'll go slower..

The Military is against the war? I'd like a source for that, because I haven't heard one word from anyone in the millitary saying we shouldn't take Sadaam and Al Qeada down.

How naive am I, Vance? Tell me how we started the war, and what I'm missing to not get that. I never said we were perfect or without blame in history, but this war we are fighting now was started by Al Qeada.

Read more closely. I specificly said Fundamentalist Muslims that are following an antiquated interpretation of the Koran. I realize that most Muslims are peaceful, and I respect their right to believe what they choose to so long as they respect my right to believe what I do.

I don't have exact numbers on children killed, but on the 4 planes and in the WTC I'd say the number is in the 100s, and they kill indescriminately. The children killed by terrorists can't by any stretch be considered collateral damage.

I don't force any beliefs on my son. He goes to the church he does because it's where his mother goes, but he is welcome to explore any religion he is ever curious about and when he's old enough he'll make whatever choice is best for him. No where in my comment did my religious beliefs get mentioned because they are complicated, and frankly irrelavent to this discussion.. Except to say this, I believe that all people have the right to worship in whatever way they feel brings them closer to their god as long as they don't hurt others in the process. I am anything but a hypocrite. I love all humans that don't want me dead, and once again, reread my comment, I never once said I was God-fearing. I'm not. I don't believe God wants me to fear him.

Really Michele, real lefties don't want to vote Democrat either - most of the politicians in the both major parties managed to get elected without having any platform whatsoever besides slandering their opponents. Those of us who classify as 'liberal nutcases' in your book do realize that.

This story on 'far-left news' source Alternet.org covers it nicely.

The problem doesn't lie with either party per se. The problem lies in the fact that he who has the most money wins, and that forces both Rep and Dem candidates to try so hard to avoid offending anyone with money that they have no opinions at all. Only when free media air time is given to all candidates (including independents) and corporate sponsorship of candidates is forbidden will we get to see who is running, and what they really stand for.

Robot wrote:

First of all Vance, It's Robert, not Bob.

>>Whatever, you can call me Bob too if it makes you feel better. You are just words on a screen to me and you'll never be nothing more.

Now let's take this one step at a time, and I'll go slower..

>>thanks, I hope that's for my benefit, because I'm retarded. I hoped you wouldn't notice but thanks for pointing that out.

The Military is against the war? I'd like a source for that, because I haven't heard one word from anyone in the millitary saying we shouldn't take Sadaam and Al Qeada down.

>>Anthony Zinni, look it up. He was the head General of the Central Command or something like it. He was sent into the middle east by Bush as the chief negotiator between the PLO and the nutty Israelis. He's got big time experience in the middle east. Bush thought he was the coolest until he disagreed with him. Then he said he didn't know squat. Well, you've heard this kind of thing before from GWB, haven't we all. He's just a real dumb guy who never liked to read because he had this low attention span and all. Well you can see how that can be a hinderance as a leader of the free world and all...

How naive am I, Vance? Tell me how we started the war, and what I'm missing to not get that. I never said we were perfect or without blame in history, but this war we are fighting now was started by Al Qeada.

>>ok, so from the things I've read, and I know this puts you at a disadvantage in this argument but I gotta tell the peeps.Here's the short version. Unocal (it's a BIG oil company from the U.S. (that's us). They wanted to build this pipeline through Afghanistan in teh mid 90's so we could get cheap oil out of the Caspian sea. Osama didn't want the U.S. to desecrate his new adopted homeland like they did to his real homeland which resulted in the Cole bombing as well as the African embassy bombings (he didn't like us hanging in his hood, thought we were taking over). Clinton attacked Afghanistan with hundreds of cruise missiles - missed everyone but civilians, long story short, the pipeline was discontinued. Along comes a new president "George "Big Oil" Bush. He decided to revisit the pipeline since he was still picking those new oil dollars out of his anus from the election. The Taliban started playing hardball, whereby the infamous words were spoken by a U.S. diplomat: "you can either receive a carpet of gold riches, or a carpet of bombs". Well, those words were spoken in July 2001 and the rest is history.

Read more closely. I specificly said Fundamentalist Muslims that are following an antiquated interpretation of the Koran.

>>I read it correctly and noted the fundamentalist tack.

I realize that most Muslims are peaceful, and I respect their right to believe what they choose to so long as they respect my right to believe what I do.

>>No rational Muslim give's a rats ass who you worship. Neither does Saddam Hussein. Don't you understand that these people have nothing to do with any type of faith? Don't you understand that no man of faith would advocate the killing of any man? This war has nothing to do with religion. Only two people want you to think that: George Bush, and Osama Bin Laden.

I don't have exact numbers on children killed, but on the 4 planes and in the WTC I'd say the number is in the 100s
, and they kill indescriminately. The children killed by terrorists can't by any stretch be considered collateral damage.

>>>I see no record of any children killed by terrorists on Sept 11, 2001. But just to show you what a cretin you are and how charmed a life you and every American born in the U.S. live:

Number of people who died of hunger on 11th September 2001: 24,000

Number of children killed by diarrhea on 11th September 2001: 6,020

Number of children killed by measles on 11th September 2001: 2,700

Oh yeah, and conservative estimates of civilian Afghan deaths in the U.S. v. Afghan war in the year 2001 = 3600. Yes, that's more than we lost. Someting to think about when you are washing your 10mpg SUV this weekend.

I don't force any beliefs on my son. He goes to the church he does because it's where his mother goes,

>>>yeah, that doesn't sound forced.

but he is welcome to explore any religion he is ever curious about and when he's old enough he'll make whatever choice is best for him.

>>>well it's good that you're not brainwashing him in the interim.

No where in my comment did my religious beliefs get mentioned because they are complicated, and frankly irrelavent to this discussion.

>>>So you are not religious but your wife and child are? Hmmm aren't you worried that you'll end up in a different place? I bet your mad at God because you didn't win the lottery. I made the same deal and he welched on me too!

. Except to say this, I believe that all people have the right to worship in whatever way they feel brings them closer to their god as long as they don't hurt others in the process.

Well I guess that rules out Pro-lifers, Born again Christians and the NRA...

I am anything but a hypocrite. I love all humans that don't want me dead

>>>How can you tell if someone wants you dead? John Lennon couldn't, JFK couldn't, not even Paul Wellstone could. So what makes you so special?

and once again, reread my comment, I never once said I was God-fearing. I'm not. I don't believe God wants me to fear him.

>>>If you can't fear God, who can you fear. He created everything. The universe. It's expanding. Tell me. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Only God knows. Seems to me that if he knows that, then that's something to fear.

In case you couldn't tell, the above post was me

Vance,

Robert is more than capable of defending himself here (though I'm not sure this discussion needs to be continued here), but I've read quietly long enough. I'm Rob's son's mother.

>>thanks, I hope that's for my benefit, because I'm retarded. I hoped you wouldn't notice but thanks for pointing that out.

it's odd that you should say that, because you seem to think the same thing about Rob. I assure you, he's every bit as intellectual as you are. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make him stupid.

For the record, we are not forcing our religion on our son. We are raising him to make his own decisions. I was raised Catholic, but am not catholic now (Christian, yes, but I wasn't for a long time). We are exposing him to what we believe, but he is certainly welcome to take his own path. Call it brainwashing if you want to, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

>>>So you are not religious but your wife and child are? Hmmm aren't you worried that you'll end up in a different place? I bet your mad at God because you didn't win the lottery. I made the same deal and he welched on me too!

I'm not his wife. Not really relevant to this discussion, but it should be said. I'm not really sure what the point of the lottery comment is.

>>>I see no record of any children killed by terrorists on Sept 11, 2001.

What? There was a group of 11-year-olds on one of the planes, going on a school trip. There were also at least 3 children flying with their parents. All dead. All killed by terrorists on 9/11.

>>But just to show you what a cretin you are and how charmed a life you and every American born in the U.S. live:

I'm sure your statistics are completely accurate. And you're right--we do live a charmed life. Never said otherwise, and never said that we weren't aware of it. Which is why we support a fight against terrorists who want us to live in fear.

>>Oh yeah, and conservative estimates of civilian Afghan deaths in the U.S. v. Afghan war in the year 2001 = 3600. Yes, that's more than we lost. Someting to think about when you are washing your 10mpg SUV this weekend.

You love bringing up our theoretical SUV, don't you? Again, it's so much easier to say "you're just words on a screen to me", because then you can make all the false assumptions you want. We both drive 30+ MPG Toyotas. Sorry to disappoint you. Afghan deaths--unfortunate, and I'm sure many of those were innocent. I haven't researched your number, so I'm not going to comment on that.

>>Well I guess that rules out Pro-lifers, Born again Christians and the NRA...

I'm not a pro-lifer or a member of the NRA. But I am a little confused about the born-again Christian comment. If you're referring to fundamentalist Christians--keep in mind that they're as unrepresentative of your average Christian as fundamentalist Muslims are of the average Muslim. How does defending the right to own a gun hurt anyone? That's the criminals with guns, and they'll get them regardless of gun control measures. Pro-lifers? Again, small minority have physically hurt people directly. Note that I'm not disputing indirect effects here.

>>>How can you tell if someone wants you dead? John Lennon couldn't, JFK couldn't, not even Paul Wellstone could. So what makes you so special?

When a terrorist group kills 3000 civilians, and says it's justified because they're killing infidels, and they consider ME an infidel? They want me dead. Now, you're right that I don't really know if that guy down the street wants me dead. But I'm not advocating a war against him, either. And Wellstone? Please. Grouping him with people who were assassinated is sickening. He was killed in a small plane crash. They're sad, but they happen all the time.

>>Anthony Zinni, look it up. He was the head General of the Central Command or something like it...

Hmm. One military guy opposes the war, therefore the whole military opposes it? Doesn't sound like a very good argument to me. But I haven't done your research, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

>>Here's the short version. Unocal (it's a BIG oil company from the U.S. (that's us). They wanted to build this pipeline through Afghanistan in teh mid 90's so we could get cheap oil out of the Caspian sea. Osama didn't want the U.S. to desecrate his new adopted homeland like they did to his real homeland which resulted in the Cole bombing...

"His new adopted homeland" is an interesting euphemism. "Place he's hiding out in now" might be better. The oil thing? I'm sure that oil plays a role in this war. But I don't think it's the primary objective. I think the primary objective is to show terrorists and the countries that harbor them why attacking us is a bad thing. But maybe that's simplistic and naive.

That's about all I have for you...I've prattled on long enough. If you want to discuss this further with Robert or I, please take it to email. This has gotten past the point where it has anything to do with Michele's post. If our email addresses aren't linked from our names at the end of our comments, then you can go to http://asweseeit.blogspot.com and hit the "email us" links.

Joy wrote:

Robert is more than capable of defending himself here (though I'm not sure this discussion needs to be continued here), but I've read quietly long enough. I'm Rob's son's mother.

>>Fine with me, my argument is not directed just at Rob it’s directed at anyone who would like to chime in.

it's odd that you should say that, because you seem to think the same thing about Rob. I assure you, he's every bit as intellectual as you are. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make him stupid.

>>He’s the one who made the “I’ll go slower” statement, I only called him naïve, which he is, that can be remedied though. For the record, I don’t count myself as an “intellectual”. [The intellectuals of the world rejoice!]

For the record, we are not forcing our religion on our son. We are raising him to make his own decisions. I was raised Catholic, but am not catholic now (Christian, yes, but I wasn't for a long time). We are exposing him to what we believe, but he is certainly welcome to take his own path. Call it brainwashing if you want to, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

>>Faith in God is beautiful. But, religion is brainwashing. Any group activity to me is brainwashing. I don’t believe in groups. I don’t believe in labels, though they seem necessary in communication, they are inherently evil and are used by evil men or lazy minds. In my book anything that allows one to say “Us and Them” is evil constructed by men to exploit other men…

I'm not his wife. Not really relevant to this discussion, but it should be said. I'm not really sure what the point of the lottery comment is.

>>>Wife, baby’s mother, girlfriend, squeezebox – just labels, doesn’t really mean squat. Basically you, he and I know who I was referring to which served the purpose of the statement. As far as the lottery I was just making a comment about the silly reasons why most people fall out of touch with the Almighty. Most of the time it usually centers around some promise God failed to honor…like anything that happens on this earth means a thing to the creator of the Universe…I love when people thank God for wonderful things that happen in their lives. If you believe that then it should follow that you blame him for the bad things. Kinda turns faith into superstition doesn’t it?

What? There was a group of 11-year-olds on one of the planes, going on a school trip. There were also at least 3 children flying with their parents. All dead. All killed by terrorists on 9/11.

>>I stand corrected, although I didn’t think it was the hundreds that Rob stated either. It doesn’t seem like they are targeting children though and Rob made a point to focus on “his child” to make some kind of emotional justification for the killing of innocents in return and I wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the statement.

I'm sure your statistics are completely accurate. And you're right--we do live a charmed life. Never said otherwise, and never said that we weren't aware of it. Which is why we support a fight against terrorists who want us to live in fear.

>>>Don’t you understand how silly we look to the world? Every country lives with terrorism. The U.S. has been living with it for over 20 years, no one cared until it reached our shores. Americans have been dying as well as the rest of the world. Where was the thoughtful commentary after the Cole bombing? Makes a little more difference when it’s your life at stake doesn’t it, hypocrite. This is one group, granted, a very large terrorist group that is laughing themselves silly for turning the world upside down. It’s not the people of American they hate, it’s our government. We live in fear now because your president saw an opportunity to become a dictator and naïve silly people gave him the keys to the castle – no questions asked.

You love bringing up our theoretical SUV, don't you? Again, it's so much easier to say "you're just words on a screen to me", because then you can make all the false assumptions you want. We both drive 30+ MPG Toyotas. Sorry to disappoint you.

You act like because it doesn’t pertain to you there aren’t many many people out there who talk your same game yet drive those same gas-guzzling SUV’s. I really loved the flags on those SUV’s after Sept 11th too, I thought that was a nice touch. Nothing says “ugly American” better.

Afghan deaths--unfortunate, and I'm sure many of those were innocent. I haven't researched your number, so I'm not going to comment on that.

>>>Many? How many “guilty” people do you think your tax dollars got to in that war? We caught about 3 or 4 of their top leaders. Al-Qaeda remains intact. Let me remind you that there is upwards of $30 million dollar reward for Bin Laden’s “body” that’s dead or alive. It hasn’t been claimed. When was the last time your president spoke the words “Bin Laden” or Al-quaeda? Guess what, you haven’t heard it in months. Why? Because he has failed. I guarantee if someone had claimed that reward you would never stop hearing it from his lips. He’s failed at stopping Al-Qaeda. He’s using Iraq to hide it. Don’t you see that?

I'm not a pro-lifer or a member of the NRA. But I am a little confused about the born-again Christian comment.

>>>Ah Hah! “We condemn most in others that which we fear most in ourselves” – Pirsig.

If you're referring to fundamentalist Christians--keep in mind that they're as unrepresentative of your average Christian as fundamentalist Muslims are of the average Muslim.

>>>Have I hit a nerve? Fundamentalist Christians in this country are MORE dangerous than fundamentalists Muslims anywhere. Fundamentalist Christians control the white house. They kill innocents every day with your money.

How does defending the right to own a gun hurt anyone?

>>>Ask any of the sniper victims families…

That's the criminals with guns, and they'll get them regardless of gun control measures.

Charlton Heston would be so proud of you. Keep telling yourself that because it doesn’t quite play out that way in countries that have strict gun control does it? Oh but the NRA has an answer for that. They have an answer for everything.

Pro-lifers? Again, small minority have physically hurt people directly. Note that I'm not disputing indirect effects here.

>>>Yet we don’t seem to do much about them do we? Take away September 11th and pro-lifers kill more people DIRECTLY yearly in this country as acts of terror. Nothing is being done about it. I guess some terrorism is ok, right Ashcroft?

When a terrorist group kills 3000 civilians, and says it's justified because they're killing infidels, and they consider ME an infidel?

>>>Again, why do you believe the propaganda? Bin Laden wants a holy war, Bush wants one. No one else does. Understand that and you will be on the right path.

They want me dead. Now, you're right that I don't really know if that guy down the street wants me dead. But I'm not advocating a war against him, either.

>>>You are speaking about Iraq I suppose since no one really questions the war on Al-Qaeda. Have we seen any evidence that Iraq wants to attack America? I haven’t seen any please provide it to us because we are all interested…

And Wellstone? Please. Grouping him with people who were assassinated is sickening. He was killed in a small plane crash. They're sad, but they happen all the time.

>>>If it was the presidents plane that crashed would there be an investigation into an assassination? I’d hate to think that Bush had anything to do with it but why be so naïve to think that it is outside the realm of possibilities. He was Bush’s most bitter rival. Bush handpicked Coleman and raised over 2.5 million dollars for him(more than any other candidate). This is a man who killed more men on death row in his tenure as governor than all other governors combined. Do you think every person he killed was guilty? He does. Records show he spent less than 10 minutes on average reviewing these cases. How can you put it past someone who places such little value on human life
Hmm. One military guy opposes the war, therefore the whole military opposes it? Doesn't sound like a very good argument to me. But I haven't done your research, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

>>he was head of Central Command, responsible for 36,000 troops based in Saudi Arabia, at a time of heightened tension between the US and Iraq, I think he has more experience with Iraq than anyone outside of Colin Powell.

"His new adopted homeland" is an interesting euphemism. "Place he's hiding out in now" might be better. The oil thing? I'm sure that oil plays a role in this war. But I don't think it's the primary objective. I think the primary objective is to show terrorists and the countries that harbor them why attacking us is a bad thing. But maybe that's simplistic and naive.

>>>Yes it is. We would do better to help these countries economically and help their citizens out of ignorance. But that doesn’t exactly benefit the oil companies or the defense contractors does it. Bush’s needs those campaign contributions so he can pay people to spread his disinformation to keep himself in power doesn’t he. No war, no money. Simple as that.

That's about all I have for you...I've prattled on long enough. If you want to discuss this further with Robert or I, please take it to email. This has gotten past the point where it has anything to do with Michele's post.

>>>It has everything to do with her post: Here is the first line:

“The wartime politics of the Administration have proved effective in distracting the voters from the dismal economic conditions in America.”

She doesn’t believe it. If she doesn’t want discourse on it she can always eliminate the comments section. Many Blogs do.

You know, Vance, your commenting and quoting method (much like your opinions) are backwards. You're supposed to use ">>" (or just " ") when quoting the other person, not for your own words.

Just a heads up. I am assuming you want to be understood clearly and not confuse people.

Mainly because know-nothing blowhards like yourself hijack them with long, rambling nonsensical discourses as above.

Vancey, sweetie, the 3600 civilian deaths in Afghanistan has long been debunked. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and read a goddamned newspaper once in a while?

I was going to join this discussion, but realised how utterly senseless it would be. Vance seeks to have the last word, not to win anyone over. He drops mortality statistics in his arguement, which have no relationship at all with the discussion at hand.

'Don’t you understand how silly we look to the world?' Who gives a shit? This is the same world that comes running to the US when it needs help, money and supplies. This is the same world that relies on the US for trade and investment. This is the same world which, by virtue of its failings, has thousands of people flocking to the US every year, hoping to find a better life. The world can think what it wants.

Hi Vance..

I just have some questions about your original post – you asked:

“Why do you think the Defense contractors and oil companies bankrolled GWB's presidential campaign? If he doesn't deliver what they want he'll end up as dead as Paul Wellstone. There is money to be made now and GWB may be an idiot but he's no fool.”

Ummm..are you implying that Wellstone was whacked by a secret cabal of defense contractors? ..and that GWB is carrying out this war against Iraq because he fears that he may meet the same fate? And this was all a devious plot coordinated by the evil puppetmaster, Karl Rove?

I only ask because, while lots of people like conspiracy theories, but most can distinguish between fact and fiction. From your later posts, it seems that you lack that basic skill.

Or were you joking about that whole defense contractor/Wellstone hit routine? If you were then I apologize for bringing it up. As a joke, it sure was funny.

Sekimori wrote:

>>> (thanks Andrea)Mainly because know-nothing blowhards like yourself hijack them with long, rambling nonsensical discourses as above.

Yeah I love this country too. These blogs are great.

>>>Vancey, sweetie, the 3600 civilian deaths in Afghanistan has long been debunked. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and read a goddamned newspaper once in a while?

Ha hah! quoting from a Rupert Murdoch rag! Funny. I could find a better news source on the back of my Corn Flakes.

Mike wrote:

>>>I was going to join this discussion, but realised how utterly senseless it would be. Vance seeks to have the last word, not to win anyone over.

What? Am I running for Blog president?

>>>'Don’t you understand how silly we look to the world?' Who gives a shit?

Judging from the elections - not very many people.

>>>This is the same world that comes running to the US when it needs help, money and supplies. This is the same world that relies on the US for trade and investment. This is the same world which, by virtue of its failings, has thousands of people flocking to the US every year, hoping to find a better life. The world can think what it wants.

This is also the same world we need desperately to work their intelligence agencies to help us root out terror cells that are planning attacks on American interests...or maybe they won't.

Time magazine and the Guardian both doubted Marc Herold's Afghan civilian death guesses:

Time magazine said: “The issue of Afghan casualties has begun to erupt in the European press, where columnists have been citing figures compiled by Marc Herold, an economics professor at the University of New Hampshire. Drawing mostly on world-press reports of questionable reliability, Herold contends that 3,767 Afghan civilians had died by Dec. 6—more than were killed in the U.S. on Sept. 11.”

The Guardian, finally questioned Herold’s hearsay evidence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,11447,650409,00.html

and then there are these:

http://www.mattwelch.com/FreelanceSave/Chomsky.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/565otmps.asp

http://www.gadflybuzz.com/archives/archive-08042002-08102002.htm

According to Human Rights Watch, the death toll was far below Herolds estimates, and many deaths could be attributed to land mines, not airstrikes.

Here's a thought. What does a retired General's opinion have to do with the opinion of the military. He's not IN the military anymore. If I work for Joe Enmployer for 30 years and then retire, why is my opinion indicative of Joe Employer's company? I don't even work for him anymore. I'm not trying to invalidate Zinni's opinion and even if was still in the military, the opinion of one person in an organization of over a million does not mean that whole organization feels that way. But Zinni is retired, meaning he is no longer in the military. So his opinion is not indicative of how the whole military feels.

Vance (nice non-rebuttal there, by the way), if you have so much to say, get your own blog. They're free.

Vance can't be real. Has to be parody. No one person can actually stand for every single idiotarian stance eminating from the defeated and now irrelevent left. I mean cummon: Oil, religion, guns, evil American Imperialism... it's all there.

As someone who served 8 years in The Navy including The Gulf, I can assure you, the military wants to take this war to Iraq and beyond. Reasonable people have concluded by now that war has been declared on us, and that we can either fight back or blame our idealogically opposed countrymen for the situation. Those who choose the latter are not part of the great tradition of this country, and Tuesday was all about taking away their influence.

Mary wrote:

>>>“Why do you think the Defense contractors and oil companies bankrolled GWB's presidential campaign? If he doesn't deliver what they want he'll end up as dead as Paul Wellstone. There is money to be made now and GWB may be an idiot but he's no fool.”

Ummm..are you implying that Wellstone was whacked by a secret cabal of defense contractors? ..and that GWB is carrying out this war against Iraq because he fears that he may meet the same fate? And this was all a devious plot coordinated by the evil puppetmaster, Karl Rove?

I only ask because, while lots of people like conspiracy theories, but most can distinguish between fact and fiction. From your later posts, it seems that you lack that basic skill.

Or were you joking about that whole defense contractor/Wellstone hit routine? If you were then I apologize for bringing it up. As a joke, it sure was funny.

You know all jokes have a grain of truth in them don't they. That's why we say things in jest, so we aren't seen as crackpots. I find it incredibly funny that there was no flight data recorder on the plane. I also find it incredibly funny that the plane (one with the safest track record in the air) was built by Raytheon - a defense contractor and a BIG campaign contributor to the bush campaign. I find it hysterical that they are the company that stand to gain immensely developing the ridiculous missile defense system that Wellstone was so vocally opposed. The biggest belly-laugh of all I get is how anyone who questions this is labeled a crackpot virtually insuring the deed will go unpunished. Do you think there is a paid journalist in the major media that would even dare to hint at such a notion? It would be a one-way ticket to blogsville...

No, I don't want to believe it and I do paint Karl Rove as an evil genius but I cannot put it past them. But considering the parties involved with so much at stake and so much to gain and so many unanswered questions it's pretty scary that no one looks into this.

I think there is something very wrong with America. I believe Bush is only interested in making money for his donors. I believe he will stop at nothing to get this done. I believe he wants a dictatorship and he seems to reward those who support him and punish - severely - those who oppose his viewpoint. A president of a democracy should welcome dissenting opinion and compromise. No one even questioned why the president would so vindictively plan the ouster of a politician like Wellstone who seemed to be the lone voice in the Senate for the helpless and downtrodden. Why did no one in the major media question this? Why is it healthy for these views to be silenced. Someone tell me? Now we have a one party government. That's not America, that's Iraq.

I never understand how people can drone on and on and on about how much they hate Bush and everything he stands for and then in the same breath talk about views being silenced. Don't they realize that they are contradicting themselves? Or are they too stupid to see it? By the way, many who disagree are voicing their dissent, and nobody is being silenced. Come back to reality.

Basically, your party has become nothing but a Clintonized patronage organization for Union Officials, Trial Lawyers, Minority advocacy groups, Feminists, Enviro-nuts, and the Homosexual lobby. The dems who have to run for election/re-election try to hide this fact, but in the modern information age, that is becoming difficult. Your pre-election Gaffes included;
1. Bagdhad Bonior, Mullah McDermott, and Burkha McNinny doing their Hate-Amerika routine, providing aid/comfort to the enemy.
2. The Torismelli switcheroo.
3. Terry McAwful's money-wasting personal vendetta against Jeb Bush. (Sore Loserman 2000 all over again)
4. The PaulWellstone-a-Pauloooza. Seeing that fat pantywaist, prepschool Wellstone-son in his perm hairdo, waving his pudgy booger-encrusted finger in the air, while yelling "WE WILL WIN", certainly alienated many normal people. (Normal people hold funerals in Churches and worship God, not their own politics)
In essence, the stupid party shot themselves in the foot. The dem candidates had no other vision but "We hate Bush; so vote for us". That isn't going to cut it with most voters.

Vance –

I’m beginning to understand..the plot could have been hatched by Raytheon – since they built the plane, they knew how to bring it down without leaving any traces ..and they’ve got something to gain – therefore, they must have done it, despite any evidence to the contrary – and if any journalist questions the evil deed, it will be a one-way ticket to blogsville...so if it’s declared an accident, that THAT MUST BE PROOF that it wasn’t! Right.

And now that the Republicans have set up an entirely one-party system, all dissent will be squelched! Pretty soon they’ll be hauling Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag and Barbara Streisand off to Siberia (or the American equivalent – maybe North Dakota) – and John Ashcroft and his jackbooted thugs will be goose-stepping down 42nd street.

According to Vance, “we have a one party government. That's not America, that's Iraq.”

So, despite the fact that you are as of this moment publishing your dissent, and you will most likely continue to do so, you think that this is Iraq. And you really do think that there is a conspiracy. When they haul Babs off to the frozen north, I may begin to believe you. But I think your reply is proof that you can’t tell fact from fiction.

I am sorry. I shouldn’t be upsetting you. Vance, you need to get offline and take your meds. In fact, that seems to be a problem with most of the posters at Indymedia – they need their meds..

This whole argument has been proof that at least one liberal cause is just – Indymedia and Vance are evidence that our mental health system isn't doing its job.

AAron wrote:

>>>Here's a thought. What does a retired General's opinion have to do with the opinion of the military. He's not IN the military anymore. If I work for Joe Enmployer for 30 years and then retire, why is my opinion indicative of Joe Employer's company? I don't even work for him anymore. I'm not trying to invalidate Zinni's opinion and even if was still in the military, the opinion of one person in an organization of over a million does not mean that whole organization feels that way. But Zinni is retired, meaning he is no longer in the military. So his opinion is not indicative of how the whole military feels.

>>>

Seems to me Bush thought his ideas and experience was important enough to be the chief negotiator between Israel and Palestine before he fell out of favor with the Bush regime

AAron wrote:

>>>Here's a thought. What does a retired General's opinion have to do with the opinion of the military. He's not IN the military anymore. If I work for Joe Enmployer for 30 years and then retire, why is my opinion indicative of Joe Employer's company? I don't even work for him anymore. I'm not trying to invalidate Zinni's opinion and even if was still in the military, the opinion of one person in an organization of over a million does not mean that whole organization feels that way. But Zinni is retired, meaning he is no longer in the military. So his opinion is not indicative of how the whole military feels.

>>>

Seems to me Bush thought his ideas and experience was important enough to be the chief negotiator between Israel and Palestine before he fell out of favor with the Bush regime

AAron wrote:

>>I never understand how people can drone on and on and on about how much they hate Bush and everything he stands for and then in the same breath talk about views being silenced. Don't they realize that they are contradicting themselves?

how is that contradicting. I liked a senate where a Jesse Helms can go toe to toe with a Paul Wellstone. I think THAT'S America. Bush doesn't want that. You know this country used to have a discourse about how it's wrong for a president to criss-cross the country telling the public to vote only for his party. Not anymore, it's expected. Very divisive. A president should be beyond partisan politics. But that's idealistic thinking
>>>

Or are they too stupid to see it? By the way, many who disagree are voicing their dissent, and nobody is being silenced. Come back to reality.

>>There is one guy who was silenced...

Sounds to me like Vance is a sore looser. My only question to you, Vance, is now that we have Afghanistan "under control", just where is that pipeline? My dear military friend, who is is over there right now digging wells for WATER not OIL! And judging from the elections it is clear to me how the MAJORITY thinks. You're just mad you can't claim an illigitimate president anymore.

Vlad wrote:

>>Basically, your party has become nothing but a Clintonized patronage organization for Union Officials, Trial Lawyers, Minority advocacy groups, Feminists, Enviro-nuts, and the Homosexual lobby.
>>>

Not my party. I'm no Democrat. Why do you assume I'm a Democrat? I don't believe in political parties the idea of voting as a group disgusts me.

>>>The dems who have to run for election/re-election try to hide this fact, but in the modern information age, that is becoming difficult. Your pre-election Gaffes included;
1. Bagdhad Bonior, Mullah McDermott, and Burkha McNinny doing their Hate-Amerika routine, providing aid/comfort to the enemy.
2. The Torismelli switcheroo.
3. Terry McAwful's money-wasting personal vendetta against Jeb Bush. (Sore Loserman 2000 all over again)
4. The PaulWellstone-a-Pauloooza. Seeing that fat pantywaist, prepschool Wellstone-son in his perm hairdo, waving his pudgy booger-encrusted finger in the air, while yelling "WE WILL WIN", certainly alienated many normal people. (Normal people hold funerals in Churches and worship God, not their own politics)
In essence, the stupid party shot themselves in the foot. The dem candidates had no other vision but "We hate Bush; so vote for us". That isn't going to cut it with most voters.>>>

Stop it! Stop it! your killing me! You are so much funnier than Rush Limbaugh! You really are!

Vance:

>>Now we have a one party government. That's not America, that's Iraq.

Are you serious? Your ability to regurgitate your tired liberal mantra proves we're not like Iraq. Besides, I don't remember Democrats stepping down or compromising when they held the White House and BOTH the House and Senate under LBJ, Carter or Clinton (until that glorious November of '94).

Oh, and if you hear a knocking on your door in the middle of the night, it means:

1. It's the Secret Police.
2. You're on your way to a VRWC education camp.
3. You're right about everything you believe.

Sweet Dreams.

Gee, why can't we all just get along? ...

A couple of comments. The 'military' (including former Gen. Zinni) aren't for or against any war action, they do what the president tells them to do. What they are against is a war without full plan. So we go in and kick Saddams ass? What next? A despotic leader like Saddam is bad, but is a complete power vacuum any better? I've not heard any concrete plans for rebuilding Iraq into anything other than a poly-glot mess similar to Yugoslavia. It's not the same type of place as Afghanistan, and we aren't doing too good of a job there. Iraq is a culturally diverse and (at one time) very cosmopolitan and modern country. Not to long ago we RESCUED Saddam from defeat at the hands of the Iranians.

The military is looking at a war with Iraq, and trying to figure out what the end game is BEFORE we move in. The rest of the US government is working at light speed, just to get in there and "kick some ass".

I urge everyone here to stop a minute and take a look at our recent past history with Iraq. And then try to figure out where the mistakes were or are being made. The biggest issue is that American servicemen get to pay the price, either way.

Vance wrote: "Seems to me Bush thought his ideas and experience was important enough to be the chief negotiator between Israel and Palestine before he fell out of favor with the Bush regime."

Do try and read what I said. I never invalidated his opinion or even disagreed with it. What I said was (and pay attention this time) was that his opinion was NOT indicative of how the entire military feels since he is not even IN the military. Get it now? A word to the wise, read what someone says and don't change their words around in order to get something to argue with.

I stay out of discussions like this mostly because they tend to go nowhere, and because I'm ill-equipped for political debate. But I have to say, Vlad, how are you any different than Vance when you write such insulting things about people? You're generalizing and demonizing Democrats, which truth be told, I do in my own blog against Republican politicians, but I'm just struck by the mean spirit of your comment and the name-calling. Michele may rant and rave and call people with beliefs like mine "fucknozzles", but this is her space to do it. Seems to me that when you leave comments that are filled with such vitriol, it's I don't know, out of pocket.

I'm probably out of pocket myself, talking about how to conduct yourself on someone else's blog, but your tone really bothered me (as does Vance's, and I share some of his views).

Mary wrote:

>>>I’m beginning to understand..the plot could have been hatched by Raytheon – since they built the plane, they knew how to bring it down without leaving any traces ..and they’ve got something to gain – therefore, they must have done it, despite any evidence to the contrary – and if any journalist questions the evil deed, it will be a one-way ticket to blogsville...so if it’s declared an accident, that THAT MUST BE PROOF that it wasn’t! Right.>>>

Good you received the Karl Rove memo. Let's call this situation "diffused". Stay tuned for more directives on how to dispel dissenting opinions. You'll receive your commemorative "On eagle's wings" cd signed by John Ashcroft himself shortly.

>>And now that the Republicans have set up an entirely one-party system, all dissent will be squelched! Pretty soon they’ll be hauling Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag and Barbara Streisand off to Siberia (or the American equivalent – maybe North Dakota) – and John Ashcroft and his jackbooted thugs will be goose-stepping down 42nd street.

According to Vance, “we have a one party government. That's not America, that's Iraq.”

So, despite the fact that you are as of this moment publishing your dissent, and you will most likely continue to do so, you think that this is Iraq. And you really do think that there is a conspiracy. When they haul Babs off to the frozen north, I may begin to believe you. But I think your reply is proof that you can’t tell fact from fiction.
>>>

Yes I can still dissent but while I'm sitting here typing away at work Ashcroft can be ransacking my house with no search warrant because I can be deemed subversive. He doesn't need a judge to do it, it's all up to his judgement. He can also monitor where I go on the internet now. He can be creating a file on me right now with out and warrant at all. I'd think those of you with NRA cards would be against all of this. But I guess you trust Ashcroft. I don't.

.>>I am sorry. I shouldn’t be upsetting you. Vance, you need to get offline and take your meds. In fact, that seems to be a problem with most of the posters at Indymedia – they need their meds..
.>>

[voice of Karl Rove:]Yes, good American. Blame the fact that he's off his medication. Now if you can only connect him to a UFO sighting you will win the trifecta and receive an ear ripped of an Al-Qaeda detainee actually signed by the president himself.

This whole argument has been proof that at least one liberal cause is just – Indymedia and Vance are evidence that our mental health system isn't doing its job.

Posted by: mary on November 7, 2002 01:09 PM | permalink |

Vance wrote:

"how is that contradicting. I liked a senate where a Jesse Helms can go toe to toe with a Paul Wellstone. I think THAT'S America. Bush doesn't want that. You know this country used to have a discourse about how it's wrong for a president to criss-cross the country telling the public to vote only for his party. Not anymore, it's expected. Very divisive. A president should be beyond partisan politics. But that's idealistic thinking"

Again, please pay attention to what I said. You are dissenting and at the very same time you are complaining about how nobody is allowed to dissent. You do see how that is contradicting, don't you? Before you go off declaring what YOU THINK BUSH WANTS in the senate, read what I said and respond or not. But don't put words in my mouth. And by the way, who was silenced for voicing their opinion?

Beaker wrote:

Are you serious? Your ability to regurgitate your tired liberal mantra proves we're not like Iraq.
.>>

I'ts been highly publicized about the strongarm "blacklisting" of journalists that don't toe the party line. That is a form of censorship.

>>>Besides, I don't remember Democrats stepping down or compromising when they held the White House and BOTH the House and Senate under LBJ, Carter or Clinton (until that glorious November of '94).
>>>

This is another interesting tack. IT's ok to do it because the Democrats are just as bad. The Democrats were wrong and the Republicans are even worse for not fixing it.

Vance,

While your post is proof that you have a good imagination, it just reaffirms my point - you can't distinguish fact from fiction -

Maybe it's a sign of instability, or maybe it's just the result of too much exposure to the progressive press, like commondreams.org and Indymedia, who publish lies like the Marc Herold data debunked above and treat them like facts.

Either way, how can anti-war activists keep spewing these lies and then ask 'why did the republicans win the election?' The answer is in the mirror.

I just wish all these conspiracy people would get off their damn computers and actually go HELP all their lefty pals getting dragged off in the middle of the night by John Ashcroft and the Secret Police. THEN they may actually earn a little respect. I guess it's the same people who slap a Free Tibet sticker on their Ugos....

Greg wrote:
>> The 'military' (including former Gen. Zinni) aren't for or against any war action, they do what the president tells them to do.

True enough. However, the issue of “what the military wants” usually comes up in response to some peace-at-all-costs weenie spouting off about “ChickenHawks sending the army to do their bidding, when they are too cowardly to fight themselves.” It then becomes appropriate for those of us who actually served in the military and understand the mindset of the typical servicemen to point out something that used to be known as a trait of America: Take shit from no one, and fight for what’s right. If they were too cowardly to do this, they probably wouldn’t have signed up the first place, and they can always follow in the footsteps of The Left’s legacy and high-tail if for Canada if they were only in it for the GI Bill.

>> What they are against is a war without full plan.

What makes you think there isn’t a plan? Do you think you’d be the first to know of it? This is the same whining we heard prior to Afghanistan. We cannot be paralyzed just because we can’t predict the future.

>> The military is looking at a war with Iraq, and trying to figure out what the end game is BEFORE we move in.

Wrong. The military is training for war. Period. What happens before and after is up to the elected leaders of this country, not the military.

>> The rest of the US government is working at light speed, just to get in there and "kick some ass".

Oh yes. “light speed”. How long have we been at war with Iraq? A decade now? You conveniently forget that we suspended our invasion only after Hussein agreed to abide by certain conditions. He has not done so. Not even close. And again, how long have we as a nation been talking about this? Bush has gone to Congress. He was given authority. He’s gone to the people. He was given authority (Tuesday). And now he is working on a new security resolution at The UN. Oh, but the “light speed” of it all!

I’m not even going to get into our support for Iraq during its war with Iran. Hindsight is 20-20. The world is imperfect. Sometimes the best you can do is take the lesser of two evils. Things change. Let’s move on.

Aaron wrote:

>>>Again, please pay attention to what I said. You are dissenting and at the very same time you are complaining about how nobody is allowed to dissent.>>>

Me dissenting on some obscure blog is quite different than a nationally syndicated journalist doing the same thing and still maintaining access to the president. He doensn't allow it. Storm Troopers like Fleischer and Rove will browbeat editors on unfavorable stories and journalists end up barred for weeks or months at a time from access.

You do see how that is contradicting, don't you? Before you go off declaring what YOU THINK BUSH WANTS in the senate, read what I said and respond or not. But don't put words in my mouth. And by the way, who was silenced for voicing their opinion?

>>>Wellstone [runs off frantically to medicine cabinet]

Ahh so NOW I get it! People are dissenting, just not to the level YOU would like them to. So you can whine on and on about all sorts of stuff but yet noone can dissent and yet still get that exclsuive interview with the president. That ain’t how it works. What level of dissent would you like? How about www.democrats.com, bartcop.com, buzzflash.com or salon.com? How about Dick Gephardt saying that Bush is using “my way or the highway” leadership. How about 20,000 people booing all Republicans at Paul Wellstone’s funeral? Or Molly Ivins bashing Senator Cornyn and Governor Perry for an hour last week on “60 minutes”? The reality, whether you want to admit it or not, is that people are allowed to dissent and NOBODY is being thrown in jail for speaking their mind. I know that, as a reactionary extremist, you desperately want to paint this picture, but it simply ain’t so. Nobody is being carted off to jail and the fact that Ari or Karl don’t want to get beaten up doesn’t make them stormtroopers anymore than you or I.

Wellstone was silenced? By whom? How? When? What proof do you have?

Wellstone's plane crash? A conspiracy theory works as a joke, or an Oliver Stone movie (Or is that redundant), but not in real life. The reports at the time said the plane was making an approach in snow and freezing rain. Freezing rain has brought down jetliners, not to mention numerous smaller planes like Wellstone's. The Air Florida 737 that went into the Potomac some years back? Yep, icing. Nor am I accusing the pilots of incompetence. Those are extremely dangerous conditions, and even the most experienced pilots can get behind the curve in them.

Wow.. I can't believe all this got started just because I didn't like being called heartless, and my response seemed to press some buttons with Vance. I'm not even going to try to get back into the discussion other than to say a couple of things quickly. This thing has taken on a life of it's own.
I do want to point out some factual errors though. The plane Wellstone was on doesn't have the best saftey record. The twin engine turbo prop King Air was the same plane that crashed killing half of a college basketball team last year. There was no flight data recorder on that one either. Big planes like 747s, and the like have much better records. Flight Data Recorders aren't required on small planes. It not having one could explain one not being found. The weather conditions weren't perfect. There was some ice. The plane should have been able to operate in the conditions, but tragicly it crashed. I don't see anywhere for anyone to go researching a conspiracy. There's just nothing there but rumor and wild speculation.
Some of the other things you said are so out there, I don't even know how to debunk them.. They aren't really facts as much as assertions, so I'll leave them be.
That's really all I have left to say on it. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, Vance, but Sadaam's days are numbered, and so are those of anyone that wants to harm the USA.

Vance wrote:

>>I'ts been highly publicized about the strongarm "blacklisting" of journalists that don't toe the party line. That is a form of censorship.

Highly publicized? where? Since I see the same faces at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, NBC et all, are you implying that THEY toe the party line? Puh Leeze.

Remember....they're coming to take you away, ha ha, they're coming to take you away, he he, to the VRWC education camps, where we eat spotted owl, prepared by poor third world children, and where life is good all the time.....

Beaker

Beaker, I think he means that there are some reporters to love to write stories bashing Bush and Republicans in general and that they are being "censored" because they aren't given all access passes to the White House and that exclusive one one one interview. In other words, they should be able to write what they want AND have Bush grant them total access. Anything less = fascism.

Whoa! Coming back after a day or two of letting my own commments sit in the stomach of the net was quite an experience.(stomach of the net=thoughtful contemplation and digestion)
Vance--good for you, Speak up and let your voice be heard...but only in your own closet.You don't want to "brainwash"anyone else with your own highly -sought after opinions ,so stay away from groups which as you say only "brainwash" their audience.
Where was this vitriol when the laws of our land where being stripped of their validity?
What is sex? Define "is"?
Where were you when "King Milhous the First" attempted many of the things you cite as offensive?
I was in those trenches,pal, and later served this counrty in her hour of incapacity.
I was in Basic training when an el-tee was killed for looking over the border at Korea (the People's Republic of that is)
I was at Ft. Benning when our souvrenty (?) was trespassed;
In other words I was in the firing line when we should have nipped this whole damn thing in the bud, but didn't.
Where were you?
Wet dream on your Daddy's sheets? (edit if warranted)
In college on a Title IX scholarship?
Before you go to sleep tonight remember to look under the bed for the Busie-man,or Ash-quash or whatever mythical horrors you have hidden in that small mind, which passes for the best our government schools and communist universities can do in the way of "education"

Jesus... I clicked on Michele's comment link, and somehow ended up on Metafilter!

I just want to say I still think invading Iraq is a big mistake, however, like Michele said: "the people have spoken"... so I'll wait patiently with my "I told you so's" when WWIII starts. I'm all for kicking some some fanatical terrorist ass, but I think we're getting a little sidetracked here in our President's quest to become "Father of our Planet".

While I understand Robert's fears, and though I disagree... I sure as hell don't need to stoop so low as to take every possible cheap shot at his family. Damn.

Of course Vance, you do have the right to your opinion....such as it is.
One shining day PRAVDA may re-emerge as a beacon of shining light on a world of capitalist mis-information and on that day my lad YOU will be the voice crying in the wilderness...but only on that day.
I would throw myself in the path of a bullet from anyone who denied you your right to speak ; like wise I would step away from anyone who thought you had a right to be heard...two different things.

Riddle of thge day---What is the difference between Superman and Bill Clinton?

One stands for "Truth,Justice and the Americanan Way" the other stands for "Truth and Justice the American Way"...or a BJ whichever

Here's your dissenting opinion - 1/2 a mile away:

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=232

"The district justice accused Allegheny County police of being overzealous when they handcuffed Neel and arrested him because he refused to be herded into the chain-link fenced in area reserved for protesters almost a half-mile away from where Bush would speak. “I just think they went a little too far,” she commented after making her ruling, “because everyone has the right to protest.”

Farrell introduced into evidence photographs I shot at that Labor Day event. They showed anti-Bush protesters confined behind the chain-link fence at a baseball park along the Bush motorcade route and people with pro-Bush signs lining the street where the motorcade would proceed. "

Posted by: Vance on November 7, 2002 07:15 PM | permalink |

Nothing out of the ordinary here and no rights were violated. And newsflash, if you disobey police, you will be arrested. This person was NOT arrested for dissenting. He was arrested for not following an order he received from police. That will happen in any instance.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021107.asp#7

Gee I guess when all the liberals were complaining about not being able to ask the tough questions, they all forgot to tell Helen Thomas.

Aaron wrote:

Nothing out of the ordinary here and no rights were violated. And newsflash, if you disobey police, you will be arrested. This person was NOT arrested for dissenting. He was arrested for not following an order he received from police. That will happen in any instance.

So it's okay to corral protesters behind chain link fences 1/2 a mile from where the president is speaking. That's ok in your book. How come only the people who disagree with Bush are the one's excerising their "free speech". Aren't the supporters also excercising theirs as well?

Aaron wrote:

Beaker, I think he means that there are some reporters to love to write stories bashing Bush and Republicans in general and that they are being "censored" because they aren't given all access passes to the White House and that exclusive one one one interview. In other words, they should be able to write what they want AND have Bush grant them total access. Anything less = fascism.

The bush regime is playing a very smart game with the media. Favorable reporting = unlimited access. Unfavorable means blacklist. I can see why you don't blame him for doing that but why is the media putting up with it. I think this is where too much media and too much competition actually hurts real reporting. These reporters don't want to lose access so they don't stir things up. In the old days when the reporters worked their way up the ladder for years and knew that their jobs were secure they would ask the tough questions to the president and call him on it if he stonewalled them. But these days news divisions are not a destination but only a rung on the ladder of fame. Reporters are interchangeable and tend to follow the herd and end up reporting the same story most days just to keep up with the Jones'.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021107.asp#7

Gee I guess when all the liberals were complaining about not being able to ask the tough questions, they all forgot to tell Helen Thomas.

Posted by: on November 7, 2002 07:32 PM | permalink |

Guess my letter to Helen got her going:

You are one of the privileged few that get to ask the president's press secretary questions. Obviously I'm not the only one baffled by Ari's replies. Can someone please, or even better, a group of you collude to make him answer the question "How is going after Iraq going to stop Al-Qaeda?" If I were you I would organize a mass walkout of the press if his answer does not satisfy you. People's lives are at stake here. Our military was not created to avenge Bush's vendetta's.

Vance wrote: "So it's okay to corral protesters behind chain link fences 1/2 a mile from where the president is speaking. That's ok in your book. How come only the people who disagree with Bush are the one's excerising their "free speech". Aren't the supporters also excercising theirs as well?"

Vance, I hate to break it to you but if you are going to assemble you must do it peacefully and you must get a permit. There could be any number of reasons why they were moved but they main thing here is that they WERE exercising their right to free speech and nobody stopped them. Making sure that leftist loonies don't harm or cause a public distuurbance is not a violation of anyone's free speech. Clinton did this with protesters as well and I never begrudged him for it. So come off it. Nobody's rights were violated.

>>How is going after Iraq going to stop Al-Qaeda?"

Wow, what a profound question. I can just see Ari squriming now. So, to save him the trouble, I'll answer it for you: It won't.

Actually, I kind of like this game. Let me ask you a few: How will restricting gun-ownership rights stop Al-Qaeda? How will allowing a bunch of unruly misfits get get close enough to The President to disrupt his speech by chanting infantile slogans and throwing fake blood stop Al-Qaeda? How will creating a "world criminal court" stop Al-Qaeda? How will signing the Kyoto accords stop Al-Qaeda?

Since these things, along with all of the other leftist drivel you spout off about wont stop Al-Qaeda, we shouldn't do them. Your logic, not mine.

>>How is going after Iraq going to stop Al-Qaeda?"

Wow, what a profound question. I can just see Ari squriming now. So, to save him the trouble, I'll answer it for you: It won't.

Actually, I kind of like this game. Let me ask you a few: How will restricting gun-ownership rights stop Al-Qaeda? How will allowing a bunch of unruly misfits get get close enough to The President to disrupt his speech by chanting infantile slogans and throwing fake blood stop Al-Qaeda? How will creating a "world criminal court" stop Al-Qaeda? How will signing the Kyoto accords stop Al-Qaeda?

Since these things, along with all of the other leftist drivel you spout off about wont stop Al-Qaeda, we shouldn't do them. Your logic, not mine.

Vance wrote "The bush regime is playing a very smart game with the media. Favorable reporting = unlimited access. Unfavorable means blacklist."

I hate to break it to you, but not giving reporters all access passes at the White House does not equal blacklist. They haven't been fired, jailed, arrested, detained, held, beaten, threatened or anything else. I can see why you would beat up on Bush for not giving all access passes to people who hate him but the plain fact is nobody has a RIGHT to all access at Bush's expense. They can say what they want and aren't getting puinished. I suspect you know all this. I suspect you are aware that he is oing nothing wrong but in your leftist haze you want to bash him for everything and anything.

I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I've had fun poking holes in your theories and pointing out how you must resort to changing what I said in order to have something to argue with. But someone who can't see past their own partisan blindres is not worth my time. Toodles!

Vance wrote "The bush regime is playing a very smart game with the media. Favorable reporting = unlimited access. Unfavorable means blacklist."

I hate to break it to you, but not giving reporters all access passes at the White House does not equal blacklist. They haven't been fired, jailed, arrested, detained, held, beaten, threatened or anything else. I can see why you would beat up on Bush for not giving all access passes to people who hate him but the plain fact is nobody has a RIGHT to all access at Bush's expense. They can say what they want and aren't getting puinished. I suspect you know all this. I suspect you are aware that he is oing nothing wrong but in your leftist haze you want to bash him for everything and anything.

I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I've had fun poking holes in your theories and pointing out how you must resort to changing what I said in order to have something to argue with. But someone who can't see past their own partisan blindres is not worth my time. Toodles!

Vance, I hate to break it to you but if you are going to assemble you must do it peacefully and you must get a permit.

>>>Doesn't seem like he was assembling. Seems like he was holding a sign.

>>There could be any number of reasons why they were moved

You say "they" but he was just one person.

>> but they main thing here is that they WERE exercising their right to free speech and nobody stopped them.

This had nothing to do with the protesters who had applied for the permit. It was assumed that he was part of the group.

>>> Making sure that leftist loonies don't harm or cause a public distuurbance is not a violation of anyone's free speech.

Your confusing one man with a group. Groups need permits to assemble. One man holding a sign does not. Here is a quote from the court proceeding:

“Earlier, under cross-examination, Ianachione said Neel did not block those walking along the street to the event, nor did he shout at them or insult them. The detective also said Neel never threatened him, used profanity, or even raised his voice. Neel did insist that the police had no right to order him to move behind the fence because that violated his constitutional rights. He also said the fenced in area reminded him of a Nazi concentration camp.’

>>>Clinton did this with protesters as well and I never begrudged him for it. So come off it. Nobody's rights were violated.

Again, because the democrats do it too makes it right? Don't you think dissenters have a right to be seen by the president? Is it right to shelter the president from seeing his critics? Why would anyone want to do that? Hmmm to keep him from having a conscience? Why should there be a double standard. If people who are pro-bush don't need a permit to peaceable stand on a street with a sign why would someone who is anti-bush?

This doesn't bother you:

“Walczak cited as an example graduation ceremonies at Ohio State University in June, where Bush was the commencement speaker. “Before the event, men in suits -- I believe they were Secret Service but they could have been White House staff -- went through the audience and told people who had critical signs that they had to take the signs down or leave.” He cited a story in The Washington Post as his source.”
___

I think our leaders need to see their critics. I'm all for stopping protests before they get out of hand if there are signs of it, but all this pre-emptive crap is WRONG. It's wrong to pre-emptively strike a sovereign nation because we THINK they might attack us and it's wrong to arrest a protester because we THINK they might cause trouble. Sounds too much like the Minority report to me.

The Zymdasddf;ljkadsWrote:

>>>Wow, what a profound question. I can just see Ari squriming now. So, to save him the trouble, I'll answer it for you: It won't.

good, now tell Ari because he says their linked.

>>>Actually, I kind of like this game. Let me ask you a few: How will restricting gun-ownership rights stop Al-Qaeda?

ok, now is the point when we turn all the "lefties" arguments against him because we can't answer his question in the point.

>>>How will allowing a bunch of unruly misfits get get close enough to The President to disrupt his speech by chanting infantile slogans and throwing fake blood stop Al-Qaeda?

Again, read the article, he was not unruly. He was peaceful, there's a difference.

>>> How will creating a "world criminal court" stop Al-Qaeda?

When did I talk about the world criminal court? Better hurry, I think your spaceship is going to leave with out you Z.

>>How will signing the Kyoto accords stop Al-Qaeda?

You are hopeless.

.>>Since these things, along with all of the other leftist drivel you spout off about wont stop Al-Qaeda, we shouldn't do them. Your logic, not mine.

Bush is the one linking them, not me. You are putting words in my mouth. Scotty: Beam him up...

Aaron wrote:

>>>I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I've had fun poking holes in your theories and pointing out how you must resort to changing what I said in order to have something to argue with. But someone who can't see past their own partisan blindres is not worth my time. Toodles!

It's all you can do is poke holes and toe the party line, never offer a solution. Get a mind for yourself.

Dumbass wrote:
>>good, now tell Ari because he says their (sic) linked.

Oh, I see. Now Ari says they are "linked". This has changed a bit from your assertion that the administration must explain how enforcing resolutions against Iraq "stops" Al-Qaeda. They are indeed "linked" because they both use international terrorism to further their goals. I shouldn't need to remind you that we are at war with "terrorism", not "Al-Qaeda". Yet, here I am... pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.

dumbass² wrote:

>>>Oh, I see. Now Ari says they are "linked". This has changed a bit from your assertion that the administration must explain how enforcing resolutions against Iraq "stops" Al-Qaeda. They are indeed "linked" because they both use international terrorism to further their goals.

So that must be your opinion because that's not what Bush is saying. He and his regime have been struggling for months to find a single shred of evidence to link the too. So far all we have is their word, which I'm sorry, is not enough for us to put our soldiers to death for.

Here are some recent "links"


•"Very reliable reporting" of senior-level contacts between al Qaeda and Baghdad going back a decade and occurring recently.

[geez you'd think if it goes back a decade they'd find some physical proof]

•Unidentified al Qaeda detainees and other sources, who say Iraq helped al Qaeda in its quest to acquire weapons of mass destruction and aided training in those weapons.

[these detainees have also warned us of bridges being blown up and airports bombed. Not the type of authority you can base a major war on]

•Discussions by Iraq to provide a haven to al Qaeda members on the run, some of whom already have "found refuge" there.

[who has monitored these discussions. Hey if you can't provide it to the public at least provide it to our allies. Also just because the cells are in the country doesn't mean the leadership sanctions it. There in our country, and half the countries of the world]

"We know that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical-weapons development," Miss Rice said Wednesday night on PBS.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-60557328.htm

[this is the same as me saying that Bush killed Wellstone. Why do you condemn me for saying that without proof yet you believe her at face value? Remember the old Russian proverb "Doveryai no Proveryai".

>>>I shouldn't need to remind you that we are at war with "terrorism", not "Al-Qaeda".

Yes but we must have priorities. Al-Qaeda is active and still very much intact. We should be using our full resources to hunt them down. If we have no physical evidence that they regrouped in Iraq then we should be moving against them in Indonesia, Phillipines and Syria where it has been documented they've been.

We've been wasting the good will of the nations of the world we had with abundance after 9/11. We need these countries, we need their intelligence agencies to work with us. Why squander their beneficence with this quixotic undertaking.

It make people think the worst of Bush. Makes them think he wanted an excuse to go and get that oil that his big campaign contributors may have been promised. Makes people question his motives.]

>> Yet, here I am... pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.

My eyes are wide open. I see what's happening. When things don't match up I ask questions. You can answer them and assuage my fears, yet you just attack. I guess George Bush would say I'm not much of a patriot. If you look at it from a basic psychological perspective - it's those that are hiding something who discourage dissent. There is no hiding behind the truth. Doveryai no proveryai...

dumbass² wrote:

>>>Oh, I see. Now Ari says they are "linked". This has changed a bit from your assertion that the administration must explain how enforcing resolutions against Iraq "stops" Al-Qaeda. They are indeed "linked" because they both use international terrorism to further their goals.

Show me some proof of Iraq's international terrorism. We have the best intelligence gathering people in the world and also have very powerful allies. Bush knows that if he can find a scintilla of proof he can have his war and get his oil but he can't find any. Why?

>> I shouldn't need to remind you that we are at war with "terrorism", not "Al-Qaeda". Yet, here I am... pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.

Here, read this. This is called propaganda. People on this board jump down my throat when I merely suggest that Bush might have something to do with the death of Paul Wellstone but they have no problem sending our boys off to death when King George wants to invade a sovereign nation with no proof of threat. I remember Reagan liked to use this old Russian Proverb when dealing with the Russians. "Doveryai no Proveryai" Look it up. You've got the first part as an American you should insist on the second.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-60557328.htm

Okay, I told myself I wasn’t going to get back into this, because anything I say will invariably be interpreted as going off half cocked. You may be tempted to call me a hypocrite, since a lot of what I’m going to say is somewhat inconsistent with what I said in anger before. I’ll be the first to admit that this is the first in-depth research I’ve done on this subject, and I haven’t fully read every article I link here. I skimmed them for what I was looking for—the danger Saddam poses to the US, and his links to Al Qaeda and terrorism.

Before I get into this, I still feel that this is not my forum, and I may be speaking out of turn. I tried to take it to email with you, Vance, but you never answered. I also posted my response to some of your more personal attacks against my beliefs on my own site. However, it upsets me how this thread has descended into calling each other dumbasses. How often have you really listened to the point of view of someone who started by calling you stupid? That's why I stayed out of it so long. Name-calling diminishes credibility on both sides, and fans the flames.

If what you want is to have a raging pissing contest in Michele's comments, and leave knowing that you've had the last word, then keep hurling insults and snide remarks. If you want Michele to get fed up and shut down this comments thread so you can say your opinion was silenced, your condescending approach will work well for that, too.

But I'm not here to lecture anyone on decorum--I have a temper, too, and it's easy to get nasty about issues that are personal to you. If what you really want (and you just said it was in your last post, Vance) is someone to offer you proof instead of attacks, then I'll try to keep my emotions out of it and just provide sources. If you don't attack me, I won't attack you. If you do attack me or my family, I'll stop respecting your opinions, and you'll have proved yourself to be the jackass I initially assumed you were.

By the way, I got all the links below from this site. I found it by doing a google search on "Iraqi terrorism news" (no quotes). They provide both anti-war and pro-war stances. I don't provide the anti-war references here because I'm confident you've already read them. After I'm through with this post, I'm going to go back and read them myself, so I can see where you're coming from. For the most part, what I provide below are either complete analyses or arguments citing the Iraqi threat. I tried to find things that were not just one person's opinion, but political analysis. I did my best to find both US and international sites, so that it wouldn't seem like an overwhelming US bias to you.

So, after that bloated introduction (sorry guys), here's some sources for you:

British assessment of Saddam's potential for use of WMD, which he agreed to destroy in the UN resolutions in 1991, but refuses to let the UN verify.

History of Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his own people pre-Gulf war and afterward, and information about his links to Al-Qaeda in the nineties.

Some analysis of Iraq, and why Saddam is dangerous.

Another analysis of Saddam's regime.

Some of the sources here support parts of both our arguments. None of them mention a conspiracy about oil or Paul Wellstone's plane. None of them call GWB a dictator. Almost all of them involve the UN.

We both can read, Vance, we're both intelligent people. It's what we choose to read, and what we choose to believe that makes the difference. I believe that people can disagree on methods, but agree on the big picture. You seem to want to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is either an evil conspirator or a propaganda-addled moron.

I support an attack on Iraq because I'm tired of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Saddam agreed to resolutions that he has not lived up to. It is likely he is building WMD, and it's likely he will sell them to people that hate us, as well as use them himself. His regime is dangerous. He threatens my life. I want him taken down now--before he attacks us or helps someone who will, not after the damage is done.