Does this scare anyone?

[sjbouza]

Can someone help me with this. I came across it just be accident one day just putzin round the net. When I read it I got REALLY worried. If I read it correctly, and I may be wrong, Bush signed this into law without Congressional approval. It will allow him in an "emergency" to basically take over the country?! Am I reading this right. Please someone tell me I am not and I just missed something.

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html)

I hope I am just reading this wrong. If I am not I am worried. Watch, this guy is gonna declare a "national emergency" just before he leaves office and take over the country, just like a dictator. This guy is MAD...he is a power hungry madman!!!

[Emproph]

Watch, this guy is gonna declare a "national emergency" just before he leaves office and take over the country, just like a dictator. This guy is MAD...he is a power hungry madman!!!

Considering the nature of the powers that be, I believe this was the point of the Bush Administration all along.

Given the track record of this administration, at best, 9/11 was "allowed" to happen, at worst it was planned. In either case it was meant for this purpose specifically. All they need to do now is allow, or manufacture another "crisis" or terrorist attack before the '08 elections, and then suspend the constitution, and thus the elections indefinitely in the name of national security.

Looking at it from that perspective, Bush not caring about public opinion or having a plan B for anything makes sense. Even not caring about the $7 trillion deficit makes sense.

Continue to repeat "9/11" in order to terrorize us into thinking of nothing but avoiding our own (horrific) deaths, while "fighting terrorism" by occupying Iraq and setting up permanent bases. No plans to "win" because they don't plan to leave. Take over the world's energy/oil supply and the US can kiss its national debt goodbye.

If they're actually not thinking about leaving office, but instead thinking about world domination, then it makes sense that they wouldn't think of reasons to be responsible for their actions, here or abroad. They're not talking about the consequences of their actions because they're not thinking about them.

Interestingly it was the vociferously anti-gay World Net Daily that reported this as news (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825).

And think about Iran. If we nuke them - in the name of not being nuked, that will legitimize the attack, put us in control of 2 mid-east oil producing countries, AND send the message to the world that we're in control AND we're insane.

Then we'll really see the fruits of illegal wire tapping. No constitution = nothing illegal (for the government)... = no resistence. They can arrest us without cause and detain us indefinitely. They already can, they just need a reason to make it socially "acceptable."

[sjbouza]

That is what I was thinking. I have always thought and said that 9/11 was created by this office. I think that it was totally avoidable. I feel that they wanted an excuse to take total power over this country and as you said the oil in the middle east.

What is this guy thinking? Why isnt Congress doing anything about this? He is superseding his authority. Not having to gain approval from congress for anything, that is just way out there. I am beginning to really think this guy is a true madman.

Anyone want to move to Canada?

Scott

[u-dog]

That is what I was thinking. I have always thought and said that 9/11 was created by this office. I think that it was totally avoidable. I feel that they wanted an excuse to take total power over this country and as you said the oil in the middle east.

What is this guy thinking? Why isnt Congress doing anything about this? He is superseding his authority. Not having to gain approval from congress for anything, that is just way out there. I am beginning to really think this guy is a true madman.

Anyone want to move to Canada?

Scott

How long do you suppose Canada would remain Canada and not States 51 through 63 if the republic were overthrown by neo-cons? Better stick around and stop them here.

[sjbouza]

True...true...true. I just cant believe something like this wasnt picked up by national news agencies. What does this guy have to hide? Well, that is a stupid question...he has a LOT to hide.

Anyway, udog your point is very well taken. We need to defeat them here before they can take this country by force. It will be a sad day for this country if that happens. So much for a "free country".

Scott

[kara speltz]

True...true...true. I just cant believe something like this wasnt picked up by national news agencies. What does this guy have to hide? Well, that is a stupid question...he has a LOT to hide.

Anyway, udog your point is very well taken. We need to defeat them here before they can take this country by force. It will be a sad day for this country if that happens. So much for a "free country".

Scott

I've been afraid of this ever since 9/11 which I personally believe was allowed to happen. I haven't a doubt in the world that Bush & his cronies knew this was coming. And the closer we get to the elections, the stronger my fears increase that there will be another 9/11 created so as to put us under emergency powers. What I still don't quite fully comprehend is what happened to our supposedly free press. Bill Moyers as I see it, is just about the only media person standing up and telling the truth these days.
Corporate news seems to have decided to keep the American people in the dark. And we have no heros left who are willing to risk everything to stop this takeover.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I get my progressive news these days from Talking Points Memo among other sources. I'm linking to their article on this new National Security Presidential Directive 51 that says that it's really nothing new and nothing to worry about. (When you click on this link, you need to scroll down to the article titled "Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New")

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Notice that one of the experts who's not upset by the new directive is an ACLU attorney. They say it's merely an update to older plans to keep government services going if Washington D.C. get's hit with an A-Bomb or something. So maybe we should not be getting all excited about this development.

But then, again, having Bush in charge during a national emergency of any kind is a big worry---mainly because of his and his administration's incompetence.

Much more important are the hearings into the Justice Department that is exposing this administration's attempts to bias the work of the Justice Department for partisan ends--a big no no! Gonzales needs to go! Even a lot of Republicans in Congress are saying that.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

Gonzo and Goodling

Video no longer available. Sorry guys. :(

[tdogg]

Sheesh Patrick, that scared the sh*t out of me!!!

Now, I can't get the other one to load, I'll have to try again later. I was truly ready for a laugh after that SCARE! :eek::eek::eek:

Thanks! It's good to know I'm alive... :p;):love:

[BrentRichards]

Friends,

I get my progressive news these days from Talking Points Memo among other sources. I'm linking to their article on this new National Security Presidential Directive 51 that says that it's really nothing new and nothing to worry about. (When you click on this link, you need to scroll down to the article titled "Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New")

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Notice that one of the experts who's not upset by the new directive is an ACLU attorney. They say it's merely an update to older plans to keep government services going if Washington D.C. get's hit with an A-Bomb or something. So maybe we should not be getting all excited about this development.

But then, again, having Bush in charge during a national emergency of any kind is a big worry---mainly because of his and his administration's incompetence.

Much more important are the hearings into the Justice Department that is exposing this administration's attempts to bias the work of the Justice Department for partisan ends--a big no no! Gonzales needs to go! Even a lot of Republicans in Congress are saying that.

Steven Webster

I'm inclined to agree, Stephen. Yes, admitted, I am a Republican. But I am far from this administration's biggest fan (understatement). Still, when I read this directive, I see nothing suggesting it would allow the President or anyone else to "seize power" in an emergency or any other time. If it did provide for that, it would be an illegal executive order. Our president is not constitutionally empowered to give himself controls (in an emergency or otherwise) reserved to the other two branches of government. You'll notice that the language of the Executive Order applies only to the Executive Branch, which is all the President has authority over directly anyway. No President can declare himself "in charge" or issue an order that extends his term beyond his elected stay in office, emergency or no. Whether Bush would LIKE to do that or not, I can't say. I'm absolutely convinced he (or any other President) COULD not do so, and this Executive Order doesn't change my mind on that one bit.

[BrentRichards]

Now THAT's funny!

[Emproph]

Sheesh Patrick, that scared the sh*t out of me!!!

Now, I can't get the other one to load, I'll have to try again later. I was truly ready for a laugh after that SCARE! :eek::eek::eek:

Thanks! It's good to know I'm alive... :p;):love:
Hey Toni,

That's exactly how I felt, I could feel my heart pounding. I watched that about 10 times the other night and no matter how prepared I tried to be my heart still leapt to my throat!

It was fun in a twisted sort of way but I deleted the post. I couldn't leave it up in good conscience as it's liable to kill someone...literally.

On a lighter note it looks like the daily show video is working now. :tup:

[simpleman]

Do you honestly believe that Bush planned and executed 9-11? If any government leader in the U.S. "allowed" 9-11 to happen, it was Bill Clinton. Project Able Danger was a federal intelligence program that identified Mohammed Atta (one of the hijackers) as a part of a terrorist cell. In September 2000, two whole months before Bush was even elected, much less in office (Jan. 2001), the federal agency running Able Danger was prepared to seek the help of the FBI to take down Atta's terrorist cell, because they had gathered intelligence linking him to al Qaeda, and to the 1993 WTC bombings. The agency attorneys, under the guidance of the CLINTON administration, and deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, determined that passing the intelligence to the FBI would be a violation of Atta's civil rights because he was on a Green Card, and thus the FBI was not allowed to try and take down the cell. A year later, in September 2001, just 9 months into Bush's presidency, Atta and his cohorts seized control of the airliners and flew them into the buildings.

[antonyh]

Friends,

I get my progressive news these days from Talking Points Memo among other sources. I'm linking to their article on this new National Security Presidential Directive 51 that says that it's really nothing new and nothing to worry about. (When you click on this link, you need to scroll down to the article titled "Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New")

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Notice that one of the experts who's not upset by the new directive is an ACLU attorney. They say it's merely an update to older plans to keep government services going if Washington D.C. get's hit with an A-Bomb or something. So maybe we should not be getting all excited about this development.

But then, again, having Bush in charge during a national emergency of any kind is a big worry---mainly because of his and his administration's incompetence.

Much more important are the hearings into the Justice Department that is exposing this administration's attempts to bias the work of the Justice Department for partisan ends--a big no no! Gonzales needs to go! Even a lot of Republicans in Congress are saying that.

Steven Webster

I'm with Stephen here. I'm in a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery class right now and our discussions about a nuclear bomb going off in an American city really put this directive into perspective. This study by the Center for Mass Destruction Defense (CMADD) at the University of Georgia should put the directive into perspective:

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/070320_NuclearAttack.shtml

That said, I do agree that Presidential powers do need to be reigned in. We can all thank the wise authors of the constitution for limiting the President to two terms.

We all need to put some muscle into getting the right person into office in '08. This is democracy.

[antonyh]

Do you honestly believe that Bush planned and executed 9-11? If any government leader in the U.S. "allowed" 9-11 to happen, it was Bill Clinton. Project Able Danger was a federal intelligence program that identified Mohammed Atta (one of the hijackers) as a part of a terrorist cell. In September 2000, two whole months before Bush was even elected, much less in office (Jan. 2001), the federal agency running Able Danger was prepared to seek the help of the FBI to take down Atta's terrorist cell, because they had gathered intelligence linking him to al Qaeda, and to the 1993 WTC bombings. The agency attorneys, under the guidance of the CLINTON administration, and deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, determined that passing the intelligence to the FBI would be a violation of Atta's civil rights because he was on a Green Card, and thus the FBI was not allowed to try and take down the cell. A year later, in September 2001, just 9 months into Bush's presidency, Atta and his cohorts seized control of the airliners and flew them into the buildings.

There have been many very well done conspiracy movies about holes in the government's account of 9/11. The most downloaded one is Loose Change 2:

1Yx9NRX37SM

You can watch the democracy now debate about this film here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M&mode=related&search=

[simpleman]

Loose Change is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I don't even dignify Loose Change as a valid source of evidence for such a theory. Any moron could make a montage of videos, clips, and sounds that rips hundreds of things out of context to whatever end they wanted. Find me something legitimate, not some 22 year-old kid and his Apple's home movie.

[Emproph]

Welcome back, how was your trip? More importantly, what did you learn while you were away?

[antonyh]

Loose Change is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I don't even dignify Loose Change as a valid source of evidence for such a theory. Any moron could make a montage of videos, clips, and sounds that rips hundreds of things out of context to whatever end they wanted. Find me something legitimate, not some 22 year-old kid and his Apple's home movie.

You should watch it sometime...just for the simple fact that it has been very influential. It was shown on the History Channel as well :lol:

[simpleman]

Welcome back, how was your trip? More importantly, what did you learn while you were away?

It was great! I was in Ireland, it's such a beautiful country.

What did I learn? Well, I guess I learned that the way we see alcohol in America is pretty silly. I drank pints with all sorts of random people, but none of them were drunks, very few of them acted foolishly like Americans. For most people ordering a pint of Guinness was like ordering a coke. I didn't once get ID'd while I was there, because nobody really bothers with it. Most everybody is responsible, so they don't assume you will be irresponsible just for drinking, like we do here. It was pretty interesting.

I also did some thinking about the state of the nation. Two 20+ hour days of flying can cause one's mind to crank a bit.

Anyway, I feel like our country has moved into a state of relativism. The "liberals" are at the forefront. Many ideas considered "liberal" or "progressive" are founded upon a kind of moral relativity. There is very little absolute left in our country. It seems as though law by law, precedent by precedent, the country is tearing down old foundations based on absolute moral principles, particularly those established under a Judeo-Christian worldview, and replacing them with new laws, policies, and precedents. Now it seems that any law founded in religious teaching is destroyed, as soon as that religious teaching is questioned. Part of me likes this flow of ideas, this dissemination of information, and this questioning of what is and has been. I like to see opposing ideas flying around. That's why I'm so provocative here, it's because I want people to express what they believe, because I find a certain satisfaction in being able to express myself. On the other hand, I feel that relativism is dangerous. Once you divorce yourself from absolutes; in other words, as the gray area in our social and political world expands, people can reason themselves from where they are, to anywhere else.

This got me thinking about reason, and how it's played into my dialogue here, and in other places and with different people. Reason, and logic, and all of these things attempt to build bridges and make connections between ideas. It is often used to find and discover answers to questions. Lines of reasoning always start with an assumption, or two, or three. The line or web of reasoning is supposed to conclude with a valid answer. The problem is, is that today we use reasoning backwards. We have already decided what our answer is, and we won't budge, so we find a way to make the line of reasoning work backward, in order to prove the answer that we know.

That's why I can never get across my points on this board. I have laid down a line of logic, and have reached a conclusion. Upon the discovery that my conclusion is different than yours, my reasoning is worked backwards. I am told that my answer, and every point on my line going back is based on my personal hatred of gays. Then, rather than defend my conclusion, I have to go back and try to liberate my entire line of reasoning from the all-destructive "hate". I never even get a chance to truly defend my final answer for its own merit, but rather only on whether or not it is founded upon hate, or simply my own beliefs about government. This destroys any meaningful dialogue, because my entire argument is invalidated by accusations of hatred and intolerance, regardless of their logical merit.

In other words, I cannot ever get anything across, because everybody just accuses me of being hateful.

[Daniel]

That's why I can never get across my points on this board. I have laid down a line of logic, and have reached a conclusion. Upon the discovery that my conclusion is different than yours, my reasoning is worked backwards. I am told that my answer, and every point on my line going back is based on my personal hatred of gays. Then, rather than defend my conclusion, I have to go back and try to liberate my entire line of reasoning from the all-destructive "hate". I never even get a chance to truly defend my final answer for its own merit, but rather only on whether or not it is founded upon hate, or simply my own beliefs about government. This destroys any meaningful dialogue, because my entire argument is invalidated by accusations of hatred and intolerance, regardless of their logical merit.

In other words, I cannot ever get anything across, because everybody just accuses me of being hateful.

Really? Hateful? Hmmmmm. Don't think anyone here ever said that.

You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views?

That's not logic. That's hubris.


hu·bris (hyū'brĭs)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.

We all have egos simpleman. You included. You can defend your line of thought all you want. In fact, I'd say you've done a bang-up job so far.

You're making it sound like no one appreciates you. Well darling. Try harder. When you start getting the response you want.....

Oh...but I forget.....you like to provoke, isn't that right?

I like to see opposing ideas flying around. That's why I'm so provocative here, it's because I want people to express what they believe, because I find a certain satisfaction in being able to express myself.

Maybe you're just getting your hard fought reward.

Maybe it's time to try something different.

[Emproph]

Only the parts in bold have been changed.


Anyway, I feel like our country has moved into a state of relativism. The "conservatives" are at the forefront. Many ideas considered "conservative" or "Republican" are founded upon a kind of moral relativity. There is very little absolute left in our country. It seems as though law by law, precedent by precedent, the country is tearing down old foundations based on absolute moral principles, particularly those established under an equality democratic worldview, and replacing them with new laws, policies, and precedents. Now it seems that any law founded in equality teaching is destroyed, as soon as that equality teaching is questioned. Part of me likes this flow of ideas, this dissemination of information, and this questioning of what is and has been. I like to see opposing ideas flying around. That's why I'm so provocative here, it's because I want people to express what they believe, because I find a certain satisfaction in being able to express myself. On the other hand, I feel that relativism is dangerous. Once you divorce yourself from absolutes; in other words, as the gray area in our social and political world expands, people can unreason themselves from where they are, to anywhere else.

Not much change, but a BIG difference. It works even without the notion of LGBT "equality." The difference is that I ALREADY see 'you' as this. But you're not seeing that I'm already seeing that about 'you.'

This is what leads me to understand that the liberal perspective (at least in theory if not in practice) is superior. To be open to ALL perspectives, is to INCORPORATE the conservative perspective. Liberals are by default both liberal AND conservative. Conservatives cannot make this claim. Which is not to say that a pointed and sustained conservative outlook/worldview is not beneficial - if not essential, to help keep us 'wishy-washy' liberals in tune.

The point is that ultimately it's the liberal perspective that allows for ALL of our conservative perspectives. Our conservative perspectives can NEVER allow for all of our liberal perspectives because by their very nature they automatically preclude them. The trick of course is the never ending conundrum of the balance.

But that's outside-of-the-box thinking, which is "liberal" because it expands beyond the "box of knowledge" that is already known...


Never mind..

[ladyinred]

Now I feel somewhat vindicated when I literally begged my friends not to vote for Bush ,2004. From what I read Bush has always been a bully and knows nothing about foreign affairs. He got elected as governor of Texas, when I feel he didn't even have the qualifications or political backround. He was said to be a party animal and playboy until his 40's. He also helped ruin education and the environment in this state.

I voted against him as a matter of principles and read about the backround of his family which has been somewhat shady, his grandfather helped fund Hitler's rise to power.

The man is in denial about global warming and favors big business,often discriminating against unions in their favor. I still shake my head as to why after the first four years people voted for this man. I don't think anyone here is delusional in suspecting the man may have some screws loose.

I think he can be somewhat sadistic, explaining why torture in Iraq and even prisons here is overlooked or accepted. I even was watching footage of Laura Bush, whom I normally admired, but for some reason I looked into her eyes and got the creeps. There is something dreadfully wrong with the whole family up to Bush senior.

[ladyinred]

Daniel, I just love your line of reasoning, right on the mark:"You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views? "

That's not logic. That's hubris.

[tpdncr4christ]

Dude Simpleman shouldn't be taking all the sluff for this one! I agree with him. And I was very angry with the disrespect expressed in this thread when it started but I decided I wasn't in a button pushing mood so I didn't say anything. Not that you can't be rude or talk nasty about our President, because you can, I just don't like it.

As for 9/11 being a conspiracy, I doubt it is true. I've watched all of those online videos and have been disgusted with them. They are just the kind of misinformation this site is always fighting against. Not the misinformation, the kind of misinformation. Simpledude is right, that video is a culmination of clips out of context and full of misquoted and illegitimate information. None of the work or sources are cited, and a clever story is woven into the holes of missing links. I do not find it credible in the least. And as for History channel showing it, that means nothing. The History Channel just had a special all about how Christ was really an alien. Totally not credible.

Granted, Simplekid, you did bring about the whole hatred of gays thing, on your own this time, I know it surprised me too! :eek: No one said anything about you not liking gays. It's all that anti-discrimination stuff, the favoring the black guy over the white guy because you are afraid of being called a racist. Don't back into a corner and say, "You don't like me cause you think I hate gays!" Dude, that's not cool. We don't hate you because you hate gays, we don't hate you at all. Granted, some times there will be people who judge you because they think you are judging them. But that wasn't this time. They were just fussing at you cause they think you are wrong. I don't, but they do... we can take this together if we agree sexuality has nothing to do with it, ok?

[Daniel]

I'm not sure if the 'dude' you refer to is me, but since 'lady' is not a 'dude', strictly speaking, I will assume so. Are men and women being called 'dude' now? Or is it a catch all term for everything or everyone? Perhaps I'm showing my age, but this kind of terminology is lost on me.

My remarks, which Lady has quoted, has nothing to do with the vid that is being talked about, but rather, the same issue you raise, that being simpleman's feeling hated.

On that, it seems, we agree.

[tpdncr4christ]

all the dude's and simplewhatnot's were addressed to Simpleman, except for the very first due which is an address to the general forum population.

I was saying I agree with Simple man about the video, and about the negative reaction to the President's new decree. I find it disgusting that any one would think our President would plan 9/11. And I don't find his new decree scary, I find it comforting.

Concerning simpleman's feeling hated? I agree with the majority of the forum here in that any hatred from us that he could be feeling is self inflicted... make sense sir? :love:

[antonyh]

As for 9/11 being a conspiracy, I doubt it is true. I've watched all of those online videos and have been disgusted with them. They are just the kind of misinformation this site is always fighting against. Not the misinformation, the kind of misinformation. Simpledude is right, that video is a culmination of clips out of context and full of misquoted and illegitimate information. None of the work or sources are cited, and a clever story is woven into the holes of missing links. I do not find it credible in the least. And as for History channel showing it, that means nothing. The History Channel just had a special all about how Christ was really an alien. Totally not credible.

Here is the governments account:
http://wtc.nist.gov/

I'm curious about why you're disgusted by questioning events?

[tdogg]

I think if we all new the extent of Bush & his administration's power, we would be scared. I don't think it's stretch to think at the very least Bush and his harem purposely failed to do all they could do to prevent the 9-11 disasters. I think the thought that Bush has granted himself authority to spy on any and all of us is terrorizing and at the least a very unwelcome invasion of my privacy. Wait, didn't we have a discussion on 'private' stuff several threads back??? Well, here's one: I do not appreciate that the president of the US has given himself the authority to peep in on my and my phone conversations (and likely my emails and internet researchin) if and whenever he pleases. Not cool.

I find it interesting Simple that the one thing you mention about learning on your trip to Ireland was about drinking alcohol. Hopefully, you garnered some history and geology to go with that. In my two trips to Scotland, I found a county STEEPED in civil and natural history. If nothing else learned, I got that constant warring and killing does not freedom necessarily make.

I never got the feeling that people on these forums considered Simple to hate gays. However, the common reaction to our responses to the idea that we are wrong, don't deserve equality and that we should really listen to those pushing fundamental, conservative religious fewpoints regarding how some feel about 'us', is suddenly very defensive and not taken well.

Just and FYI - I have had Simple, Simon & Sammy's and other's conservative, fundamental religious viewpoints shoved down my throat and rattled into my head for years. I personally don't feel the need to continue to try and listen to what these viewpoints are. I know what they are. I don't agree. I don't feel a need to listen to 'them'. I suffered through that for YEARS and YEARS. Been there, done that and done with that now. I appreciate they are your view points fellas. They are not mine.

If you want to know mine, I'm happy to discuss. If I don't come across as too open to listening to yours - please don't take it personal. You are just one more in a very long line of people that I'm reluctant to continue listening to. I think we have much to discuss. Whether or not being a homosexual or engaging in a same-sex relationship is a sin or not - I'm over that discussion. What we need to do to make progress towards equality in this country - I'm all ears.

[tpdncr4christ]

Here is the governments account:
http://wtc.nist.gov/

I'm curious about why you're disgusted by questioning events?

I'm not disgusted by questioning events, that's something I love! I'm all for challenging people and events, that's what I do...

I am disgusted with the reaction, with the fact that people actually think, that you can believe that our President is such an evil man. That kind of evil, to knowingly plan the death's of three thousand innocents, is something I cannot perceive. I am disgusted with suggestion that our President could be capable of that evil. I'm too much of an idealist to accept that.

Concerning the governments response, it looks very confusing, very complex, and like you have to have several college degrees to understand it. I'll be honest, I've only just now glanced through it, and I am almost certain it has holes the same as any conspiracy theory, the same as any government action. They hardly tell us anything. Ever. That isn't surprising to me.

9/11 was a horrible tragic event. It is not something that any man could do well with. Bush did not shine through, nor did he fail, he went with his gut and reacted accordingly (he may not have been right, but it is the job of the President to react so). September 30 of 2001 if you had asked anyone in the country whether we should go to war everyone would have said yes without thought. That is what the President did, albeit he has gone a little ADD since then and got distracted, but everyone wanted some sort of revenge or justice for our country.

So I'm not disgusted with questioning, I am disgusted with the implications of such evil. But I will say as much as to say IF Bush is the man you say he is, IF such evil does exist, and IF such evil ends up ruling the nation, I will be one of the first to stand against it. But, I really hope this isn't true, and I really hope you are wrong. Because I can't see what life will be like if you are right.

[tdogg]

Implications lead to questioning. It's prudent to examine the possibilities, even though they might not be true. Knowledge is power, and when we arm ourselves with knowledge we gain the power to make better decisions.

I hope Bush did everything he could do the best way he knew how. However, the knowledge I have gained in my lifetime tells me that might not be the case. I don't put anything past him and his people. Sorry, the fact that so many of his appointees have been accused and/or proven as criminals just gives me more bases to implicate him in possible bad decisions made for personal gain. It's been the norm for those he appointed to office, over and over again. Why would the appointer be any different?

I hope Austin you are right. Unfortunately I don't hold much hope. Hopefully you'll understand when people feel that Bush may not have acted in good faith, that there is history and are reasons why they feel that way. It's great that you are an idealist, we need more of that! But you should lace it with a bit of realism, especially where others thoughts might not be so positive.

[tpdncr4christ]

Ok... Now I mean this as un-sarcastically as possible, all sincerity here:

I don't think Bush is smart enough to have planned 9/11.

How's that? That's realism, isn't it?

[Dash]

Ok... Now I mean this as un-sarcastically as possible, all sincerity here:

I don't think Bush is smart enough to have planned 9/11.

How's that? That's realism, isn't it?

Bingo! :lol::rolleyes:

I think I watched that "Loose Change" video awhile back. I remember afterwards thinking that all their points didn't necessarily add up.

Was this the video that showed the towers falling--while pointing out what appeared to be other demolition explosions preceeding the collapsing floors? If it's the same theory, it seems farfetched to me. I would almost expect the tons of debris "pancaking" down to "blow out" windows and dust on the floors beneath by the force of air pressure. To my mind, no preset explosions would be necessary to produce that effect.

I didn't know what to make of their theories about the crash at the Pentagon.

That said, the powers the President seems to be awarding himself bug me too. We still have some separation of powers left in our government, though, so I remain confident that the Executive branch would not be able to singlehandedly take control.

The administration seems sometimes to be disintegrating around President Bush. If the same kinds of incompetent people that he has appointed to all high level posts were involved in planning the attacks in 2001, I think they'd have never pulled it off.

I mean, come on...look at how badly they are running their war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

[antonyh]

Since our Spare Change 2 boys are not "credible", here are some more weighty critics of the government's account of 9/11:

Former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bülow and former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher:
http://www.daanspeak.com/USAUnderAttack07v.html

Physics professor Steven E. Jones:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Professor Emeritus of theology David Ray Griffin:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=David%20Ray%20Griffin&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/104-3688800-9237509

Economics professor Morgan Reynolds, the 'former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term':
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911

Paul Craig Roberts, 'Assistant Secretary of Treasury under President Reagan', 'former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week' and 'listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world':
Link Broken

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, former 'head of advanced space programs for the Department of Defense and a combat pilot who flew 101 missions in the Vietnam War':
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm

U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.):
http://ajbenjaminjr.blogspot.com/2005/07/cynthia-mckinney-911-coverup.html

Catherine Austin Fitts, former 'Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr.':
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916

Physics 911:
http://physics911.net/

Surviving family members of The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission:
http://911independentcommission.org/index.html

'An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11':
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[Daniel]

all the dude's and simplewhatnot's were addressed to Simpleman, except for the very first due which is an address to the general forum population.

I was saying I agree with Simple man about the video, and about the negative reaction to the President's new decree. I find it disgusting that any one would think our President would plan 9/11. And I don't find his new decree scary, I find it comforting.

Concerning simpleman's feeling hated? I agree with the majority of the forum here in that any hatred from us that he could be feeling is self inflicted... make sense sir? :love:


Yes- it makes sense (and you know your getting older when people call you 'sir'! :lol:). Just goes to show that I have an ego of my own in thinking that your first line had something to do with me. :rolleyes: (Ya gotta watch those performer types....always stealing focus. ;))

Now to matters at hand: I don't thing El Presidente had anything to do with planning 9/11, though I would like to see his security advisor, Miss Condi, fired. If Bush and Co are guilty of anything, it is gross negilgence. They cut the budget for CIA intelligence a few days prior to 9/11, and blew off a key intelligence report about Bin Laden planning to use planes to attack the United States. They did nothing about that. And then, after 9/11, it took more than a full year to them to do anything about airport security.

And isn't it insteresting that Condi had a oil tanker named after her? Makes me wonder who this administration is working for.

Who needs conspiracy theories when the facts will suffice?

[ladyinred]

"Dude Simpleman shouldn't be taking all the sluff for this one! I agree with him. And I was very angry with the disrespect expressed in this thread when it started but I decided I wasn't in a button pushing mood so I didn't say anything. Not that you can't be rude or talk nasty about our President, because you can, I just don't like it."

You have a right to disagree with people who don't see things your way. But I don't believe in a blind allegiance to any leader of our country. Not that I hate Bush personally, but I do have a big problem with his leadership and policy making.
I don't even have a blind allegiance to my own party, if they are doing things which I think aren't working in the best interests of the American people, I will not vote for them even if they are a democrat.
In my mind this President is doing grave harm to our country, He supports big business over workers rights, he has helped erode protections and regulation through the EPA and FDA,we are now in a war that is costing us dearly in dollars and lives and hasn't made us feel more secure,people are afraid to speak up because of the patriot act,tax breaks that benefit primarily the rich while domestic programs are being cut into, public education is a dirty word now,cronyism in Bush's administration rather than hiring people based on merit...

What if you were told that 75% of children's drugs are not FDA approved that are being presribed? What if you were told that the FDA doesn't do inspections like they used to to ensure food safety and now we are facing an epidemic of foods that are tainted and contaminated. What if the President has helped erode civil rights and stepped over his bounds as a leader and is now acting like Napoleon?

I don't think people who disagree with Presient Bush are being rude or hateful, if they are like me , they are concerned with the state of affairs, and they love their country and are concerned with the direction it has been headed in.To make Bush into some kind of demagogue and put him on a pedastal like he is to be worshipped or something ,to me is basically being blind.I don't take lightly the fact that I feel like he has done alot of damage to our country and our democracy.But I guess when you have a child who eats tainted peanut butter and dies, or when your job is outsourced to India, or even when your phone is being wiretapped ,you might see the light.

And pardon me for giving a damn.

[ladyinred]

Now as for Judeo Christian values and absolute morals, I will stand by Daniel and his remarks. We've seen what those "morals" have done in the past when people absolutely believed they were on the" right hand" of God.

Slavery, segregation, slaughtering of the indigenous people, inquisitions , witch burnings and of course homophobia. Why do we view homophobia and anti gay as destructive and violent? Because when people wish you harm or are trying to punnish you and dehumanize you by taking away your basic right to exist and are actually trying to get laws passed that deny you equal protection under the law, or think it's ok to fire you and deny you housing, or deny your loved ones benefits and even kill you... Yeah I guess that wouldn't sit too well with people who are on the receiving end, but gee, neither did slavery, or segregation or putting the Indians on the reservation.

Oh and since there are those in the RR who believe that Jesus is coming back soon and taking them(Of course ) away with him to heaven, "Hey why worry about things like the environment or other concerns anyway?" " We can just do anything we basically want and the "Lord will provide." It doesn't matter if we destroy the environment and the earth resources, because the end times are a coming and it won't matter anyway." Oh and of course you pagans ,buddhists and hindus don't believe in our Christian God, so you all are headed to hell, better convert or "die." Muslims are "evil" and the anti-Christ",we'll just conquer their nations and force "Christianity" on them ,if they don't conform, we'll just kill them. (Remember Ann Coulter's remarks?)

If you ain't "right", there goes your ticket to Heaven.
"When you pledge allegiance to our theocracy and align yourself with our world view, there goes the democracy,but hey,it isn't God's way, he wants you to live under tyranny and an autocratic rule."Those who don't follow or agree with us, we will anniliate and consider our enemies, and we will wage war on these "evil" heretics.

Yep give us those absolute "Morals." Just what we neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.(But of course those of us who believe that God's love is inclusive and not based on "religious affiliation",sexual orientation,or the color of your skin. We is just a bunch of flakes.")

[tdogg]

Ok... Now I mean this as un-sarcastically as possible, all sincerity here:

I don't think Bush is smart enough to have planned 9/11.

How's that? That's realism, isn't it?

I'm with you on this one Austin! :lol: No disrespect to our President, but he is a few cans short of a 12-pack. :eek: But he does have some intelligent people surrounding him (ok, maybe even that is questionable).

I agree with Daniel - gross negligence. I would add possible cover-ups, the Bush administration is full of that. Double-speak is the standard. Lies and deceit. I wish that I could respect our President but sadly I cannot.

Is there even the remotest possibility of finding a future candidate who is intelligent, compassionate, and a defender of equality and protections for all those he or she is in charge of governing? One whose own interests don't take precedence over those who voted him/her into office? One who would do all in his/her power to serve and protect those who voted for him/her? I'm not seeing anyone so far.

[simpleman]

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise. I wasn't even talking about my beliefs, themselves. Daniel actually came through to prove my point exactly:


You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views?

That's not logic. That's hubris.

This accusation, to me, states that I believe my views, and only mine to be God's view. The logic I was referring to actually had nothing to do with my religious beliefs, or beliefs on sexuality, but Daniel demonstrated my final point (no one can look past my religious beliefs to consider my arguments against the hate crimes bill based on their merit) perfectly by dragging my religious beliefs back into the argument, when my sole point was that no one would consider my argument against the Hate Crimes Bill under grounds of anything other than my religious beliefs. Furthermore, as for the relativity vs. absoluteness, I don't believe I ever said that my beliefs represented the absolute, I was just making a lamentation on the changing way American political discourse takes place. Daniel, however, chooses to always see the worst in everything I say, so he used it to tear down my religious beliefs, once again. I do want to make it clear at this point that I myself don't feel hated, and have not once felt hated since I came here. No one should think that I'm crying foul that people here hate me. I really don't think that, and even if people here really did hate me it wouldn't be any big deal to me.

Back to the topic, President Bush, tapdancer has a lot of good ideas about it. He didn't plan this, he didn't execute it. As I said it would take too many people keeping quiet and as tapdancer said he's probably not capable (thought I don't think many could) of pulling something like this off.

I've also seen hurled a million different accusations about his administration, one after the other, and I know (Daniel) that I'll miss a few, and furthermore there isn't enough space in this post to try and explain some of the things that people believe about Bush that aren't necessarily true or in proper context.

Here's one:
blew off a key intelligence report about Bin Laden planning to use planes to attack the United States

I do believe that you are referring to a PDB (President's Daily Briefing) from August 6, 2001. It was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
You can find the exact transcript of this brief here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Of course the fact that Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, even on it's own soil, was no new news to anyone, much less the President or Condoleeza Rice. It's akin to saying "Little League World Series MVP determined to make the Big Leagues". The only reference within the entire briefing (which is quite a boring read, btw) to using airplanes was a hijacking to try and get America to release the "Blind Sheik". Pre-9/11, hijacking meant taking control of a plane and land it somewhere and holding the passengers hostage. This would make sense, as the passengers would be ransom for releasing the "Blind Sheik". Crashing them into buildings, or using them as weapons, etc. would kill the whole ransom thing, and the hostage-takers, and said sheik would not have been released. It also mentioned 70 FBI investigations currently operating to try and infiltrate Bin Laden cells, or anything else Bin Laden-related. So you see, this key document is really nothing more than a historical, redundant account of a lot of things that everybody already knew. Hell, I know that Bin Laden is probably planning to attack the US again, does that mean that it's my fault if he does?

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Regardless of what gets stirred around on the internet, what gets tossed around in the news, etc. there was no magical document, or report, etc. that outlined any specifics of any thing like the 9-11 attacks. It was definitely unprecedented, and it definitely wasn't Bush's fault. See my post about Able Danger for evidence that if it was any president's fault, it was Clinton.

[simpleman]

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise. I wasn't even talking about my beliefs, themselves. Daniel actually came through to prove my point exactly:


You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views?

That's not logic. That's hubris.

This accusation, to me, states that I believe my views, and only mine to be God's view. The logic I was referring to actually had nothing to do with my religious beliefs, or beliefs on sexuality, but Daniel demonstrated my final point (no one can look past my religious beliefs to consider my arguments against the hate crimes bill based on their merit) perfectly by dragging my religious beliefs back into the argument, when my sole point was that no one would consider my argument against the Hate Crimes Bill under grounds of anything other than my religious beliefs. Furthermore, as for the relativity vs. absoluteness, I don't believe I ever said that my beliefs represented the absolute, I was just making a lamentation on the changing way American political discourse takes place. Daniel, however, chooses to always see the worst in everything I say, so he used it to tear down my religious beliefs, once again. I do want to make it clear at this point that I myself don't feel hated, and have not once felt hated since I came here. No one should think that I'm crying foul that people here hate me. I really don't think that, and even if people here really did hate me it wouldn't be any big deal to me.

Back to the topic, President Bush, tapdancer has a lot of good ideas about it. He didn't plan this, he didn't execute it. As I said it would take too many people keeping quiet and as tapdancer said he's probably not capable (thought I don't think many could) of pulling something like this off.

I've also seen hurled a million different accusations about his administration, one after the other, I'd try to defend a thing or two, but there isn't enough space in this post to try and explain some of the things that people believe about Bush that aren't necessarily true or in proper context.

Here's one, though:
blew off a key intelligence report about Bin Laden planning to use planes to attack the United States

I do believe that you are referring to a PDB (President's Daily Briefing) from August 6, 2001. It was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
You can find the exact transcript of this brief here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Of course the fact that Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, even on it's own soil, was no new news to anyone, much less the President or Condoleeza Rice. It's akin to saying "Little League World Series MVP determined to make the Big Leagues". The only reference within the entire briefing (which is quite a boring read, btw) to using airplanes was a hijacking to try and get America to release the "Blind Sheik". Pre-9/11, hijacking meant taking control of a plane and land it somewhere and holding the passengers hostage. This would make sense, as the passengers would be ransom for releasing the "Blind Sheik". Crashing them into buildings, or using them as weapons, etc. would kill the whole ransom thing, and the hostage-takers, and said sheik would not have been released. It also mentioned 70 FBI investigations currently operating to try and infiltrate Bin Laden cells, or anything else Bin Laden-related. So you see, this key document is really nothing more than a historical, redundant account of a lot of things that everybody already knew. Hell, I know that Bin Laden is probably planning to attack the US again, does that mean that it's my fault if he does?

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Regardless of what gets stirred around on the internet, what gets tossed around in the news, etc. there was no magical document, or report, etc. that outlined any specifics of any thing like the 9-11 attacks. It was definitely unprecedented, and it definitely wasn't Bush's fault. See my post about Able Danger for evidence that if it was any president's fault, it was Clinton.

[tpdncr4christ]

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise. I wasn't even talking about my beliefs, themselves. Daniel actually came through to prove my point exactly:



This accusation, to me, states that I believe my views, and only mine to be God's view. The logic I was referring to actually had nothing to do with my religious beliefs, or beliefs on sexuality, but Daniel demonstrated my final point (no one can look past my religious beliefs to consider my arguments against the hate crimes bill based on their merit) perfectly by dragging my religious beliefs back into the argument, when my sole point was that no one would consider my argument against the Hate Crimes Bill under grounds of anything other than my religious beliefs. Furthermore, as for the relativity vs. absoluteness, I don't believe I ever said that my beliefs represented the absolute, I was just making a lamentation on the changing way American political discourse takes place. Daniel, however, chooses to always see the worst in everything I say, so he used it to tear down my religious beliefs, once again. I do want to make it clear at this point that I myself don't feel hated, and have not once felt hated since I came here. No one should think that I'm crying foul that people here hate me. I really don't think that, and even if people here really did hate me it wouldn't be any big deal to me.

Back to the topic, President Bush, tapdancer has a lot of good ideas about it. He didn't plan this, he didn't execute it. As I said it would take too many people keeping quiet and as tapdancer said he's probably not capable (thought I don't think many could) of pulling something like this off.

I've also seen hurled a million different accusations about his administration, one after the other, I'd try to defend a thing or two, but there isn't enough space in this post to try and explain some of the things that people believe about Bush that aren't necessarily true or in proper context.

Here's one, though:


I do believe that you are referring to a PDB (President's Daily Briefing) from August 6, 2001. It was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
You can find the exact transcript of this brief here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Of course the fact that Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, even on it's own soil, was no new news to anyone, much less the President or Condoleeza Rice. It's akin to saying "Little League World Series MVP determined to make the Big Leagues". The only reference within the entire briefing (which is quite a boring read, btw) to using airplanes was a hijacking to try and get America to release the "Blind Sheik". Pre-9/11, hijacking meant taking control of a plane and land it somewhere and holding the passengers hostage. This would make sense, as the passengers would be ransom for releasing the "Blind Sheik". Crashing them into buildings, or using them as weapons, etc. would kill the whole ransom thing, and the hostage-takers, and said sheik would not have been released. It also mentioned 70 FBI investigations currently operating to try and infiltrate Bin Laden cells, or anything else Bin Laden-related. So you see, this key document is really nothing more than a historical, redundant account of a lot of things that everybody already knew. Hell, I know that Bin Laden is probably planning to attack the US again, does that mean that it's my fault if he does?

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Regardless of what gets stirred around on the internet, what gets tossed around in the news, etc. there was no magical document, or report, etc. that outlined any specifics of any thing like the 9-11 attacks. It was definitely unprecedented, and it definitely wasn't Bush's fault. See my post about Able Danger for evidence that if it was any president's fault, it was Clinton.

Simpleman! Why are you so smart? Seriously? I like your references. You make good points, really good points. But I wouldn't point the finger too quickly, if any fault is to be cast it is on Bin Laden, not Bush, not Clinton, not George Washington. The reason for the attacks was Bin Laden. The man behind the attacks was Bin Laden. That's simple init?

Antony, I don't really know if you have an answer to this next question or not, you probably do, but I'm gonna ask it all the same. If the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn't a Boeing 747, what happened to the people on the plane that was a Boeing 747 that was supposed to have crashed? If this is a smaller plane, a plane that wasn't one of the four hijacked ones, then we are missing a plane, are we not? If the plane that his the Pentagon was indeed some smaller plane, what happened to the big one?

[Daniel]

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.


You don't have a link, but you think you read it? Reported extensively?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH SIMPLEMAN.

First you accuse me of bending your words, when, in fact, your beliefs, as much as you think they are not an issue, are the issue. For all your vaunted logic, your beliefs cry out in all that you write, just as mine do in my posts.

Who do you think you're kidding? Do you really thing you can be Mr. Logic and come on this forum and not have those beliefs drawn into question when they hang out all over the place like a red slip under a white dress?

You have been presented with one logical and reasoned statement after another regarding the Hate Crimes Law and simply brush them all aside.

That's pretty absolute.

[tpdncr4christ]

You don't have a link, but you think you read it? Reported extensively?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH SIMPLEMAN.

First you accuse me of bending your words, when, in fact, your beliefs, as much as you think they are not an issue, are the issue. For all your vaunted logic, your beliefs cry out in all that you write, just as mine do in my posts.

Who do you think you're kidding? Do you really thing you can be Mr. Logic and come on this forum and not have those beliefs drawn into question when they hang out all over the place like a red slip under a white dress?

You have been presented with one logical and reasoned statement after another regarding the Hate Crimes Law and simply brush them all aside.

That's pretty absolute.

Daniel. Back off for a second. Breathe. Now, I want to know what the hell you are talking about, because I have no clue. Are you still talking about Bush planning 9/11? Are you talking about the new decree enhancing the powers of the executive branch during an emergency? Really, I have no idea what you are talking about... please restate your words in the dumbest form for maximum comprehension, because you just seem to be practicing the Art of Being Wrong (Aka, Rhetoric). Please, explicate...

[ladyinred]

Concerning the varying remarks made on this forum about the President:I in all honesty cannot stand behind this president and support what he is doing. It would go against my conscience to do so. I'd read in the Weekly awhile back where they quoted him as saying that the war in Iraq would go on indefinitely no matter how much Iraqi or American blood was shed,until victory was achieved.

That sounded pretty hard hearted and callous and if that is how the man thinks,I think he is sadly mistaken. Our goal in Iraq should be to find a way to get the sectarian violence to stop,(Or at least to get the Iraqi Government and people to do something about it) hopefully to help Iraq to stablize and to get our guys out of there as soon as possible, not advocate endless bloodshed and death.

How many lives does the president think should be sacrificed to ensure him a victory? To me that is all about ego with little concern for the consequences of such policies and the death toll just keeps rising. I would say his views on the war and his policies in the Middle East are creating far more problems than solving them.

My motto has always been never trust anyone who is a little too eager to go to war and shed blood in the name of national interests. Can we always avoid war, I don't know, but before we decide to jump in , we need to think if that is the only course of action available to us with no other way to resolve it.

The Christian tenants on going to war, are that we should only go to war as a matter of self defense and as a last resort when all other options on the table have failed and that we should never attack another country unprovoked, and if there is a clear and present danger.I tend to agree. Nobody should be happy about going to war or putting people's lives on the line.Things need to be carefully thought out before they are instigated.If this president thinks an endless bloodbath and loss of life is the solution than he is delusional ,heartless and cruel.

Now as far as 9/11 is concerned,was there a conspiracy or plot on the president's part,I honestly do not know. But he did lead us into a war on apparently false information and from what I've read had already had plans to invade Iraq.What happened to Bin Laden? My thinking is that the Bush family has too many ties to the Bin Laden family business-wise and wanted to avoid rocking the boat.Can I prove that? No. But it is a known fact that George Bush Jr had business ties with one of the brothers and as far as I can tell from what I've read, the Bush family is on very friendly terms with the Bin Laden family.

[ladyinred]

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

[ladyinred]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
PBS,frontline

[simpleman]

You don't have a link, but you think you read it? Reported extensively?

NOT GOOD ENOUGH SIMPLEMAN.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1181102400&en=c089d387f1351060&ei=5070
There it is, happy now? I looked through my cache and found it. If I'd had the slightest idea that you would lambast me to the extent that you did,
I would have just done it the first time. You truly are my biggest watchdog
on this site, so I'll be sure never to err again. On to the story...
This story indicates that the Times was trying to expose that Rice had ignored warnings of an impending terrorist attack. Again, most people knew that Bin Laden wanted to attack on American soil. No one, not even Tenet, knew or could possibly know on 7/10/01 that 9/11/01 would be the day, they just knew that an attack was possible in the not-too-distant future. Rice responded to the men that they should take their presentation and evidence to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, Ashcroft himself saying that he never got word from Tenet about any of it. Furthermore, Tenet's information was simply "it looks like they might or might not possibly plan and/or execute an attack against America, and possibly on American soil. It could be soon." There were so many ifs, because no one could possibly dream up a scenario like 9-11 except for maniacal sociopaths like those you find in Al Qaeda. What was she supposed to do? She told them that their information was good and to present it to people above her, presumably so that it could keep going up the ladder, but apparently Tenet did not believe it important enough to take up to Rumsfeld or Ashcroft. Or either he knew that he didn't have quite enough to nail down any specifics. Obviously he didn't, because the Clinton administration had shut down projects, such as Able Danger, from being able to do their jobs. Check into Able Danger, Sandy Berger and Jamie Gorelick's work with that and the FBI, and some of those things. There isn't going to be a smoking gun for 9-11 in anyone's hands but Osama Bin Laden. To tapdancer, I didn't mean to imply that 9-11 was America or any president's fault. I know that blame belongs on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. However, since everyone here wants to blame America (Bush) for it, I thought it would be fair to mention that Clinton, as a President, probably had more to do with it than Bush.


First you accuse me of bending your words, when, in fact, your beliefs, as much as you think they are not an issue, are the issue. For all your vaunted logic, your beliefs cry out in all that you write, just as mine do in my posts.

Who do you think you're kidding? Do you really thing you can be Mr. Logic and come on this forum and not have those beliefs drawn into question when they hang out all over the place like a red slip under a white dress?

You have been presented with one logical and reasoned statement after another regarding the Hate Crimes Law and simply brush them all aside.

That's pretty absolute.

My beliefs on what? Sexuality or government? I never said you bent my words. All I ever said was that, not even specifically you, several people are not judging my argument on the Hate Crimes Bill by anything other than their thinking that my personal, religious beliefs about sexuality are influencing my beliefs on that certain piece of public policy. I'll try to put that into context for you. I don't believe that being black is wrong. I don't believe it is a sin to be black, but I don't agree with hate crimes laws protecting them either. Many would argue that the reason that I am against these hate crimes laws is because I am racist. I would say that my arguments are not being given fair consideration because people think this: "He believes that hate crimes laws protecting black people are bad, that makes him racist. The only reason that he thinks they are wrong is because he is racist." So it becomes circular logic, a logical fallacy.

That's what I'm trying to say. So, what I see here is this: "He believes that hate crimes laws protecting gays are wrong, and that indicates that he has some kind of prejudice against gay people. Because he has a prejudice against gay people, he believes that hate crimes legislation protecting gays is wrong." Making my "beliefs" "the issue" instead of the actual issue "the issue," is my exact problem. I mean, it's understandable, and I'm not upset about it, I just think it would be better for dialogue, and for everybody's sanity to consider it as an argument about a piece of legislation and not to let it become "my beliefs" as the issue.

[simpleman]

Concerning the varying remarks made on this forum about the President:I in all honesty cannot stand behind this president and support what he is doing. It would go against my conscience to do so. I'd read in the Weekly awhile back where they quoted him as saying that the war in Iraq would go on indefinitely no matter how much Iraqi or American blood was shed,until victory was achieved.
I supported the war, because of the troops, but I feared that we lacked a clear exit strategy. I still support our troops, and the war. The problem is, we're dealing with a part of the world that doesn't think politically or culturally the way we do. Reagan realized that, and I don't think it will be long before Bush does as well.

That sounded pretty hard hearted and callous and if that is how the man thinks,I think he is sadly mistaken. Our goal in Iraq should be to find a way to get the sectarian violence to stop,(Or at least to get the Iraqi Government and people to do something about it) hopefully to help Iraq to stablize and to get our guys out of there as soon as possible, not advocate endless bloodshed and death.

I really think it's a stretch to interpret him as saying he wants a bloodbath. I do believe that he wants to stop the sectarian violence, and the Sunni uprising, and all of that, but the answer to that question is nearly impossible, particularly now that Iran is slipping support under the table to Sunni insurgents in Iraq. He wants to win this thing as much as anyone else, but we're in a serious military catch-22 over there. We can't muscle up and try to re-do what we've already done in putting together their government and take over until we crush all insurgents, and we can't pull out because then Iraq would probably collapse under it's own weight and Iran could conceivably begin pulling strings and making movements to re-establish radical, violent Sunni leadership in Iraq. It's a bad situation.


How many lives does the president think should be sacrificed to ensure him a victory? To me that is all about ego with little concern for the consequences of such policies and the death toll just keeps rising. I would say his views on the war and his policies in the Middle East are creating far more problems than solving them.

The loss of American life in Iraq is nowhere near the counts for Nam, WWI, WWII or even the Civil War. That doesn't mean that the 3000 who have lost their lives bravely are devalued, it's just saying that there has been relatively very little loss of American life, and even Iraqi life in this conflict. The problem the Middle East has with us stretches way back to well before Bush was president. We supported, and still support the State of Israel, so the rest of the Muslim world in the Middle East despises us. Bush's policies are obviously going to make them mad, but not really any more mad than they already were.


My motto has always been never trust anyone who is a little too eager to go to war and shed blood in the name of national interests. Can we always avoid war, I don't know, but before we decide to jump in , we need to think if that is the only course of action available to us with no other way to resolve it.
The Christian tenants on going to war, are that we should only go to war as a matter of self defense and as a last resort when all other options on the table have failed and that we should never attack another country unprovoked, and if there is a clear and present danger.I tend to agree. Nobody should be happy about going to war or putting people's lives on the line.Things need to be carefully thought out before they are instigated.If this president thinks an endless bloodbath and loss of life is the solution than he is delusional ,heartless and cruel.

I don't think we had many options with Saddam Hussein. The man was not going to budge one inch, or give up one bit of power. Diplomacy is generally lost on dictators. Even so, he wasn't just any dictator, he was a dictator that was looking to gain more power and military might. He was also executing Kurds by the thousands in gas chambers.


Now as far as 9/11 is concerned,was there a conspiracy or plot on the president's part,I honestly do not know. But he did lead us into a war on apparently false information and from what I've read had already had plans to invade Iraq.What happened to Bin Laden? My thinking is that the Bush family has too many ties to the Bin Laden family business-wise and wanted to avoid rocking the boat.Can I prove that? No. But it is a known fact that George Bush Jr had business ties with one of the brothers and as far as I can tell from what I've read, the Bush family is on very friendly terms with the Bin Laden family.

There isn't one. Muslim terrorists flew planes into buildings.

I don't know what you mean by "false information" but if you are referring to Bush's reference to British intelligence and uranium from Niger, and how Joseph Wilson tried to say that Bush lied about it, then all I can say is that Wilson has been proven a fraud. His wife, a CIA agent whose position wasn't classified, recommended him for an unpaid trip to Niger to meet with dignitaries. Once there, he asked them if they had sold any uranium to Hussein. Of course their leaders would deny this, because they don't want the US and UN crawling up their behind either. Wilson comes back and tries to con America into believing that his report was ignored and that Bush had been lying about the WMD's all along, when his "report" had never reached anyone important's desk (such as Cheney, which he claimed that it had). Furthermore, his report was nothing more than what he gleaned from the aforementioned conversations with Nigerian leaders. And British intelligence also confirmed that they had indeed collected evidence that Niger had sold uranium to Hussein. I'm sure there are other claims of false information, but this is the most-reported one. If there is any other "false information" I'd be glad to take a look at it.

Hope that clears up a few of those "I don't knows".

[Emproph]

My Pet Goat
IPIgfuXv_48

[ladyinred]

Simpleman, you obviously do not know anything about the cultures or the Middle East. A) Iran is predominately shiite and would most likely not support a sunni uprising since they have been their enemies in the past.b) They however would support the shiite population, if they were even involved. c) the Iraqis do not want us over there, they see the United States as an occupation whose welcome is outworn.D) The Iranians don't have the capability to manufacture nukes, yet, but right now Russia is breathing down our back and do have.So does China, who has also made threats in the past of using them.Why the focus on Iran when larger threats possibly loom,(Of course America is not going to pick on Russia or China ,they know better than threaten them with a nuke, they'll just send one back our way) I'd ask the question why are we making so many enemies?

You also mentioned that the Moslem countries despise us because of our unilateral support of Israel, I'm certainly not against Israel, but what they may see as offensive is that we support Israel no matter what , right or wrong and unfairly take sides in many cases.We've also supported dictatorships like the shaah of Iran who murdered and tortured his people,among others, and was considered a propped up puppet of the United States.It has also been argued that the US helped Saddam's rise to power in the first place and remember he was once an ally of the US.
Somebody wisely said, if you don't want to deal with "monsters" ,don't help create them in the first place. Here are two articles , one says the CIA helped Saddam Husseins rise to powe the other refutes it but states how Saddam was supported and even helped by the US to build his arsenal:http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm,
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

[ladyinred]

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2007/02/near-total-news-blackout-on-saudi-role.html

[ladyinred]

Would I trust the Bush administration on Iran,hell no. The American people only supported this war because they thought the Bush adminstration had told them the truth, if they had known that Cheney was hell-bent on a war with Iraq before the "evidence" was in, would they have supported it, I seriously doubt it.The American people still have principles,even though our government doesn't.And we don't like being lied to either.

Is Cheney a liar and a crook? Overcharged the taxpayer for services in Iraq to our troops.I don't think that sounds like an honest man ,when he deliberately tries to screw the American taxpayer. The company that the President keeps is dubious and what is with all the corruption? As Jesus said , "By their fruits ye shall know them". Should I trust the President , I don't believe so. Just because the religious right call him a Christian doesn't make him so by the label. And what you call "logic" I see as convoluted. at last estimate , from what I've heard , over 650,000 Iraqis have died and over 3000 troops.Supporting our troops is one thing, but supporting what is considered an illegal war by many is another.

[nmwolfboy]

<snip>I don't know what you mean by "false information" but if you are referring to Bush's reference to British intelligence and uranium from Niger, and how Joseph Wilson tried to say that Bush lied about it, then all I can say is that Wilson has been proven a fraud. His wife, a CIA agent whose position wasn't classified, recommended him for an unpaid trip to Niger to meet with dignitaries. <snip>


Widely reported in the past week, in print as well as television media, was a filing in the Libby case by Fitzgerald which states that Ms. Plame most certainly was a covert operator. Here's Newsweek's take, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18927332/site/newsweek/) for example. Please note that the info in Fitzgerald's court filing about Ms. Plame's status was cleared through the CIA. Pretty much shows up the lies of the right-wing spin machine about Ms. Plame.

Pax :dove:

scott

[antonyh]

First of all, my bringing sexuality into it again was not about sexuality itself, it was about how my arguments aren't often considered based on their merit, but rather on, what I believe to be an unfair equation of my religious beliefs to hateful beliefs. I am not, as Daniel has accused, claiming that my beliefs are absolute. I am not trying to force any of you to pick up on my beliefs on sexuality, etc., I was trying to point out that I would like my arguments, most specifically about the Hate Crimes Bill, to be considered based on their merits and basis in our legal system, not on whether or not my arguments have anything to do with hatred, conscious, subconscious or otherwise.

That is the difference between us. You're approaching LGBT issues (including the Hate Crimes Bill) as an interesting argument about the legal issues surrounding hate crimes legislation.

Most of us on the board are potential targets of a hate crime on the basis of our sexual orientation. Many of us know people who have been targeted. I just received an email from Sean Kennedy's mom about her heartbreak over the loss of her son to a hate crime on May 16th. This is serious business for us, not some abstract academic exercise in the law.

I am not naive enough to believe that the S 1105 is going to completely stop hate crimes against LGBT people, but the law is a step in the right direction. At a minimum, it says something about our national commitment to prevent hate crimes against anyone based on any characteristic of their being.

How can this be a bad thing, especially since it includes everyone?

[tpdncr4christ]

Antony, I don't really know if you have an answer to this next question or not, you probably do, but I'm gonna ask it all the same. If the plane that crashed into the Pentagon wasn't a Boeing 747, what happened to the people on the plane that was a Boeing 747 that was supposed to have crashed? If this is a smaller plane, a plane that wasn't one of the four hijacked ones, then we are missing a plane, are we not? If the plane that his the Pentagon was indeed some smaller plane, what happened to the big one?

Really... I want to know what you have to say about this. I'd really like to know.

[antonyh]

Really... I want to know what you have to say about this. I'd really like to know.

For the record, I'm skeptical about the conspiracy theories. But I'm open to questioning. And there are some big unanswered questions.

[tpdncr4christ]

I have never witnessed such blatant hypocrisy before on this forum. You talk about argument versus experience, when you cannot formulate a worthwhile argument yourself. How can you point out small tidbits of missing information from our arguments and ignore huge missing pieces of information from your own.

I have been intrigued, honestly curious and worried about this 9/11 conspiracy theory and I have been investigating it, giving your arguments and points due time and trying to understand your point of view. I was terrified of the fact that perhaps our President did do something so horrible as do nothing to prevent, even plan the slaughter of thousands of his own innocent people. I cannot believe you actually think you have an argument.

If there is one thing I hate in this world it is hypocrisy. If this discussion is just going to lead to you saying you have holes in your argument I don't see the point. I was sincerely concerned about my safety and my well being in this country because the man you portrayed as our president seems capable of anything. He is not, and he cannot be such an evil man. I am ashamed I actually believed you. I'm gonna try and take a hiatus from this particular thread for a while so I can breathe and calm down, but when I come back I'd really like to know why and how you can believe such filth.

[antonyh]

I have never witnessed such blatant hypocrisy before on this forum. You talk about argument versus experience, when you cannot formulate a worthwhile argument yourself. How can you point out small tidbits of missing information from our arguments and ignore huge missing pieces of information from your own.

I have been intrigued, honestly curious and worried about this 9/11 conspiracy theory and I have been investigating it, giving your arguments and points due time and trying to understand your point of view. I was terrified of the fact that perhaps our President did do something so horrible as do nothing to prevent, even plan the slaughter of thousands of his own innocent people. I cannot believe you actually think you have an argument.

If there is one thing I hate in this world it is hypocrisy. If this discussion is just going to lead to you saying you have holes in your argument I don't see the point. I was sincerely concerned about my safety and my well being in this country because the man you portrayed as our president seems capable of anything. He is not, and he cannot be such an evil man. I am ashamed I actually believed you. I'm gonna try and take a hiatus from this particular thread for a while so I can breathe and calm down, but when I come back I'd really like to know why and how you can believe such filth.

I'm not an expert in Physics nor do I have the time to sort out the details of the government vs. the conspiracy theories. That is why I provided you with this page so that you can do your own research:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=30738&postcount=33

and this:

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=30714&postcount=27

Your question is a good one so I suggest you read the experts above.

The only argument that I am willing to make is that there are some big unanswered questions. I will not argue beyond that statement :)

If you had actually read my posts you would realize that I simply presented the conspiracy theories without taking a position on them. I presented them because they are very influential and relate to people's fears about this presidential directive.

And if you actually read this post you'd realize that I don't even fear this presidential directive:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=30603&postcount=14

Given what I know about disaster recovery, the presidential directive is necessary.

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1181102400&en=c089d387f1351060&ei=5070
There it is, happy now? I looked through my cache and found it. If I'd had the slightest idea that you would lambast me to the extent that you did, I would have just done it the first time. You truly are my biggest watchdog on this site, so I'll be sure never to err again. On to the story...
This story indicates that the Times was trying to expose that Rice had ignored warnings of an impending terrorist attack.

Nope. Not happy one bit.

Why? Because the article you cite does absolutely nothing for the argument you made in the following post. In fact, it proves my case.

If you are referencing the July 10, 2001 meeting between George Tenet (then leader of the CIA) and Rice, it has been reported extensively that Rice heeded warnings presented to her that day, and set in motion several plans. I don't have a link to the New York Times article, but I read one.

Heeded warnings? Several plans?

I guess you haven't read the 9/11 Commission's report or the Congressional Record for that matter.

The article from the NYTimes, in point of fact, shows how Ms. Rice has a habit of covering her ass.

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

She says she remembers meeting with Tenet but did not remember a specific meeting and has the gall to say that she finds it "incomprehensible" that she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11th attacks.

Ms. Rice not only blew off Tenet, but she blew off Richard Clarke.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm


Testimony of Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism coordinator:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

I guess national security, which Ms. Rice was in charge of at the time, wasn't that great a priority. It was a big enough priority to be sidelined into a sub-cabinet level. Gee. That's really taking a terrorist threat seriously, isn't it? :rolleyes: And I guess you've forgotten that fact that the Bush administration stonewalled the 9/11 commission for over a year. They didn't want them to find out just how little they actually did- which amounted to zippo.


MS. RICE: The fact is that what we were presented on January the 25th was a set of ideas -- and a paper, most of which was about what the Clinton administration had done, and something called the Delenda plan, which had been considered in 1998 and never adopted.

We decided to take a different track. We decided to put together a strategic approach to this that would get the regional powers -- the problem wasn't that you didn't have a good counterterrorism person. The problem was you didn't have approach against al Qaeda because you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan, and you didn't have an approach against Afghanistan because you didn't have an approach against Pakistan. And until we could get that right, we didn't have a policy.

In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th, he mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of anything that needs to be done about them. And the FBI was pursuing them. And usually when things come to me it's because I'm supposed to do something about it, and there was no indication that the FBI was not adequately pursuing the sleeper cells.

Rice called the plan by Clark a set of ideas, which, in and of itself, telegraphs loud and clear that the Bush administration decided that anything the Clinton administration presented was not to be listened to. But that's not thw whole story.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html
A disputed history

The documents have been a source of controversy before. Rice contended in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post piece that "no al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Two days later, Clarke insisted to the 9/11 Commission that the plan had in fact been turned over. "There's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options, but all of the things we recommended back in January," he told the commission, "were done after September 11th."

A close reading of the Congressional Record shows that her assertion that the Bush administration decided to take a "strategic approach" is a flat out lie. She did nothing but sideline Clarke and the warning by Tenet. She might as well had said 'my dog ate my homework', because she has nothing to show but lies and obfuscation.

And what was the reward for her performance? El Presidente made her Secretary of State. :rolleyes:

Simpleman- To put it simply: you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the assertion that Ms. Rice put into motion "several plans". She did nothing of the sort.

To put things a bit more bluntly:

Simpleman: you're full of crap!

[tdogg]

The loss of American life in Iraq is nowhere near the counts for Nam, WWI, WWII or even the Civil War. That doesn't mean that the 3000 who have lost their lives bravely are devalued, it's just saying that there has been relatively very little loss of American life, and even Iraqi life in this conflict. The problem the Middle East has with us stretches way back to well before Bush was president. We supported, and still support the State of Israel, so the rest of the Muslim world in the Middle East despises us. Bush's policies are obviously going to make them mad, but not really any more mad than they already were.


So Simple, how do you feel about the well over 600,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost?

I believe the modern conflict with the middle east was, if not started, then exacerbated by Daddy Bush. Jr is just carrying out Daddy's wishes.

Bush likely had nothing to do with the planning of 9-11, but gross negligence, especially in light of personal gains made during this war, is nothing less than evil. Just MHO. To understand that evil definitely lurks in DC politics is a smart form of self-preservation.

[Emproph]

there has been relatively very little loss of American life, and even Iraqi life in this conflict.So Simple, how do you feel about the well over 600,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost?

I hear they're being blown up in car bombs and other such 'worst ways to die' to the tune of 100 a day.
And how many more are physically maimed for life and will NEVER have access to even a fraction of the health care that our wounded soldiers enjoy? And how many more are pschologically crippled for life because they LITERALLY had to pick up the pieces of their loved ones? All for oil.

Of course they didn't/don't have an exit strategy. That would be like expecting them to have an "exit" strategy for heaven. Infinite oil = infinite energy = infinite money = infinite power over everyone else's money.

~~
I think this site below provides confirmed confirmed reports of deaths. The type that the larger estimates are based on. Even still, they report over 64,000 civilian deaths minimum.

Divide that by 3000, and that's 21.3 9/11's that we are responsible for inflicting upon Iraq.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/images/b2grey.jpg
Minimum

[tpdncr4christ]

If the war is about oil, why aren't gas prices going down? If the war is about oil why do we care about civilians? Why don't we just use the technology we have and destroy everything, then pick the oil up from the pieces?

What was life like in Iraq before we came? With Saddam Husein? What's the body count of innocent deaths then? Or do we not have one because we don't know how many people he killed? What about the entire families that just disappeared off the face of the earth when Saddam was in power? Or do they not count?

I thought this was a war against terrorism, and we were staged in Iraq to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. We might not have found massive chemical bombs, or stores of anthrax, or nuclear weapons, but we did find one weapon of mass destruction. His name is Saddam Husein. He was just as dangerous as any bomb. War is not nice. Expect death, don't be appalled at it. That's like being disgusted with the fact that a toilet smells like sh**. It isn't good, it isn't excusable, war is not free of sin on either sides, but don't act so surprised when people end up dead. There is no way to win a war. It is heart breaking, but it is fact.

[simpleman]

Simpleman: you're full of crap!

I'm glad we've finally stooped to ad hominem. I can go through a whole post without insulting you and all I would ever ask is that you do the same for me. I'm tired of dealing with your snide, rude, and childish responses to everything I ever write. It's not respectful, and it's not appropriate for civilized and respectful dialogue. It's really not worth my time to try and have a conversation with you when you do nothing but be incredibly rude to me. One day maybe you'll see how rude you have been to me. I bet you don't see it now. I don't have time to go over anything about Rice, Bush,etc., suffice to say that "Give your presentation to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, then we can all work on this" does not mean "I think you're wrong, Tenet, I'm ignoring you".

If you want to be polite and respectful, please respond, otherwise, I would ask that you not address me in any further posts.

[tdogg]

If the war is about oil, why aren't gas prices going down? If the war is about oil why do we care about civilians?

Gas prices aren't going down because some are making HUGE profits from oil and this war. Wish I had time to research all the facts for you Austin, but it's true. Why do you think 3 of the 4 top-grossing corporations in the last quarter were oil companies? Who do you think owns significant holdings in oil companies? Yup, our Prez for starters. That's why this war seems a bit self-serving for Bush to some of us.

I'm just not seeing that those advocating the war and keeping it going really do care about civilian lives. And sorry, but I don't really see them caring about our soldiers' lives either. See, that's why me (and many others) don't trust Bush and don't support the war. I support our troops, in that I want our men and women HOME where they belong! I do not support Bush in this, and have not supported him and will not support him ever.

However, I have nothing against you if you choose to support Bush or the war. Just don't expect me to be swayed. Austin, don't lose that idealism buddy. Just be prepared for the reality to enter in at times. Idealism isn't a bad thing. Optimism is never a bad thing. :love:

[tpdncr4christ]

Just want you to know, I think you are fully justified in what you are saying. I got your back. People are being rude to you, mostly because they disagree with you, but there is a little residue resentment from other conversations. I must say, its amusing when you look at it... Just don't take it personally, these guys can be jerks, and they can be full of crap too. I see what you meant in your second post on this thread, we are judging you. I have been saying practically the same things you have been saying, in much meaner and ruder ways then you (Yes, that was on purpose... I know, right?), and yet somehow you are the one taking the sh** for it. That's not right. I'm sorry for it, and yes, it is because of past conversations that you are getting treated this way.

Simpleman is right. I think we all owe him an apology. I've learned my lesson not to apologize for everyone, but I'll still say, it wouldn't hurt. Don't apologize for disagreeing with the guy, just apologize for your curtness, and who knows, he might apologize for his curtness in previous conversation...

So Simpleman, just chill out, relax, and don't let it get to you. I'm with you on this one. That's all.

[tpdncr4christ]

Gas prices aren't going down because some are making HUGE profits from oil and this war. Wish I had time to research all the facts for you Austin, but it's true. Why do you think 3 of the 4 top-grossing corporations in the last quarter were oil companies? Who do you think owns significant holdings in oil companies? Yup, our Prez for starters. That's why this war seems a bit self-serving for Bush to some of us.

So he is making money off the war? That's not cool... I still hold to my beliefs, but still... that's not cool at all.

[Zerbie]

I must say, its amusing when you look at it... Just don't take it personally, these guys can be jerks,



Austin: I find this offensive and rude, and not cool at all.

[Daniel]

I'm glad we've finally stooped to ad hominem. I can go through a whole post without insulting you and all I would ever ask is that you do the same for me. I'm tired of dealing with your snide, rude, and childish responses to everything I ever write. It's not respectful, and it's not appropriate for civilized and respectful dialogue. It's really not worth my time to try and have a conversation with you when you do nothing but be incredibly rude to me. One day maybe you'll see how rude you have been to me. I bet you don't see it now. I don't have time to go over anything about Rice, Bush,etc., suffice to say that "Give your presentation to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, then we can all work on this" does not mean "I think you're wrong, Tenet, I'm ignoring you".

If you want to be polite and respectful, please respond, otherwise, I would ask that you not address me in any further posts.

Rude? I've been outright angry. For all my supposed rudeness I have made a great effort to deal with facts. Facts which you (again and again and again) IGNORE and PUSH ASIDE with the flick of your finger because they don't suit your narrow - yes- narrow world view. The one where God doesn't like gay people.

How rude is that?

It's not only rude, it's dehumanizing. Do you even SEE the people you are talking to here, or are they just toys you push and pull at your leisure?

You have no business lecturing me on being rude when in post after post, I and others have presented our perspective- which you again flick aside with the flick of your finger.

You don't have time? Really?

Is this your fall-back postion when the facts are shown to be against you? When your own half-baked assertions are revealed in the light of day?

Don't play games with me Simpleman.

Either we deal with facts (where are your facts on Ms. Rice?) or we don't deal. (I'd like to see your assertions backs up with facts rather than more assertions.)

So either put up or shut up.

~

Oh...news flash. You don't own me. And you don't own this conversation. And I will not be silenced by you. I'm not giving you that power. Only a fool gives away his power.

~

tpdncr- I would stay out of the line of fire if I were you. I wouldn't want to see any collateral damage here, ok? Take cover boyfriend. It's going to be a bumpy night.

[kara speltz]

If the war is about oil, why aren't gas prices going down? If the war is about oil why do we care about civilians? Why don't we just use the technology we have and destroy everything, then pick the oil up from the pieces?

.

Dear Austin: That statement is so off the wall, I can't believe you'd say that! Having been to Iraq twice, since the war began, I can tell you that the U.S. doesn't give a damn about Iraqi civilians at all. We refuse to count their deaths.

The reason the gasoline prices continue to escalate is two fold. One we clearly are failing in Iraq and two greed. Chevron and other oil companies, like them are making historic profits never before seen.

[ladyinred]

"Oh...news flash. You don't own me. And you don't own this conversation. And I will not be silenced by you. I'm not giving you that power. Only a fool gives away his power." Amen Daniel


First of all I would like to say I thought the moderators had said after the bus trips to the colleges the discussion on gay issues with these people would end and they would not be allowed on the forum to keep bringing it up. They had their time and were allowed to say what they wanted,and there was a dialogue and now it is over

.I don't feel like anyone here should be made to defend their lifestyle and constantly have to answer the same questions and have the same tired dialogue with these people, because obviously we know where they stand and they won't change their minds. OK, they have a right to disagree, but this is really over and I do not see going on with this dead end dialogue. Do we have the right to end a conversation here ,I'd say yes. Simpleman ,you may not like gay people or agree with passing the hate crime bill, but people here really do not owe you an explanation for their lifestyle or their support the bill.

I also have alot of respect for people like Daniel, who I don't see as rude or taking swipes at you, but I think like everyone else here,and of course quoting Kara with her brilliant words,"We've heard it over and over ad nauseum," I do think Daniel gets frustrated and a bit irritated at your accusations that you level him.And he does have the right to disagree with you, and say what he thinks. Were you expecting him to join you on the "other side" with what he sees as your anti-gay stance, and pat you on the back and say you gotta a point there? NOT realistic dude.

[simpleman]

Rude? I've been outright angry. For all my supposed rudeness I have made a great effort to deal with facts. Facts which you (again and again and again) IGNORE and PUSH ASIDE with the flick of your finger because they don't suit your narrow - yes- narrow world view. The one where God doesn't like gay people.

I really don't want to brawl with you, ok? I don't want anger or a fight, so I am just going to try to answer your questions as best I can. I don't understand why my opposing viewpoints are always boiled down to hatred, ignorance, and saying that I don't deal in reality or factual information. I don't think that's fair, and I don't expect it from anyone here.

I don't believe I have ever once said that God doesn't love His gay children, or that I believe that He has already passed judgment on anyone. I am very glad of God's endless mercy, because I am a sinner, too. Whether or not I consider homosexuality a sin, it is no worse than when I have made mistakes and for the future mistakes that I might make.

I don't flick away facts. I have answered almost (not absolutely every) all of the thousands of questions that have been posed to me, the majority of which required me to defend my religious beliefs and tirelessly try to liberate myself from accusations of bigotry and hatred, more than actually to defend my viewpoints or my interpretation of the facts. Generally speaking, I agree with many facts on hate crimes, etc, but they lead me to a different conclusion. Is that ignorance of facts? Or different interpretation of data? Is your interpretation of fact transcendent to mine?


How rude is that?

It's not only rude, it's dehumanizing. Do you even SEE the people you are talking to here, or are they just toys you push and pull at your leisure?

Of course not! I don't think I dehumanize anyone. I have never once said that being gay makes anyone subhuman. I don't believe sin makes people subhuman. I don't believe I've ever stated that or intimated that. All fall short of the glory of God, and for different reasons. I don't push and pull any of you around, but I do like to argue, and I happen to have an opposing viewpoint.


You have no business lecturing me on being rude when in post after post, I and others have presented our perspective- which you again flick aside with the flick of your finger.

There are a lot of accusations of flickery in this post that I feel are somewhat unwarranted. I've admitted to not having firsthand experience of being oppressed, so I don't have your perspective. I understand the point of everyone's perspectives, but my arguments about the legislation, or about the E-Ride, are grounded not in my perspective as a Straight Southern White Conservative Libertarian Protestant Male, but as an observer and student of the laws, and of culture, and of a person who likes to talk.


You don't have time? Really?

Is this your fall-back postion when the facts are shown to be against you? When your own half-baked assertions are revealed in the light of day?

What I said was that I don't have time to deal with the way you are comporting yourself. I felt like continuing to argue my side of this point would be detrimental, because of how heated the discussion has become. However, I have made time now, because I've found that this is what you want. My last post was in hopes that you would cool off a little so we could discuss it not-angrily, but if you want to keep going, I suppose that's fine.


Don't play games with me Simpleman.

Either we deal with facts (where are your facts on Ms. Rice?) or we don't deal. (I'd like to see your assertions backs up with facts rather than more assertions.)

So either put up or shut up.

I'm not playing games. You, however, constantly accuse me, generally every other post to me, of dodging facts, dodging people, and dodging opinions/perspectives. I have repeatedly defended this, even one time spending three hours on a post to try and make sure I got everything right, just for you. I'll get to some more evidence about Ms. Rice momentarily.


Oh...news flash. You don't own me. And you don't own this conversation. And I will not be silenced by you. I'm not giving you that power. Only a fool gives away his power.

I don't want any power from you, I don't want you to shut up. All I want from you is civil debate, not name-calling, hurled accusations, and general emotionally-charged ranting. That's all I want.


tpdncr- I would stay out of the line of fire if I were you. I wouldn't want to see any collateral damage here, ok? Take cover boyfriend. It's going to be a bumpy night.

I appreciate your support, tpdncer. I have been trying to get across what you've said for a while now. To you, and I guess to everybody, no matter how strident I get, it's not a personal thing. I don't hate anybody, I just enjoy the dissemination of information and expression of views. I appreciate you respecting me, regardless of whether or not you agree or radically disagree with my opinions. The same goes for almost everyone else. Most people have been more than respectful and hospitable, even to my opposing views.

Daniel:

On to Condoleeza. Here are my facts: On July 10, 2001, Dr. Rice met with then-CIA director George Tenet and J. Cofer Black. They wanted to discuss with her the possibility of Al Qaeda attacking US soil. After the meeting, Rice reportedly told the men to forward the information to Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft. Ashcroft later said he never got word of the briefing from Tenet, saying "Frankly, I’m disappointed that I didn’t get that kind of briefing. I’m surprised he didn’t think it was important enough to come by and tell me."(1) When questioned during the 9-11 Commission reports, by Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic appointee to the Commission, Tenet explained that he did not feel that Rice took anything he said lightly. She did not ignore any of his information or intelligence (2).

[I do realize that I was quite liberal by saying "set plans in motion", but I consider this a mere misstatement on my part, and that my misstatement of this information is no reason at all to question Tenet's own testimony, as told to Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste (Furthermore, if it will make you feel a little better and possibly turn off the venom for a minute, I will admit it. I was wrong. I botched a quick reading of the article I posted earlier. I was wrong, I'm sorry).]

Ben-Veniste went on to question whether Tenet felt that he was "blown off". Ben-Veniste was quoted as saying "Tenet never told us that he was brushed off...we certainly would have followed that up." (3)
References:
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1317441600&en=5b272a2b4775a9e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200187.html
(3)http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/washington/03rivals.html?ex=1317528000&en=7f23626f9b69babb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

There is your set of facts, along with my personal apology for hiccup in my previous post.

[tdogg]

Simple, if you want to rile up the gang, just use the words 'homosexual' or 'gay' and 'sin' in the same sentence. Works every time, like now.

Before we can have civil debate, you must get past the urge to call us sinners or consider us to be sinful. That is up to our God, not you, to decide where we might be falling short...or not.

[ladyinred]

"Dear Austin: That statement is so off the wall, I can't believe you'd say that! Having been to Iraq twice, since the war began, I can tell you that the U.S. doesn't give a damn about Iraqi civilians at all. We refuse to count their deaths.

The reason the gasoline prices continue to escalate is two fold. One we clearly are failing in Iraq and two greed. Chevron and other oil companies, like them are making historic profits never before seen."

Kara my dad was a vet who fought in Vietnam and Korea, I being young at the time didn't know much about it other than what my parents told me about it. I feel after what I read , that our soldiers were more or less pawns in a political game and the American govt handled things poorly, and I have to say the rising Iraqi casualities many times are overlooked, but when you see innocent children with arms or legs blown off or whose brains are blown out, or who are dying from other diseases or problems related to the war, how can you not feel compassion for those children.

You may be right that the government doesn't care about the Iraqis and oil has always been suspected as a underlying motivator for this war.Our leaders talk a good game and seem to think that war under any circumstance is a good policy.

They know nothing about the loss and grief of both the families here of their sons and daughters, nor the grief of the families in Iraq who lose loved ones.It's easy to be blindsided to see one side of the story and only US casualities, but it in reality is tragic for both sides. Their families are no less human than ours and feel the same grief and sense of loss that we do when losing loved ones.

To be honest, I as a mother pray my child will never be forced to fight in a war, I didn't bring him into the world to die at a young age or to die for politicians and their political games. I've felt the loss and effects of the Vietnam war ,when my dad came home, it affected our whole family, which is why I was not a supporter of the Iraq war in the first place, I had a ,"wait and see attitude."

I do not believe in blindly supporting a leader or those in politics because I think they too often have their own career interests in mind and not always act in the best interests of our country. People can talk about sacrifices all they want,but it's not the people running our government who are making them, (although they expect everyone else to, excluding them)Bush , after office will probably retire to a comfortable life.

Another fact, Simpleman, an estimated 250,000 to a million of our vets are homeless at any given time.. so much for support for our troops.All the more reason why I don't believe we should just rush into a war,but consider alternatives that might save thousands of lives in the long run.Again the only time I would even consider war, is as a matter of self defense and only as a last resort when all other options have failed,and even then we should do everything in our power to minimize casualties and especially those of unarmed civillians.

[Daniel]

On to Condoleeza. Here are my facts: On July 10, 2001, Dr. Rice met with then-CIA director George Tenet and J. Cofer Black. They wanted to discuss with her the possibility of Al Qaeda attacking US soil. After the meeting, Rice reportedly told the men to forward the information to Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft. Ashcroft later said he never got word of the briefing from Tenet, saying "Frankly, I’m disappointed that I didn’t get that kind of briefing. I’m surprised he didn’t think it was important enough to come by and tell me."(1) When questioned during the 9-11 Commission reports, by Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic appointee to the Commission, Tenet explained that he did not feel that Rice took anything he said lightly. She did not ignore any of his information or intelligence (2).

[I do realize that I was quite liberal by saying "set plans in motion", but I consider this a mere misstatement on my part, and that my misstatement of this information is no reason at all to question Tenet's own testimony, as told to Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste (Furthermore, if it will make you feel a little better and possibly turn off the venom for a minute, I will admit it. I was wrong. I botched a quick reading of the article I posted earlier. I was wrong, I'm sorry).]

Ben-Veniste went on to question whether Tenet felt that he was "blown off". Ben-Veniste was quoted as saying "Tenet never told us that he was brushed off...we certainly would have followed that up." (3)

~

There is your set of facts, along with my personal apology for hiccup in my previous post.


The point in question, which you brought up is: what did Ms. Rice do when she was warned by both Tenet and Clarke? You said that she 'set plans in motion' The point is this: what plans did she put into place before 9/11? None that I know of. And you haven't presented any either. Your evidence is a rehash of the same article you posted before. And as such, it deals with only one aspect of the Congressonal testimony, one which doesn't address your original statement or my answer to it. It is an inadequate defense.

So Tenet tesifies that Ms. Rice took him seriously. Ok. I can accept that. So - what did she do then? The gal in charge of National Security at the time. What action did she take?

Let's see. She told Tenet to talk to Rummy and Ashcoft about it. Big F-ing deal. Even if Tenet didn't tell Ashcroft, why is it that that Ms. Rice, who is so good at her job - National Security is SO important to her- didn't follow up on this most serious matter? Can you demonstrate that she did? I don't think so. So we're back to square one.

One dropped ball after another.

What you have presented is a defense of incompetence. Perhaps well-meaning incompetence, but incompetence nevertheless. And for this Tenet got a medal. :rolleyes:

Did you read the links I put in my former post? The Congressional Record for instance? Clarke's testimony shows that the strategy presented to Ms. Rice was implemented after the fact. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? So his strategy was useful after all? Why not before? Why was nothing done pre- 9/11? That's what the 9/11 Commission looked into- the same Commission that was stonewalled by the White House. Why would they do that? Why should they have anything to hide? Why not be eager to do anything to make mistakes from happening in the future?

Here she is talking to Clarke. She has the 'expert' in front of her pre- 9/11 and she does nothing about it except down-grade his status and shuffle him off to a sub-committee.

I mean really. Would you have done the same? Would you only listen to someone on your 'team'? Because that's what it looks like she did. She was a great team player. And Clarke wasn't on her team. She said as much.

It's in the report!

She was busy crafting policy instead of taking action. That's the glaring truth. Policy is not talking action. And anyone who thinks they are the same has their head up their ass. And where was Bush? On vacation! He's taken more vacation than any other president in the history of our country.

This wasn't just a misstatement on your part. It is a matter of ideological thinking. You are batting for your team. But facts are what we are talking about here. What people did and did not do. The evidence shows that Ms. Rice failed to do her job. The Congressional Records shows this clearly. You can talk about how well-meaning Tenet thinks she was, but that does not demonstrate actions.

Lastly: I'm not sure how to take your apology. While I understand that you have the capacity to make it, I'm not clear what motivates it. Really. I haven't the slightest idea. The only thing I can think of is that I'm one of a few people still talking to you.

What have you learned on this site? That's what I'd like to know. Tdogg is right. Keep using the word sinners and homsexuals in the same sentence and you will have even less people talking to you than the precious few you do now.

Have you seen into what make people tick here? Why we are so passionate about concerns like gay marriage, hate crimes, equal rights and serving in the military? Do you? I wonder about this. You say that what you have to say "isn't personal". Well. What is personal? I would think you might have realized that the issues discussed on the site are VERY personal to those of here. It isn't just fun and games.

You ask me me this.

Is your interpretation of fact transcendent to mine?


And I have to answer- yes- with respect to my lived experience as a gay man. I have experienced things you are not able - or willing- to understand. You seem rather incurious about such things, and while you have repeatedy said you support this and support that blah blah blah, it just comes across as words. I don't have the sense that you actually mean what you say. When push comes to shove your beliefs (here we go again) have a way of invalidating such statements.

You don't have the benefit of living most of our life in a culture that nullifies your love for another person. Rather, you live in a world where you existence is validated without question. That's a remarkable difference. One I don't think you appreciate fully.

Simpleman- regarding your apology. It demonstrates that you do not want others to think ill of you. I get that. We all have our pride. But what I don't get is that you are capable of caring for others. I wonder, frankly, if your apology is more concerned with self-preservation than with anything- or anyone- else. Why do I say that? You have shown precious little regard for the real concerns of those of us here. And you've repeatedly complained about being 'guilted' into taking another look at information you disagree with. This makes me think that your apology is not as simple as it seems.

Perhaps I am wrong about this. But it's not for me, I feel, to reject or accept your apology. Though I appreciate you making it.

[ladyinred]

Well, Daniel I cannot refute your impeccable logic that the issues are very important to us here, after all they affect our lives, and those at the top with the power are making the decisions that can either affect our lives constructively or negatively. I would take it pretty darned personal, when someone says as a gay person I'm a second class human being and shouldn't have the same rights as them. But then who are we? According to them ,nothing.

[simpleman]

I hate to point this out, but my apology was for saying "set plans in motion" because I hadn't researched the topic as fully as I would have liked, when I probably should have said, "she accepted and did not ignore Tenet's warning".

I really honestly believe that nothing I could research for the rest of the night could ever vindicate Condoleeza Rice in your mind, because no amount of evidence will convince you that she did the best she could, considering she was working in a pre-9/11 world (I won't go into how people tend to forget that ideas about a lot of things, including national security, were quite different pre-9/11). Hindsight is 20/20, and it sounds like you expect Dr. Rice to have been able to pick out exactly when and how this attack would occur from some vague information at a routine meeting. That would take superhuman senses, or a really lucky guess. I could go into the part about how July 10, 2001 wasn't the only meeting that Rice had with various officials about Al Qaeda, and furthermore most everybody knew that Al Qaeda existed, hated us, and that Bin Laden might try to attack America. Heck, the WTC was bombed in 1993, seven whole years before Bush was even elected. It was no secret to anybody that Bin Laden wanted to attack us. Hijacking planes and turning them into missiles didn't cross anybody's mind. Tell me, Daniel, that in a pre-9/11 world, anybody could conceive of such a plan, much less know how to stop it. The pre-9/11 hijacking idea was that the plane would be landed and everyone held hostage, not that the plane would be crashed into a building, killing everybody on board. Of course new plans were put in place after 9/11. That's not suspicious at all. If someone broke into your house, would you consider it somehow suspicious that you waited until after your house was broken into to install an alarm system? Or would it just follow logically that breaking into a house would lead to installing an alarm system in said house. Furthermore, the 9-11 Commission, in my eyes, is more or less a sham, because they ignored, as you continue to ignore, Able Danger, among other defense initiatives that were undercut by Clinton attack dogs such as, go figure, Clinton Deputy Attorney Jamie Gorelick, who coincidentally was on the 9-11 Commission staff. The 9-11 Commission was solely about blaming Bush for 9-11, not for actually uncovering anything. If it had really been about finding truth, the stonewalling by the Clinton Administration of Able Danger would have been a huge story, but the big story was, over and over again, how Rice, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld didn't have a crystal ball, and how Bush didn't rip off his suit and fly to New York and jump in front of the second plane coming at the WTC. As a final point, if Bush and Co. really had a lot to hide, would they really have allowed Dr. Rice to face the grilling she had to face in front of the Commission? They had the option to not make her testify because of her position, and could have easily allowed her to opt out. They didn't and she didn't, because they mistakenly thought that the 9-11 Commission might be about finding truth and not trying to blame everything on the Bush Administration, so they thought sending her could help clear the air on several of these issues. But once she testified, everybody just called her a liar anyway, so it was pointless. She would have been better off not even testifying.

But never mind any of that, because I'm just stepping up for my own team. Once again, you manage to undercut my arguments, evidence, etc. based on my presumed political affiliation.


And I have to answer- yes- with respect to my lived experience as a gay man. I have experienced things you are not able - or willing- to understand. You seem rather incurious about such things, and while you have repeated said you support this and support that blah blah blah, it just comes across as words. I don't have the sense that you actually mean what you say. When push comes to shove your beliefs (here we go again) have a way of invalidating such statements.

So since I'm not gay, my opinions on various issues surrounding gay rights, such as the Hate Crimes Bill, don't count? That's absurd. That's like me saying that you have no place to say anything about the issue of abortion if you are not a fetus. Furthermore, I've tried, over and over again, to explain to you that I mean what I say. If I say I believe in Civil Unions, I believe in Civil Unions. If you choose not to believe me, and say that I'm just saying that to save face, then I just don't know what to tell you. In that vein, I doubt that I'll ever say anything to convince you that I really do believe what I believe. I probably can't say anything to convince you that I'm not a bigot, either. You closed the book on me long ago. And furthermore, I don't care if you think I'm a bigot. For the sake of argument and getting my point across I've defended against it, but I'm slowly coming to the realization that you aren't going to ever listen to me anyway, so I suppose you can go ahead and call me a bigot, if it makes you feel better. Maybe one day you'll realize I'm not really full of hatred, or maybe you won't, but I'll never know either way, so it really doesn't matter.

But what I don't get is if you are capable of caring for others. I wonder, frankly, if your apology is more concerned with self-preservation than with anything- or anyone- else. Why do I say that? You have shown precious little regard for the real concerns of those of us here. And you've repeatedly complained about being 'guilted' into taking another look at information you disagree with.

I don't really know what to say to this. I guess I feel really bad that you can only see what you consider to be bad about a person. As I pointed out earlier, I was apologizing for misspeaking about Dr. Rice, etc. But what I actually am sorry about is that I can't attach a .compassion or .caring file like I could a .bmp or a .jpg, to prove to you, but all I have is words. All I can try to say is that I really do love everybody, I really don't mean any harm, and I don't hate anybody for anything, and if you choose not to believe it, I guess I just don't know what to tell you. I can only type so many words to try to illuminate that I don't hate people, I just have differing views on a few parts of public policy, that are unrelated to my religious beliefs. All I can say is that my religious beliefs don't mean that I hate any of you, either. You have to decide whether to have faith in humanity, and give me the benefit of the doubt, or to simply write me off as another malicious hate-monger, hellbent on destroying you. I'm not any of that, but that's all I can say. I don't care about self-preservation. If I was really interested in that, I would have quit this board after about five posts. I can't prove it, but I know who I am, and that's all that really matters, regardless of what you decide to believe about me when all this is over.

[ladyinred]

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, Simpleman, But where do you stand on issues like the hate crimes bill, I 've read your previous posts on the equality ride and just said I don't see the point or agree with you. Exactly where do you stand on issues like this?

[ladyinred]

In order to avoid any misunderstandings it might help to clarify what you mean.

[simpleman]

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, Simpleman, But where do you stand on issues like the hate crimes bill, I 've read your previous posts on the equality ride and just said I don't see the point or agree with you. Exactly where do you stand on issues like this?

I wrote a lot on the Hate Crimes Bill here:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2891

That's pretty much it. My primary stuff on the E-Ride is here:
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2477

[ladyinred]

There are some things I find problematic with your discussions on hate speech, you seem to want to defend the right to do it at all costs. While legally you can't prosecute someone for hate speech and it is not a crime,I've come to find hate speech many times leads to the actions we most fear.I firmly believe people are what they think and those thoughts also can lead to actions.

Even Christ said as a man thinketh in his heart so he is. He also alluded to the fact that the things that are in a person's heart can defile him and lead him to such atrocious acts as murder. Now what would justify that kind of hatred toward a person who has personally not wronged you or harmed you. To me people who condone such things are irrational at best .

Why such hatred aimed at gay people in the first place, mainly because people choose that frame of mind in reference to gays and seem to condone violent acts against them based on intolerance and irrational fears.

I've had certain people say to me that they don't necessarily agree with the gay lifestyle but I've never heard them say they would agree with violent acts against them, my brother being a conservative Christian is one of them. He does not use religion to condone violence and hatred toward gay people.

I would have to say to those who wish gay people harm that they are what they are in their hearts, there is no way around it. The bible even states that those who hate a brother are murderers and that no murderer has eternal life in him.Why does the bible conclude that?( read first John) I feel it is stating that hate often leads to the very actions of violence and murder.( Meaning it isn't passive or harmless)

If hatred can lead to murder than it's I think it appropriate that we have legislation passed to protect GLBT people against such criminal activity, I don't see anyway around it.Would you say the KLU KLUX KLAN have been harmless in their hatred of minorities like blacks. I certainly wouldn't want to be lynched or have a cross burning on my front lawn.

I would hope we were civilized enough to realize that should not be tolerated in a civilized or democratic country. you may say they have the right to hate speech but once they cross the line and that hatred actually leads to violence, what then? It seems hatred literally leads to destructive acts and kills people in many cases.

But by the same token you defend that person's right to hate over a gay person speaking out against oppression and for wanting to be treated like human beings.I honestly do not understand your line of reasoning. Is it more important for a person's hate speech be protected by the constitution over another person's right to be treated with dignity and respect and equality under the law?( How do you explain your line of reasoning?)Why does one supercede the other? Something doesn't sync here.Why is another person's rights to hate speech or whatever you call it more important than our rights to be protected under the law?
And please anyone else on this forum feel free to respond to my comments. Right now I would love to hear from Daniel, or Zerbie or any of the others who have partcipated in this discussion.Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this "Picture?"

[ladyinred]

Curiously enough I was reading where ordinary people can be lead to murderous acts, a psychologist did studies on this. Why were ordinary people who you never thought could commit such horrendous acts such as genocide were led to doing it and guess what ?It had alot to do with hate speech and the scapegoating of a certain group of people and demonizing them.He also said the particular group they disliked were dehumanized and portrayed as evil. I will do everything I can to dig up that article, I think it will enlighten many people here.

[ladyinred]

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2002/08/22/waller/print.html?pn=1

Excerpted from the article:We always hear about the dehumanization of victims, but how does it actually work and what's the process behind it?

It allows us to more easily commit the evil that we want to commit because we're not committing it upon someone who's a moral equal or a fellow human. You see it in wartime: military groups and countries describe the enemy in certain terms -- like Vietnam, with "gooks." We do what we need to strip our enemy, our victims, of their humanity. In many ways for us it's a psychological defense mechanism because if we see their faces, if we know they're human, if we know they have a husband, wife, children, mother, father, those things make it more difficult to kill.

In the book, I refer to Franz Stangl, a commandant at Treblinka, who was asked after the war was over: When all the inmates came to Treblinka, you knew you were going to kill them in 24 hours, so why all the humiliation? Why the beating? Why did they have to run around naked? Why did you spit on them and call them names? Stangl's response was incredible. He said that they did that because it made it easier for their men to do what they had to do.

That is something that all these genocide cases have in common. You describe how when Americans slaughtered Native Americans, they ripped out women's body parts. Why wasn't it enough to just kill them?

It's one thing to understand killing, but killing with brutality and killing with zest and killing by taking trophies as American soldiers did with massacres of American Indians, is another thing. Why is that necessary? You'll even notice that in executions throughout World War II, the person's back is always toward the executioner. There really is no logistical reason for that in terms of ease of killing, it's more just a psychological defense of not having to see the victim.

The us-them mentality seems to work here too. It's unsettling that studies have found that that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a preexisting prejudice.

Most people don't understand how easy it is to develop us-them [mindsets]. Experiments have been done where people come in and a coin is flipped to decide if they're going to be in group A or group B. The groups have no interaction whatsoever, but you ask the groups to evaluate each other on attractiveness, intelligence, warmth, honesty and so on. People in the groups, even though they don't know the people in their group or the other group, tend to just favor their own group. They see their group as more attractive, healthier, less likely to be institutionalized at some point.

Us-them thinking doesn't require a lot to become operative. Any simple way we want to divide ourselves as us-them will develop a pattern of thinking that favors my group and disfavors the outgroup. That can start off very innocuous but pretty quickly can become dangerous.

These ideas help explain how people can come to perceive a distant enemy, but it's harder to get your mind around how the average Joe could actually come to beat or mutilate someone to death. You explain that people blame victims because they want to believe that the world is a just place. So obviously [the victims must] deserve what they're getting, and so it's OK to continue to harm them. Is this how people rationalize genocide?

It's a basic truism and one of the great lessons we learn from social psychology -- this tendency to want to believe that the world is a fair and just place. Again, if you ask anyone directly they'll say, "Well, I know that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people and I know the world's not fair and just," but the truth of it is that's what we tend to revert to. It's what allows us to leave our home in the morning and think that when we come back in the evening, our loved ones will still be there. [We believe that] the world's fair and just and if they don't do anything stupid nothing bad is going to happen to them. Intuitively, we look for a way to blame victims for their own victimization. If we can find that, then it kind of restores our sense that the world is f

[ladyinred]

Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (Knopf, 1996)

In this powerful book, the author interviewed the men and women who carried out the Holocaust. He did not focus on "the usual suspects," that is, monstrous SS officers or sadistic concentration camp guards.***** Rather, he spoke with the average men and women who enacted all of the Nazi plans, including the extermination of the Jews. According to Goldhagen, a long-standing, deep-rooted and pervasive anti-Semitism existed in the average person and that played a key role in the brutal behavior manifested toward the Jews.******* Emphasis mine ( sounds familiar with homophobia here)

By bringing us face to face with the actual perpetrators of the Final Solution, Goldhagen frees us from the false image of the Holocaust as the province of "a few madmen" and confronts us clearly with the more troubling reality, that the Holocaust in Europe arose from within the average person, as did the mass murders in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda in the decades that followed. No nation on earth should feel that "it can't happen here." The conditions that created the human beings who were capable of carrying out the Holocaust are present everywhere on earth. Everywhere.



Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killings by James Waller (Oxford University Press, 2002)

The author is Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He has written two previous books on racism in the United States. The dedication that opens this book is powerful and a clear guide to his thinking on the subject. Becoming Evil is dedicated to the more than 100 million men, women and children who met violent death in the 20th century at the hands of fellow human beings.

Too often, we look for "monsters," "new Hitlers," or "cruel, unhuman, despicable tyrants" when seeking someone to blame for terrible acts or crimes against humanity. Over the centuries, human beings all over the world have deposed tyrants only to empower new ones in their place. The fault, it seems, is not in our leaders, but in ourselves.

Waller states it plainly, "In short, the majority of perpetrators of extraordinary evil were not distinguished by background, personality, or previous political affiliation or behavior as having been men or women unusually likely or fit to be genocidal executioners. This reality is unsettling…but we cannot evade this discomforting reality."

The more that serious scholars like Waller examine the phenomenon of great evil, the more obvious it becomes that the answers to this problem lie not in the Bushes or Bin Ladens, who exploit human defects for their own purposes, but in the character structure of ordinary people who listen to them and act out their life-negative ideologies. Wilhelm Reich observed that the problem is not that Hitler wanted power. The problem is that Hitler got power. Waller offers insight into the ordinary people who empower the Hitlers of every era.

[ladyinred]

Excerpted from the article, Just how does hate speech help shape people's actions? Below:When does public speech go too far ? Is there any connection between hate speech and acts of terrorism ? This post covers recent examples of public speech, from the US right and the Christian right, that some allege influence American culture and mass belief so as make acts of terrorism more likely. Empirical connections between public speech, from prominent pundits, politicians, and religious leaders, and acts carried out by random individuals, are impossible, or very close to it, to demonstrate. So, does that mean we should give those whose speech appears to approve of, or incite, violence against targeted societal groups a pass ? And, what role do large societal institutions play in this ? Do they have any responsibility in calling out and decrying hate speech ?
Rest of article
on website:http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/51353/

More from the article,
Tony Perkins touts death for "race-mixing" ?

One of the methods by which ordinary humans can be conditioned to carry out acts of mass violence, explains James Waller, is simple: acculturation, and conditioning. Mass violence becomes easier to perpetrate when it is directly against vilified, demonized, dehumanized groups within society. Hate speech, that vilifies societal groups, from random individuals certainly does damage, but when individuals, such as Ann Coulter, are given the ability to broadcast hate speech on a massive scale, the societal damage is proportionately greater and perhaps categorically different as well, because Coulter routinely speaks at events sponsored by large organizations with constituencies, arguably, in the millions: James Dobson's Focus On The Family, and Tony Perkins' Family Research Council, for example.

[ladyinred]

Now Simpleman, do you call this harmless fun? Yep I guess us darned gays are just a thorn in people's sides, they are just not too hip on the hate trip. You can argue from 'logic" but can you argue with the psychology? The hate directed toward gay people is real not some concoction of our imagination, people on this forum are not imagining this and are quite justified in their concerns. For us to be silent would be unconscionable, for us to take things lying down will not serve us. Hate crimes against GLBT people are real and should not be taken lightly.

The bible teaches very clearly on hatred of another, that they are not the children of the light but of darkness,even to the point of stating that he who hates his brother is actually a murderer at heart and has no eternal life abiding in him .It even says that those who do not follow God's commandments and love one another are actually the children of the devil.(1 John 3:10-24) Those would be "damning words "for many of our religious leaders today.
1 John 3:10-28 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

[Daniel]

The 9-11 Commission was solely about blaming Bush for 9-11, not for actually uncovering anything.

That's quite a statment for a panel that was composed of members from both sides of the aisle and the Supreme court.

But never mind any of that, because I'm just stepping up for my own team. Once again, you manage to undercut my arguments, evidence, etc. based on my presumed political affiliation.

Yes. I think you have- played for your team -that is. It doesn't take genius to follow the thread of your thinking. That said, I have not been concerned with your political affiliation, but facts. I think you've made a poor defense. A defense based on one bit of news, which, as I read it, says the opposite of what you are asserting. I see what you have offered in a whole different context.

Funny how two people can look at the same thing and see different things.

So since I'm not gay, my opinions on various issues surrounding gay rights, such as the Hate Crimes Bill, don't count? That's absurd. That's like me saying that you have no place to say anything about the issue of abortion if you are not a fetus.

Of course they 'count', insofar as anybody's 'counts'. But I was not talking about that exactly. Everyone has an opinion.

What I was talking about, and what seems to be lost on you entirely is matters of perception and awareness. What I perceive and experience as a gay person is vastly different, not better, not worse, just difference than what you experience as a self-proclaimed straight-white-southern male. To that extent, your 'opinion' on many issues is just that, an opinion, one that is not based on the kind of experience which is informative in itself, which, if you were gay, you would have an intimate knowledge of.

Maybe you need to go live with a gay family for awhile to understand what I'm talking about.

How many gay people do you actually know btw? And how many of them are close personal friends? And if you do know anyone who is gay and is a close personal friend, what do you talk about with that person? Does that person share their journey in life and love with you? Do they feel free to talk about their partner if they have one? Do they include you in their life in any way? An you there's?

All I can say is that my religious beliefs don't mean that I hate any of you, either.

How about we set aside the matter of whether you have hate in your heart or not, ok? Clearly, you think we think that. But I wager that most people here would say that what is between you and God is...well...between you and God. That said, it isn't clear to me what your religious beliefs are. However your statement, which Tdogg referenced, and which I have not brought up for the second time, deserves some attention.

Simple, if you want to rile up the gang, just use the words 'homosexual' or 'gay' and 'sin' in the same sentence. Works every time, like now.

Why did you ignore that? I find that exceedingly odd. You go to great lengths to assert that you are not a bigot and do not hate those of us here and yet- for all your verbage- you ignore the very thing that gets everyone here in a twist. It come's across as mighty bigoted. Sorry. But that's the perception from this side of the room.

My sense is that this is because of the difference between our religious beliefs and how they inform our perception.

Maybe it's time for you to start talking about your beliefs.

How about I start things off?

I believe that being gay is perfectly Ok with the universe- sum total. What do you think? How do you think God feels about gay people? Are they bound for hell? Heaven? Do they need to be saved?

What's your position Simpleman?

[ladyinred]

Daniel what do you make of simpleman's rationale on defending hate speech?

[Daniel]

Daniel what do you make of simpleman's rationale on defending hate speech?

Oh dear....I think I'll make an effort to practice 'right speech' here and not talk about another person's views when they are 'in the room'- so to speak. I would rather talk to that person directly.

[ladyinred]

Ok, I understand.

[Emproph]

Daniel you are so mean, stop picking on Simpleman. Obviously the homosexual agenda is responsible for 9/11, have you even read the Pink Swastika?

Edit: Sarcastic joke in bad taste (again), I apologize.

[Daniel]

Daniel you are so mean, stop picking on Simpleman. Obviously the homosexual agenda is responsible for 9/11, have you even read the Pink Swastika?

I know I can be mean, but my bark it far worse than my bite.

Woof!

(besides- my canine teeth were taken out along with two molars when I had braces)

[Emproph]

♪ There's no business like snow business.. ♪
A2vnm9K5b8w

~~
..and now for the funification of all that
Video no longer available. Sorry guys :(

But this is what he said:

"The only thing worse than another terrorist attack would be a gay hero stopping it."
~John Stewart, re candidates on DADT

[BrentRichards]

I think it's time to register Hungarian. Both parties disgust me. Politicians in general disgust me.

[u-dog]

Politicians are what we demand that they be. We get the government we deserve. If they disgust you, then America disgusts you.

The thing is... they have always been like this, ALWAYS. You have to stop listening to what they say and look at their records. what do they care about when they are not running for an office. What do they Actually support, work on, think about.

I'm kinda liking what I see of Barak (that crazy UCC Muslim suicide bomber from chicago) Time or Newsweek or somebody did a story this week on how he goes round the country telling people what they don't wanna hear. That in and of itself might be enough for me.

[BrentRichards]

Politicians are what we demand that they be. We get the government we deserve. If they disgust you, then America disgusts you.

The thing is... they have always been like this, ALWAYS. You have to stop listening to what they say and look at their records. what do they care about when they are not running for an office. What do they Actually support, work on, think about.

I'm kinda liking what I see of Barak (that crazy UCC Muslim suicide bomber from chicago) Time or Newsweek or somebody did a story this week on how he goes round the country telling people what they don't wanna hear. That in and of itself might be enough for me.

I know, but I must vent from time to time. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more.

[ladyinred]

Yep, I think we Americans need a good kick in the pants and told what we may not want to hear, but may help us to demand the changes needed. A good honest look at reality.Until we demand accountability, and integrity from our leaders we will have the same ol' song and dance. I've often told people ,"Vote 'em out ,quit voting for the same people who promise the same things and don't deliver. And they all make excuse,"Well ,yeah and we will probably end up with new people doing the same thing.(do research on where they stand on the issues and how they vote on things too (www.ontheissues.org) "


Voting out those who haven't worked in America's interests would send a strong message to our leaders, you are next if the same happens, They might be willing to consider if they want to risk their political careers by pissing off the American people if they have had enough. When we hear of corruption why should we be surprised, they probably believe they are untouchable since they've been around so many years and people have supported them.

I've seen staunch Bush supporters who are in denial of the corruption , try to "pin" it on someone else , call anyone who disagrees with his policies or dares to question anything,"unChristian, traitors, and unpatriotic." "How dare they!!!!!"

There goes democracy and free speech by the way.And here comes theocracy and martial law.Say bye bye to the constitution and the bill of rights.

Weren't these the same leaders who swore to protect, uphold and defend the constitution, gooooooooo figure.So much for "We the people"

[ladyinred]

http://www.patriotamerica.com/News%20Items/KNOWEST%20NOT%20THINE%20ENEMY.htm This will tell you what our founding fathers felt about freedom and upholding the constitution..

[Emproph]

I know, but I must vent from time to time. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more.

Need to vent?

Try our new "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" windows..

[ladyinred]

Try I'm mad as hell and we better do something about it,LOL

[Zerbie]

Yep, I think we Americans need a good kick in the pants and told what we may not want to hear, but may help us to demand the changes needed. A good honest look at reality.Until we demand accountability, and integrity from our leaders we will have the same ol' song and dance. I've often told people ,"Vote 'em out ,quit voting for the same people who promise the same things and don't deliver. And they all make excuse,"Well ,yeah and we will probably end up with new people doing the same thing.(do research on where they stand on the issues and how they vote on things too (www.ontheissues.org) "


"

And what do we do when we finally DO vote them out of office & the new round of characters does the same thing? That teaches complacency.

[ladyinred]

Then vote THEM out. Didn't I mention research on the candidates above, to find out where they stand on issues?

[d_pedr]

US politics has always scared me.

Often wonder what would have happened in Al Gore had made President, especially considering his work about Global warming since (don't know where he stands on GBLT sorry).

There have been several scary things, like trying to pass a resolution in the UN to prevent US forces being tried for war crimes under the Geneva convention, following the tragedy of 9/11, and again before the invasion of Iraq.

The fact that in Afghanistan, there are some US troops which do not have to obey the NATO rules of engagement and others that do (meaning when they don't the whole NATO forces get tarred with the same brush).

Sorry I don't know much of the internal workings of US politics, I assume the current round of elections is to decide who will be the candidates to stand for President when Bush finishes his second term?

love and hugs

[andrewlittle]

A comment about the anticipated senate vote of no confidence on Gonzales:

"They can try to have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to determine who serves in my government"

President George W Bush (from the BBC news site)

Silly us, we thought HE worked for US.