Who will protect us from violent Islam?

The Clinton’s are a piece of work, aren’t they? Imagine blaming Bush for 9-11 and claiming that you would have done a better job.

Bush complained yesterday that Clinton was engaging in "finger-pointing" by attacking the current administration’s actions before the hijackings. "I don’t have enough time to finger-point," Bush said.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did, calling Clinton's version of events "flatly false." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) returned fire on his behalf, asserting that he would have paid more attention to intelligence warnings in the weeks before the attacks than Bush did. ~washingtonpost

Plenty of folks are already all over this: Little Green Footballs, John Podhoretz, HotAir.com, and Hugh Hewitt to name a few.

What interests me about this whole artificial story, which is basically a propaganda piece concocted between some liberal in government leaking top secret documents (Where are all the Plame-jihadists ready to frog-march Rove out of the white house for compromising national security?) and the MSM, is that this is so transparently a Democratic talking point.

Iraq is a 'cause celebre' for extremists.

It might surprise you to know that I agree with the premise that, "Iraq is 'cause celebre' for extremists." I think this is absolutely 100% correct --in a sense.

WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush's portrayal of a world growing safer. ~AP Story at yahoo
It's ironic to read this in light of the fact that Bin Laden has told us explicitly that this is so. In fact, he did so in 1998 --while Clinton was President (and BEFORE 9-11).
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. ~Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin, February 23, 1998
So yes, the war(s) in Iraq is and was a 'cause celebre' for extremists, even while Clinton was President! Iraq as a 'cause celebre' also apparently led to 9-11 -- conceived and planned while Clinton was President, I might add.

Are Democrats trying to say that Clinton's bombing of Iraq caused 9-11? Surely not. But then why would they continue to insinuate that Bush let 9-11 happen? Politics. Plain and simple. They want their power back.

But given the fact that the mere mention of Islam and violence becomes a 'cause celebre' for extremists isn't it a little disengenuious to say that the war in Iraq is a cause of terrorism?

The Democrat's position on this is plainly wrong. Especially in light of history and human nature. Imagine saying, after Pearl Harbor, that declaring war against Japan would only anger the Japanese and bring more attacks?

The Democrat's position is basically that fighting them in Iraq will increase recruitment for terror but that fighting them in Afghanistan will not. How so?

Even our full and complete surrender will not decrease recruitment for terror. It is beyond that. It was long beyond that even in 1998.
"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."

"And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them." ~Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin, tape of a May 26, 1998
Who will protect us from violent Islam?

So the question becomes who will protect us from violent Islam? Democrats say we must surrender the field of battle to Al-Qaeda. They continue to say that protecting America means not angering muslims. They say that we cannot win. Retreat and defeat.

Sadly, those who now claim that they did everything possible to kill Bin Laden and engage in a 'war on terror' before they knew there even was one now engage in petty partisan attacks casting the full blame on Bush.
Hillary Clinton pointed to the intelligence memo presented to Bush in August 2001. "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team," she said. ~washingtonpost
What gives it all away is that if President Clinton had been taking it seriously in the first place she wouldn't have had to say that "he would have taken it more seriously".

Posted by Eric Simonson at September 27, 2006 2:40 AM
Comments
Comment #184315

Imagine some Republicans blaming 9/11 on Clinton after ignoring black and white evidence that it was coming on Bush’s watch. Republicans are quite a piece of work too, aren’t they?

Our government is broken. That is the issue. The New Orleans levees which, were the responsibility of Congress and the White House’s Army Corps of Engineers to maintain, and upgrade if necessary, killed a great many Americans and caused unnecessary widespread devastation. And that unnecessary devastation will continue to cost the American people immense tax dollars to restore for years to come.

Republicans and Democrats alike share responsibility for 9/11 and the levee’s failure, and the death, loss, and shaken confidence of the American people in the aftermath.

Yet, partisan warfare supercedes securing our borders 5 years after foreigners attacked our nation. Political greed for campaign dollars consumes Senators and Representative’s time to the exclusion of saving Social Security, reforming the health care industry which is going to bankrupt our government in less than 20 years, ending deficit spending which is going to bankrupt our children as tax payers.

When the politicians who run government so egregiously fail their first and primary duties of office in protecting and defending the Constitution and the soverign land and inhabitants of this nation, there is only one rational response for voters!

Vote out the incumbents and vote in challengers, putting them on notice RIGHT UP FRONT, that they too will not be a successful incumbent if they ignore their first and primary duties to the nation and the people who elect them. This is the power our democracy grants to the people if only they will exercise it for their own benefit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 4:44 AM
Comment #184317

So the religion of Islam is violent eh, Eric. Trying to drum up a religious crusade are you? The vast majority of Muslims are not violent, and want only to work, provide for their families and children, and live a life of peace with their religion.

Violent Islam? I should think, having the respect for you which I do as a writer, that you may have better expressed it as Islamic terrrorists. There are non Islamic terrorists too, you know. Kashmir has a fair share which are Hindu. Then there were our own Abortion Clinic bombers, Christian they were. Chechnyans have a sect of terrorists. Catholic I believe. You wouldn’t refer to Violent Hinduism, or Violent Catholicism, or Violent Southern Baptist Christianity, would you? Then why Violent Islam?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 5:11 AM
Comment #184323

Aren’t you finger pointing when you point out that someone else is finger pointing but, you are above that? Bush is full of these convoluted actions which beg voters to listen to what he says and ignore what he does.

Ah, the twisted machinations of our dear President. Government is too big and costly Bush says as he initiates and passes the largest and most costly social program in a decade - Medicare Rx Drug plan.

I listen to my generals on the ground, Bush says of Iraq after removing so many who wouldn’t tell him what he wanted to hear.

We are saving lives in Iraq, Bush said of Iraqis shortly after invasion, as the numbers of Iraqi dead resulting from the invasion surpassing the numbers to Saddam Hussein’s credit.

I will cut the deficit in half he said in his first year. Then it changed to, I will cut the deficit in half in my last year of office. That is of course after he doubles the national debt to unprecedented levels by any measure after 7 years of record deficits.

We are creating jobs he said. As we permit more than a million illegal immigrants each year into our country to fill them at substandard wages.

No Child will be left behind, as he cuts and underfunds the program leaving huge numbers behind.

I will give our troops whatever they need he said, as many of our soldiers to this very day lack the armor and protective gear needed to protect them.

The list goes on, but you get the drift.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 6:08 AM
Comment #184324

Eric,

So yes, the war(s) in Iraq is and was a ‘cause celebre’ for extremists, even while Clinton was President! Iraq as a ‘cause celebre’ also apparently led to 9-11 — conceived and planned while Clinton was President, I might add.

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

Are Democrats trying to say that Clinton’s bombing of Iraq caused 9-11? Surely not.

No, but you do. Back such claim.

Imagine saying, after Pearl Harbor, that declaring war against Japan would only anger the Japanese and bring more attacks?

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

PLEASE.

Or stop linking 9/11 with Iraq every time you breath. You’re parroting Sick Cheney too much, beware of his kool-aid drink.

Who will protect us from violent Islam?

Brains. As soon as we stop allowing fear and political agenda to control them, no doubt they will start working to find more effective way to do counter-terrorism.
Other nations faced and are still facing international terrorism since decades, and so far they’re not defeated. US will, no doubt, join the club.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 27, 2006 6:19 AM
Comment #184338
The reason I bring up the 1999 economy and congress is because it fits the specific case. This is a CONGRESSIONAL election. The president will remain constant, so that is not part of what we can change. When something happens, you need to look at what has changed. In Reagan�s case, we kept the Dem congress and the economy improved when we had the Republican president.

There were two presidential elections in the 1990’s, both of which were won by a Democrat. Republicans had been in the White House since 1980. The other big change that happened was the GOP took over the House. Which of these changes helped the economy is a matter of interpretation.

Saying that the “economy improved when we had the Republican president [Reagan]” ignores the fact that the economy was lousy under Nixon and Ford. Republicans like to say that Bush hasn’t had time to fix all the things Clinton screwed up. By simple chronology, Carter is off the hook too.

The point is, you can spin these facts how you like for different partisan purposes. The President tends to get more credit or blame than Congress, fairly or not.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 27, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #184339

Not the Republicans.

They are the party of denial. 110% denial.
They refuse accountability, and once the DEMs take over we will get our Constitution back.

It’s eveident right here…change the subject, No Child, Reagan, economy, Carter…..HEY STUPIDS, STAY ON SUBJECT.
The GOP failed at every single effort since 2001.
We are not safer, richer, happier and our freedoms are abused.

Posted by: Joe at September 27, 2006 7:26 AM
Comment #184341

Today’s deficits and debt become tomorrow’s hardening of economic arteries. The one thing all recent Republican presidents have in common, is deficit spending and national debt growth. Which is a contradiction over time with Republicans platform of fiscal responsibility. Reagan left a huge national debt for its day. It was partly Reagan’s debt Clinton was reducing in the latter part of his 2nd term with his veto pen threat to Congress.

A veto pen Bush still hasn’t managed to find. Guess Clinton took it with him limiting Bush’s power to manage spending or deficits.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 7:29 AM
Comment #184342

Joe, but if Democrats come back, will we ever get fiscal responsibility? It was never a Democrat’s strong suit until Clinton.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 7:31 AM
Comment #184346

I guess, given 1) the reality and 2) the blind partisanship of the article writer, that 3) spin like this naturally follows.

Country before party, folks.

Posted by: Trent at September 27, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #184355

Eric-
More terrorists. More dispersed. The Administration is not even trying to dispute these facts.

We are not missing the fact that Bin Laden used our previous commitments in Iraq for propaganda purposes. What you miss is that the difference we’re talking about is between pre-invasion and post. We’re talking about a cause celebre coming out of nowhere, we’re talking about one made considerably worse.

Iraq was not the haven for terrorists that Bush and company made it out to be. If it had been, your points about Pearl Harbor would apply better. As it is now, it applies not at all.

It is the endless bloodshed, unchecked by by a bad strategy that makes it the provocation to the Middle East that it is. It is that endless bloodshed, that chaos Democrats in the main have been asking this president to put to an end.

The Republicans want to look like the only tough bastards around. They’ve been doing little but scrambling to reinforce this image. Meanwhile, the terrorists have taken advantage of their true weakness to more than double their numbers.

The Republican talking points allege that Democrats are waving the white flag. This is a way to loudly and obnoxiously redefine the debate so that nobody notices that they are failing miserably at their promised duties, and so they can continue failing miserably without having their precious power taken from them.

The Republicans are lost in a world of convenient political fictions, cut off from reality. We must resolve, not procrastinate on the War in Iraq. Most Americans want a happy resolution to this, most Democrats, too. Americans want what’s best for America.

The Bush administration, though, wants a perfect defense from any harm to their reputation. Unfortunately the Republicans want what they can’t have, not with the reality of the situation bearing down on us. We don’t want surrender. We want an end to this presidents delay on getting this war done, and getting our soldiers home. We need to make it harder not easier to blame America for the world’s problems. We need to make it easier, not harder, to blame the terrorists for the harm they do. We need to make it easier, not harder for Americans to go to the Middle East and drum up support against Islamic extremism.

As for that memo? Your president told the briefer that he covered his ass. How serious does that indicate he took the memo? You guys are so big on claiming the defense of hindsight, why don’t you claim it here? You folks weren’t the only ones caught by surprise by 9/11. Just admit it, and stop being such cowards in the face of the truth of your own mistakes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #184359

David
In your listing of non-Islamic Terrorists
Do not forget the Protestants and the Catholics on both sides of the “troubles” in Northern Ireland.

Posted by: russ at September 27, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #184365

Russ

Why does it not surprise me that you would start ‘Christian bashing’? It’s becoming the next best thing to ‘Bush bashing’ as the Dems favorite pasttime. You guys/gals are so predictable and so boring.

Posted by: linda at September 27, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #184368

It’s easier for you to believe the entire intelligence community and all news outlets are doing Democrats bidding than to listen isn’t it? You’re the real piece of work. Your party was a pain in the ass while Clinton tried to get Bin Laden , a pain while Bush didn’t try, and will be a pain for the rest of my life. You’ll always claim Bush was a great success, and that it was all Clinton’s fault. You neocons are like spoiled kids who constantly brag about the successes handed to them while contributing nothing.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #184369

Russ, before you start talking about Northern Ireland, it might help a little, if you knew even a little about it. Your comments reveal that you know nothing about it. FYI, the conflict in Northern Ireland was not a religious one.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 27, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #184373

Imagine blaming Bush for 9-11?

Okay. So why didn’t Bush do anything about the USS Cole? Why didn’t Bush do something when he received a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to attack within the US?”, which described the use of planes as bombs? Why did Bush, when he got in office, stop meeting having meetings regarding terrorism altogether, despite Dick Clark’s warnings? Now…. WHY HASN’T BUSH BEEN GRILLED ON THIS STUFF STARTING FIVE YEARS AGO???? You believe the MSM is doing Democrat’s work, and we need a former president of the U.S. to go on Fox News and be baited into asking these questions? Come on! This happened on Bush’s watch for Christ’s sake!

I was in New York on 9/11 and believe me plenty of people there blame Bush, at least partly, for 9/11. Hardly anyone there felt the war in Iraq was the way to address the attack. Having the attack bolster this creep and give him the support he needs to do whatever he wants just added insult to injury. By turning 9/11 into his political football he demeaned it.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #184376
Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

Philippe,

Wow, Eric didn’t say that Iraq ‘did’ 9/11. Where on earth do you get that from what he wrote?

It is irresponsible, however, not to understand the motivations behind 9/11. So many times we are told we must understand ‘why they hate us’, OBL has stated many times the initiating instance that turned him so violently against the US. It was when we placed our ‘unholy’ warmachines in Mecca. Why were we in Mecca? We were there to help support the no-fly zone containment of Iraq.

Does this mean that Hussein ordered or participated in 9/11? Not that I’m aware of (but I always keep an open mind to new evidence). But if we ignore history and the events that occured before 2001 how are we ever expected to learn from our mistakes during that time?

That’s what it seems like many on the ‘left’ want us to do, forget the failures of anyone other than Bush and go right back to making to same mistakes, never bothering to re-examine them and learn from them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #184378
So why didn’t Bush do anything about the USS Cole? Why didn’t Bush do something when he received a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to attack within the US?”, which described the use of planes as bombs? This happened on Bush’s watch…

Ok, Max, You’re president and you get a memo that tells you that Hugo Chavez wants to attack the US. It also says that it is possible that he might use ‘86 Hondas to do it. But there is no specific date/time/person to attach to the intelligence and no hint of any acutal plan in place. You also get reports like this every day.


What do you do? I look forward to your insightful answer and planning.


As for it happening under Bush’s watch, yes it did. It also happened under Clinton’s watch (the planning and reasons for the attack happened while he did nothing about it). So, can we agree that both failed to stop it? Or do you want to continue trying to defend one while blaming the other?

I prefer Guliani’s response to the question the other day. “Who do I blame for 9/11? I blame the guys who planned and executed it.” That’s really the real issue at hand.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #184383

Yes, why didn’t GWB do more in 8 months than Clinton did in 96 months? … I ask that sincerely because Clinton did pretty much nothing so, even as a Republican, I think both Presidents should’ve done more pre-9/11.

But now that we’ve had 9/11 I’m quite happy that we stuck it to “Death to America” Saddam. 9/11 lost my patience for guys like that knucklehead and his rape room sons. Even if they didn’t do anything directly I’ve yet to be contradicted when I say “I’m quite sure Hussein and family never swore off funding a massive attack on us.” Of course France & Germany were just as concerned as us about Iraqi WMD, but their bank accounts got in the way of action. Let’s just be thankful our kids don’t have to deal with a senile Hussein or one of his rape room sons and all of their stolen national money in charge of Iraq. Let’s also be glad Iraq has attracted most of the terrorist nut jobs in one place. I’m glad Al Qaeda is calling it their main battleground. It’s about time they announced one.

Let’s ramp it up in Afghanistan, let’s require more national participation in the war on terror. Let’s finish the job in Iraq. Life lost and treasure lost in Iraq is large, but if we’re stupid and leave it’ll look like a drop in the bucket in 10 years.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 27, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #184387

Rhinehold,

Wow, Eric didn’t say that Iraq ‘did’ 9/11. Where on earth do you get that from what he wrote?

He’s a too good spinmaster to write “did”. Instead, he just try as much as possible to put Iraq and 9/11 in the same phrase. As did the Bush government before 2003.
Check his Pearl Harbor (flawed) analogy. Pearl Harbor = 9/11 and japan = attacker. Except that Iraq didn’t commit the 9/11 attack. Flawed analogy. A better one could have been:

“Imagine saying, after Pearl Harbor, that declaring war against Korea would only anger the asians and bring more attacks?”

But, no, he choose to stick with applying attack/attackers analogy to 9/11 and Iraq. Don’t tell me it’s not trying, at least unconsciously, to build a causality link.

OBL has stated many times the initiating instance that turned him so violently against the US. It was when we placed our ‘unholy’ warmachines in Mecca. Why were we in Mecca? We were there to help support the no-fly zone containment of Iraq.

Does this mean that Hussein ordered or participated in 9/11? Not that I’m aware of (but I always keep an open mind to new evidence). But if we ignore history and the events that occured before 2001 how are we ever expected to learn from our mistakes during that time?

Yep, putting US forces in Mecca during Gulf War was a mistake. Leaving them after the war was a bigger one even.
So why US forces didn’t leave Iraq after having removed Saddam from power forever? Does it mean Bush himself didn’t learn anything from previous government(s)’s mistakes?

That’s what it seems like many on the ‘left’ want us to do, forget the failures of anyone other than Bush and go right back to making to same mistakes, never bothering to re-examine them and learn from them.

But still, this government don’t show he has learned from previous mistakes and just, in its own word motto, “stay the course”. Still no implementation of 9/11 commission advices. Still no OBL captured dead or alive. Still US troops not leaving a muslim land, fueling civil war and the now called “cause celebre” anger.
Even if the “left” were wanted to go right back to making the same mistakes over and over, what matter today is the mistake(s) the guys in power are eventuelly doing. Over and over.

Oh, nevermind, I forgot: this government make no mistake. Ever. Again and again.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 27, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #184388

I’m a Dem and find the premise of ES’s first statement laughable. ‘Imagine blaming Bush?’ How can we even IMAGINE it? Um…he was the President that had intel on the potential attack.

Willy is a wise politician though, and his response did just what he hoped it would - got people questioning whether Bush did enough or not. Willy knows the comparison will put him in favorable light. If enough people question this, it has to be good news for the Dems. The more people that are informed in general, the better for the Dems. Heck, we have almost half of the population still believing Saddam had WMDs in 2003 and was responsible for 9/11! The incumbency media machine is powerful. And Willy stuck a stick in the wheels of it.

But at the end of the day, the partisan blame game and finger pointing does little good. Is there any Dem reading here that will review these posts and say, “Yep, Bush is not responsible for 9/11?” Is there and Republican that will say, “Willy had no responsibility for 9/11?” Of course not.

I agree with Rhinehold’s quote of Guiliani, ‘it’s the terrorist’s fault.”

So, that said, does it really matter, other than for partisan reasons who is blame? Isn’t the bigger question what is being done to catch bin Laden? Why are we more than five years after the 9/11 attacks not focusing on him, especially after the recent intel reports confirm Iraq is increasing the terror threat? Why as Willy asked, are we spending 1/7 of our resources in Iraq, not linked to 9/11, instead of getting bin Laden?

Posted by: Boomer at September 27, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #184390
Who will protect us from violent Islam?Posted by Eric Simonson at September 27, 2006 02:40 AM
Well, we certainly need to find someone other than the incompetent murderous thieving thugs currently in charge of the White House and Congress. They’ve managed to make a bad situation far worse. I say let’s give the to the people who have learned lessons from the past. Smart open minded people. Let’s say, ummm, anyone other than the Repuglicans. Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 27, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #184392

Stephen -
“More terrorists. More dispersed.”

This basis of your statements is seriously flawed. Therefore, your whole argument is flawed. The “leaked document” from which this statement came apparently doesn’t use these statements as it’s conclusion. This is one of the points that brings it to it’s conclusion. In context, it appears from what I’ve heard and read, that this is not as negative a statement as it first appears. In context, it appears, the document states that we (the U.S.) is winning, because although there are more terrorists, they are less organized and less centralized and more splintered than they would be if we weren’t disrupting their cash flow, destroying their training grounds, disrupting their communications, and killing their leaders. In that respect, at least, Iraq is working.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #184394

Linda-
Christian bashing? Should we call mention of the Hundred Years War Christian Bashing? Christians have fought each other over religious differences. We’ve fought other religions over the same. If religious squabbling is a sign of human imperfection, then I’m afraid everybody’s guilty.

Paul in Euroland-
Would it not be accurate to say that religion plays a role, even if British colonialism was the main beef?

Rhinehold-
Let the left speak for itself. We’ve been very adamant about fixing the problems that led to 9/11.

We were not in Mecca. We were off in some other section of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, though, did not distinguish, treating all of Saudi Arabia as if it were sacred ground.

On the subject of the ‘86 Hondas, what you do is you start investigating. You start putting up safeguards with ‘86 Hondas in mind. You tell the pilots and crew not to cooperate with Hijackers. You do something else than just dismiss the briefer telling you those things. Bush could have at least asked somebody to get on it. This is not about blaming Bush alone, this is about getting him to humble himself on the subject and take somebody else’s advice.

Ken Strong-
I doubt you could come up with evidence that France and Germany thought a terrorist threat existed in Iraq. I doubt you have any evidence that Saddam was planning a major spectacular.

You only think that Iraq has attracted most of the terrorist nutjobs. In fact, they’re mostly situated around the world. Iraq is not eating them up, its training them, at our expense.

It’s also making it difficult to ramp up much of anything in Afghanistan. I’m glad you want to finish the job, but you fail to understand that this president is doing anything but that.

Most Democrats do not want to just jerk our forces out. Most simply want this president to start planning with some kind of end to this war in mind. I say we need that kind of motivation. As long as we just screw around, waiting for the insurgents and the terrorists to get tired of their jihad, this crap will merely continue. But if we have a goal, and the willingness to apply resources to make that goal happen, we’re in a better position to win the war.

What we got to do is say “we’re going to do what it takes to take back this place, to train this army, to do this, etc.” and then do it. The current plan is just wishful thinking that things will turn out right. we need better than that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #184397

Dave 1-20-09
“I say let’s give the to the people who have learned lessons from the past.”

Aside from the fact that one cannot tell what you’re trying to say… you should take a lesson from the past. You have shown light on no wisdom, merely your own wimpy opinion. I know many good and faithful Republicans and some good and faithful Democrats. To whitewash an entire party as evil or wrong is just plain partisan, and smart or open-minded.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #184398

I meant to say —-
NOT smart or open-minded.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #184407

Bill Clinton is a micro-manager. He made enemies as a result.

Bush is a no-manager who is so in over his head. He can’t think without the input of his close circle of ‘advisors.’

Notice - when big things happen, there is a stutter from the White House just long enough for a conflab with Rove, Rumi, Cheney etc.
We don’t know for certain that is what is happening, but whenever Bush is questioned on anything he likes to return with the comment “WE are considering…” or “We” this or “We” that.

Seems to me there is ample grounds for KEEPING the ball in Bush’s court and not pretending it is Clinton’s.

After all, Bush had 8-9 months! Did he not?

Posted by: RGF at September 27, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #184411

You know, on my home page, this blog pops up under “Republicans and Conservatives.” I know for a fact that the left-wing Libs have their own blogosphere out there, yet it astounds me that I see more and more liberal posting under “Republicans and Conservatives” sites. Could this be, perhaps, due to the fact that other liberal venues such as Air America are facing bankruptcy, and financial ruin? Or perhaps it angers you liberal so that while you were busy taking over the main-stream drive-by media on TV, Conservatives turned to radio, and captured a much more credible and believeable demographic. Say what you want about the likes og Limbaugh and Hannity, but they get more listeners weekly than any liberal TV shows get viewers. So tell me; Who is better represented. Conservatives have only recently acquired FOX News as a “conservative” TV viewing channel, and liberals whine that they are too bias. The Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton was primo. Wallace tried to do a simple interview, and ask simple, straight-forward questions, and Clinton became combative. Why is that? I think that ultimately, Libs want Conservatives without a venue or voice to express their opinions. For a group that preaches “Free Speech”, and “open-mindedness”, the Libs sure seem to want to stifle any voice of dissent. When Lieberman disagreed with them, he was basically kicked out of the party. Why is that? Keep it up Libs. There’s a reason great Democrats like Zell Miller say they no longer recognize the Democratic party anymore. Can you tell me why?

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #184412

Philippe-

Bin Laden put Iraq and 9/11 together back in 1998 when Bush was a Governor.

And it wasn’t just our bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; he blames the U.S. for 1 million Muslim deaths as a result of the economic sanctions. That number, I’m sure, excludes Shia deaths given Wahhabi belief that it is o.k. to kill Shia because they were dar al-harb.

Posted by: George in SC at September 27, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #184413

Max,
“Why didn’t Bush do something when he received a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to attack within the US?”, which described the use of planes as bombs?”


We didn’t have the “Patriot Act” in place then, so even with the information given that our planes were going to be “used as bombs”, our laws would have prevented them from doing anything about it. The terrorists knew this and that’s how come they could plot and plan without much interference from the US.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 27, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #184419

Don,

I see you are able to reply only with insult, a typical “repuglican” tactic. I should probably have clarified, however. When I refer to “repuglican” I do not refer to members of the party, I refer to it’s leaders and, to some extent, it’s activist proponents and (p)sycophants.
The current GOP is not the party I was once an adherent of. It is a perversion of an American view. It is “protofascist” in that it is a proponent of a untiary presidency with nearly unfettered authority to ignore the constitution and treaties to which we as a nation are signatories to. It supports corporations at the expense of free enterprise. It encourages the use of religion as a controlling political force rather than a force for personal enlightenment. Basically, they suck. They deserve disapprobation, not accolade; they are worse than anything the Democrats might be able to do; they must go.

I say let’s give the to the people who have learned lessons from the past. Smart open minded people. Let’s say, ummm, anyone other than the Repuglicans.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 27, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #184420

Ryan,

The parties have shifted considerably over the decades. I’m unsure what good old fashioned fiscal conservatives would think about the GOP today.

As far as posts go and seeing a lot of different opions (opions you obviouisly disagree with)that may be more a result of GW than anything else. I lean slightly left overall but tend to agree with several issues of the right. When I post differing opinions on any conservative site I am labeled “liberal” and called names. I’m sure the same thing happens to strong converservative when they post on liberal sites.

I guess what I’m saying is the GOP tent just doesn’t seem as big as it once was. I used to could respectfully disagree with many on the right and they could appreciate where we did see eye to eye. Now, well…it’s all or nothing.

GW may create as many democrats as Reagan created republicans. That, of course, is just my opinion. I’m sure you will certainly label me a “liberal” or a “closet liberal” or something. I voted for Reagan and Bush, Sr. and have voted both red and blue for senators and representatives of my state. I feel like folks like me are being pushed aside….

“You either take the whole ball of wax or we don’t want you…” that’s kinda how I feel.

Try to remember this is America. Opinions of both sides should be heard and debated. I respect many folks that post on this site as well as some of the folks on FOX. I may not agree with them 100%, but I appreciate anyone who is willing to listen and consider the other side without dismissing them as “traitors”, “crazy liberals”, etc.

Regards,

Posted by: Tom L at September 27, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #184423

“It encourages the use of religion as a controlling political force rather than a force for personal enlightenment”

Controlling political force? Could you please give some examples of this Dave1? I must be missing something.

Posted by: kctim at September 27, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #184425

George in SC,

Bin Laden put Iraq and 9/11 together back in 1998 when Bush was a Governor.

And it wasn’t just our bases in Saudi Arabia and Qatar; he blames the U.S. for 1 million Muslim deaths as a result of the economic sanctions. That number, I’m sure, excludes Shia deaths given Wahhabi belief that it is o.k. to kill Shia because they were dar al-harb.

And that’s *your* proof Saddam was behind or even remotely participated to 9/11: OBL pronouced “Iraq”?!?
Even Bush don’t use such weak reasoning. I’m really glad OBL never put “americans tourists” with “visiting Paris”…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 27, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #184428

Is it just me or does it seem that the left does not recognize that Islamic terrorists are evil people? I never sense that they even dislike these jerks. There always seems to be a hint of “we are getting what we deserve for being Imperialistic pigs”.
I suspect that if the democrats do regain the white house we will indeed have peace in our time. Iran will simply cut the same deal that N. Korea cut with Clinton so they can develope their weapons without interference.

Posted by: Carnak at September 27, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #184429

Carnak,

You forgot about gutting the millitary. Then waiting for a Repub president to blame all the failures on.

Posted by: JimmyRay at September 27, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #184430

Philippe-

Please cite me the quotation where I said that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Posted by: George in SC at September 27, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #184436

History will show that as we have a “coalition of the willing” so too does the terrorists have their own “coalition of the willing”.
History will show that:
1. Saddamm had WMD’s that were initially shipped to Syria.
2. Iraq had ties to Al-Queda. There were financial arrangements between them as well as training.
3. The terrorists have a basic goal of wanting Israel utterly destroyed and no Jew left behind.

Of course history will show much, much more that is different than what is perceived today that is believed to be truth.

Posted by: tomh at September 27, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #184438

Rhinehold and Rahdigly,

Ok, Max, You’re president and you get a memo that tells you that Hugo Chavez wants to attack the US. It also says that it is possible that he might use ‘86 Hondas to do it. But there is no specific date/time/person to attach to the intelligence and no hint of any acutal plan in place. You also get reports like this every day.

You’re both wrong on every count. There was a date assigned to the memo (within the next year). All that would have had to be done was for the FBI and the CIA to seriously coordinate and put a priority on finding the terrorists, some of whom the FBI already had dirt on and the CIA knew were in the country. All of this, as well as passenger screening, could have been done within existing law, which certainly allowed for screening for known individuals planning to do the United States harm. Finally, Clinton did provide Bush with a recommended plan (a 13 page report) for how to rooting out terrorism and responding to the Cole attack. Sure both presidents failed to stop the attack, but Bush put nowhere near the priority on rooting out terrorism Clinton did. The whole “both presidents were equally at fault” premise is wrong. So is the premise that the attacks could not and should not have been stopped. Your assertion that Condaleeza was receiving memos like this everyday is flat out not true.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #184440

Ryan,

I’ve listened to enough Rush to know that when people start using phrases such as “drive-by media” that all critical thought has ceased.

Can you think of other reasons why someone who is not a devotee may listen, view, and read opinions they do not automatically agree with?

Posted by: Trent at September 27, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #184443

TOM L

I appreciate your candor, as well as your well-thought-out argument and presentation. Let me say, compared to my views, yes, you are a liberal. What I like most though, is that you are a “common-sense”. I too do not always agree w/ the conservatives. For instance, I believe that W is to soft on illegal immigration. I respect your right to disagree with me. That’s what makes this America, after all. But would you agree with the statement that most of the better-known libs in position right now are doing more to try and divide this country, at a time when it most critical for us to me united? We were brutally attacked! We should be united against a common enemy, not obssessed with getting power back, or keeping power at any cost. The W.W. II generation showed us what it means to be united. All I meant in response to the amount of lib postings was that it seems they are trying their darndest to snuff out our voice as conservatives, even on sites speciffically for those that share the same political philosophy. The postings almost seem openly hostile. How tragic. I’m only 27, but I am extensively read. I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity for entertainment, not so I will know how to think. I realize you never said that I did, but many on the left accuse us of being mindless puppets for the above-mentioned hosts. I appreciate and respect a Dem/Lib, although the two terms are not mutually exclusive, that can thoughtfully articulate a response without degenerating into personal attacks. Thank you for spurring intellectual conversation. We may disagree, but we are both AMERICANS, correct? Good day, my friend.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #184444

kctim;

How about K Harris’ little speech about how “if you’re not electing christians then you’re voting in sinners”
How about the influence of Dobson and the other evangelical leaders? And their concerted efforts on behalf of Bush in ‘04. Do you remember the sacrifical lamb in the campaign staff who took the fall for coordinating with churches?
How about the rally cry of “The US is a Christian nation” and the denial of the church/state boundary and the Churches who tell their voters who to vote for?

Am I waiting for excuse and deny?

George,

Then what did you mean by “Bin Laden put Iraq and 9/11 together”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 27, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #184445

Dave1-20-09
“I see you are able to reply only with insult, a typical “repuglican” tactic.”

Obviously you haven’t read my other postings. And, by the way, your response fits your own accusation better than my post. Democraps should not be so glib.

“The current GOP…must go.”

Again, you paint with broad unthinking brush. To whitewash an entire party as evil or wrong is just plain partisan, and NOT smart or open-minded.

You have not shown yourself to be open-minded, which is what I was looking for. You also have not shown yourself to be more than a slanderer. Many of your statements are patently false…mere talking points for Democraps (you’re not the only one who can come up with “cute” nicknames). They are statements almost entirely without merit. For instance, your statement: “It encourages the use of religion as a controlling political force rather than a force for personal enlightenment” is laughable. Bush has his own beliefs (all presidents have given at least lip-service to belief in God), but has made it clear on several occasions that he takes his job as president of ALL Americans seriously (no matter their faith). He seeks God’s direction (as have many past presidents) but also listens to and seeks the advice of others. You, obviously, haven’t thought this one through. Maybe you should pray more to your Democrap god.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #184448

i do so love to watch cons blame an EX-president for problems. did clinton do all he could, no he didnt and he admitted that, has bush done all he could do, no he hasnt and he has admitted that, more can be done and the blame game doesnt make anything better. cons have been bitching from the start that all the dinkeys are dong is blaming, that they arent coming up with solutions, and now the cons are playing the very game they have lambasted the left for playing. FIX THE PROBLEM! dont bitch about how it wasnt fixed by a man who left office 6 YEARS AGO!

Posted by: lucas at September 27, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #184449

“How about K Harris’ little speech about how “if you’re not electing christians then you’re voting in sinners””

First, the statement is true.

Second, the statement was taken 100% out of context by the media and, obviously, you.

Third, what problem do you have with this? If you are a sinner, why aren’t you proud of it? If you’re anti-Christian take a clear stand and say that you are.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #184451

“How about the influence of Dobson and the other evangelical leaders?”

They don’t have a right to exert influence because…they are Christians? What about George Sorros (misspelled)…should he be allowed to have influence because he’s…rich?

Dobson and other evangelical leaders have influence only in the Republican party because the Democrat party refuses to have anything to do with them. The Democrat party has done everything possible to demean Christians and highly moral people. If the Democrat party would reach out to the evangelicals it might be different. It is, therefore, the fault of the Democrats that they have little influence among evangelical Christians.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #184452

DON

Couldn’t have said it better. Whole-heartedly agree. Sounds like you are conversing with another sel-loathing, hate-America-first lib.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #184459

David,

So the religion of Islam is violent eh, Eric. Trying to drum up a religious crusade are you? The vast majority of Muslims are not violent

The irony is that on my personalized google home page here are two stories one below the other:

Report sees war fueling jihadists
Fearing Islamic reaction, Germans silence an opera

I think that the reality is a little different from the multicultural world-peace fantasy. 

Posted by: eric simonson at September 27, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #184460

Max,
“All that would have had to be done was for the FBI and the CIA to seriously coordinate and put a priority on finding the terrorists, some of whom the FBI already had dirt on and the CIA knew were in the country.


What would they “coordinate”?! You could not use any of that information (couldn’t get a warrant) with the laws we had set up. Now, with the Patriot Act, you can get that info and it would be useful. Also, there’s a simple (stone cold) fact that the FBI and the CIA weren’t sharing information; due to the “wall” that was created by the Deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick).


“Finally, Clinton did provide Bush with a recommended plan (a 13 page report) for how to rooting out terrorism and responding to the Cole attack.”


No, Richard Clark provided the 13 page report and, he himself, said in his book, that even if they followed that report it still wouldn’t of prevented the attack. Why?! B/c of what I said earlier about not having the Patriot Act or other “tools” to fighting terrorism.

“Sure both presidents failed to stop the attack, but Bush put nowhere near the priority on rooting out terrorism Clinton did. The whole “both presidents were equally at fault” premise is wrong.”


You’re right. It’s not equally, Clinton definitely bears most of the burden b/c he’d been at the helm for 8 years; whereas, Bush was there 8 months. And, Clinton knows this (as well as most Americans), that’s why he snapped in that interview over the weekend.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 27, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #184465

Philip,

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

I think you are reading something into my post which isn’t there at all. 

Are Democrats trying to say that Clinton’s bombing of Iraq caused 9-11? Surely not.

No, but you do. Back such claim.

Same as above. I am merely comparing and contrasting what democrats are saying in order to understand it. The contrast is that Democrats are saying that removing a mid-east dictator who they say Al-Qaeda would never have worked with and who Osama supposedly despised- is fueling terrorism.

Imagine saying, after Pearl Harbor, that declaring war against Japan would only anger the Japanese and bring more attacks?

Are you saying iraquis did 9/11? Back such claim.

PLEASE.

Again. You infer too much. It. Is. An. Analogy. A, “Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.”

Or stop linking 9/11 with Iraq every time you breath. You’re parroting Sick Cheney too much, beware of his kool-aid drink.

Who will protect us from violent Islam?
Brains. As soon as we stop allowing fear and political agenda to control them, no doubt they will start working to find more effective way to do counter-terrorism.
Other nations faced and are still facing international terrorism since decades, and so far they’re not defeated. US will, no doubt, join the club.

But this is the point Philip. How exactly have those other nations dealt with terrorism for DECADES? And if this is the position of the left, then how can they possibly criticize Bush for not having defeated terrorism in just a few short years?

In effect your position amounts to “Live with it.” Is this in fact your position? 

Posted by: eric simonson at September 27, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #184470

Don1-20-09
Dr. Dobson knows the law. Dr. Dobson is a man of integrity. He would never tell anybody how to vote. On issues, that is a different thing. Churches can talk about issues and recommend how to vote and this is not in violation of IRS rules and regulations.

My challenge to you is who and when did Dr. Dobson recommend for churches to vote for?
There was endorsement of a variety of Democrat candidates from church pulpits that were widely reported in the news. But, you are in error for saying Dr. Dobson endorses candidates froma church pulpit.

Posted by: tomh at September 27, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #184471

Dave1
“How about K Harris’ little speech about how “if you’re not electing christians then you’re voting in sinners””

A persons opinion now equates to trying to using religion as a “controlling political force?”
Does that mean obama wants to use race as a “controlling political force?”

“How about the influence of Dobson and the other evangelical leaders? And their concerted efforts on behalf of Bush in ‘04.”

And their support has resulted in what religious based legislation being successful?

“How about the rally cry of “The US is a Christian nation””

Here’s a secret, the majority of Americans ARE Christians and religion has always been a big part of our country.

“and the denial of the church/state boundary”

Most people don’t deny the imaginary church/state boundary you mention. It is the lefts interpretation of it that people have a problem with.
The 1st Amendment is about freedom OF religion, NOT freedom from religion.

“and the Churches who tell their voters who to vote for?”

jesse jackson tells his congregation and supporters who they should vote for. greenpeace whackos mail out fliers telling their followers who to vote for.
On and on it goes.
Who somebody votes for is no business of yours or mine. Voting is still one of our freedoms and talking about politics is free speech.

“Am I waiting for excuse and deny?”

Excuse? Not from me. I’m an atheist and have no reason to make excuses for anything dealing with religion.

Deny? Whats there to deny? You gave me your opinions on how you THINK some type of “theocracy” or whatever, is being pushed onto the American people.

Fact #1: Radical muslims attacked our country and killed thousands of our fellow Americans based on their religious views.

Fact #2: “Radical” Christians, Republicans in the lefts view, have not AND no evil Christian Republican legislation, based on the bible, has been passed.

So why is it that the left FEARS #2 (a political theory) and not #1 (an actual truth)?

Posted by: kctim at September 27, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #184477

KC TIM

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Kudos, and ditto.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #184480

Who will protect us, well we know for sure it isn’t Bush and cronies. As far as Iraq, Bush the first and the first gulf war, I don’t see any thing about it, in the article and how the first left saddam in power, and the invasion/no fly zone/oil for money(opps that is the UN), seems other then talk saddam wasn’t doing anything. Bush the worse(GW) lied to the UN, lied to the world and worse lied to the American public about how bad saddam was, No WMD found. He said also that he doesn’t care about Osama. Sometimes I wonder who will protect us against a self-serving, dicator like Bush the Worse, and cronies

Posted by: KT at September 27, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #184486

If Bush were a dictator, you wouldn’t freely be criticizing him right now, without fear of reprisal. And I never recall having heard Bush say he didn’t care about Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #184491

wow, if those replies are indicative of todays education system, we really are screwed. The logical holes are big enough for an aircraft carrier to fit through, the assumptions and conclusions are grotesquely flawed, the mistruths are just sad, and the name calling is just typical.
I do give kc credit for an actual reply, maybe I’ll have time tonight to go point-by-point. Ryan can just go -you know-.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 27, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #184494

Ryan, who said the following “I don’t know where bin Laden is, I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important it’s not our priority”

Bush the worse said that so I guess he doesn’t care about the guy who ordered and backed 9/11. He is more worried about the oil and civil war he started in Iraq.

Posted by: KT at September 27, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #184495

DAVE1-20-09

No. Tell me. Where can I go? And why is it that you want me so badly to go there? And where did you receive your economics degree from? Am I not entitled, all of a sudden, to my right of free speech? Have I ever called names, or personally attcked anyone, ever, or indicated in anyway whatsoever, that your intellect level was less than anyone else’s? You disagree with what I said, so now I’m supposed to go…somewhere. Who knows? You disagree, so you would basically like me to leave, and not post here anymore, is that it? Where would you like me to go? Elaborate. Your behavior in your post is consistent with self-loathing, hate-America-first liberals. This doesn’t mean I hate you, or that I want you to “…go…”, it just means we disagree. Notice how I have not degenerated into personal attacks and name calling. Take note.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #184502

KT
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished?

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, who promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished?

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, who promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished?

WHO warned America in his radio address that we should not overreact to the 1993 WTC bombing. “I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this.”

The blame game is too easy KT and playing it is a waste of time.
There is plenty of blame for BOTH party’s, lets just hope they have learned from those mistakes.

Posted by: kctim at September 27, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #184507

Ryan,

Yup, I hate myself. Regardless, when one speculates why other than fans listen to right-wing media, it is a mistake to make all your speculations self serving. Sometimes people, believe it or not, listen to the other side to 1) learn something, 2) learn the arguments that will be repeated ad naseum, and 3) possibly find points of consensus.

Posted by: Trent at September 27, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #184508

Hey Don, I read your comments about Harris and voting in sinners if they are not Christians. Well I guess that is partial correct. I am a Christian, and I am a sinner, and I will always be a sinner until I die or Jesus comes back before I do. Any Christian who says they are not a sinner is lying so I guess that makes them a sinner.
In this human flesh I am imperfect and do sin. So I guess Harris is right vote in a Christian, and you vote in a sinner also.

Posted by: KT at September 27, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #184509

Ryan Daugherty,

The reason a lot of liberals comment on this blog is that it’s just one part of WatchBlog. There’s also a Liberal/Democrat section here and a Third Party/Independent section. Because of the unique nature of the site, you get people from all sides of the spectrum debating issues and posts. You as a conservative are welcome on the Liberals threads. It’s not like most political blogs in which only one side is presented and debated.

So, it has nothing to do with your ideas about Air America, etc.

What home page links you to this?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 27, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #184512

LAWN BOY

Thanks for your response, and enlightening me. Sincerely, honestly and without malice, I appreciate it. My homepage is my web browser, through SBC. I find it disturbing, however, how hostile and sometimes violent the postings become. It’s disheartening. Mostly from Libs, but conservatives play their fair share as well.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #184516

Lawnboy, I have to agree with your comments to Ryan. I am a independent but read all three areas.
I have also noticed that the name calling lately has been going up.

Posted by: KT at September 27, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #184518

Eric, in your reality then, to be consistent, when the Irish were bombing innocents in the streets, Christians and Catholics the world round were a violent people of a violent religion.

That’s not reality, Eric. That is sophistry.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #184523

KT
“I have also noticed that the name calling lately has been going up”

Elections are coming up my friend and we haven’t seen anything yet.

Posted by: kctim at September 27, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #184525
And I never recall having heard Bush say he didn’t care about Osama bin Laden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc

He said “I don’t know where he is… I don’t care… I’m truly not that concerned about him.”

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #184527

David Remer -
“Eric, in your reality then, to be consistent, when the Irish were bombing innocents in the streets, Christians and Catholics the world round were a violent people of a violent religion.”

Stupid argument.

The Irish were not out to kill non-Irish. It was a regional problem. It was not really a religious issue either. It was an ancestry/governance issue. The only similarities are 1) Religion was involved (at a minor level) and 2) Terrorism was the main weapon.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #184528

Ryan,

Yes, the tempers and insults do flare up here. The site managers try to keep the debate from getting too personal, but they can’t be everywhere at once.

I think there are obnoxious people on each side (including me, at times). You think there are more hostile liberals; I think there are more hostile conservatives. I would suspect it’s that we notice more the hostility that is directed towards us.

It’s interesting that the default page for SBC points you here. Did you register your interest as a conservative somewhere?

I also connect through SBC, but I replaced the home page.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 27, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #184530

KT -
“Any Christian who says they are not a sinner is lying…”

This isn’t (and wasn’t) the issue. The issue was about Christian vs non-Christian (sinner)perspective on legislation. The Christian perspective, according to Harris (I heard an interview with her after her statements), is one of concern for people and the moral responsibilities of government. The “sinner” perspective can be from a wide variety of interests or angles, but rarely from the perspective of the moral responsibilities of government.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #184531

“Who will protect us from violent Islam?”

I thought it was your turn, Eric?

I’m going to rotate the tires and water the vegetable garden.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 27, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #184532

rahdigly wrote
We didn’t have the “Patriot Act” in place then, so even with the information given that our planes were going to be “used as bombs”, our laws would have prevented them from doing anything about it. The terrorists knew this and that’s how come they could plot and plan without much interference from the US.

Rah what a weird reading of the historical record!!

interesting the Patriot Act is touted as NECESSARY to obtain the exact type of information that had already been obtained WITHOUT the patriot act
and contrary to the comment — not acting on it has nothing to do with the existance, or lack thereof of the Patriot Act

Has no one bothered to notice that
we had all this info on Osama, 9/11 etc — but were just unable to connect the dots
and we got the info WITHOUT torture
WITHOUT Domestic, illegal wiretapping(I Refuse to use the misslabel of “terrorist survellience”)and without the intrusion of the Patriot Act
so does that say this administration is not as capable as the previous one? that they NEED the crutches of all these illegal activities in order to obtain the same info as the previous administration???
the 9/11 commission indicated that the info was there, we just weren’t sharing it and were unable to put the pieces together
just how do all the illegal activities mentioned above improve the ability of our intelligence services to connect the dots??

OH, I’m sorry, I have dared to question his highness and his adminstration so I must be one of those “Hate america” liberals!!!
my o my!!

Posted by: Russ at September 27, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #184536

LAWNBOY

Yes, I registered my interest as Republican / Conservative, and I use the SBC browser. I think you are entirely correct when you say that we probably notice more, because it seems directed at us. I only started using this site 1-2 weeks ago, and it’s appalling at how frequent and cheap the shots can be from both sides. I suspect that the unreasonableness on both sides arises from something that is common on both sides; a feelin of helplessness. I feel it as well. My friend, I believe that this country is ripe for another revolution of sorts. You see, the problem is that the elected officials, both Democrat and Republicans, forget who they are SUPPOSED to be representing until an election year comes around. Then it’s back to the home district for a bit, get the vote, and back to the promise land for 2 more years. Am I the only person, regardless of political persuasion, that feels this way? Let’s see what kiind of debate we can have on this topic without name-calling, finger-pointing, or blame-shifting. If you must criticize officials specifically, use inly their name. Leave out Demos/Conser. Let’s see what happens when we’re all on the SAME side of an issue for once! Good Day my Friends!

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #184541
That clip sure look “Cut and Paste”ish, Max. Do you think some things might be taken out of context?

In what context would it be okay for the president to say he is not concerned about Bin Laden? Anyway, it’s not the best clip, but it was a press conference 6 months after 9/11 after a reporter asked Bush if he was still looking for him.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #184542

Ryan,

Here’s the full context to make you feel better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #184545

Rahdigly,

Here’s how Clark feels about Bush’s first eight months:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyAUsWSLIUE&mode=related&search=

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #184547

MAX

You know, youtube.com sounds and reads like a suspiciously, and un-abashedly liberally biased site. Not exactly an impartial source. In addition, the audio quality is crappy, and clip sounds spliced together. Comments are totally and blatantly taken out of context. Bush was meaning he was not solely focused in on bin Laden. I addition, the comments are about 5 years old. Please give me up-to-date information if you want to appear credible. I feel that the site like you listed is not. Have a Great Day!

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #184550

David,

Eric, in your reality then, to be consistent, when the Irish were bombing innocents in the streets, Christians and Catholics the world round were a violent people of a violent religion.

That’s not reality, Eric. That is sophistry.

In our reality we look at things as they are. Not as we wish they would be. The fact remains that the issue of the day is violent muslim terrorists. Why are they attacking us and are our efforts to defeat them in Iraq and Afghanistan actually creating more terrorists?

This is the question that is posed by asking “Who will protect us from violent Islam.”

I have no problem calling Irish terrorists “violent christians” at all as a matter of fact. The ‘sectarian violence’ of Ireland does mirror some aspects of the middle east and muslim terrorism. As an analogy it could work in several instances and in several senses.

But as you may recall the christians of the world were not cheering the bombings done by ‘violent irish christians’. They were in fact repudiated. It is the opposite in our reality with violent Islam.

Another point you may not be aware of is that Christianity has a strong thread of non-violence embedded in it’s theology. However, Islam has specific references to lying to enemies and chopping their heads off in the name of allah.

True, there are many Muslims in the west who say that jihad is all about an ‘inner struggle’ and not about killing infidels, but I am becoming increasingly doubtful of the validity of this. I am perfectly willing to allow that both are present in Muslim communities. Our struggle however is with those who choose a violent path. Thus the title.

One should not understand everything in terms of absolutes David. As you may be aware, sometimes taking a position invites opposition. This is an interesting concept politically today.

When people see things as beautiful,
ugliness is created.

When people see things as good,
evil is created.
~tao te ching

Sometime we should talk about the tao in Christianity (or vice versa).

Posted by: esimonson at September 27, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #184552

The question is not “who will protect us against the islam” but “who will protect our constitution”

Posted by: obladi at September 27, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #184553

George in SC,

Where are you in SC? And how do you like it? My wife and I have been considering a move to SC.

Posted by: esimonson at September 27, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #184567

The difference between violent Christianity and violent Islam is that the Koran sanctions, nay, COMMANDS violence against unbelievers. The Bible does not.

“Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter.” (Sura 5.33-34)

“Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’ That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah.” (Sura 8.12-13)

“In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost.” (Sura 8.37)

“Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah.” (Sura 8.60)

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” (Sura 9.73)

“When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly.” (Sura 17.16-17)

“We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: ‘Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.’ ‘Woe betide us, we have done wrong’ was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light.” (Sura 21.11-15)

“When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended.” (Sura 47.4)

“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Sura 48.29)

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush” (Sura 9.5)

What does this look like? They are all quotes from the Quran. There is nothing in the New Testament even remotely resembling this. Therein lies the difference between violent Islam and violent Christianity.

Posted by: Silima at September 27, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #184568

Jihad does mean “struggle.” So does Mein Kampf.

Europe has rejected its heritage and is now being taken over by muslims. In 75-100 years all the major European nations will be muslim. France, Germany, England…how many think they will be our allies then? When they are dominated by muslims. These muslims are not assimilating. They are bringing their culture and laws with them. In Holland a local elected official had to get PERMISSION from a local imam to visit a muslim neighborhood. Theo van Gogh was assassinated. If Europe continues to do nothing it will fall. The Ottoman Empire’s long war to conquer Europe will finally be complete. And America will stand alone. ALONE…ALONE…ALONE…If the West does not protect its culture and heritage now it will fall.

Posted by: Silima at September 27, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #184571

Ryan,

You tube is not a political site, but I’m not suprised a Republican would think it is. You guys are paranoid. Republicans recently claimed the entire intelligence community, not to mention all news outlets other than Fox, are doing the bidding of the Democrats. You are all in denial.

Posted by: Max at September 27, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #184580

Ryan Daugherty-
First a conservative named Stephen, and now one who’s a Daugherty. Coincidence?

Probably.

You sing the praises of the conservative media, but I’d tell you it’s been the Republican party’s downfall. It’s easy to get encased in a bubble and start playing to demographics rather than govern, when you have that ideological equivalent of a captive audience. Chris Wallace’s interview was supposed to cover a different subject than 9/11 and all that, and the question was a thinly disguised ambush on Clinton. Why did he get combative? Because we’re sick of having this all-important issue being politicized by folks who have so far made the problem worse.

That anger shows up, and some don’t manage it as well as others. I regret that some can’t keep their temper, but I understand the difficulty they face.

You praise Zell Miller and Lieberman for precisely what got them kicked out: a willingness to slime their fellow Democrats in concert with the other political party, and a fatal lack of imagination that any other plan than Bush’s could protect America.

This is the arrogance that’s generated so much frustration among Democrats. There are other, better ways to win Iraq, and to protect the American people. It’s Bush and the Republicans unceasing effort to disclaim responsibility for what has come to pass, and their jealous guarding of the power needed to bring change from those policies that has turned the nation against them.

The Question you have to ask in terms of uniting is why people should so, after the 2002 elections. Democrats did not appreciate being made the scapegoats, nor did we appreciate that he did so for the sake of this war he made such a mess of. You should be aware that few wars in this century have gone well when the side in power has used it as a wedge issue.

We are not united because this war was built on false pretenses, and fought on lousy strategy, all the while being used as a political wedge issue. That’s not how you inspire confidence and unity about a war.

You inspire it by recognizing that you can’t cut people out, or be dismissive about views that disagree with yours. Discussion is the fabric of unity. If people aren’t talking with each other, they’ll be shouting at one another. Making the issue a wedge issue may seem like necessity from a partisan viewpoint, but the truth is, it’s the most foolish way to ensure support for a war imaginable. You can’t call someone traitor one moment and then exhort them to unity the next.

Doubtlessly, the truth is another ally you don’t want to alienate. More than anything else, the failure to find the WMDs we were looking for was the breaking point for many. Any why not? Our justification for war was the need to pre-empt a WMD oriented terrorist threat, the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over one of our cities. America’s reason for supporting the war was to prevent a greater disaster than 9/11. Deprived of such a threat to justify our unprovoked invasion, many soured on the war, especially those who had been dragged through the mud by conservatives looking to get elected.

The incompetence of the leadership of the war, though, has been the most divisive element, the most problematic for those who want the war successfully finished.

It’s the nail in the coffin. We could understand a mistake like this to some degree, given the opponent, given our times, but other mistakes would be bad even if we did find WMDs and Terrorists waiting for us. The failure to halt, and since then, to pacify the insurgency has aggravated every other frustration that Americans have had with the Administration over this war.

We are told we are winning, without evidence to vindicate that claim. We are told things are under control, only to see more violence every day. We are promised victory around the corner so often that we begin to feel that we’re just going around in circles. Is it naysaying, or is there just so much bad news that a realistic viewpoint has to be negative?

One can address the negative with more than just defeat in mind, but there’s only so much bad news that we can hear for so long before Americans despair of success.

Some would find this opportunity to start bashing the media for being constantly negative, but again one has to ask the question: is the negativity an organic summing up of the situation? If its not, there should be a positive response that can be made, one that can hold back the pessimism, cheer up the despairing. But if it is, we have to deal with that one way or the other. I would prefer, as would many Americans, that we win this thing, or at break even.

Those council withdrawal, arbitrary to what happens afterwards, though, will only gain more support the longer the ugly reality is not faced. The Bush administration must change course and do so for the better, or this war is lost. People cannot keep faith in a war effort when the main approach is not working, and all other options are cut out of the running by the politicians.

As for Rush and Hannity? People like them have been the death of your party. With folks like Rush and Hannity to pump out the GOP talking points almost straight from the source, it’s been easy to have folks like you believe all kinds of spin, rhetoric, and outright lies, all wrapped in attractive, evocative words.

Words can have the ring of authenticity, without possessing the quality itself. Put out enough, you can guard people from all kinds of unpleasant truths.

The people who form the electorate for the Republican party have been shielded from knowledge of their party’s spending, porkbarrel and otherwise. They’ve been shielded from its incompetency, its poor leadership, its betrayal of their principles. In fact, they’ve become inured to it to the degree that they themselves are no longer the conservatives that the older party would recognize.

The Republicans have become the very authoritarian, undisciplined, incompetent government that they’ve criticized in Democrats for ages, and not the least of it stems from a conservative media arrayed and ready to pump out apology for Conservative actions, and reassurances to the Republican party that their leaders are keeping the faith, that they’re good conservatives.

The trouble for a guy like me is that your party is catching vital American interests in the collateral damage of your political collapse- indeed, that they’re part of the same feedback cycle. People like me want to put a stick in the spokes and stop the wheel dead. The Republican party should lose power sooner rather than later, and should be reborn as something less wrapped up in layers of illusion and self-deception.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #184593

Ryan,

Are you not familiar with youtube.com? It’s a big video-sharing site. It’s not biased towards anything, because anyone can put up whatever they want. You probably got referred to similar videos that liberals like, but that’s just because youtube connects videos according to interest. If you look at a conservative video there (and there are many), the connected videos will largely be conservative, too.

It’s not a wholly reliable site because anyone can post anything, but bias is not a concern.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 27, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #184595

Stephen, since when does a public political figure get to dictate to the press what questions are asked? Even as a die-hard partisan Democrat, do you hold the White House press corps to the same standard?

Why celebrate the freedom of the press when a reporter asks a Republican a hard question, but suddenly demand totalitarian censorship when a Democrat is being questioned?

Unlike some of the others here, your positions are highly enigmatic—this is because many of those positions are well-articulated but at their core so fatally self-contradictory, hypocritical and counter-facutal that it makes one despair for the power of facts, reality and fairness to actually enter into honest debate.

Just a thought: As the good book says, each of us must pluck the plank from our own eye before we deign to remove the sliver from our neighbor’s.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at September 27, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #184601

KC Tim,
what about the Scheivo case, didnt Frist and/or Delay call a midnight session for legislation that one could agrue was “evil republican legislation based on the ..well their belief of the bible”. Way I remember it Frist even diagnosed the case from DC.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 27, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #184604

Stephen Daugherty -

Wrong again!

“Chris Wallace’s interview was supposed to cover a different subject than 9/11 and all that, and the question was a thinly disguised ambush on Clinton.”

I actually heard an interview with Chris Wallace after Clinton lost his head. The arrangement was that half of the interview was to be about Clinton’s program (for the poor, or something) and half was to be about current events. Wallace used this as a leading question to get into the current events portion. It was not an attack (no one could accuse Chris Wallace of being nice to persons of either party), it was a question. In fact, Wallace attempted several times to stop Clinton’s rant by offering to shorten the current events segment and get right to Clinton’s program. However, Clinton was out of control and wouldn’t let it go. NO ATTACK, NO FOUL, CLINTON SHOWED HIS TRUE NATURE.

But, thanks for the spin!

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #184605

Just to put my two cents in here, the reduction of debt under Clinton was actually because of Congress (who actually control’s the purse strings). It was Newt Gingerich pushing the “Contract with America” that actually turned the ecconomy around. Under Reagan, Congress was majority Democrat. Neither Bush nor Clinton should be credited nor blamed… but our Congress men and women should be held responsible for fiscal spending and policies.

Posted by: djm at September 27, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #184613

Good point, djm. And any economist who isn’t on the Democratic party payroll will also tell you that the recession ended a year and half before Clinton came into office.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at September 27, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #184616

Well djm if what you say is true that it was the reps that turned things around WHAT HAPPEND.

Posted by: Jeff at September 27, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #184620

If the Bush League was so concerned with terrorism in the months leading up to 9/11, as Condi Rice insisted, you’d think that Bush would have mentioned it at sometime before 9/11. But he didn’t. In his first inaugural and first State of the Union messages, he used the words “terror”, “terrorist”, and “terrorism” one time - in total - in both speeches, and THAT was a pitch for another ABM system.

Richard Clarke was right. Bush II didn’t do squat about the growing terrorist threat.

He didn’t even try.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 27, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #184621

Have I ever called names, or personally attcked anyone, ever, … Your behavior in your post is consistent with self-loathing, hate-America-first liberals… Notice how I have not degenerated into personal attacks and name calling.
Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 27, 2006 04:09 PM

Ummm, I guess you don’t consider call me “self loathing hate america first liberal” as “name calling”? With that logic saying your behavior is consistent with a typically self-righteous, hateful, closed minded, ignorant, biggoted, anti-freedom, anti-american neofascist conservative is just pleasant chatter.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 27, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #184623

Ryan -

Don’t worry about Dave1-20-09. All he ever says is “Ummm.” In fact, that’s probably the most intelligent thing you’ll ever get out of him. I’ve tried to engage him in open-minded dialogue several times, but his responses are always in some form of hate-mongering rhetoric.

Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #184624

Eric said: “The fact remains that the issue of the day is violent muslim terrorists.”

Thank you Eric. Adding the word ‘terrorists’ makes a huge difference in our ability to discuss a common problem. When you say violent Islam, however, we don’t have a common language or perception of reality, for Islam is not a violent religion anymore than the Judeo Christian religion which has “an eye for an eye, and tooth for tooth” revenge based belief system at its core and observed and revered by millions of Christians.

One only need read thousands upon thousands of Christian blog comments who say we have every right to torture suspected terrorists. Of course they are prefering to observe the Judeo Bible over the New Testament on this issue. Just as the al-Queda chooses to observe the passages in the Quran which appeal to violence as means. al_Queda no more makes Islam a violent religion or Muslims a violent people than the Old Testament makes Christianity or Christians a violent religion or people.

I trust we have common ground of understanding from which to proceed now. (Though, I wouldn’t bet my paycheck on it.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #184625

Don, your comment’s ignorance on the subject is overwhelming. The Irish conflict was Catholic vs Protestant which divided Ireland for decades. It most certainly was religiously based with a whole lot of other substrates thrown in like the British.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #184626

Don,

When did you try to engage me in “intelligent” conversation? Was it here?

You have shown light on no wisdom, merely your own wimpy opinion. …Posted by: Don at September 27, 2006 11:26 AM
or perhaps it was here
You also have not shown yourself to be more than a slanderer. Many of your statements are patently false…mere talking points for Democraps
But then to “people” like you “self loathing american hating liberal” is simply polite conversation. eh O’Brien? Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 27, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #184632

Yeah, that was the phrase that riled me. I don’t hate America; I don’t personally know anyone who does. I don’t hate myself either, though I don’t do the Jack Handey routine in the mirror. It’s a bit tiring to constantly be characterized in ways you know are not true.

Posted by: Trent at September 28, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #184636

David, Don does have a point there that can’t be so easily dismissed with charges of ignorance.

The Irish conflict wasn’t just a matter of open war between Catholics and Protestants.

It was in fact a war over real estate and it just happened, for cultural reasons, that one side was predominantly Catholic and the other Protestant. Neither side was trying to convert the other side to their religion though, so it would be completely false to say that conflict was fought for religion.

Catholics living in southern Ireland, in particular, have no or very little trouble with their Protestant neighbors unless they’re also advocating for the aims of the IRA.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at September 28, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #184638

Dave1-20-09
No. Did you read the following?

“You have not shown yourself to be open-minded, which is what I was looking for.”

Of course not!

I am looking for someone who knows and speaks wisdom. Have you ever met a person like that?

Posted by: Don at September 28, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #184640

Pisner said: “The Irish conflict wasn’t just a matter of open war between Catholics and Protestants.”

What part of my quote ” It most certainly was religiously based with a whole lot of other substrates thrown in like the British” do you need for me to spell out to you, since you obviously did not understand the words “with a whole lot of other substrates thrown in like the British.”

Then you too make the completely erroneous and false statement “so it would be completely false to say that conflict was fought for religion.”

Completely? Absurd on its face. Talk to some folks who live there or with relatives there, your comments could use a little education on this matter. The religious component was huge and was one of the components that kept resolution at bay for so damn long.

We have some American Muslims and Christians hating each other right here in America and they aren’t fighting over land. Visit an American Christian madrassas brainwashing little kids to love Jesus and Bush and hate Muslims and Democrats. Its in the news, so, you shouldn’t have any trouble finding one.

Think how much more violent their words would become if they were fighting over the same land to occupy here in the states. The religious conflict could sustain their war long after the land issue was resolved.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #184646

David -

The struggle in Northern Ireland was regional, not national or worldwide. Catholics and Protestants in the United States did not fight here. To say, then, that it was based mainly upon religion would be patently false. Religion played a part in it (obviously), but it was more regional. What is so ignorant about that?

More importantly, it is a stupid argument to equate what happened there to what is happening with Islamic jihadists now. What possible point could you be making? (That Catholics and Protestants are just as bad because they fought in a regional struggle?) Further, through dialogue those two sides are now fairly reconciled (although tensions still exist). But where is the possibility of dialogue with the jihadists?

Even Clinton, in his interview with Wallace admitted that he contracted for Bin Laden’s killing. He wasn’t trying to reconcile with Bin Laden, he was trying to kill him. And not for religious reasons.

Posted by: Don at September 28, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #184649

David Remer -

Shame on you! Why would you use such hate-talk?

“Visit an American Christian madrassas”

This is a base attempt to equate Christian schools with the brainwashing hate teaching that is done in some Islamic schools abroad.

So you are anti-Christian. You hate Christians. And you KNOW that IF there are Christian schools that teach hatred they are few and not connected with mainstream Christianity.

Your biggotry is unbecoming.

Posted by: Don at September 28, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #184651

David, anybody who thinks that religion was the main point of conflict in Ireland while the issue of British rule was only “substrata” is in no position to accuse ANYBODY else of ignorance.

Don acknowledged quite clearly that religion was an element in the conflict (if not the main factor) before you attacked him for “overwhelming ignorance” and assumed this lofty posture of all-knowing wisdom about something you are simply wrong about.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at September 28, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #184660
Imagine blaming Bush for 9-11 and claiming that you would have done a better job.

Yes. Someone telling the truth for a change. Imagine that…

Democrats say we must surrender the field of battle to Al-Qaeda.

What horse poop! Do you really believe al Qaeda is going to take over the Iraqi government and start collecting garbage and running the Baghdad City Dog Pound?

“A military solution is not possible [in Iraq]. This has been vigorously debated and resolved among Marine and Army senior leadership. We have never thought this would end with a military solution and that is why the need for diplomats is just as important as expeditionary military forces.” — Gen. James N. Mattis, Commander 1st MEU.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 28, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #184665

David,

the Judeo Christian religion which has “an eye for an eye, and tooth
for tooth” revenge based belief system at its core and observed and
revered by millions of Christians.

Interestingly the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is actually a limit on damages rather than a punitive code. Meaning that in order to limit hatfield and mccoy blood fueds, the Jewish biblical ‘eye for an eye’ is an attempt to limit revenge to equal the damage inflicted.

We all have something to learn about other’s religions don’t we?

But back to the point. Muslims worldwide are showing themselves to be more violent every day. Where are the peaceful muslims? Probably scared for their lives. What we need to do is stand up for them. To stand up to the bullies rather than allow them to intimidate the world.

Why do you tip-toe around the Muslim fanatics who now call for attacks and assasination of the Pope for his ‘inciteful comments’? Instead of reveling in a philosophy of non-violence, you feel the need to denigrate and insult christians? Where does this come from David?

Posted by: esimonson at September 28, 2006 2:42 AM
Comment #184667
Third Night of Ramadan Rioting in Capital of Europe

From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-09-27 11:32

It looks as if immigrants youths want to turn nightly rioting during the Islamic holy month of ramadan into an annual tradition. Around 8:30pm last night violence erupted again in Brussels, the capital of Europe. The riots centered on the Brussels Marollen quarter and the area near the Midi Train Station, where the international trains from London and Paris arrive. Youths threw stones at passing people and cars, windows of parked cars were smashed, bus shelters were demolished, cars were set ablaze, a youth club was arsoned and a shop was looted. Two molotov cocktails were thrown into St.Peter’s hospital, one of the main hospitals of central Brussels. The fire brigade was able to extinguish the fires at the hospital, but youths managed to steal the keys of the fire engine.

During the month of ramadan Muslims are required to fast during the day and are only allowed to eat after sunset. As Esther pointed out “What should be noticed about the riots is that they start after sunset. Besides the fact that they start after dark, it also gives the rioters enough time to break their fast and enjoy the traditional family meal. Sunset is around 7:30pm.” Tuesday’s and Monday’s riots began around 8:30pm.

Third Night of Ramadan Rioting in Capital of Europe | The Brussels Journal

Posted by: esimonson at September 28, 2006 2:53 AM
Comment #184674

Neo-Con Pilsner-
If somebody had arranged an interview with Bush about an economic summit, and all of a sudden blindsided him with questions about his dissolute days of drugs and alcohol, you and I would be in agreement that it was a pretty ill-mannered thing to do, and we’d both agree Bush had a right to be angry. It’s not a matter of censorship. Just saying that I found it to be very distasteful, and that I sympathized with Clinton’s response is nowhere near a call for censorship of any kind, much less totalitarian.

Where is the fatal self-contradiction, pray tell, the hypocrisy and the counterfactualism? You make claims about me you don’t back up, that you just expect the rest of us to believe for some unknown reason. You tell me where I’ve lied, and I’ll hand you the evidence that backs up my claims. I already pointed people towards the indictment on Scooter Libby. Read it. Read the part where it says that Fitzgerald, whose judgment you seem to respect, says that the Wilsons kept their secret like they were supposed to. Read the Time report Matt Cooper did on what he said to the Grand Jury, and what Rove said to him.

Read the indictment on when Libby learned of Wilson’s true employer, and all the times he discussed the information with others before somehow conveniently forgetting everything.

Read the indictment to see that it was Fitzgerald’s legal opinion that Valerie’s identity was classified information, rendering moot any debate of whether or not she was covert.

You folks want to claim whatever’s politically convenient at the time, go ahead. But people like me don’t forget things so quickly. I remember what our president said, over and over again, having watched virtually the same stump speech repeated time and again. I remember what Bush and company claimed, and about the point at which they stopped claiming it, and started trying to remind people to be glad we overthrew a dictator.

The question is, what do you remember, what do you let yourself remember, and what will you allow folks like me to refresh in your memory?

Don-
Here’s the full transcript. If you’ll notice, The questions about Clinton’s program came first, so essentially he was not offering to finally ask the questions about Clinton’s program, he was offering to return to the subject he abandoned only five questions into the interview to ask this rather inflammatory questions on foreign policy:

When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

These are the previous questions:

WALLACE: In a recent issue of The New Yorker you say, quote,

I’m 60 years old and I damn near died, and I’m worried about how many lives I can save before I do die.

Is that what drives you in your effort to help in these developing countries?

CLINTON: Yes, I really — but I don’t mean — that sounds sort of morbid when you say it like that. I mean, I actually…

WALLACE: That’s how you said it.

CLINTON: Yes, but the way I said it, the tone in which I said it was actually almost whimsical and humorous. That is, this is what I love to do. It is what I think I should do.

That is, I have had a wonderful life. I got to be president. I got to live the life of my dreams. I dodged a bullet with that heart problem. And I really think I should — I think I owe it to my fellow countrymen and people throughout the world to spend time saving lives, solving problems, helping people see the future.

But as it happens, I love it. I mean, I feel it’s a great gift. So, it’s a rewarding way to spend my life.

WALLACE: Someone asked you — and I don’t want to, again, be too morbid, but this is what you said. He asked you if you could wind up doing more good as a former president than as a president, and you said, Only if I live a long time.

CLINTON: Yes, that’s true.

WALLACE: How do you rate, compare the powers of being in office as president and what you can do out of office as a former president?

CLINTON: Well, when you are president, you can operate on a much broader scope. So, for example, you can simultaneously be trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo and, you know, make peace in the Middle East, pass a budget that gives millions of kids a chance to have afterschool programs and has a huge increase in college aid at home. In other words, you’ve got a lot of different moving parts, and you can move them all at once.

But you’re also more at the mercy of events. That is, President Bush did not run for president to deal with 9/11, but once it happened it wasn’t as if he had an option.

Once I looked at the economic — I’ll give you a much more mundane example. Once I looked at the economic data, the new data after I won the election, I realized that I would have to work much harder to reduce the deficit, and therefore I would have less money in my first year to invest in things I wanted to invest in.

WALLACE: So what is it that you can do as a former president?

CLINTON: So what you can do as a former president is — you don’t have the wide range of power, so you have to concentrate on fewer things. But you are less at the mercy of unfolding events.

So if I say, look, we’re going to work on the economic empowerment of poor people, on fighting AIDS and other diseases, on trying to bridge the religious and political differences between people, and on trying to, you know, avoid the worst calamities of climate change and help to revitalize the economy in the process, I can actually do that.

I mean, because tomorrow when I get up, if there’s a bad headline in the paper, it’s President Bush’s responsibility, not mine. That’s the joy of being a former president. And it is true that if you live long enough and you really have great discipline in the way you do this, like this CGI, you might be able to affect as many lives, or more, for the good as you did as president.

Starting with those questions, then sharply sequeing into that rather loaded question is a textbook ambush. Whatever Wallace or others in the right wing can rationalize about the interview, His question on terrorism purposefully came out of left field.

As is typical, the Right ignores the provocation and gets right to the business of certifying Clinton as a raving Lunatic for getting angry and fighting back against the smear.

Well, folks, you can’t have all the righteous indignation to yourself. You don’t get to smash us down into boxes of decorum, then rage at anybody who dares to question your right to be politically correct. You folks don’t get to throw all the insults and venom and vitriol at us and not get some return fire. There’s deep hypocrisy in the Republican calling us shrill, let me tell you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 3:59 AM
Comment #184676

Eric-
What bugs me about Republicans nowadays is this patronizing need to remind us of what we are quite aware: there are radical Islamists out there who intend to kill Americans and reduce America’s stature and power in the world in favor of their own.

So what’s your solution? Go read the NIE. Like I’ve said, and like it’s said, the key is appealing to the moderates. We cannot destroy these people. We can, though destroy their prestige and popularity if we play our cards right.

The Democrats problem with Bush is that he is precisely not dealing with the problem right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 4:05 AM
Comment #184682

One talking point among Republicans who wish to characterize Islamists as inherently violent is to ask, “Where are the moderate Muslims?” These are the same people who often complain that only bad news is reported, of course, but I won’t belabor the double standards.

How many of you have actually looked at Al Jazeera reporting? It’s not as shrill as, say, Fox News. Dig around their news site and you’ll find the views of Muslims of many different stripes presented. It would be easy, of course, to cheery pick stuff that seems to support any position, but then, that would be dishonest.

Posted by: Trent at September 28, 2006 7:53 AM
Comment #184688

I would rather ask:

1) Who will protect us from rising healthcare costs?

2) Who will protect us from corporate lobbies that undermine our democracy?

3) Who will protect us from spiraling college tuition that makes it impossible for middle class to attend?

4) Who will protect us from Exxon, Chevron and their buddies running our foreign policy?

Ask yourself: What do you fear more everyday? Islam or losing your healthcare insurance and getting sick? I think I know the answer and dumping $2 billion/month in Iraq certainly is making my life easier or safer.

Remember how Hitler came to power: Demonize the Jews.
How did Republicans win 2002 midterm elections: Demonize the Muslims.

See any connection? If you don’t, then your are trully blind.

Posted by: Acetracy at September 28, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #184690

I am appalled at the blame game. Gentelman, the problem is built into the system. You forget that Bush did not take office until Febuary because of the “Vote trials” by Al Gore. You forget that congress does over rule the President in all matters. You forget that the ills of the last half century can not be cured in even 8 years. Neither party thinks beyond the next election.
More over where is the blame put? Where does it belong - Ben Laden (al Qidea) - no we, or at least half of us, blame the victim in some way or another. Why????
We see the threat now. So we must do something. Kissing up to this minority has never paid in the 300 years of its philosophical existance. It was always violent and in the end unpopular among the Muslim people.
Doing nothing has led to its rise. Let us remember that the greatest price is paid by the Muslim people - take Iraq - Look at it closely. The dead are the Iraqis that stand up against the jihadists. Our losses pale in numbers. The same goes for Hamas and Fatah. They have killed more of their own nation. Why, you ask? They must control the masses to control the conflicts.
I knew of Arafat and his gang long before he became the so called fighter and polititian. They were in the intimadation and pay for work busness - the mafia, if you recall. They killed or burnt out all who did not yeald.
You have to understand this to understand the dynamics. One of the mistakes the British made in the mid-1800’s when they met these “extreamists” was to ignore or ineffectively deal with the “rebels” (meaning they did limited punishment operations, but left before the full problem was delt with). It cost them lives and changed their policy to retreatest, instead of development.
Defeat of the jihadist will end this cycle, until we are less vigalent and forget that they are there. Our surrender will give them the “eggs” to boast of their sucess and the rightiousness of their cause. This will end in More blood at home than we have suffered.
I am a realist in this matter and as I have said I speak from over 20 years at the cauldren of infestation, We retreat and we sign our children’s death warrent in an ageless war. We get the “eggs” to win and we will prevail.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at September 28, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #184691

tomh,

Of course history will show much, much more that is different than what is perceived today that is believed to be truth.

Agreed. I just don’t make the same prediction than yours. Will see…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 28, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #184692

J2
“what about the Scheivo case, didnt Frist and/or Delay call a midnight session for legislation that one could agrue was “evil republican legislation based on the ..well their belief of the bible”.”

I think you could argue that, but look at the results. Shiavo was murdered. So, no theocracy creating legislation there.

“Way I remember it Frist even diagnosed the case from DC.”

How do you get that he was shoving religion into our govt from that?

And this case was not only about religious beliefs. Terri’s parents wanted to be able to love her and to care for her because they saw improvement.
Not a good example, sorry.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #184695
You forget that Bush did not take office until Febuary because of the “Vote trials” by Al Gore.

That is not true. Bush took office as Constitutionally mandated on January 20, 2001. Where on earth did you make that up from?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #184696

KC Tim, I would agree that it could have been much worse, however it seems to show intent. After all the “make it a federal case” theatrics on the part of a few of our elected reps the autopsy wasnt favorable to the parents view that she was improving.
I really didnt get the “religion shoved down my throat” feeling as this was a minor issue, just thought I would remind you of the intent by a few as it releated to right to live/die issue which some see as a religious issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 28, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #184704

Some valid points J2. I didn’t get the “religion shoved down my throat” feeling either.
It was however, a very big issue to me.

Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #184705

No matter how hard the Republican sheep try to spin that they are hard on terrorism, the only thing they end up spinning is nice soft wool that they pull over the public’s eyes.

Posted by: Lynne at September 28, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #184706

Don,

There’s a reason you get no respect in my posts. It’s becuse you give none; you only spout the patronizing nonsense of (r)wingnut punditry followed by an absolutely undeserved holier-than-thou pat-your-own-back. Freeperville should be more accomodating.

Shiavo was murdered. So, no theocracy creating legislation there…and this case was not only about religious beliefs. Terri’s parents wanted to be able to love her and to care for her because they saw improvement. Not a good example, sorry. Posted by: kctim at September 28, 2006 09:27 AM
Terri Schiavo was a brain dead shell. Her brain was almost completely resorbed into her body. This was seen on CT scans and confirmed at autoposy. Her parents were deluding themselves and saving the body was a purely religious effort since legally her husband had the final say. Somehow, I seriously doubt your claim that you are an atheist. Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 28, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #184710

DAVE1- something or other

First, let me take the opportunity to say that I’m sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your postings from yesterday. You see, what with working, and going to school full-time, I don’t much have time for anything after I leave work. Now. Did I say:

A. YOU are a self-loathing, hate
America-first Lib

OR

B. Your BEHAVIOR WAS CONSISTENT with
Someone of the self-loathing hate
America-first Lib

Look carefully my friend. In typical liberal ideology, you have in vainly tried to twist my words so that you would appear to legitimately have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately, you do not. By the way, in case you DON’T remember, the answer to the above-mentioned question is

B.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #184714

TRENT

It’s appalling to me as an American, never mind my political philosophy, that you consider al-Jazeera a more credible news source than FOX News. The fact that you patronize such a site, wholly developed to advancing violent Jihad against the world, YOU INCLUDED, is near treasonous in my opinion. However, I have no right to tell you what to do with your internest connection, or any other facet of your life, so do as you wish. I just think it’s appalling.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #184715

Ryan,

There’s really not a distinction between A and B. In either case, you are using emotional labels instead of argument to try to silence opposition. Disagreeing with you on what is best for America is not the same as self-loathing or hating America. Our desires for changes in America’s behavior are built on a love for America and a wish for America to be the best.

If you have a winning argument, you will win. If you have to resort to labelling a disagreement with you as hatred of America, then you have a weak argument, and everyone sees right through it (well, I guess not the fans of Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Ann Coulter - they eat up this stupidity).

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #184720

Stephen Daugherty,

I’m very surprised you would challenge the facts that France and Germany were extremely concerned about Iraqi WMD or at least stated so several times. They were no different than Albright in ‘98, Kerry in ‘99, Bill Clinton in 1999, & Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in ‘02 who repeatedly expressed concern about Iraqi WMD. Both Chirac & Schroeder have multiple quotes & speeched referencing Iraqi WMD. UN Resolutions out the ying yang showed and warned of unchecked Iraqi WMD. Of course France & Germany couldn’t call for actual action because of the Muslim political influence (another sad topic altogether) and some alleged $$$ dealings with Iraq … but to claim France and Germany never thought Iraq had WMD in the 1999-2002 time frame is just preposterously false, and you know that.

You seem too smart to be one of those history revisionists so I’ll expect better from you next time.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #184722

Lawn Boy,

I just had to say that you damning emotional labels gave me a good chuckle. Thank you for that.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #184723

Ken,

Are you calling me a hypocrite?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #184726

Ace Tracy,

The current health care system was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Corporations are as different as people, many good, some bad. They employ A LOT of people and thus allow them to enjoy many of the freedoms of this country. To damn them all to Hell is absurd.

I’m no fan of oil companies but there has been no graater advancement in ethanol driven cars, hydrogen cars, and hybrid cars than the last 6 years. So the current state of alternative energies is hardly a reason to light yourself on fire and run naked down the street arms a-wavin’.

And Republicans don’t demonize Muslims. GWB has said many times (watch something else besides your Hitler-emphasizing MoveOn.Org for once) Muslims are mostly a peaceful people. They/I do demonize Islamic Jihadists … which is what they call themselves by the way. Their goals are a religious fascism and you would be one of their very first targets given the chance. So stop being a “Blame America First Liberal” and call Ahmadenijad or Chavez Hitler before you call your own President such. You’d be much closer to the truth if you did. (In other words, check out the rights, or lack thereof, in Venezuela & Iran, quite the eye opener.)

… putting the patriotism back into America one citizen at a time …

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #184727

Lawn Boy,

That would be a “yes”. Your emotional labeling of Republicans and Conservatives have been quite pervasive at times.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #184729

LAWNBOY

There is a distinction from what I said, and what I was ACCUSED of saying. One is labeling, and name-calling, the other is saying, “What you’re saying may lead people to assume you are an associate of people that behave in this particular manner.” I really try to be neutral and non-confrontational in my postings, as well as indicating when I am voicing my opinion on something, or when I am indicating verifiable fact. I thought you were better than to relegate those who listen to a radio program or read an author that you disagree with as “stupid”. By the way, that particular statement, in my opinion, made you look hypocritical. I agree with most of what Rush says, and I would marry ann Coulter if I could. I DO believe Rush is a bit of a wind bag at times, and that his on-air approach could use some work. I myself really Sean Hannity more, because he gives Libs a better chance to speak and disagree with him. When this happens though, they usually degenerate into name-calling, without a logical argument.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #184730

Ken,

I’m sorry you think so. If you’re right, I’m sorry that I’ve behaved that way. However, I’ve looked back at all the threads in which we’ve both posted, and I’ve never said anything to the level of calling everyone that disagrees with me “self-loathing, hate-America-firsters”.

Do I get frustrated with people at times and sometimes say negative things about individuals? Yep. But that’s qualitatively different than what I was advising Ryan against.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #184732

Ryan,

I didn’t call the listeners stupid. I said that they are eating up the stupidity of labelling all liberals they way they do. I was saying the idea was stupid, not the people.

I understand that my statement looks hypocritical, but I really was calling an idea stupid, not the people.

If you see a distinction between A and B, please explain what type of person you were comparing Dave1-20-09 to. What makes someone a “self-loathing hate America-first Lib” in your eyes? And aren’t you labelling those people exactly as I described?

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #184736

Fair enough LawnBoy. I shall sincerely zero out any pre-existing opinion of your comments.

I think it’s fair to say though that there’s plenty of criticism to go around. I don’t think Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, the global and even liberal American opinion was that Saddam had it. We know he certainly wasn’t afraid of using it. All that said, we should’ve had better intelligence on the matter. I’m also no fan of Bush’s spending ways.

On the other hand, when someone feels the need to call Bush “Hitler” I think that’s “Blaming America First”. I personally think Hitler deserves his own classification and no one should be allowed in his one man group. But if someone really needs to yell “Hitler!” at someone I gawk in amazement that they wouldn’t pick a veritable slew of much better options besides their own President.

Likewise, when people say America is imperialistic or the worst country for world peace, that IS “self-loathing Americanism” based on the shear absurdity of it. Do we really need to mention we’re not in control of Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Bosnia, Somalia, or that we’re handing control back to the Iraqis as soon as feasible. If we won in Vietnam, there would be a free South Vietnam just like there’s a free South Korea. If anything that’s anti-imperialism! How many countries have won a war only to hand COMPLETE control right back to the people of that country. As a budding military historian, I can tell you world history offers few other choices besides the USA. So, with such unchallengeable facts on the table, I think the “American Imperialism!” vitriol mentioned above is so far removed from facts and constructive debate that it is indeed SELF-LOATHING AMERICANISM.

Many times labels are bad, but sometimes it’s right to call it as it is.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 28, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #184740

I agree that calling Bush “Hitler” or using equivalent rhetoric is awful. However, I don’t see that as “Blaming America First”. I see that expressing extreme unhappiness with the current President in a counter-productive way. I don’t equate the Presidency and the country to that level.

In some cases, I think complaints about American imperialism are directed at the policies of the current administration, so I don’t see that as self-loathing. I can see your point, though, about discussion of perceived mistakes that American has made in the past. However, I think that labelling criticism of things we don’t like in America as “Self Loathing” is taking it too far.

After all, there are many, many things that Conservatives don’t like about America’s past and present. Are Pro-Lifers “Self Loathing Americans” because they don’t like the state of laws in America today? Or do they simply disagree with one part of our current society? Are the people that want the US out of the UN “Self Loathing Americans” because they don’t like decisions the country made in the past? I could go on.

I know that there are a tiny minority of people that would prefer to live elsewhere, that blame America for everything, but that’s true on both extremes. But I think it’s disingenuous to act as though people that disagree with parts of America’s foreign policy are self-loathing - everyone disagrees with something in American policy. It’s not self-loathing to disagree; it’s a healthy part of a democracy.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #184743

Lawnboy,

I, for one, believe we are beginning to see the next generation vernacular for the upcoming elections. What the ‘ryan’s and ‘don’s are spewing and Ken is unfortunately condoning will be the distilled freeper rally cries come this November. I guess they felt “traitorous depressed godless libs” didn’t work

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 28, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #184748

Ryan,

Listen to yourself. You are quick to make judgments, characterize the other side in negative terms, and refuse to listen to views that you fear might challenge your views. The truth is, there are many moderate Muslims; they are not all the enemy. Good grief; look at the Pakestinians themselves. Hamas’ greatest opposition comes from Abbas, the president of the PLO, and an advocate of recognizing Israel’s right to exist.

You know NOTHING about Al Jazeera, yet you have no hesitation in implying that I’m a traitor simply because I am willing to get the @#$%@ facts before I make conclusions. I could resort to your tactics and say your behavior is typical of closed-minded and deeply ignorant Republicans, but it wouldn’t be fair to take your example as representative of all Republicans. In my neck of the words, what you have said are fighting words. In respect to policy here, I’ll bite my tongue.

I wonder someone about the courage of those who call others traitors on message boards when you are too afraid to even learn the facts! Good grief, Ryan.

Posted by: Trent at September 28, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #184750

DAVE1-20-09

We can argue semantics all day, but there IS a distinction between what I said and what I was ACCUSED of saying. By self-loathing, blame-America-first Libs, I am referring to the those on the left that say things like 9/11 was a plot of the Bush administration to go to war. They say things Like, quite literally, that it was/is America’s fault that all of those people got killed on that fateful day. These are the people that want to sit down and “talk” with the Muslim Jihad extremists. Howard Dean, I believe, although it’s possible I’m wrong, said that if he were president, 9/11 would have never happened, because he would have sat down and “talked” with the terrorists to find out why they hate America so bad. My issue is that these people have been killing Americans for decades. It’s fairly obvious that they do not want to “talk.” They want to kill ALL Americans, regardless of race, creed, religion, or political philosophy. Do I think that it’s treasonous to willfully and intentionally attempt to undermine a sitting president in a time of war? Yes. Do most Libs in general stand for bigger government, higher taxes, and more spending? Yes. Embrace who you are Libs. Libs constantly criticize what W. is doing, but I have yet to hear of a better plan from anyone on the left. It’s like asking your significant other where they want to got to dinner, and then shooting down every suggestion, with no input of your own. Do most Libs condone abortion? Yes. In my opinion, backed up by scientific eveidence, abortion is murder. That’s another argument, however. This posting contains no hate or vitriole the way some of the postings aimed at me do. It contains facts. Scientifically speaking, a sperm cell is “alive” because it moves, metabolizes, and reproduces. An egg cell is considered to be scientifically alive for the same reason. If these two cells meet, and begin to multiply, then they are scientifically alive. Just because it’s not visible doesn’t make it not alive. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have to worry about bacteria, protists, or fungi. When you kill a living thing, it’s murder, according to the law. I say this not to offend or polarize, but to offer support for my opinion. If you are someone you know has had an abortion, I make no pretense of being morally superior to you so as to pass judgement on you. Again, I’m just offering evidence to support my opinion. Why do “we” want “us” out of the U.N.? The U.N. is unethical, and impotent. They do not serve the interests of the U.S., although we are one of the security council members. And for those of you who say there are no WMDs in Iraq, what of all the barrels of chemical agents that can be combined to make chemical weapons? What of the NBC suits found? What of the atropine injectors found? What of the thousands of pages of documentation found listing ingredients on how to make Nuclear and chemical weapons? What of the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds? All of this, in my opinion, flies in the face of those that would argue that there were no WMDsin Iraq. I appreciate evryone taking the time to read what I post, and I hope everyone has a good day. GOD bless America.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #184752

TRENT

I wonder why it is that you are so upset over my opinion, when I clearly delineiated that was my opinion. I know that there are many moderate Muslims the world over. I embrace them. I welcome them, as long as they do not harbor those that would cause harm to my beautiful country, or it’s citizens, you included. But why does al-Quaida always release it’s tapes to al-Jazeera if they don’t serve an extremist agenda? How could they be considered an objective source when they are forum to advertise the beheadings of Americans? What kind of news source would do that unless they were serving the agenda of those supplying them with the footage, or perhaps they were there and obtained the footage themselves. I can’t say they were or weren’t. I wasn’t there. Are you a moderate Muslim? If so, I apologize if I offended you. I meant no disrespect. And what “facts” Am I supposedly lacking that I should get before posting anything? Hopefully, you can answer these questions for me. Have a GREAT day, trent. GOD bless America.

Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #184755

Ryan,

I wasn’t asking you to defend the pro-life position or to justify leaving the UN. My point was simply that you disagree with America and its official positions. You (obviously) think that your position is justified, so you don’t see it as an example of hating America to support what you see as improving America. Of course, there are many that think the ideas you support are bad for America.

On the other side, people that disagree with the current president and disagree with American foreign and economic policy also think that their positions are justified as a way to support a better America, even though you think their ideas are bad for America.

I disagree with you about a lot of the things that you said here, but not because I want America to be weakened, but because I think that you have some errors in fact, and because I have very different ideas about what is good for America.

I don’t think that makes either of us anti-American, no matter how many times Ann Coulter tells you that disagreeing with her is treason.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 28, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #184760

Ryan,

Al Jareeza apparently is not what you think it is. It comforms to Western notions of journalism, which, by the way, many of our own media do not. The Muslim world encompasses many different viewpoints. If you would even look at the site, you would find a Special Report that discusses the need for reform in the Muslim world, mainly in the form of democratization. It is true that the participants in the forum on which the special report think the reform should come from within and not from without. At any rate, many on the right find it necessary for some reason to demonize all Muslims; if you are not one of them, good for you.

Posted by: Trent at September 28, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #184762

Linking Bush to 9/11 and critisizing his handling of everything thereafter are democratic talking points? No crap. Gee Eric, did you spend all day thinking that up? You win this week’s “state the obvious” game. Does it change reality? Not one bit.

For all the complaining I’ve heard from the right lately about being sick of dems placing blame rather than coming up with ideas, they do the exact same thing at every opportunity…problem is they have less opportunity today seeing as how most incompetence and corruption has been coming from those in power…republicans. Still, I see no point of this post other than to deflect and distort genuine criticism by making light of some questionable criticism. I’m not impressed by the light show.

This midterm election is getting scary in that we have still yet to see any great public debate emerge. The Connecticut race and the “macacca” fiasco are the best we’ve gotten so far. The repubs, even the “moderates”, are pushing through the stinkiest legislation in a generation or two so that they can bash dems for opposing it. Great editorial in the Times this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?th&emc=th

I’m very disappointed in politics lately. I really thought we were in a period of change. But every time I read a Simonson thread, I feel sick. Clinton screwed up everything…libs are conspiring to make us unsafe…Iran = Nazi Germany, etc, etc. Sad Sad Sad.

I know you’ve got a loyal following of fox-news spewing non-thinkers who nonetheless like to pretend life is as easy as red v. blue, but how about reaching out? Are you really content to just hurl insults from behind a fence? Ever get the feeling that your kids and grandkids will some day be reading a history book that talks about today’s political climate, and you’ll find that the crap you write will be written down in history as the equivalent of the muckraking journalism, the Missouri compromise and the adamant supporters of Plessy v. Ferguson. I actually heard someone say that Bush will be remembered as the president who protected us from terrorists. Now I won’t even dignify that with a direct response, but I will say that if that is not true, then what will the legacy be? It seems to me that he’s got the war on terror which he’s losing, and then he’s got nothing. Talk about shooting the moon. Good luck throwing all your eggs in that basket…wait that’s not a basket, its a frying pan.

Posted by: kevin23 at September 28, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #184768

Ryan,

You clearly are unable to distinguish between “liberal” and “leftist”. There are so many fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions in your post that I will go for it:

We can argue semantics all day, but there IS a distinction between what I said and what I was ACCUSED of saying.
I simply quoted you back to yourself. I never said anything about you other than your exact words.
By self-loathing, blame-America-first Libs, I am referring to the those on the left that say things like 9/11 was a plot of the Bush administration to go to war. They say things Like, quite literally, that it was/is America’s fault that all of those people got killed on that fateful day. These are the people that want to sit down and “talk” with the Muslim Jihad extremists.
I never said any of those things. Nor did I even come remotely close to implying them. It is a figment of your imagination otherwise. At least I know what you mean now. Also, I don’t adhere to those ideas, at all.
Howard Dean, I believe, although it’s possible I’m wrong, said that if he were president, 9/11 would have never happened, because he would have sat down and “talked” with the terrorists to find out why they hate America so bad.
Here you’re right. You were wrong.
My issue is that these people have been killing Americans for decades. It’s fairly obvious that they do not want to “talk.” They want to kill ALL Americans, regardless of race, creed, religion, or political philosophy.
Right again. the jihadists are a real enemy to us. That fact doesn’t make Bush correct in his wars
Do I think that it’s treasonous to willfully and intentionally attempt to undermine a sitting president in a time of war? Yes.
It’s your opinion that dissent is “undermining” and “treasonous”. Well, tough, that’s free speech. I’m a patriotic American who happens to think Bush is a dangerous incompentent asswipe who managed to become president on his last name, despite his stupidity and ignorance.
Do most Libs in general stand for bigger government, higher taxes, and more spending?
Despite being wrong, the biggest spender of American history is the Chimp in the White House.
Embrace who you are Libs. Libs constantly criticize what W. is doing, but I have yet to hear of a better plan from anyone on the left. It’s like asking your significant other where they want to got to dinner, and then shooting down every suggestion, with no input of your own.
The right hears nothing because they don’t listen. have you even tried to read what the Dems post?
Do most Libs condone abortion? Yes. In my opinion, backed up by scientific eveidence, abortion is murder. That’s another argument, however. This posting contains no hate or vitriole the way some of the postings aimed at me do. It contains facts Scientifically speaking, a sperm cell is “alive” because it moves, metabolizes, and reproduces. An egg cell is considered to be scientifically alive for the same reason. If these two cells meet, and begin to multiply, then they are scientifically alive. Just because it’s not visible doesn’t make it not alive. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have to worry about bacteria, protists, or fungi. When you kill a living thing, it’s murder, according to the law. I say this not to offend or polarize, but to offer support for my opinion. If you are someone you know has had an abortion, I make no pretense of being morally superior to you so as to pass judgement on youAgain, I’m just offering evidence to support my opinion. .
You know nothing of my position on abortion, but that is another topic entirely.
Why do “we” want “us” out of the U.N.? The U.N. is unethical, and impotent. They do not serve the interests of the U.S., although we are one of the security council members. And for those of you who say there are no WMDs in Iraq, what of all the barrels of chemical agents that can be combined to make chemical weapons? What of the NBC suits found? What of the atropine injectors found? What of the thousands of pages of documentation found listing ingredients on how to make Nuclear and chemical weapons? What of the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds? All of this, in my opinion, flies in the face of those that would argue that there were no WMDsin Iraq.
There is a total international consensus that there were no viable WMDs in Iraq before the BushII invasion. This was explicitly acknowledged by both Powell in 2/01 and Rice in 7/01, before 9/11 and before the war.
I appreciate evryone taking the time to read what I post, and I hope everyone has a good day. GOD bless America. Posted by: Ryan Daugherty at September 28, 2006 01:20 PM
Thanks. Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 28, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #184769

Eric-

I live on a farm between Augusta, GA and Columbia. We’ve got people coming from all over buying up the real estate at astronomical (to us locals) prices. You might as well join them!

Posted by: George in SC at September 28, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #184788

Ryan Daugherty-
Typical this, typical that, Libs are like this, libs are like that. Etc, etc.

It’s nice that you stand up for yourself and everything, but you’re not quite seeing yourself as others do. You use very provocative language, yet seem rather indignant that people get up in arms. How dare they be insulted by my degrading comments!

With all the self respect you obviously have, can you not respect that people feel you stereotype them, that you misunderstand and underestimate them?

As for al-Jazeera, it doesn’t kiss the west’s butt or anything, but it’s nowhere near the worst. Try Hezbollah’s station. al-Jazeera is actually quite progressive in the region, and could be an ally if we’re willing to respect freedom of the press outside our borders.

On the subject of self-hating libs, I think you misunderstand the majority of us. It’s not self hatred to admit you have limitations and have made mistakes. If anything, it shows even less confidence to perpetually push a positive image in the absence of an accompanying reality.

The number of true al-Qaeda style terrorists is actually quite small, and according to the findings in that NIE, they are not necessarily well liked. The 9/11 Commission Report also talks about this, saying that many people in the Middle East find them to be obnoxious. That can work to our advantage, if we can present ourselves as less obnoxious.

The Right takes an approach based on a panicked assumption that only with greater power can we defend America. The 9/11 Report, though, cites many places where the appropriate use of information and the proper use of existing resources could vastly improve our security. Are we not bound to try less desperate methods first, and leave pushing the envelope for when we’ve failed to do it by all means available to us under the law?

We need a better dialogue with folks in the Middle East, and Iraq is an obstacle to that. I agree with the NIE’s conclusion that its important that we successfully conclude the war there, rather than just amputate our presence. I don’t see, though, how current policy is capable of acheiving it. So far, it’s been an uninterrupted downhill slide.

If undermining a president in a time of war is a bad thing, then using your logic on the period of the late 90’s, your people are guilty of treason. I suppose, then, we should mutually drop this standard, as Democracy is inherently about different factions trying to undermine the dominance of other factions. Of course, the way this is supposed to occur is by opposition and presentation of alternative agendas. We’ve presented them out the wazoo, but they seem to be misplaced by Republican when they try and recall whether we have any plans. Condi Rice, in critiquing Clinton’s angry response to Chris Wallace, said they weren’t given the plans. NBC news reported they had been given a 52 page plan on it. They were also handed an active investigation on the Cole. Care to share with us what Bush did in response to an deadly attack on an American Naval vessel?

What do I stand for? Government that is big enough to do what we ask of it well, paid for with fewer tax dollars in the present, rather than more in the future, and spending that is appropriate, productive for the American people, not wasteful, and not inefficient. Liberalism is recognizing that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. We should be willing to both try better ways of government, and to give up on disappointments.

By your definition of what life is, we murder on a constant basis just by digesting bacteria. The question of Abortion is a contentious one, but its not one made better by blood-drenched rhetoric and moralizing condemnation of folks who do not follow religious doctrines that see those cells as a distinct lifeform.

Science doesn’t comment one way or the other. If you believe the potential or the identity of a fertilized egg or embryo makes it a person, like I do, then Abortion is wrong. If it’s just a clump of cells that’s still part of the mother in most respects, then Abortion is simply a woman’s right to choose. An especially literate scientific mind could add that until a certain point, most of the genetic development of the child works off of the mother’s genes, with development only handed off to the individual’s DNA later. This is part of the bewildering complexity that makes clean assertions like yours, and those of some abortion advocates shaky.

More reasonable arguments, couched with greater subtlety would likely do more good for the movement. As it is, the strident moralizing on what is indeed an ambiguous religious and physiological question only serves to make people more defiant about defending abortion.

On the topic of the UN, the UN is a political body, between nations that are not all nice and compliant. I’m sure it needs a great deal of reform, but it needs two things from us, if we’re to be reformers. First, we have to respect it as an institution. Without the respect, calls for reform fall on deaf ears or are seen as threats to the system itself.

If you’re going to constantly try to circumvent it, I don’t know why you’re bothering to mourn for its impotence. We could get more mileage out of it if we tried, but that of course would validate the UN as an organization, which I’m sure many Republicans would find distasteful.

As for WMDs in Iraq? We were looking for usuable, potent weapons, delivery systems, and the programs to manufacture them. What could be found there that pointed to that? We weren’t going to war to take away hazmat suits and chemical igredients that could be used for peaceful purposes. A million pages of documentation were no reason either, without the machinery to bring about the manufacture of these things. Also, the past use of WMDs had nothing to do with the presence of those weapons showing up in the here and now. He used a shitload of mustard gas and Nerve gas on Iran during the long war on the border. All that remains of such stockpiles are corroded shells with decayed ingredients. We didn’t go to war to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass rugburn.

The supposedly imminent threat was the stockpiling and production of usable CBRN weapons. They didn’t have them, and neither did they have much of any terrorist around to hand them to.

As for the release of tapes to al-Jazeera? Well, let me put it this way: if you want to release a presidential statement that you want as many people to see as possible, who do you give it to? Not the local podunk station, but the big, highly rated network, where people are going to see it. It’s not an agenda that determines the Arab Satellite Networks selection as the carrier of this message, it’s the audience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #184831
You forget that Bush did not take office until Febuary because of the “Vote trials” by Al Gore.

Bush took the oath of office (where he PROMISED to uphold the Constitution) on January 20, 2001…

Posted by: Lynne at September 28, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #184845

My mistake about the timing of office. I was abroad at thye time and all I kept hearing was a court will delay. I never followed up. But what about the rest of my argument, that is the real point.
TO REFRESH:
“More over where is the blame put? Where does it belong - Ben Laden (al Qidea) - no we, or at least half of us, blame the victim in some way or another. Why????
We see the threat now. So we must do something. Kissing up to this minority has never paid in the 300 years of its philosophical existance. It was always violent and in the end unpopular among the Muslim people.
Doing nothing has led to its rise. Let us remember that the greatest price is paid by the Muslim people - take Iraq - Look at it closely. The dead are the Iraqis that stand up against the jihadists. Our losses pale in numbers. The same goes for Hamas and Fatah. They have killed more of their own nation. Why, you ask? They must control the masses to control the conflicts.
I knew of Arafat and his gang long before he became the so called fighter and polititian. They were in the intimadation and pay for work busness - the mafia, if you recall. They killed or burnt out all who did not yeald.
You have to understand this to understand the dynamics. One of the mistakes the British made in the mid-1800’s when they met these “extreamists” was to ignore or ineffectively deal with the “rebels” (meaning they did limited punishment operations, but left before the full problem was delt with). It cost them lives and changed their policy to retreatest, instead of development.
Defeat of the jihadist will end this cycle, until we are less vigalent and forget that they are there. Our surrender will give them the “eggs” to boast of their sucess and the rightiousness of their cause. This will end in more blood at home than we have suffered.
I am a realist in this matter and as I have said I speak from over 20 years at the cauldren of infestation, We retreat and we sign our children’s death warrent in an ageless war. We get the “eggs” to win and we will prevail.”
K

Posted by: Kuzriel at September 28, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #184895

Who will protect us from Islam? The people who will protect the American people from Republicans and their corporation’s business policies.

Posted by: Zena at September 28, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #184906
My mistake about the timing of office. I was abroad at thye time and all I kept hearing was a court will delay. I never followed up.

Lazy, lazy, lazy…how hard it is to look up on the Internet…especially since you use it to preface your remarks which depend on the truth of your statement…it’s been almost 6 years!!! Someone too lazy to look up that simple fact has no arguments to impress me on anything…

Posted by: Lynne at September 28, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #184961

My, my a sharp toung for an internet liberal junky. All things are not on the internet and all things on the internet are not true. You tell us that we are the coolaid drinkers, at least I’m honest enough to admit my mistakes, no matter the size - where are you and your kind? In the ceasepool of blame America, Bush and Republicans? Have you no critical thinking apperatus but repeating “talking points” of nea sayers?
K

Posted by: kuzriel at September 28, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #184993

Stephen,

Wow. Good post. That should be a thread all by itself. Wish I had the time and temperment to respond like that these days, this gives me hope I can regain it.

P.S. “Mass rugburn”? How did you come up with that?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 29, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #185031

Ryan,

And for those of you who say there are no WMDs in Iraq, what of all the barrels of chemical agents that can be combined to make chemical weapons? What of the NBC suits found? What of the atropine injectors found? What of the thousands of pages of documentation found listing ingredients on how to make Nuclear and chemical weapons? What of the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds? All of this, in my opinion, flies in the face of those that would argue that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

The lack of any WMDs found in Iraq, in my opinion, flies in the face of those that would argue that there were WMDs in Iraq.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #185033

Ryan,

Scientifically speaking, a sperm cell is “alive” because it moves, metabolizes, and reproduces. An egg cell is considered to be scientifically alive for the same reason. If these two cells meet, and begin to multiply, then they are scientifically alive. Just because it’s not visible doesn’t make it not alive. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have to worry about bacteria, protists, or fungi. When you kill a living thing, it’s murder, according to the law.

Human’s white blood cells are the worst serial-killer ever.
Let’s ban white blood cells. Now.

Or could we move from “alive” cells to a more rational “self-substained life” organisms debate?
At which time a fertilized egg could self-subtain, aka without the help of the mother body?

From start? Let’s try it… nope.
From one minute? Trying… nope, again.
One day? One week? One month? Nope, nope, nope.

I guess “life” could be very short, even without abortion in the equation.

Oh, BTW, your body just murder more than thousand of thousand of alive organisms during the time your read this post. How immoral could you be!? Stop this now, please, it’s disgusting, and go to the nearest police station to get arrested.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 29, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #185057

kuzriel:

All things are not on the internet and all things on the internet are not true.

You are still being quite intellectually (and I use the term very lightly) dishonest…you screwed up…it was information that was easily found and yet you didn’t do your little 30 seconds of homework to find out when Bush was inaugurated…I’m sure whitehouse.gov has changed that date just to screw you up further…

You’re still lazy.

Posted by: Lynne at September 29, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #185081

This isn’t about “violent Islam” it’s about small local forces wanting foreign occupiers to leave prized territory, as it has been since the beginnings of suicide terrorism. And casting Islamic extremists as completely irrational homicidal maniacs is dehumanizing oversimplification. We need realistic profiles of the enemy, not stick figure drawings. Those who push these fallacies into public debate and policy do a disservice to us all.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 29, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #185086
(Where are all the Plame-jihadists ready to frog-march Rove out of the white house for compromising national security?)

The Plame leak exposed an active covert agent. Leaking the NIE and the warrantless wiretapping exposed analysis and questionable tactics respectively and does not expose any individual directly or amount to harm in any way. The Plame leak is tantamount to a crime. The latter leaks are closer to whistle-blowing. But it’s obvious you conflate because you have a weak position.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 29, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #185091
Sadly, those who now claim that they did everything possible to kill Bin Laden and engage in a ‘war on terror’ before they knew there even was one now engage in petty partisan attacks casting the full blame on Bush.

The framing of this as “blame Bush” or “blame Clinton” is disingenuous on both sides. The perpetrators were responsible for 911. The “which president is to blame” game is not actually about culpability, it’s about systemic failure. If you really want to blame a president, you need to go back to Truman.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 29, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #185100

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 29, 2006 12:14 PM

Well said JB!

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #185136

JB,

The blame for 9/11 is rarely placed on Bush himself unless as a baited reply to a (r)winger nonsense post such as “Clinton blew it while getting blown”.
Bush is responsible for demoting the terror czar in favor of stopping stem cell research and starting the Iraq war and, according to Condi, thousands of other “mistakes”.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 29, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #185213

Kuzriel,
Half the people want to blame the victim? Do you mean the fifty percent of Americans that believe bushco’s assertions that Iraq was responsible? Or do you mean the victims of our pre-emptive war?

The most recent victim of terrorism is our own constitution. All of the congressmen and senators KNEW as they voted that much of this legislation was unconstitutional. But they voted foe it so they could try to club democrats with it in an election year. Some democrats voted for it so they didn’t get clubbed with it. What a cynical and corrupt act.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 29, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #185231

Dave1-20-09-
Keith Olbermann, in his scathing critique on the so-called discovery of WMDs by Rick Santorum and Pete Hoekstra spoke of how the degraded blister agent in the shells was only capable of giving a person a chemical burn, a rugburn in his words.

I think it’s important to point out that it was the perceived threat to America that motivated many to support the invasion of Iraq, not merely some altruistic impulse towards the Iraqi’s under Saddam’s rule, or the impulse to slay that Baathist dragon. After all, we had a more deadly serpent on the scene.

The Republicans fail to consider that much of the Democratic discontent has been over priorities. We’ve always thought the destruction of al-Qaeda was paramount. The Republicans, though, have ressurrected their wish lists of rogue state targets, and have virtually derailed the true war on terror by their actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #185238

I believe Bill Clinton should be held accountable for admitted criminal crimes on national T.V. in front of millions of viewers. According to Clinton, he tried to kill Bin Laden numerous times, but missed. And according to Bill, he tried harder to kill Bin Laden then anyone else has. The crime here is violations of 3 differant executive orders, signed by 3 differant Presidents. executive order 111905 sighed Feb 118, 1976 by President Ford stated ” No employee of the U.S. Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in political assasination”. Executive order 12036 signed by Jimmy Carter broadens the prohibition from political assasination to ” assasination” executive order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagen stated that no intelligence community shall participate in or request any person to undertake assasination. It seems to me that Bill Clinton just admitted to violating previous Executive orders, now I do believe that this is a crime. If he’s going to admit that, what is he keeping to himself about his ” legacy”.

Posted by: George at September 29, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #185242

Stephen,

Thanks, I missed that report. I’m only recently tolerating NBC again now that the rightwing MSM (ABC, FOX clearly excepted) are slowly moving back to some journalism. I agree taht it’s critical to remind people of what BushII used to lead us into this grotesque fiasco in the first place.

George,

OBL is not a leader of a foreign nation, recognized or otherwise. Yes, I know it was sarcasm.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 29, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #185277

Ex- President Jimmy Carter issued his executive order stating that assasination of anyone, political or not will not be tolerated. Reagan noted that no Government employee will assasinate anyone. The point being, whether political or not, it is currently illegal for a President to order the assasination of anyone. Bill Clinton just confessed to attempted assasination of a foreign national. I don’t believe this will ever go any further, the Clintons are the darlings of the media, nobody will pursue this. According to the media, during the Clinton years, its OK to lie, oral sex is not sex, and recently, its justified to lose your temper and confess to breaking the law, without being held accountable. The Clintonistas are really revising history. Noyhing will ever come of this and that is sad.

Posted by: George at September 30, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #185278

Am I lazy - no more than you my friend. I made a mistake, I admitted that. I am intellectually as honest or dishonest as the next guy. Another reason is Bush bashing - even Clinton bashing is forbidden in my world, They were elected - you don’t like the policy - vote them out, but have a plan.
American politics doesnot intrest me, only where its behaviour crosses my intrests - Islam, Judaism, Israel, Middle East. Do I vote? Yes, Like my fathers for 8 generations before me - Democrat, until Ragan, Bush and Bush.
You, my friend remind me of a saying “….. spread it thick enough to fertalize the Sinai”. You swollow party talking points and regurgitate them without engaging your brain. You arm-chair things without knowledge - I made a mistake and admitted it. Can you do the same or like the Almighty never make mistakes, never lazy and are always right.
k

Posted by: kuzriel at September 30, 2006 4:46 AM
Comment #185296

It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right.
Winston Churchill

Posted by: Jeff S at September 30, 2006 9:00 AM
Comment #185315

George,

(a) def’n: as·sas·si·nate (-ss-nt)
- To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons

By default, assassinate is used in political terms. The orders were intended to stop the covert murder of foreign heads of state, such as was our policy in south/central America. It was a public statement of contrition. Anyway, people like you think the Geneva convention doesn’t apply to suspected terrorists, so why do you give a shot at a rolling donut about killing OBL?

(B) Clinton never loses his temper. The assault on Wallace was planned as well as justified. Also, Getting head from Monica has NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq. BushCo is taking their clue from the Party (as in 1984), I only hope Goldstein wins out this time.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 30, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #185316

kuzriel:

Thank you for finally admitting that you based your post on faulty information that was easily obtainable but for which you failed to search (it as a 30-second search, at most!)…

But how you can equate my pointing out your intellectual laziness as “Bush bashing” and “following the party line” are totally disingenuous!

You’re proved my point…thank you, very much.

Posted by: Lynne at September 30, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #185352
The blame for 9/11 is rarely placed on Bush himself unless as a baited reply to a (r)winger nonsense post such as “Clinton blew it while getting blown”.

That may be, but there’s no reason to fall into that trap.

Bush is responsible for demoting the terror czar in favor of stopping stem cell research and starting the Iraq war and, according to Condi, thousands of other “mistakes”.

No argument from me.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 30, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #185441

So thus ends another coversation by the enlightened. A person who errors in a fact, and appoligises twice, is called Lazy and the rest of his question is ignored - grammer and spelling police are worst. No one forgives a sinner, when he repents. His questions are left in the relm of his sin. And the one that catches the sin become the saint who destroys the evil of this world - he achieves this by taking on g-d like qualities of being smarter than ignorence.
STILL MY OUSTION IS UNHEARD!!!

“More over where is the blame put? Where does it belong - Ben Laden (al Qidea) - no we, or at least half of us, blame the victim in some way or another. Why????
We see the threat now. So we must do something. Kissing up to this minority has never paid in the 300 years of its philosophical existance. It was always violent and in the end unpopular among the Muslim people.
Doing nothing has led to its rise. Let us remember that the greatest price is paid by the Muslim people - take Iraq - Look at it closely. The dead are the Iraqis that stand up against the jihadists. Our losses pale in numbers. The same goes for Hamas and Fatah. They have killed more of their own nation. Why, you ask? They must control the masses to control the conflicts.
I knew of Arafat and his gang long before he became the so called fighter and polititian. They were in the intimadation and pay for work busness - the mafia, if you recall. They killed or burnt out all who did not yeald.
You have to understand this to understand the dynamics. One of the mistakes the British made in the mid-1800�s when they met these �extreamists� was to ignore or ineffectively deal with the �rebels� (meaning they did limited punishment operations, but left before the full problem was delt with). It cost them lives and changed their policy to retreatest, instead of development.
Defeat of the jihadist will end this cycle, until we are less vigalent and forget that they are there. Our surrender will give them the �eggs� to boast of their sucess and the rightiousness of their cause. This will end in more blood at home than we have suffered.
I am a realist in this matter and as I have said I speak from over 20 years at the cauldren of infestation, We retreat and we sign our children�s death warrent in an ageless war. We get the �eggs� to win and we will prevail.”
The victims are first the Muslim population, and then the people the extreamists kill in their attacks.
k

Posted by: kuzriel at September 30, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #185486

kuzriel,

Yes, your question is unheard. Unfortunately, when something is written with so many misspellings, so many mistaken words, so many grammatical mistakes, and so many other mistakes, the content of the message will not be heard. Of course, prefacing the content with an error of fact doesn’t help, but we’ve gone over that.

I’ve tried several times to read your comment to figure out what you want in response to it, and I simply cannot figure it out. The writing level is so poor that I cannot dig through it to get to your point. I suspect I’m not the only one.

I suppose you’ll chalk this up to “grammer and spelling police are worst”. But it’s not just that we are being pedantic; it’s that we can’t understand you. Even your complaint here causes trouble; do you mean “the worst”, or did you misspell “worse” as “worst”? You see, even in this small phrase, there are enough problems that I have to spend time trying to figure out what you mean. When that happens multiple times in each sentence (as happens in your “OUESTION”), it is just not worth the effort it would take to try to figure out what you are saying and what you expect in response.

Posted by: LawnBoy at September 30, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #185502

Excuse my ignorane. Come stay in my village. What you speak and write would get you laughed at, if not shunned or a rock thrown at you for being retarded. I speak well enouh and inspite of my typing it seems that I have been quite clear to others.

1.More over where is the blame put? Where does it belong - Ben Laden (al Qidea) or US.
POINT:”We get the �eggs� to win and we will prevail.�
The victims are first the Muslim population, and then the people the extreamists kill in their attacks.”

ATLEAST I try to communicate in a fifth language - unlike others who won’t or can’t. As I said “so much for dialogue” Where is the attempt to understand my culture and language, as I try yours??
K

Posted by: kuzriel at October 1, 2006 3:01 AM
Comment #185529

If English really is your fifth language, then I applaud your efforts.

What are your language and culture? Perhaps I or someone else here has already taken the time to understand them. However, I’m not sure that I’ve encountered any culture in which rocks are thrown at a person that tries to improve communication.

If the question you feel is unanswered is simply where we should put the blame, then your question has been answered, although not directly in response to you:

See Rhinehold at September 27, 2006 10:33 AM
See Joseph Briggs at September 29, 2006 12:14 PM

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 1, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #185532
That may be, but there’s no reason to fall into that trap. Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 30, 2006 12:30 PM
True, there is nothing to be gained from responding in kind; other than sometimes you just have to rage against the machine (or in this case, against the machines sheep) Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 1, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #185548

English is my 5th language. I learned to speak it as a child but never learned to write so well. My mother spoke Ladino, a mixture of Spanish and Hebrew. My Father spoke English and German. Normally I communicate with my children in Hebrew (they too learned to speak but not read or write English, my son translates to Arabic at Disney), My wife in French and now a lot more English - although her Polish and Russian has always been the stumbling block for me- and my students in Arabic or Hebrew. I have retired now and I hope will improve with age. My dabbles are Farsi and Urdu, and some Amhari - two years I taught Hebrew to Ethiopians.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at October 1, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #194828

Name: Agha Dilbar(deserves for the noble peace prize)

Website:No-1 aghadilbar No-2 aghadilbar2 No-3 aghadilbar3

E-mail aghadilbar3@yahoo.com

Location: Lahore, Pakistan

Topic: Peace Comments Change the World with Peace and Prosperity 10-Million Urgent Peace letters to Head of States, UN, Parliaments, Political Parties, TV News Channels, International Newspapers, Magazines, Universities, Think tanks, Amnesty International and Welfare NGOs, all over the World Subject: Friendship, Progress and Prosperity for peace throughout the World I Agha Dilbar Founder International Revolution Movement have sent10-Million research Peace Letters to International Community from 11-September 2001(9/11) till today about War on Terror. Our NGO International Revolution Movement (IRM) has 3-Principles, Friendship, Progress and Prosperity all over the World. Our NGO, s programmed is for The Welfare of International Community and to save the Human Being from 3rd World War and World Terrorism. I Agha Dilbar have a Great Peace Plan for Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Middle East and Iraq to stop and eliminate Suicidal Bomb Attacks and State Terrorism, all over The World. Some Powerful Underground Groups want to begin 3rd World War for their worst intentions. World should remember that religion Islam is a religion of Peace Security, Fraternity and Love. We Muslims are not concerned with any sort of Terrorism; Terrorists are only using the name of Islam. Likewise people using the name of Islam to pretence are not Muslims. They are only Terrorists. I, Agha Dilbar on emergency ground want to present solid suggestions to International Community, regarding their policies on War against Terrorism, Can be saved from Economic Crisis, I should be given a chance to make Open Speech and Dialogue, on the leading TV News Channels to eliminate Poverty, Unemployment and Lawlessness at International level. I am warning the International Community that according to my previous Research spread over a period of 5-years; it is evident that sufficient Intentional or Unintentional efforts have not been made to eradicate The Root Causes of Terrorism in all its forms and manifestations (Suicide Bombing and Destructive Tendencies). As a result thereof it is quite possible that there may be dramatic hundred times (100%) Increase in the Incidences of Terrorism and Suicide Bombing in the near future. For the sake of World Peace, I therefore request the International Community to provide me an Opportunity to explain to them, the root causes of World Terrorism and Suicide Bombings as to take bold steps to put an end to its basic causes. In Nutshell instead of using Brute Force, try to solve the matter through Table Talk. I should convince those who are on the wrong track that they are their Well - wisher and are interested to develop Friendship for mutual Progress. In the Reward of my Sincere Services, I please be given a chance of Official Visit to Interested Countries for Elaborating my Great Peace Plan before the Head of States and other concerned Higher Authorities. Regards Please Donate Funds for International Peace Campaign for conveying message of Peace through Friendship, Progress and Prosperity by International Revolution Movement in a better way 1000 times more, We Need Funds on Urgent Bases. Please send your Donations to Bank account: Allied Bank of Pakistan, Lahore Branch: ABL, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore-0688Account: Agha Dilbar Account No.001100-5809-2 Agha Dilbar founder International Revolution Movement64-neelum, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore (Pakistan) Ph: 0092-42-7830084, Mobile: 0300-4370258 (website:aghadilbar) Thanks for using this service. Please E-mail these peace letters to your friends, for the welfare of Humanity. Thank you for your participation. We appreciate your contribution for Humanity (Live with Dignity and Dye with Grace. Guide Line from Agha Dilbar) Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.2) Subject: Agha Dilbar request for a chance of Open Speech and Dialogue To World Community for Peace. We want Peace not War. I Agha Dilbar have a Great Peace Plan for the World Community. This is A Great Treasure for Humanity. After following my Great Peace Plan, War on Terror will fight through UN Principles. I request to all the Head of States, UN, Parliaments, Political Parties, TV News Channels, International Newspapers and Magazines, Think Tanks, Universities, Amnesty International And Welfare NGOs, Please invite me in your Countries, Institutions, TV Shows, Media Forums to give me a chance of Open Speech and Dialogue about my Great Peace Plan. Thanks .I am sure that my Great Peace Plan will protect the Impending 3rd world War. After following the instructions contained in my Great Peace Plan, People of The World become Prosperous and Developed according to the latest Scientific Era. I Agha Dilbar have a Great Peace Plan, which depends upon, Friendship, Progress and Prosperity throughout the World. I hope that World Community will favor my Great Peace Plan quickly. Any question about my Great Peace Plan? Write directly to me. Thanks and Regards. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No. 3) Subject: Make the UN Peace Force strongest force of the World to save The World coming from on 3rd World War and State Terrorism, I Agha Dilbar warns the World Community that Israel should be Stopped from genocide and atrocities committed in Palestine and Labnan, In the wake of these Atrocities there must be more Suicidal Bombing and many other Horrible Incidences like 9/11 Attacks due to revenge, which can cause 3rd World War Any time.1) To begin the coming 3rd World War the owners of many Armament producing Factories are playing their roll very actively; so that they can get New Orders after the old stock get exhausted during the 3rd World War. I am putting on alert, UN, Head of States, Parliaments, Political Parties, TV News Channels, International Newspapers and Magazines, Universities, Think Tanks, Amnesty International and welfare NGO,s all over the World, that afterThe3rd World War the Progress and Prosperity of all the Rich, Developed, Under Developed, Poor and Backward Countries of the World will become a dream In the wake of their Economic Crisis.3) Current Powerful, Rich and Developed Nations should keep in mind, That Even if they conquer the Weak Poor and Backward Nations their Armies will Have to face an upended Gorilla War in the occupied regions for the Next Five, Ten or Twenty Years, which might result in the destruction of? Their Defense Power and Economy. Here is a live example of Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq.4) According to Agha Dilbar strategy, the entire giant disputes of the World Like Palestine, Kashmir Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq could only be solved Through UN Peace Force, after making it the strongest force in the World. I am positive that instead of using the wrong tactics of power in solving The above mentioned disputes of the World, will try to solve these amicably Through Friendship, Progress and Prosperity can avert World Terrorism and 3rd World War. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.4)Subject: Agha Dilbar,s request to Rich and Developed Nations not to crush Underdeveloped and Poor Nations with State Terrorism or by starting 3rdWorld War .As per my research the State Terrorism in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq may cause of 3rd World War and Hundred Times Suicide Bombing all over the World. My message to UN is to crush the State Terrorism through UN Peace Force in Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya. Also in the war affected areas. UN Peace Force should make practical efforts to solve Disputes with Table Talk, through Friendship Progress and Prosperity; All over the World .I hope the UN would be successful by implementing my Great Peace Plan, Friendship, Progress and Prosperity in disputed countries all over the World. If UN failed to bring Peace in these countries then 3rd World War and World Terrorism would be resulting in death of Twenty Crore People and Complete destruction of World Economy. Remember as per my research the next 3rd World War would not be an Atomic War, but it will be fought through traditional newly invented Dangerous Weapons. There will be no doubt that Developed and Rich Countries Forces Equipped with newly invented Dangerous Weapons will win the 3rd World War. In case of starting 3rd World War, Developing Countries and their Survival Countries involved in the long Gorilla War for their survival. Resultantly the World Community will totally collapse. Therefore in view above stated positions, the Developed Countries, possessing Fatal Weapons Should, instead of conquering the Under Developed, Poor Countries by Force, May achieve the goal through Friendship, Progress and Prosperity with the help of UN, so that permanent World Peace should be brought. Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.5) Subject: New Revolutionary Planning to eradicate the worst Economic Crisis at the International Level I Agha Dilbar present new revolutionary planning to the World Community to Eradicate the worst Economic Crisis. After the implementation of these Suggestions all the Developed Rich Countries and Underdeveloped Poor Countries will enter in a new golden era of Friendship, Progress andProsperity.1) According to new business strategy of Agha Dilbar, all the Developed and Rich Countries of Europe, America and Asia will contribute @ 1% of their Annual National Budgets as a free aid to the Underdeveloped, Poor Countries for their Education, Health and Agriculture projects.2) In future all the Developed Rich Countries will make a final Decision to Produce commercial loans in Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Education at The rate of 1% Interest.3) In future all the Developed Rich Countries of the World will get the50%Profit of all the commercial projects installed in Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Education fields, of poor and underdeveloped countries. Rest of the 50% profit will be spent on the welfare projects of Underdeveloped Poor Countries in the fields of Health, Education, Agriculture and Industry etc.4) Moreover Developed Rich Countries of the World will bound to pay 50% of their earnings in Gas, Oil, Electricity and in the projects of minerals like Coal, Steel, Jewels, Gold as royalty to the Underdeveloped Poor Countries of The World.5) In future Developed Rich Countries of the World will make a treaty Through BOOT, according to which Under Developed Poor Countries will Provide Free land on 20 years lease for the commercial projects in Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Education etc. Under the BOOT_ Treaty all the Investors of Developed Rich Countries will Hand Over their Business Assets, Buildings, Machinery and Transport to the Undeveloped Poor Countries after 20_Years Free of cast.5) after above said business strategy, introduced by Agha Dilbar in Future may avoid World Terrorism and 3rd World War on its implementation. This Plan requires the Rich Developed Countries to invest on big commercial Projects In the fields of Agriculture; Industry and Trade in Under Developed Poor Countries to promote Friendship, mutual Progress and Prosperity. Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.6) Subject: Agha Dilbar Great Peace Plan to give the command of forces of All The countries UN Peace Force to decide War against any TerroristCountry.1) Under the resolution of UN Security Council, to control the coming 3rd World War and World Terrorism, to make the UN Peace Force the most Powerful Force of the World. Following rules and regulations will be acted upon.2) In future UN Peace Force would be given the command of forces of all The Countries and UN Peace Force will decide whether to wage a War against any Terrorist Country or not.3) In future UN Peace Force will be Independent to take any timely Action against Terrorist Country.4) Under the UN Security Council Resolution, UN will take the charge of all Armament Producing Factories of the World in future. And in the said Factories the production would be curtailed to 25% only, and the rest of 75%Production would take place in the form of Cars, Buses, Trucks, Tractors, Trains, Ships, Aero Planes and Latest Machinery.5) After tacking the charge of all the International Forces, UN Peace Force will convert 25% of army into UN Peace Force, and rest of the 75% will be? Be Appointed to build, Dams, Canals, Roads, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Sports Complexes, Heavy Industries and projects of Oil, Gas and Minerals. 6) UN Security Council will pass a resolution, under which it will take of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction into its custody and will dispose of gradually in future; peaceful use of Atomic Energy would be promoted in all the countries. Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.7) Subject: The Powerful, Developed countries should not initiate the 3rd World War. The rich nations in spite of their victory will have to face the Destruction of their Defense Power and Economy in the Long Gorilla War.1) According to Agha Dilbar s research on War against Terrorism Rich and Developed Countries of the World should never take an emotional step of Initiating the War on the bases of their Defense and their EconomicPower2) If their exist such few Terrorist Countries, then to destroy such Countries War should be fought from the platform of UN Peace Force .3) Rich and Powerful Countries should remember that due to state Terrorism In Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq the bloody events Like 9/11 could take hundred times in revenge.4) If Rich and Powerful Nations do not take a positive and strong step To Stop the State Terrorism in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya through UN Peace Force and instead they start aimless 3rd World War, then their would be Hundred Times more Suicidal Terrorist Attacks in revenge.5) According to Agha Dilbar s research, in the wake of 3rd World War, Twenty Crore innocent people will fall prey to death .6) In the wake of expected 3rd World War Rich and Powerful Nations in Spite of becoming victorious will have to face a worst Gorilla War in theNext5, 10, 20 years, which will destroy the Defense and Economic Power of Victorious countries.7) According to Agha Dilbar s Research, World Terrorism and Suicidal Bombing Should be rooted out through UN Peace Force or through Table Talk.8) It is the best Advice to Rich and Powerful Nations from Agha Dilbar That Instead of staging 3rd World War they should keep the veneration of the Global village and its people and try to solve the disputed problems Through UN Table Talk and take the step of Friendship for mutual Progress and Prosperity. Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.8) Subject: A New Plan of Agha Dilbar for solutions of disputes between Enemy Countries instead War or Terrorism and convert them to promote, Friendship Mutual Progress and Prosperity1) The disputed issues should be resolved through Table Talk instead of War or Terrorist Activities, between enemy countries.2) The enemy countries should launch mutual Cultural Shows on permanent basis.3) The disputed enemy countries start on large scale mutual Import /Export Facility on Barter Treaty.4) The Disputed Enemy Countries should provide mutual Scholarships to their Talent Students on equal basis.5) The disputed enemy countries should sign Mutual Pacts to construct Schools, Colleges, Universities and Hospitals for welfare purposes.6) The disputed enemy Countries should sign pacts for reducing the Arms and Engaging their Armies for construction of Dams, Canals, Highways, Bridges, Sports Complexes, Schools, Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Airports, Sea Ports and Heavy Industries.7) The disputed enemy countries should co-operate to finish Terrorism In their countries on equal basis.8) The disputed enemy countries should start mutual Economic Programmed for giving Jobs to Doctors, Engineers, Mechanics, Electricians and Labor on equal basis in their countries.9) The disputed enemy countries should sign mutual pacts to construct Dams, Canals, Motorways, Bridges, Five star Hotels, Airports, Seaports and Heavy Industries. With the help of above Agha Dilbar plan the disputed enemy countries would be able to solve disputes and stop War and Terrorist Activities. Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.9Subject: According to Agha Dilbar s research, what type of acute? Horrible and dreadful problems, World Community will have to face during and after The coming 3rd World War.1) If UN fails to avert the coming 3rd World War, which would be fought with Traditional Weapons, under these circumstances, World Community will have to Face the following expected terrible results.2) Powerful and Rich countries after making continuous attacks and Capturing At least four countries within the next few months, the 3rd World War would start Formally and it will continue for the next one year.3) In the coming 3rd World War, the allies of Powerful Rich Countries would Be Hundred in Number, and the Weak and Poor Countries against these Would also be Hundred.4) In the coming 3rd World War, around 20 Crore Innocent People would fall Prey to death, and about 50 Crore would get crippled.5) Due to the 3rd World War, about One Billion People homeless and Jobless after destruction of their cities, and they will have to live a Nomadic Life In the open places for the next 5, 10 or 20 years.6) During and after the 3rd World War there will be a 75% decline in The Business of Agriculture, Industry, Trade, Tourism, Import and Export in The Next 5 years.7) After the 3rd World War, there will be a chain of Bloody Revolutions In The Rich Develop Countries and Poor Underdeveloped Countries due to Inflation, Unemployment, Lawlessness and Corruption.8) To avert all these terrible consequences of the 3rd World War, I Agha Dilbar request UN and World Community to instead of making the Global Village a Fire, Terrorism and War, they should try to solve the burning Issues through Table Talk or UN Peace Force in a Friendly, Progressive and Prosperous way . Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.10) Subject: A Grate Peace Plan for UN and International Community to save The World coming on 3rd World War I Agha Dilbar put a Great Peace Plan, War against Terror, for the sake of World Community. I appeal UN to act upon my Great Peace Plan Unconditionally for the sake of World Peace.1) All countries of the World should make the strongest UN Peace Force.2) UN Peace Force should be given full authorities for the sake of World Peace in Kashmir, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sari lanka and Nepal etc where Peace Plan may be implemented war effected areas and all administrative authorities may allotted to the UN Peace Force till the Peace Restored completely4) I Agha Dilbar am afraid that the World Community may enter into the3rd World War, because of such disputes among the above mentioned Nations, are Acting may induce the bloody war. Which can increase losses of life and Economy Hundred Times? Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.11) Subject: World Community must support the Great Peace Plan of Agha Dilbar to stop the horrible, dreadful 3rd World War and World Terrorism1) For stopping the 3rd World War, which may erupt as a result of? Retaliation in Philistine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq State Terrorism, the World Community should support Agha Dilbar s Great Peace Mission. For this purpose, peace rallies should be organized in all big Cities as the next 3rd World War may take 200 Million innocent human Lives, besides crippling 500 Million People and starving, homeless One Billion People in addition to carrying inherent danger of Economic Crises.2) The World Community should awaken International awareness for making The UN Peace Force as the strongest Peace Enforcing Body having its control over Armies of all UN Member Countries.3) Apparently, Agha Dilbar s Great Peace Mission is a weak but truthful Concept, which with the help of World Community will compel the strong And Superpower armies to surrender before UN.4) The World Community should keep in mind that their support of this Great Peace Mission will change the 3rd World War and World Terrorism into Friendship Progress and Prosperity then the World will enter into a new Golden era. Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.12) Subject: Next 3rd World War is the Oil and Economic Interest War, which will Bring numerous International Revolutions between the Conquers and Concurred Nations1) World Community must remember that next 3rd World War is represented Religious War. Infect above mention war is the Oil and Economic Interest War.2) Next 3rd World War is the Oil and Economic Interest War, which will bring Numerous International Revolutions between the Conquers and Concurred Nations.3) International Anti-war demonstrations will play historic role to Stop the 3rd World War.4) The beginning of 3rd World War will prove strong grip of bureaucracy on the Democratic Institutions.5) The suspension of 3rd World War will crush the strong grip of International Bureaucratic Institutions. Agha Dilbar s Urgent Peace Letter No.13Subject: Agha Dilbar,s Practical Steps for Peace Mission and International Community Awareness1) All the vehicles throughout the World should affix a sticker saying “Peace not War”2) Posters with the same slogan,” Peace not War” should be displayed at all Public Places, like Shops, Showrooms, Hotels, Restaurants, Clubs, Schools, Colleges, Hospitals and Factories.3) World famous Singers, TV, Film and Stage Artists should present Songs, Stage Shows, Dramas and Films with this theme,” Peace not War”4) World Fame commercial and industrial organizations, Banks, Mills, Import Export and Insurance Concerns should advertise with this slogan: “PeaceNotWar”5) At International Level, Amnesty International and all the welfare NGO,S should organize public rallies of “Peace not War”6) The affected classes of World would be affected, 3rd World War, like Laborers Farmers Students, Women and Children should hold rallies in support of” Peace not War”7) The Social and Political Activists Teachers, Advocates, Politicians Intellectuals, World Famous Players and Social Workers should send E-mails(With a copy through International News Papers and Magazines) for Stoppage of War to those Head of States who are preparing for War.8) According to Agha Dilbar s Thesis, the only solution for preventing The Next 3rd World War is that the UN should be converted into the Worlds Strongest Peace Force instead of baseless speech forum. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.14Subject: To stop the 3rd World War all the Anti-War Countries should make use full strongest Media Radio, TV, Internet and Newspapers1) Anti-War Countries should make appeal for Peace not War the peace Loving People of the World.2) Anti-War Countries should prove their propaganda; the Superpowers of the World are fighting for the security of their wrong Economic, Oil andPowerInterest.3) Anti-War Countries should tell to the people of the World through their Media that next 3rd World War will become the cause Death of Two Hundred Million Innocent People and make Five hundred million People disabled.4) Anti-War Countries should tell the International Community that next3rdWorld War will become the cause of One Billion People Homeless and Unemployed. In this way they will live in Nomadic Life for the next5, 10 or20 years.5) Anti-War Countries should tell the International Community that next3rdWorld War will become the collapse of 75% International Business of Agriculture, Commerce, Industry, Tourism and Import Export. In this way all Rich and Poor Countries of the World will become the cause of Inflation, Unemployment Lawlessness and Corruption with consequences of Bloodshed. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.15Subject: A few Powerful Developed Countries want to Enforce Law of Jungle (Might is Right) after Conquering the World, International Community should Stand against it, Like an Iron Wall1) For controlling the Oil Resources of World, a few Developed Countries are Planning to enslave the International Community through next 3rd WorldWar.2) World Community should resist this move of Powerful Countries, who are Launching 3rd World War through false propaganda of Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction.3) The recent announcement of these countries has proved their Falsehood That they will not hesitate to form a new International Organization, if UN Security Council does not support their War Mission.4) The World Community must continue Peaceful Rallies for stopping the3rdWorld War, so that 200 Million People can be sued from Death, 500Million>From being Crippled and One Billion from Starvation and becomingHomeless.5) The World Community should act upon Agha Dilbar s Great Peace Plan by Establishing Anti-War Peace Force under UN Control.6) Agha Dilbar appeal to International Newspapers, Magazines and TV News Channels that my Great Peace Plan is printed / broadcast on urgent Basis, so that World Community must know it for stopping the 3rd World War. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.16) Subject: Stop War against Iraq for the World s Peace). 1Agha Dilbar am warning the Developed Powerful Countries to stop the War against Iraq, which can Cause of next 3rd World War any time.2) UN to make strong action to stop the War against Iraq or UN will Break any time.3) World Community should start Peaceful Demonstrations immediately against War on Iraq otherwise 6-Billion People will become the victim of Worst Economic Crisis.4) Developed Powerful Countries after winning the War against Iraq, will be Engaged in long Gorilla War next 5, 10 or 20 years which will destroy their Defense and Economic Power.5) If the present War against Iraq continues 100% Suicidal Attacks can Take Place in Revenge.6) To stop the present Iraq War, it is Agha Dilbar s Great Peace Plan UN Peace Force goes in Iraq immediately for World Peace.7) In case War against Iraq continue, there can be 100% Increase World Terrorism and Suicide Attacks which can cause the complete destruction of International Economy. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.17Subject: World Community must help War Effected, Injured Iraqis1) Agha Dilbar appeals to UN, Head of States, World Red Cross that on Humanitarian grounds practical steps should be taken to help thousands of War Effected Iraqis.2) World Community should send Doctors, Nurses and Medicines to Iraq on Large scale and on Urgent Basis.3) Immediate Food is needed for thousands of War Effected Iraqis.4) Immediate steps should be taken for provision of Employment Resources to Hundred of Thousands of People in War affected Iraqis.5) UN and Red Cross Aid distributing Teams should be immediately sent to Iraq.6) Human Rights Missions should be sent to Iraq for inspecting Prisoners of War are being dealt according to Geneva Convention or not.7) UN Network should be immediately established in Iraq for Distribution of Aid, Medicines, Food, Drinking Water and Tents etc.8) Agha Dilbar specially appeals to all Muslim Countries and International Welfare NGO,s that immediate help to Iraqis be given in shape of Food, Medicines and Tents etc. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.18) Subject: Collation Forces after ceasefire in Iraq must go back to their Homeland, in other case Collation Forces after conquering Iraq will Back to Their countries with fifty thousand Dead bodies (Research by Agha Dilbar 1) After horrible and dreadful bombardment of Collation Forces in Iraq the Worst sentiments of International Community can take place against Collation Forces all over the World.2) Continuous horrible and dreadful War in Iraq will cause deaths of 10-Lakes Iraqis and one laq Collation Forces in a long Gorilla War.3) Agha Dilbar advise Collation Forces they should not conquers Iraq for Iraqi Oil, in this way they can loose their Defense Power and Economy.4) Collation Forces can conquers Iraq after killing 10-Laks Iraqis, in Consequences, 100% Suicide Attacks can burst throughout the World against Collation Forces.5) Collation Forces decision to double their army in Iraq for their Victory will prove them a next Vietnam War.6) Collation Forces, keep in mind that Palestine,Labnan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan and Iraq cannot solve with Brute Force, in this way 9/11Type Incidences can take place against Collation Forces all over the World.7) Above-mentioned international disputes, Collation Forces should solve these disputes with the help of UN Peace Force, through Friendship, Progress and Prosperity. Agha Dilbar urgent Peace Letter No.19) Subject: According the rule of Might is Right, Collation Forces Conquered Iraq and than threatened Syria, Iran and North Korea.1) Collation Forces are blaming Syria, Iran and North Korea to Collecting Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism.2) Now Collation Forces have started horrible and dreadful planning to Attack Syria and than Iran for their oil Resources interest.3) UN can become helpless, if Collation Forces kept on capturing many Weak and Undeveloped Countries one by one.4) Collation Forces want to make slave all the countries of the World with The new Jungle Law. (Might is Right) 5). World Community should Convert such Collation Forces to UN Peace Force as Strongest force of the World.6) Peace Loving people of the World should solve their disputes not with Brute Force and Terrorism. They should solve their differences through Friendship Progress and Prosperity with the practical help of UN Peace Force. Agha Dilbar Urgent Peace Letter No.20) Subject: The dream of Collation Forces to enforces Law of Jungle in World through use of power/cruelty will be resisted by World Community, as People all over the World have arisen and by becoming united they will crush Collation Forces in Iraq.1) For capturing oil resources of Iraq, the Collation Forces have started Aggression and worst bombing. People all over the World should condemn It.2) The aggression and cruelty, which the Collation Forces have started In Iraq is a plan to enslave the poor and weak nations. The World Community should take practical steps to stop this in Iraq.3) Agha Dilbar advises the Collation Forces that World can be conquered through Friendship, Progress and Prosperity instead of aggression andCruelty.4) The dangerous plan of Collation Forces to dissolve UN, which they have Prepared under influence of force, barbarity and cruelty, UN should Resist It with the help of World Community.5) The Collation Forces, for capturing oil resources of Iraq have started Mass Killings of thousands of Iraqis. Iraqi soil will revenge it and The World Super Power will get humiliating defeat like Russians in Iraq.6) World Community must condemn the false propaganda of Collation Forces that they are doing it for freedom of Iraqi people.7) The Collation Forces must remember that in retaliation to state Terrorism against Philistine People, a tragic incident like suicide attack of 9/11Took place. It is possible that in revenge of aggression in,Labnan, Afghanistan and Iraq, many such like incidents may reoccur and never ending process may start. Agha Dilbar’s Urgent Peace Letter No.21Subject: The Collation Forces through massive War Power trying to Enslave of Poor World. How to stop them? 1) Recently the Collation Forces have started War in the name of Iraqi Freedom its only solution is that the World Community by making a UN Peace Force the most powerful body should take immediate steps to control the Plot of Collation Forces for starting 3rd World War.2) The World Community, through powerful media, i.e. Radio, TV Internet, Newspapers, Magazines, should start media propaganda for Public Opinion building.3) The World Community through Economic Boycott of Collation Forces, should Hit their Economies through Media.4) The War Crimes of Collation Forces in Iraq should be made publicThroughMedia.5) The World Community should move to Intl Court of Justice against Collation Forces for damage to Iraq, People of Iraq and for withdrawal from Iraq.6) The Poor Countries, especially those with Oil Resources who will be First Targets of imperialist motives of Collation Forces, should start Campaign Through UN and other international Forums for their immediate Withdrawal and Establishing Democratic Govt in Iraq. Agha Dilbar’s Urgent Peace Letter No.22Subject: A new plan by Agha Dilbar to curb World Terrorism, Suicidal Attacks And for permanent restoration of Peace.1) The present strategy of Collation Forces to fight against World Terrorism and for stopping of Suicidal Attacks by attacking on Poor Countries, is resulting in further 100% Terrorism.2) The sufferings people of Poor Countries, massive killings of their Innocent people, loss of proprieties and source of livings is making them Customized to Suicidal Attacks.3) This strategy of Collation Forces to attack on Poor Countries one by one In the name of curbing Terrorism, may result outbreak of 3rd World War at any time.4) The Collation Forces must remember that their continuous attacks on Poor Countries are generating Bloody Rebellions, Civil Wars and long Gorilla Wars with possibility of devastating World Economy.5) According to Agha Dilbar’s Great Peace Plan, the Collation Forces And all Countries of the World should hand over their Army High Command to UN_PeaceForce.6) According to this Great Peace Plan proposed strongest UN_ Peace Force of the World should resolve International Disputes (As such Kashmir, Philistine, Chechnya. Afghanistan and Iraq etc.) Through Friendship Progress and Prosperity instead of Military Actions for curbing Terrorism and Suicidal attack. Agha Dilbar,s Urgent Peace Letter No.23Subject: Agha Dilbar s new plan “United States of the World”(USW) should Immediately adopt this Plan for Defense of Poor Nations and Welfare of Their People.1) The World Community with the help of France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, other European, Asian, Arab, African, States should form an Institution like Nato and European Union.2) The Headquarter of this proposed Institution (USW) should be based at France , Germany or China and its Head should be elected annually through Voting of Member States.3) This Institution (USW) will take all actions including Military, Economic, Industrial, Agricultural, Commercial, Educational and Cultural under the Principles of UN.4) USW will ensure Regional Safety and Defense of its Member States.5) USW will take immediate and practical steps for assurance of SingleCurrency.6) By abolishing Travel Restrictions, USW will encourage Tourism among Member States.7) USW will encourage Free Trade by abolishing Tariffs.8) For Economic, Industrial Agricultural Commercial and Educational Development of its Poor Member States, USW will provide technology and Confessional (@1%) Long Term Loans.9) USW will establish Schools, Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, and Sports Complexes, Motor Ways, Dams, Canals and heavy Industries in its PoorMemberStates.10) USW will take measures to control Environmental Pollution in itsMemberStates.11) USW will resolve Regional Disputes of its Member States through Table Talk, Friendship, Progress, Prosperity instead of War and StateTerrorism.12) USW will take steps for reduction of Armaments and Atomic Weapons throughout the World.13) The Member States of USW will establish common banks, Airlines and Shipping Companies.14) For making Brotherhood among USW member States, Govt Level Concessions will be provided to Cultural Groups for Traveling, Hoteling and Entertainment Shows. Agha Dilbar Urgent Peace Letter No.24Subject: Collation Forces should remember that by their conquest of Poor Countries People of the World, instead of getting Peace, will become Victim of Suicide Attacks.1) By following Agha Dilbars principles of Friendship, Progress and Prosperity the World Community can establish permanent Peace in theWorld.2) Instead of relying on Supper Powers, the World Community should Hand Over, Command Forces of all countries to UN Peace Force, after making It the Mightiest War Power. In this way the UN should be the Global VillageSupperPower.3) USA, UK, Russia, India and Israel must remember that use of Indiscriminate and continues State Force in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine will result in 100% Increase in Terrorism instead of Curbing it.4) The Collation Forces must forgo their dream of Capturing the World Through use of Force-they should remember that in this age of I.T. when World Is becoming A Global Village, the outdated rule of “Might is Right” of Previous 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th Centuries will not successes.5) I Agha Dilbar sincerely believe that only by adopting Principles of Friendship, Progress and Prosperity the Dream of World peace will Become a Reality after 5, 10, 50,100 years.6) The Collation Forces should not be mistaken that they will become a Cause of Peace and Progress after Conquering Poor Countries one by one; Rather Suicide Attacks World Over including Collation Countries, long Gorilla Wars will destroy World Economy.7) Collation Forces also remember that controlling World Terrorism by Enslaving Poor Countries (as Afghanistan and Iraq etc) Through War Machinery, killing of thousands innocent people, destruction of cities and Villages and eliminating employment sources, a new greater series of Suicide Attacks has started which can be controlled by abandoning use of BruteForce.8) World Community, Collation Forces, UN and Head of States all over the World Powerful Media, Radio, TV, Inter Net, Newspapers, Magazines should Propagate Principles of Friendship, Progress and Prosperity for Establishing of World Peace.9) Collation Forces must remember that capturing Poor Countries one by one will start 3rd World War. Collation Forces overseas consists of 2 Million Army, Fighters, Aircrafts, Navel Ships, Airfields, Latest Destructive Armaments, Is destroying World Economy. In retaliation to this, a never-ending Chain of Suicide Attacks will start engulfing the whole World Economy, Especially in USA, Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia and Australia.10) UN must stop This Indiscriminate Use of Force by Collation Forces of the World it will have to face a fate like its predecessor the “League ofNations”.10)The Collation Forces should not forget that naked use of Military Force The World Over is 100 times destroying World Peace and Economy. For get Rid of World Terrorism and Suicidal Attacks, only Principles of Friendship, Progress and Prosperity can make this World a Haven. Agha Dilbar’s Urgent Peace Letter No.25Subject: The World Community has started March towards Peace in the Light of Agha Dilbar’s Principles of Friendship, Progress and Prosperity.1) It is a pleasant news that Pakistan-India are preparing for talks to resolve Kashmir Dispute.2) Israel and Philistine are going to hold talks as per President Bush’s Road Map instead of War and Suicidal Attacks.3) Russia has also agreed for talks with Chechens Gorilla Fighters.4) Keeping in view these facts and for strengthens peace process in the World. Agha Dilbar Appeals to Collation Forces to gradually withdraw>From Afghanistan and Iraq and under an International Agreement, UN Peace Forces should be deployed there till Normalcy.5) India, Israel, Russia, USA and UK must remember that as per research of Agha Dilbar in present Global Village Age, Peace is not possible by Conquering Weak countries on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction and by State Terrorism, Mass Killings and destruction of Means of Production, rather use of Brutal Force will increase Suicide Attacks 100 Times resulting in Failure of World Economy. Agha Dilbar’s Urgent Peace Letter No.26Subject: UN Peace Force should be displaced till Restoration of Peace In Internationally Disputed Arias of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq.1) As per Research of Agha Dilbar for stoppage of Guerilla War in Internationally Disputed Arias like Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq and for fully resolving other disputes. These Disputed Areas should be put under control of UN Peace Force.2) After taking control these disputed areas and bringing Army, Police and Administration under Command of UN Peace Force should resolve all Issues Through Table Talk in the light of Principles of Friendship, ProgressAndProsperity.3) UN Peace Force after taking charge of Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya, Will order Indian, Israeli and Russian Armies to Vacate these DisputedAreas.4) Similarly it will Order Nito and collation forces to Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq and go back to their Homeland.5) UN Peace Force, after taking Control, will conduct Free and Fair Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq within 2-years and will Handover Govt to Winning Political Parties. However UN Peace Force will remain thereTill3-years for full Restoration of Peace.6) According to Proposed Plan of Agha Dilbar, UN Peace Force will Remain in Deployed in Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya for 5-years after signing of Peace Agreements Disputed Parties Groups and it is expected Normalcy will Return that Period.7) It is hoped that UN Peace Force will succeed getting rid of Long Gorilla Wars and Suicide Attacks in the lights of Golden Principles of Friendship, Progress and Prosperity with the help of UN Peace Force. Agha Dilbar, s Urgent Peace letter No.27) Subject: UN Security Council, through a Resolution for permanent World Peace will Order to Reduce 75% in the Defense Budgets of all Countries.1) UN at the International Level will Order the following Solid Steps To Maintain Peace and the Removal of Poverty.2) Under UN Orders, all the Nations of the World will renounce officially in the Reduction of their Defense Budgets 75%.3) Under suggested Defense Budget Plan, all the States will Reduce 75%InTheir Armies Sea, Air War Fare in the Production and Buying of Ammunition. According to Suggested Agha Dilbar s Revolutionary Plan, all the Nations will be bound to Spend their Savings made by Reduction of 75% in their Defense Budget in the following Plans. A) According to UN Order all the States will be bound to Provide Free Medical Aid Facilities to each and every Person. B) According to UN Orders all the Govt. Will Provide Free Education Facilities to each Person in future. C) According to UN Orders all the Govt. will Provide UN Employment Allowance to each Person till the age of 60-Years.D) According to UN Order all the Govt. Will Provide Old Age Allowance To Each Person after 60-Years till Death. E). According to UN Order all the Govt. Will Provide 20-Years Soft Bank Housing Loans to each Person. F) According to UN Orders all the Govt. Will Provide @1%Interest Bank Loans for Trade, Agriculture and Industrial Projects.Agha Dilbar, s Urgent Peace Letter No.28Subject: Throughout the world, UN should install, autonomous Institutions, UN Privatize Commissions (UNPC) to remove Poverty, Unemployment andCorruption.1) To privatize all the Govt Institutions in a transparent manner, Under the following rules and regulations of Autonomous Institutions will beEstablished.2) Suggested Institutions (UNPC) in all the countries will perform their duties as autonomous bodies.3) All the Executive Employees of suggested institutions (UNPC) will be recruited on Merit from other countries.4) Suggested Institutions (UNPC) during the next 5-years shall Privatize all the Banks, Water and Power, big Industrial Projects Health, Education, Agriculture and City Corporations etc in a TransparentManner.5) Throughout the world all the countries will not Privatize their Defense. Currency and Telecommunication. And they will run under GovtControl.6) Suggested Institutions (UNPC) shall be Privatize on such terms and Conditions that they will have to carry the same Businesses. In case of Violation of Rule, UNPC will take back these Institutions without anyPayment.7) Suggested Institutions (UNPC) shall be bound to sell all the Govt And Semi-Govt Institutions through their Stock Exchange in Shares.8) To bring forth the Suggested Institutions (UNPC) Decisions shall be Taking By Voting in the UN General Assembly.9) By establishing the Suggested Institutions (UNPC) at the International Level, the Privatization of all Govt and Semi-Govt will help in Alleviating the Poverty, Unemployment and Corruption all over the world. Agha Dilbar’s Urgent Peace Letter No.29Subject: According to UN Security Council Order, all countries would Allocate @ 2% of their National Budget for UN Development Fund (UNDF).1) Suggested UNDF would be used for the following Development Programmed to Eradicate Poverty and Unemployment from the Developing, Backward andPoorCountries.2) Through UNDF Dams, Canals, Railways, Motorways, Heavy Industry and Five star Hotels will be built in the Backward and Poor Countries.3) UNDF will be spent on Oil, Gas and Mineral Projects in Backward andPoorCountries.4) UNDF will be spent on Schools, Colleges, and Professional Institutes, Universities, Hospitals and Sports Complexes will be Constructed in Backward and Poor Countries.5) Under Suggested UNDF Latest agriculture Farms, Poultry Farms, Cattle Farms, Fish Farms and Export Processing Zones would be built in Backward and Poor Countries.6) Suggested UNDF would be spent on Population Planning in Backward andPoorCountries.7) Suggested UNDF would be install Airways, Banks and Shipping Companies In Backward and Poor Countries.8) Under UNDF following Basic Industries would be installed in Backward and Poor Countries.1. Steel Mills 2.Car, Bus, Truck, Tractor industries 3.Textile Industry 4. Tires, Tubes and Shoes Industry 5. Medicine Laboratories 6. Engineering Industry 7.Electronic Industry 8. Computer Industry 9.Dry Milk Industry 10. Tin Pack Fruit Industry. Agha Dilbar, s Urgent Peace Letter No.30) Subject: To abolish Kick Backs at International Level, UN Anticorruption Commission (UNAC) should be established.1) Under the UN Resolution UN Security Council would be established, UN Anticorruption Commission (UNAC).2) Suggested (UNAC) would be authorized at the International Level to Take Stern preventive measures to control the Contacts of Kick Backs.3) Suggested UNAC would be authorized to take Hand over the Kick Back Cases Of Govt Officials, Ministers, Govt Contractors and Head of States to The International Court of Justice.4) Suggested UNAC would be authorized to charge Govt and their Head of States who would be found guilty of taking Kick Backs in the big Govt Contarcts.5) Suggested High Power International Institution (UNAC) would Confiscate All the Black Money made through Un-Fair Means, and giving all such Cases of Inappropriacy to International Court of Justice, it would help in Awarding The severe punishments to all Head of States, Ministers, High Officials, Smugglers and Traders who are found guilty in Corruption.6) Through the suggested UNAC, by eradicating Kick Backs and Black Money, it Will keep to remove Poverty, Unemployment and Terrorism immediately Throughout the World. Please Note: Donate Funds for International Peace Campaign for conveying message of Peace through Friendship Progress and Prosperity by International Revolution Movement, in a better way 1000-Time more. We need Funds urgent basis. Please Send your Donations to Bank Account: Allied Bank of Pakistan, Lahore Branch: Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore No.0688Account: Agha Dilbar Account No. 01100-5809-2Agha Dilbar founder International Revolution Movement Central Secretariat64-Neelum, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, Pakistan Thanks for using this service Please E-mail these Peace Letters to your friends for the Welfare of Humanity Thank you for your Participation. We appreciate your Contribution for Humanity (Live with Dignity and Dye with Grace. Guide Line from Agha Dilbar)__________________Please see our Message in internet search Website No-1 aghadilbar No-2 aghadilbar2 No-3 aghadilbar3

Posted by: aghadilbar at November 13, 2006 3:56 AM
Post a comment