Luther, who supports abortion rights and gun-control laws, could either fight another incumbent, or move into a district where he likely would face Kline for a third time — and live closer to his son Alex, who has Down's syndrome. He chose the latter, saying he made the decision for his family life, not his political life.
Sure you did Bill, pfft. And if he moved for his family and it made his family life so much better then why didn't he do it before ? Yes and you also were happy to see Garst run. I hope Billy Luther is sent packing too. He, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr can get toghether and play cards.
I came across a little newspaper clipping, without any date or indication as to its source.
But it's yellowed enough to suggest having almost certainly been published BEFORE the current spate of corporate scandals surfaced.
It reads:
"The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, an independent research group, has issued a stunning new report documenting that 41 of America's largest corporations had $25.8 billion in profits from 1996-1999, yet not only did they avoid paying their fair share of taxes -- they got $3.2 billion in rebate checks from us Taxpayers!
"Among these tax dodgers are such brand-names as Chevron, PepsiCo, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, Saks, Goodyear, Ryder trucks, Enron, Colgate-Palmolive, MCI, Weyerhauser, GM, and Northrup Grumman.
"What's at work here is not fantasy, but loopholes. By law corporations are supposed to pay 35 percent of their profits in taxes. Yet their lawyers and lobbyists have riddled the tax code with all sorts of special breaks -- including one that allows corporations to buy tax breaks from other corporations that have more tax breaks than they can use!
"The bottom line is that these companies escape paying, making us ordinary taxpayers pick up their share of financing America's highways, schools, parks, military and (remainder of article torn off)."
That Enron and MCI are mentioned reveals that knowledge of their manipulative greed existed prior to their current source of shame.
Also, as Republicans urge that corporations and the rich be given tax breaks to supposedly help stimulate the failing economy, one necessarily has to wonder:
Is escalating injustice the ONLY basis under which capitalism can continue to survive?
If so, how can its continued existence be justified?
You can't make something RIGHT, and objectively sustainable, by making it more WRONG...
Rex Morgan's Prescription? Socialized Medicine in US
Supporters of socialized health care in Canada and the United States have a seemingly unlikely friend in Rex Morgan M.D., the handsome, deeply decent physician who has been a staple of newspaper comics since 1948.
So far there's no record of the Romanow health care commission or the U.S. Secretary of Health having consulted the fictional doctor.
However, as any of the 30 million readers of the syndicated strip carried by 300 newspapers in 15 countries can tell you, Rex has come out foursquare in favor of what his creator calls "a single-payer, state-supported health care system."
Interestingly, the man behind Rex Morgan's position isn't some "communist or liberal socialist" -- although he has received plenty of mail calling him that, and worse. He's Woody Wilson, a 55-year-old registered Republican from Tempe, Ariz., who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 elections.
"I believe the country that is supposedly the richest and most powerful in the world shouldn't be forcing its citizens to choose between paying their mortgage or saving their lives. Yet that is what is happening with millions of Americans right now," Mr. Wilson said in an interview this week.
"What's needed is health care for everyone instead of dividends for stockholders in pharmaceutical companies."
Mr. Wilson has been writing Rex Morgan M.D., a sort of soap opera in comic form, since 1991, having worked as an apprentice under its originator, psychiatrist Nicholas Dallis (now deceased), since 1982.
Under Mr. Wilson, Rex Morgan hasn't hesitated to tackle domestic violence, epilepsy, drug abuse, AIDS, organ transplants, asthma and sexual harassment.
"We've never made people laugh; we're about informing and entertaining," he likes to say, and, in fact, medical professionals and support groups have included some of his strips in their educational packages.
But in recent months Mr. Wilson has pulled his rock-jawed hero firmly into the far more dicey arena of health policy, even sending him to Washington, D.C., to testify before legislators.
The strip's current storyline is dealing with the fallout from the death of Rex Morgan's friend, Dick Coleman, who lost his job after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Losing the job resulted in the loss of his family's health coverage and the threatened foreclosure on the mortgage on the Colemans' home.
In the wake of Dick's death -- "the very week [in June this year] that Dubya got his colonoscopy," Mr. Wilson noted -- his wife Marsha became borderline suicidal and his daughter Dana started to use drugs and get involved with criminal elements.
"All because they couldn't afford health insurance," a somber Rex Morgan mused in one recent strip.
It's estimated that nearly 40 million Americans share the plight of Dick Coleman. Meanwhile, "We're adding a million or more people to the rolls of the uninsured each year," Mr. Wilson said.
Mr. Wilson likes to call himself "just a comic-strip guy," but he's a guy whose wife happens to have a PhD in health-care policy from Massachusetts' Brandeis University and who "sits and talks with me about my stories."
Moreover, it's a measure of Mr. Wilson's perceived clout that he has been invited to speak in November at the annual convention of the 9,000-member U.S. Physicians for a National Health Program.
Despite the flak Mr. Wilson has received from some readers, no newspaper has pulled Rex Morgan M.D. from its comics section.
"Our problem goes to something else," Mr. Wilson said.
"Strips like ours -- they're called continuity strips -- are perceived to be old-fashioned these days. So we have to work harder to keep them fresh."
Rex Morgan, he added,"will always have to be about hot issues, will always have to try to be a bit ahead of the curve, if only because we're syndicated in so many countries."
Mr. Wilson said Rex's campaign for a national, state-financed health-care regime "is going to be a recurring theme for years to come."
Right now the fight for a comprehensive medical program "isn't a national priority," he acknowledged, "nor is there the political will for it."
But this could change in two or three years, if the ranks of the uninsured swell to, say, 50 million.
"That's a political party, in effect, right there," he said. "If someone can mobilize those people . . . that's a major force."
Unsurprisingly, those Americans critical of Mr. Wilson's position like to ask him, "Do we want to have a Canadian health-care system? Do we want rationing? Do we want to wait in line for hip-replacement surgery?"
Mr. Wilson chuckled. "My wife and I were talking about this and she said, 'Well, in Canada, [health care] is about waiting; in America, it's about money.' I want the waiting."
Where was Rex during the Clinton years? He could have used a few more allies.
The White House and the Congress is stacked against health care reform. They'll listen to the drug and insurance companies and not the health care people.
ST. PAUL - Four DFL legislative candidates, including Sen. John Hottinger and Rep. Loren Solberg, will remain on fall election ballots after the state Supreme Court turned back challenges to their residency Wednesday.
If you haven't noticed there is a large number of insiders agreeing with the idea of attacking Iraq. Namely Cheney, Rumsfeld and if I am not mistaken Rice.
I don't think you understand the process, Rick. Her nomination was rejected by the extreme left wing democrats. She was even given the stamp of approval by the liberal organization named the American Bar Association. Under these circumstances her rejection reveals just how extrem the democrats really are.
"Why didn't Bush stand with her, then. Go to the mat?
How do you know he didn't?"
He did about as much as he stood with Charles Pickering. Which is: not at all. He's not going to waste political capital on judicial appointments. They're pawns.
Think hard about what these clowns really represent before sending your kids off to become body-bag filler in Iraq.
Take Cheney, a totally spooky individual whom many believe is the actual "president" in a rightwing military-industrial cabal for which George II is just a frontman figurehead.
In two speeches which the ghost of Goebbels had to have cheered for their propaganda outlandishness, Tricky Dick The Sequel lambasted Saddam Hussein for alleged evils that Hell itself couldn't contain.
But, look here:
The estimable Financial Times, in an article entitled "A Discreet Way of Doing Business With Iraq, " Nov. 3, 2000, charged that former Halliburton chief Cheney played a pivotal role in building Saddam's key capacity...for mercenary corporate profit.
Halliburton-owned subsidiaries sold more oil field technologies and equipment to Iraq than any other U.S. corporation (yes, there were others) pocketing $24 million in sales.
This action, circumventing the law by using Halliburton's foreign holdings as the conduit, helped Saddam restore his oil production, providing revenue that was partly used to finance Iraq's defense capabilities.
The ones Cheney now wants your boy to potentially die in a distant desert dune for to destroy!
There's a whole garbage can of smelly truth we need to hold our noses and expose, before blindly jumping into an apocalypse for oil that would benefit only greedhead sleazoids.
For instance, did you know that, by most accounts, only 300 people died when Iraq invaded Kuwait?
In contrast, it's conservatively estimated that 4000 souls perished when Bush I attacked Panama during "Operation Just Cause".
Who's your Daddy, how big of a war criminal was he, and how many innocent Iraqi civilians would YOU blow away...none of whose name is "Saddam Hussein"?
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- Abe Lincoln
"Do not partake in barren works of darkness -- Ephesians 5:11
And that would be whom---Zippo the Amazing Skateboarding Chimp? Oh excuse---Zippo is getting blow jobs in the Oval Office from Kenneth Lay and scads of other plump and sweaty little oil CEOs. Oh happy day---here come the COM-CONS!
(PFID:13d7a7) -                                                                              05:53pm Sep                                                                              10, 2002 PST (#                                                                              1621 of 1624)
You are not just totally fucked up. You are totally and completely fucked up. In fact I would go to the point of bringing up the word 'odd'.
His holistic worldview carries with it a passionate commitment to public service, peace, human rights, workers rights, and the environment. His advocacy of a Department of Peace.....
Kucinich Says Give Peace A Chance, Introduces Legislation To Create Department Of Peace
Washington, DC (July 11, 2001) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) today introduced legislation to create a cabinet level agency dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to peace.
“The time for peace is now,” Congressman Kucinich said. “At the dawn of a new millennium, there is no better time to review age old challenges with new thinking that peace is not only the absence of violence, but the presence of a higher evolution of human awareness with respect, trust and integrity toward humankind. Our founding fathers recognized that peace was one of the highest duties of the newly organized free and independent states. But too often, we have overlooked the long- term solution of peace for instant gratification of war. This continued downward spiral of violence must stop to ensure that future generations will live in peace and harmony.”
Kucinich’s legislation to create a Department of Peace focuses on individual, group and national responsibilities of holding peace as an organizing principle. The Department of Peace will focus on nonmilitary peaceful conflict resolutions, prevent violence and promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights. A Peace Academy, similar to the five military service academies, would be created; its graduates dispatched to troubled areas around the globe to promote nonviolent dispute resolutions.
“The challenges inherent in creating a Department of Peace are massive,” said Congressman Kucinich. “But the alternatives are worse. Violence at home, in the schools, in the media, and between nations has dragged down humanity. It’s time to recognize that traditional, militant objectives for peace are not working, and the only solution is to make peace the goal of a cabinet level agency.”
I can't explain why, but that reminds me of a dream I once had after eating an anchovy pizza.
A guy who looked a lot like my Uncle Earl, except he had blue hair, was all excited because he figured out a way to become a millionaire.
He'd hit on the idea that the world needed a third laundry bleach.
Hylex.
Clorox.
And his "Clorina".
He went so far as to produce a TV commercial for the product.
A beautiful woman was hugging and kissing the Clorina Bottle Guy, styled somewhat after the Pillsbury Doughboy.
And she was singing a variation of the old Ray Peterson hit:
"I love Clorina, tell the world I do..."
But then John Ashcroft came into the dream and started ranting:
"Wait a minute. What kind of a name for a guy is 'Clorina'? Is there something gay going on here? This commercial will be seen by children, and Christians, and Christians with children. I won't allow it!"
Just then a SWAT team burst in, seized the blue-haired Uncle lookalike, knocking over a Clorina bottle, bleaching the color out of an American-flag backdrop.
But they left the beautiful woman, alone with me.
Well, one thing led to another, and pretty soon she was between the covers with yours truly.
Well Mr. Kucinich, we gave peace a chance and what did it get us? Roughly 3,000 people dead and many wounded. You and the other bedwetters may wish that we just convert to islam and follow what ever orders that these outlaw groups wish. That won't happen and I will do what I can to make sure of that.
I am so sick of this kind of crap. The Bin Laden group that attacked the U.S.S. Cole were given the chance of peace and were we treated any better afterwards? No, we were attacked on our soil. Now we should not hunt those responsible and bring them to justice?
Sadam is no different. Given a chance for peace, he invaded Kuwait in his quest to control the entire Middle East. After being driven out of Kuwait, he had another chance for peace. He accepted a series of commitments and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has broken those commitments and has been proven to be trying to get his hands on a weapon of atomic strength.
You can put a burka on your wife and hide under your bed hoping for the best, but the rest of America can no longer stand aside doing the same. We have experienced what happens when we "give peace a chance" and it is not a pretty site. It is time to make sure that those who would carry out extreme harm upon us and the rest of the world do not have the means to make their wishes of destruction come true.
Did you see the CBS Evening News segment in which members of U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan were interviewed, using only first names?
The soldiers expressed fears that the liberation was turning into an occupation, was starting to look a lot like Vietnam, and that they were beginning to sense we are on "the wrong side".
The last remark apparently being a reference to our alliances with unsavory warlord factions.
They also told of how their presence was resented by ordinary Afghans, some of whom are now throwing stones at their patrols.
This corresponds with a European press piece I read earlier in the week that quoted various Afghan locals telling about how heavyhanded and indiscriminate U.S. searches are, and how a general feeling was growing that Americans should get out of their country.
Dennis, do you feel that when America left Vietnam it was good for the Vietnamese? Look at the pathetic situation in North and South Korea. If only Vietnam could be as lucky to be like the free side of Korea? (That would be the south side Dennis, BTW West Germany was far beter off than their Eastern relatives after WW2)----That difference is what the future is what the future of Western values are about? Do we adopt unproven Communist-socialistic values because we have not quite figured out how to make our society perfect?Servitude, chaos, despots, corruption, destruction of what is good and slavery are what you get when you go too left. Servitude, my friend, is what idealistic, socialistic and FAR leftist policies produce. (but at least they are not guilty for really helping?).
Teach people to fish, man, giving someone what they need all the timemeans you are treating them like dogs.
Considering that we were essentially committing genocide against the Vietnamese people, yeah, I'd say it was good that they finally kicked our indiscriminately murderous asses out of there.
As for our system not being "perfect"...it's actually become so corrupt and destructively greed-driven that it's no longer sustainable.
Our ultimate survival will force us to move to a public-profit system that places human need above private avarice.
Funny how gas prices rose .25 within minutes of Draft-dodger Dubaya's lying and weaseling at the UN --- boy, Kenneth Laid and all those horny little oil execs must be getting sore cheeks from sucking all that presidential cock. slurp---slurp---slurp---slurp
What are your thoughts on the Flat Earth people?
I don't know about the flat earth --- but I hear those CEOs hanging around the Orval Orfice all have flat HEADS---better for Dumbshit to set his martini and his COKE MIRROR on while enjoying a hummer---from a grown man. Any more questions---asshole?
That Bush "won" the 2000 election with a considerably lower popular vote total than that of his opponent should tell the GOP it needs to work assiduously to broaden its appeal if it hopes to do well in future elections.
But what's happening with countless independents and "soft" Democrats who voted for Dubya the first time around?
The administration's war hysteria is scaring them away in droves.
I can't tell you how many folks like the writer of the following letter I've encountered in recent weeks:
STOP BUSH'S DRIVE TO INVADE IRAQ
Call me crazy, but I'm plenty upset by the saber-rattling of the Bush administration in its efforts to persuade the citizens of this country to back the idea of invading Iraq. Considering what has happened in the past few years, how can we automatically believe the CIA regarding what weapons Iraq has in its possession and what they can produce? Does President George W. Bush really want to be the president who starts a war where we are to be the aggressor for the first time in our country's history? Being the world's caretaker is one thing, but to start a war is the height of arrogance. The consequences are monumental. Do we really want a holy war, another crusade, an Armageddon we can't control because it can get out of hand? Give me a break. What kind of future can we expect for our kids if we get in this habit? I'm plenty puckered, and I'm one of those who voted for Bush. Let's stop the madness now!
--Peter Sneve, Duluth (News Tribune)
The breadth and depth of astonishingly spreading anti-war sentiment is seen in the incredible reponse to the "Stop the War Before it Starts" protest slated for Washington on Oct, 26. C-SPAN has broadcast its initiating press conference four times, with a resulting flood of overwhelmingly positive phone calls. More than 400 organizations from all points on the political spectrum have already endorsed the action.
Not even during the Vietnam war did an announced demonstration engender such quick and massive support.
Bush's isolation from reality means he's about to unsuspectingly walk into a buzzsaw.
Although I'm morally outraged by the prospect of U.S. aggression against Iraq, I'd be dishonest if I said I wasn't excited by how their pursuit of this madness is inexorably pushing the Republicans toward political suicide.
That Bush "won" the 2000 election with a considerably lower popular vote total than that of his opponent should tell the GOP it needs to work assiduously to broaden its appeal if it hopes to do well in future elections.
How did his (George W) percentage compare with Bill Clintons?
Capitalism has problems but socialism destroys initiative. Initiative is what changes the world when the poorest of the poor can exercise it and become more than they otherwise might be. China and Cuba are not what I want for my kids kids. France is not not what I want for my kids kids ( Later, perhaps, I'll explain why the Enron crap was actually good for our nation in the same way that horrible plane crashes are good for airline safety).
but I'm plenty upset by the saber-rattling of the Bush administration in its efforts to persuade the citizens of this country to back the idea of invading Iraq.
Me too. I wish he would do it before Sadam gets his hands on nuclear weapons or more chemical and biological weapons.
Considering what has happened in the past few years, how can we automatically believe the CIA regarding what weapons Iraq has in its possession and what they can produce?
Exactly the whole problem. The inspectors were kicked out of Iraq and not allowed to make sure that Sadam is living up to his end of the bargain.
If you are worried about the CIA, then how about British Prime Minister Tony Blair who is set to release a dossier on how Saddam Hussein trained some of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants? Or how about American satellite photographs showing that Saddam Hussein has reconstructed three weapons plants? No? Would it help if Russia, China, Britain and France all supported the return of inspectors and Baghdad's fulfillment of its U.N. obligations as they recently have stated?
Does President George W. Bush really want to be the president who starts a war where we are to be the aggressor for the first time in our country's history?
I seriously doubt that anyone would want to be in that position, but it is a job that must be done before things get too far out of hand.
Being the world's caretaker is one thing, but to start a war is the height of arrogance.
It is the act of keeping a mad man from causing worldwide havoc that most surely would involve the U.S. as well.
The consequences are monumental.
The consequences of inaction are even worse.
Do we really want a holy war, another crusade, an Armageddon we can't control because it can get out of hand?
Armageddon is exactly what Sadam has in his mind. That is exactly what President Bush is trying to avoid.
Give me a break. What kind of future can we expect for our kids if we get in this habit?
What kind of future can we expect for our kids if Sadam or some other terrorist gets his hands on a nuclear device?
I'm plenty puckered, and I'm one of those who voted for Bush. Let's stop the madness now!
Stopping the madness is what is on our minds. Go hide under your bed until it is all over and then come back to whine about how terrible we are for not letting this madman get his hands on weapons such as these.
What really pisses me off is the fact that people like you were crying at the end of the gulf war about how we shouldn't take him out when we had him on the ropes. Your advise was followed. We gave peace a chance. Now, more than a decade later, we must go back and finish the job against a rebuilt army. Any deaths, civilian or otherwise, are now going to be on your head.
The administration's war hysteria is scaring them away in droves...
...Although I'm morally outraged by the prospect of U.S. aggression against Iraq, I'd be dishonest if I said I wasn't excited by how their pursuit of this madness is inexorably pushing the Republicans toward political suicide.
A Newsweek polls finds more support for war with Iraq
By Jennifer Barrett NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Sept. 14 — President George W. Bush’s speeches to the nation on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks and at the United Nations the next morning seem to have built support among the American public for the use of military force against Iraq, a new NEWSWEEK poll has found.
MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS of Americans (69 percent) now say they would support the use of military force against Iraq (26 percent do not, and 7 percent aren’t sure). That’s an increase of five percent from late August (though still down from 81 percent in a poll taken a month after last year’s terrorist attacks). Bush’s overall approval rating got a boost this week as well, jumping to 70 percent from 61 percent in late August. The increase is the first in six months, though his rating is 18 percent lower than its October high...
...Most believe that not taking action against Saddam could have dire consequences as well. Eighty-five percent say that if the United States does not act, Saddam will be play an instrumental role in helping Al Qaeda terrorists carry out future attacks against U.S. targets, and three-quarters of those polled say Iraq would eventually use weapons of mass destruction against a neighboring country...
Much is made of the Bush administration's claim that Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is racing to rebuild its production capabilities to those of pre-inspection era. This is possible. But you don't go to war on speculation. Currently, this claim is nothing more than specious conjecture by an administration that cannot substantiate any part of its claim.
Another lie to die for is the one that says Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors. Actually, they were told to get out by the U.S. 48 hours before the commencement of Operation Desert Fox. Much of that operation depended upon intelligence information supplied by the inspectors, consequently Saddam is very reluctant to let them back in. Would we give the KGB free run of the country?
Saddam may very well be a vicious dictator and the world may indeed be better off without him, but we have no legal or moral right to kill anyone to accomplich his removal. We cannot justify the deaths of thousands of innocents with the lies and wishful thinking of a very small and dangerous group of men.
It is a fact that we have overthrown or intervened in more democratically reformist governments than any terrorist group in history, and as such are responsible for more deaths and destruction than any terrorist group in history. It is just possible that our leaders are more dangerous than Saddam Hussein...
Perhaps it's time to stop killing and dying for lies and start living for truth. It's something to think about.
--Philip M. Kern, in Reader Weekly
These last few weeks, trying to cover the Bush Administration push for a "first strike" war with Iraq has been like swimming in the ooze. The ooze is the slime that our government has been willing to pour on the American people in the form of disinformation and outright lies...
Sunday morning, there was that draft dodging scum...Dick Cheney on TV just wanting to get lots of American young men and women killed in a war with Iraq. Dick was too busy to go to war when he was of that age, but he has no qualms about sending our kids there. Dick kept saying how Saddam had attacked two of his neighbors, but Dick forgot to tell us that one of those attacks, the one on Iran was financed by the United States and that we supplied all the weapons...
You have to know that much of this world thinks of the United States as a Terrorist State. Just think of the last few years. We have attacked the Balkans, Afghanistan, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, and right now we are spraying millions of gallons of chemicals on the poor farmers of Colombia, because we can't control our own borders nor our appetite for cocaine...
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement on the "War Against Terrorism"
The September 11 attacks in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania shocked and saddened much of the world. VVAW continues to condemn those attacks as criminal actions, and continues to call for the capture and punishment of those actually responsible.
As we grieve for our losses of September 11, we also mourn the losses, military and civilian, of Afghans and Americans.
During the intervening months, anyone designated a "terrorist" has become the new bogeyman. We realize that anyone can be called a terrorist or freedom fighter, depending on who is doing the labeling. Our own Minutemen would certainly have been branded terrorists by the English in 1776.
Our military response to the attacks has caused more civilian deaths in Afghanistan than the hijackers caused in our country. This would suggest that the United States is also engaging in terrorism. Our leaders want to carry this into other countries.
The broadening of this undeclared war to include a so-called "Axis of Evil" includes loosening the standards for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China and Russia. We strongly oppose any open-ended carte blanche theory of war and this use of U.S. military power without proper cause or caution.
There are those in our government who will tout the short-term outcome of our "war on terrorism" as a victory. We notice that Israel has employed victorious military actions against terrorism for twenty years. None of their victories has stopped the sniping or bombing or made Israel a safer place. On the contrary, military responses have caused an increase in disruptive actions.
We feel that holding prisoners as "detainees" on a military base sets a bad precedent and is bad policy. American citizens will, sooner or later, suffer the consequences of this policy. The detainees must be charged and tried as criminals, granted POW status, or set free. They are clearly accorded rights under the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Convention and other human rights laws, including our own. We also oppose any use of torture against these detainees and demand that they be given decent shelter.
Domestically, we demand the equal protection of everyone's civil rights. We condemn the fact that several thousand Muslims in the United States have been detained and held incommunicado without trial, or charge, or even legal rights. We oppose such practices and their corollary, racial profiling, in the domestic side of this "war on terrorism."
Finally, we in VVAW call upon all who support peace with social justice to act on their principles and join with others in their communities to oppose the "war on terrorism" as it is currently being waged, and to oppose domestic terrorism in the guise of "public safety" as it is codified in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (HR 3162) and other legislation.
Polls will show a brief up-blip of support for Bush as he does anything that seems to suggest he isn't blatantly bumbling and stumbling, especially in surveys taken right after major addresses in which "patriorism" is manipulatively invoked, and for which critical analysis hasn't yet had a time to be delivered or to sink in.
Meanwhile...
Here's damning confirmation for the claims of those of us who've said oil lust is the true motivation for attacking Iraq (plus an obvious inter-imperialist rivalry under which America is clearly playing to be unequivocal, global top dog).
They've shown strong opposition for unilateral U.S. action.
They've likewise reflected a majority desire for Congressional approval and UN sanction for what we ultimately do.
Additionally, poll numbers reveal a widespread fear that our efforts won't do any good or will backfire.
And, very importantly, they show a degree of opposition to a PROSPECTIVE war that didn't materialize against an actual, ONGOING war in the case of Vietnam...until quite late in the conflict.
Furthermore, international public opinion is massively opposed to what Bush is proposing.
The "backing" Bush tries to assert he has will soon prove as substantial as cotton candy caught out in the rain.
This is true, but if you go back as far as august or even further you will still see that twice as many people are in favor of U.S. military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein than are against it. Your excitement over political suicide is based on mere propaganda that you have been following.
From your link:
Theyshould be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
So we have not used this stance as you have suggested.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.
Russia is the one worried about oil and getting their money. They appear to be able to be bought with the promise of oil and money after Sadam is gone.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage.
How is this "damning confirmation for the claims of those of us who've said oil lust is the true motivation for attacking Iraq"?
The article, read for what it plainly says about overall U.S. energy industry approval (actually "glee" or "rapture") regarding getting into Iraq to exploit its oil reserves under firm American control...clearly shows what's truly at stake.
Naturally, when asked outright, no oil-industry spokesperson is going to say:
"We're just salivating profit gluttons and we don't care about other countries' sovereign rights."
They'll blow smoke.
Just as in Afghanistan.
Karzai was involved with UNOCAL negotiations in the past.
He gets to be president, and the first thing he does is "authorize" an oil deal that contains essentially all elements of those previous plans.
All the while being a complete U.S. puppet.
I wonder where Bush is going to snag an "Iraqi opposition leader" to put up as an alternative to Saddam.
From New Jersey, as was the case with Vietnam's lackey, Ngo Dinh Diem?!
So will McKinney thank God !
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/3919105.htm
Sure you did Bill, pfft. And if he moved for his family and it made his family life so much better then why didn't he do it before ? Yes and you also were happy to see Garst run. I hope Billy Luther is sent packing too. He, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr can get toghether and play cards.
I came across a little newspaper clipping, without any date or indication as to its source.
But it's yellowed enough to suggest having almost certainly been published BEFORE the current spate of corporate scandals surfaced.
It reads:
"The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, an independent research group, has issued a stunning new report documenting that 41 of America's largest corporations had $25.8 billion in profits from 1996-1999, yet not only did they avoid paying their fair share of taxes -- they got $3.2 billion in rebate checks from us Taxpayers!
"Among these tax dodgers are such brand-names as Chevron, PepsiCo, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, Saks, Goodyear, Ryder trucks, Enron, Colgate-Palmolive, MCI, Weyerhauser, GM, and Northrup Grumman.
"What's at work here is not fantasy, but loopholes. By law corporations are supposed to pay 35 percent of their profits in taxes. Yet their lawyers and lobbyists have riddled the tax code with all sorts of special breaks -- including one that allows corporations to buy tax breaks from other corporations that have more tax breaks than they can use!
"The bottom line is that these companies escape paying, making us ordinary taxpayers pick up their share of financing America's highways, schools, parks, military and (remainder of article torn off)."
That Enron and MCI are mentioned reveals that knowledge of their manipulative greed existed prior to their current source of shame.
Also, as Republicans urge that corporations and the rich be given tax breaks to supposedly help stimulate the failing economy, one necessarily has to wonder:
Is escalating injustice the ONLY basis under which capitalism can continue to survive?
If so, how can its continued existence be justified?
You can't make something RIGHT, and objectively sustainable, by making it more WRONG...
By no means do I agree with everything Dubya and his administration do.
Rex Morgan's Prescription? Socialized Medicine in US
Supporters of socialized health care in Canada and the United States have a seemingly unlikely friend in Rex Morgan M.D., the handsome, deeply decent physician who has been a staple of newspaper comics since 1948.
So far there's no record of the Romanow health care commission or the U.S. Secretary of Health having consulted the fictional doctor.
However, as any of the 30 million readers of the syndicated strip carried by 300 newspapers in 15 countries can tell you, Rex has come out foursquare in favor of what his creator calls "a single-payer, state-supported health care system."
Interestingly, the man behind Rex Morgan's position isn't some "communist or liberal socialist" -- although he has received plenty of mail calling him that, and worse. He's Woody Wilson, a 55-year-old registered Republican from Tempe, Ariz., who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 elections.
"I believe the country that is supposedly the richest and most powerful in the world shouldn't be forcing its citizens to choose between paying their mortgage or saving their lives. Yet that is what is happening with millions of Americans right now," Mr. Wilson said in an interview this week.
"What's needed is health care for everyone instead of dividends for stockholders in pharmaceutical companies."
Mr. Wilson has been writing Rex Morgan M.D., a sort of soap opera in comic form, since 1991, having worked as an apprentice under its originator, psychiatrist Nicholas Dallis (now deceased), since 1982.
Under Mr. Wilson, Rex Morgan hasn't hesitated to tackle domestic violence, epilepsy, drug abuse, AIDS, organ transplants, asthma and sexual harassment.
"We've never made people laugh; we're about informing and entertaining," he likes to say, and, in fact, medical professionals and support groups have included some of his strips in their educational packages.
But in recent months Mr. Wilson has pulled his rock-jawed hero firmly into the far more dicey arena of health policy, even sending him to Washington, D.C., to testify before legislators.
The strip's current storyline is dealing with the fallout from the death of Rex Morgan's friend, Dick Coleman, who lost his job after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Losing the job resulted in the loss of his family's health coverage and the threatened foreclosure on the mortgage on the Colemans' home.
In the wake of Dick's death -- "the very week [in June this year] that Dubya got his colonoscopy," Mr. Wilson noted -- his wife Marsha became borderline suicidal and his daughter Dana started to use drugs and get involved with criminal elements.
"All because they couldn't afford health insurance," a somber Rex Morgan mused in one recent strip.
It's estimated that nearly 40 million Americans share the plight of Dick Coleman. Meanwhile, "We're adding a million or more people to the rolls of the uninsured each year," Mr. Wilson said.
Mr. Wilson likes to call himself "just a comic-strip guy," but he's a guy whose wife happens to have a PhD in health-care policy from Massachusetts' Brandeis University and who "sits and talks with me about my stories."
Moreover, it's a measure of Mr. Wilson's perceived clout that he has been invited to speak in November at the annual convention of the 9,000-member U.S. Physicians for a National Health Program.
Despite the flak Mr. Wilson has received from some readers, no newspaper has pulled Rex Morgan M.D. from its comics section.
"Our problem goes to something else," Mr. Wilson said.
"Strips like ours -- they're called continuity strips -- are perceived to be old-fashioned these days. So we have to work harder to keep them fresh."
Rex Morgan, he added,"will always have to be about hot issues, will always have to try to be a bit ahead of the curve, if only because we're syndicated in so many countries."
Mr. Wilson said Rex's campaign for a national, state-financed health-care regime "is going to be a recurring theme for years to come."
Right now the fight for a comprehensive medical program "isn't a national priority," he acknowledged, "nor is there the political will for it."
But this could change in two or three years, if the ranks of the uninsured swell to, say, 50 million.
"That's a political party, in effect, right there," he said. "If someone can mobilize those people . . . that's a major force."
Unsurprisingly, those Americans critical of Mr. Wilson's position like to ask him, "Do we want to have a Canadian health-care system? Do we want rationing? Do we want to wait in line for hip-replacement surgery?"
Mr. Wilson chuckled. "My wife and I were talking about this and she said, 'Well, in Canada, [health care] is about waiting; in America, it's about money.' I want the waiting."
--Toronto Globe and Mail
Where was Rex during the Clinton years? He could have used a few more allies.
The White House and the Congress is stacked against health care reform. They'll listen to the drug and insurance companies and not the health care people.
Supreme Court brushes aside candidate residency challenges
BRIAN BAKST
Associated Press Writer
ST. PAUL - Four DFL legislative candidates, including Sen. John Hottinger and Rep. Loren Solberg, will remain on fall election ballots after the state Supreme Court turned back challenges to their residency Wednesday.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/3956695.htm
Seems that some politicians will do anything to stay in power inculding "moving" even though many don't really live there. Seems awfully distasteful.
If Powell feels it necessary to go public with his disagreements, maybe he should join the ranks of fellow dissidents James Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger as a former secretary of state.
If you haven't noticed there is a large number of insiders agreeing with the idea of attacking Iraq. Namely Cheney, Rumsfeld and if I am not mistaken Rice.
This country needs to lead instead of following the world opinion polls.
Another thing, fold, I am not sure how accurate those reports from the Pentagon were. The dissenter could well have been alone in his opinion.
It is this kind of thing that makes me hate liberals. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62192,00.html
Bush can't stand with her?
Wouldn't want to be tied to him in the depths of a collapsed coal mine with the water rising. He might just get the notion to save himself.
Clinton did the same thing when his nominees got in trouble.
And the Republicans did the same thing to Clinton nominees.
Payback's a bitch.
I don't think you understand the process, Rick. Her nomination was rejected by the extreme left wing democrats. She was even given the stamp of approval by the liberal organization named the American Bar Association. Under these circumstances her rejection reveals just how extrem the democrats really are.
Why didn't Bush stand with her, then. Go to the mat?
This was a political play. Nothing to do with ideology. Or very little.
Owen got caught in the crossfire. Hard Cheese for her.
I understand the process, jethro. You don't.
It had every thing to do with ideology.
jethro:
"Why didn't Bush stand with her, then. Go to the mat?
How do you know he didn't?"
He did about as much as he stood with Charles Pickering. Which is: not at all. He's not going to waste political capital on judicial appointments. They're pawns.
Smirking, simpering Dubya.
The eerily disengaged Cheney.
Ashcroft, who'd have helped Illinois Nazis hound the Blues Brothers.
Giddy-with-power, oars-missing-the-water Rumsfeld.
Think hard about what these clowns really represent before sending your kids off to become body-bag filler in Iraq.
Take Cheney, a totally spooky individual whom many believe is the actual "president" in a rightwing military-industrial cabal for which George II is just a frontman figurehead.
In two speeches which the ghost of Goebbels had to have cheered for their propaganda outlandishness, Tricky Dick The Sequel lambasted Saddam Hussein for alleged evils that Hell itself couldn't contain.
But, look here:
The estimable Financial Times, in an article entitled "A Discreet Way of Doing Business With Iraq, " Nov. 3, 2000, charged that former Halliburton chief Cheney played a pivotal role in building Saddam's key capacity...for mercenary corporate profit.
Halliburton-owned subsidiaries sold more oil field technologies and equipment to Iraq than any other U.S. corporation (yes, there were others) pocketing $24 million in sales.
This action, circumventing the law by using Halliburton's foreign holdings as the conduit, helped Saddam restore his oil production, providing revenue that was partly used to finance Iraq's defense capabilities.
The ones Cheney now wants your boy to potentially die in a distant desert dune for to destroy!
There's a whole garbage can of smelly truth we need to hold our noses and expose, before blindly jumping into an apocalypse for oil that would benefit only greedhead sleazoids.
For instance, did you know that, by most accounts, only 300 people died when Iraq invaded Kuwait?
In contrast, it's conservatively estimated that 4000 souls perished when Bush I attacked Panama during "Operation Just Cause".
Who's your Daddy, how big of a war criminal was he, and how many innocent Iraqi civilians would YOU blow away...none of whose name is "Saddam Hussein"?
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- Abe Lincoln
"Do not partake in barren works of darkness -- Ephesians 5:11
Another Nazi reference Dennis ? Although I must admit, it was one of the great lines from that movie.
Belushi:
Illinois Nazi's ?...........I hate Illinois Nazi's.
If we read the Constitution as authorizing Senate rejection solely for political reasons, then we must assume that the Framers intended that any time the opposition party controlled the Senate, there would be a freeze on the president's appointment power. That makes no sense, especially since the judiciary is supposed to be the one non-political branch.
It's Rush Limbaugh's brother. I think he's a lawyer.
He wrote an anti-Clinton book.
How would you like to wake up every morning and be a Limbaugh?
If you like Rush's brother you would love his cousin.
And that would be whom---Zippo the Amazing Skateboarding Chimp? Oh excuse---Zippo is getting blow jobs in the Oval Office from Kenneth Lay and scads of other plump and sweaty little oil CEOs. Oh happy day---here come the COM-CONS!
How can you not like a skateboarding chimp?
DuaneBarry
(PFID:13d7a7) -
                                                                             05:53pm Sep
                                                                             10, 2002 PST (#
                                                                             1621 of 1624)
You are not just totally fucked up. You are totally and completely fucked up.
In fact I would go to the point of bringing up the word 'odd'.
What are your thoughts on the Flat Earth people?
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0911-08.htm
This man should be president of the United States...
This man should be president of the United States...
President Fruitcake?
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/info/aboutdjk.htm
His holistic worldview carries with it a passionate commitment to public service, peace, human rights, workers rights, and the environment. His advocacy of a Department of Peace.....
::slams head on desk::
Kucinich Says Give Peace A Chance, Introduces Legislation To Create Department Of Peace
Washington, DC (July 11, 2001) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) today introduced legislation to create a cabinet level agency dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to peace.
“The time for peace is now,” Congressman Kucinich said. “At the dawn of a new millennium, there is no better time to review age old challenges with new thinking that peace is not only the absence of violence, but the presence of a higher evolution of human awareness with respect, trust and integrity toward humankind. Our founding fathers recognized that peace was one of the highest duties of the newly organized free and independent states. But too often, we have overlooked the long- term solution of peace for instant gratification of war. This continued downward spiral of violence must stop to ensure that future generations will live in peace and harmony.”
Kucinich’s legislation to create a Department of Peace focuses on individual, group and national responsibilities of holding peace as an organizing principle. The Department of Peace will focus on nonmilitary peaceful conflict resolutions, prevent violence and promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights. A Peace Academy, similar to the five military service academies, would be created; its graduates dispatched to troubled areas around the globe to promote nonviolent dispute resolutions.
“The challenges inherent in creating a Department of Peace are massive,” said Congressman Kucinich. “But the alternatives are worse. Violence at home, in the schools, in the media, and between nations has dragged down humanity. It’s time to recognize that traditional, militant objectives for peace are not working, and the only solution is to make peace the goal of a cabinet level agency.”
Dennis,
What’s So Funny about Peace, Love & Understanding?
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg091102.asp
I can't explain why, but that reminds me of a dream I once had after eating an anchovy pizza.
A guy who looked a lot like my Uncle Earl, except he had blue hair, was all excited because he figured out a way to become a millionaire.
He'd hit on the idea that the world needed a third laundry bleach.
Hylex.
Clorox.
And his "Clorina".
He went so far as to produce a TV commercial for the product.
A beautiful woman was hugging and kissing the Clorina Bottle Guy,
styled somewhat after the Pillsbury Doughboy.
And she was singing a variation of the old Ray Peterson hit:
"I love Clorina, tell the world I do..."
But then John Ashcroft came into the dream and started ranting:
"Wait a minute. What kind of a name for a guy
is 'Clorina'? Is there something gay going on here? This commercial will be seen by children, and Christians, and Christians with children. I won't allow it!"
Just then a SWAT team burst in, seized the
blue-haired Uncle lookalike, knocking over a Clorina
bottle, bleaching the color out of an American-flag backdrop.
But they left the beautiful woman, alone with me.
Well, one thing led to another, and pretty soon she was between the covers with yours truly.
"What's your name, honey?" I asked.
"Ralph..."
apple-314159 9/12/02 5:08pm
Great article!
Kucinich Says Give Peace A Chance
Well Mr. Kucinich, we gave peace a chance and what did it get us? Roughly 3,000 people dead and many wounded. You and the other bedwetters may wish that we just convert to islam and follow what ever orders that these outlaw groups wish. That won't happen and I will do what I can to make sure of that.
I am so sick of this kind of crap. The Bin Laden group that attacked the U.S.S. Cole were given the chance of peace and were we treated any better afterwards? No, we were attacked on our soil. Now we should not hunt those responsible and bring them to justice?
Sadam is no different. Given a chance for peace, he invaded Kuwait in his quest to control the entire Middle East. After being driven out of Kuwait, he had another chance for peace. He accepted a series of commitments and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has broken those commitments and has been proven to be trying to get his hands on a weapon of atomic strength.
You can put a burka on your wife and hide under your bed hoping for the best, but the rest of America can no longer stand aside doing the same. We have experienced what happens when we "give peace a chance" and it is not a pretty site. It is time to make sure that those who would carry out extreme harm upon us and the rest of the world do not have the means to make their wishes of destruction come true.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020912-034109-6371r
KUCINICH TO BIBI: ARE THERE ANY OTHERS YOU WANT US TO ATTACK?
Did you see the CBS Evening News segment in which members of U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan were interviewed, using only first names?
The soldiers expressed fears that the liberation was turning into an occupation, was starting to look a lot like Vietnam, and that they
were beginning to sense we are on "the wrong side".
The last remark apparently being a reference to our alliances with
unsavory warlord factions.
They also told of how their presence was resented by ordinary Afghans,
some of whom are now throwing stones at their patrols.
This corresponds with a European press piece I read earlier in the week that quoted various Afghan locals telling about how heavyhanded
and indiscriminate U.S. searches are, and how a general feeling was growing that Americans should get out of their country.
Dennis, do you feel that when America left Vietnam it was good for the Vietnamese? Look at the pathetic situation in North and South Korea. If only Vietnam could be as lucky to be like the free side of Korea? (That would be the south side Dennis, BTW West Germany was far beter off than their Eastern relatives after WW2)----That difference is what the future is what the future of Western values are about? Do we adopt unproven Communist-socialistic values because we have not quite figured out how to make our society perfect?Servitude, chaos, despots, corruption, destruction of what is good and slavery are what you get when you go too left. Servitude, my friend, is what idealistic, socialistic and FAR leftist policies produce. (but at least they are not guilty for really helping?).
Teach people to fish, man, giving someone what they need all the timemeans you are treating them like dogs.
Considering that we were essentially committing genocide against the Vietnamese people, yeah, I'd say it was good that they finally kicked our indiscriminately murderous asses out of there.
As for our system not being "perfect"...it's actually become so
corrupt and destructively greed-driven that it's no longer sustainable.
Our ultimate survival will force us to move to a public-profit system that places human need above private avarice.
Funny how gas prices rose .25 within minutes of Draft-dodger Dubaya's lying and weaseling at the UN --- boy, Kenneth Laid and all those horny little oil execs must be getting sore cheeks from sucking all that presidential cock. slurp---slurp---slurp---slurp
I don't know about the flat earth --- but I hear those CEOs hanging around the Orval Orfice all have flat HEADS---better for Dumbshit to set his martini and his COKE MIRROR on while enjoying a hummer---from a grown man. Any more questions---asshole?
That Bush "won" the 2000 election with a considerably lower popular vote total than that of his opponent should tell the GOP it needs to work assiduously to broaden its appeal if it hopes to do well in future elections.
But what's happening with countless independents and "soft" Democrats who voted for Dubya the first time around?
The administration's war hysteria is scaring them away in droves.
I can't tell you how many folks like the writer of the following letter I've encountered in recent weeks:
STOP BUSH'S DRIVE TO INVADE IRAQ
Call me crazy, but I'm plenty upset by the saber-rattling of the Bush administration in its efforts to persuade the citizens of this country to back the idea of invading Iraq. Considering what has happened in the past few years, how can we automatically believe the CIA regarding what weapons Iraq has in its possession and what they can produce? Does President George W. Bush really want to be the president who starts a war where we are to be the aggressor for the first time in our country's history? Being the world's caretaker is one thing, but to start a war is the height of arrogance.
The consequences are monumental. Do we really want a holy war, another crusade, an Armageddon we can't control because it can get out of hand? Give me a break. What kind of future can we expect for our kids if we get in this habit? I'm plenty puckered, and I'm one of those who voted for Bush. Let's stop the madness now!
--Peter Sneve, Duluth (News Tribune)
The breadth and depth of astonishingly spreading anti-war sentiment is seen in the incredible reponse to the "Stop the War Before it Starts" protest slated for Washington on Oct, 26. C-SPAN has broadcast its initiating press conference four times, with a resulting flood of overwhelmingly positive phone calls. More than 400 organizations from all points on the political spectrum have already endorsed the action.
Not even during the Vietnam war did an announced demonstration engender such quick and massive support.
Bush's isolation from reality means he's about to unsuspectingly walk into a buzzsaw.
Although I'm morally outraged by the prospect of U.S. aggression against Iraq, I'd be dishonest if I said I wasn't excited by how their pursuit of this madness is inexorably pushing the Republicans toward political suicide.
dennis
How did his (George W) percentage compare with Bill Clintons?
Capitalism has problems but socialism destroys initiative. Initiative is what changes the world when the poorest of the poor can exercise it and become more than they otherwise might be. China and Cuba are not what I want for my kids kids. France is not not what I want for my kids kids
( Later, perhaps, I'll explain why the Enron crap was actually good for our nation in the same way that horrible plane crashes are good for airline safety).
Learn how to fish or starve?
Call me crazy,
O.K.....you are crazy.
but I'm plenty upset by the saber-rattling of the Bush administration in its efforts to persuade the citizens of this country to back the idea of invading Iraq.
Me too. I wish he would do it before Sadam gets his hands on nuclear weapons or more chemical and biological weapons.
Considering what has happened in the past few years, how can we automatically believe the CIA regarding what weapons Iraq has in its possession and what they can produce?
Exactly the whole problem. The inspectors were kicked out of Iraq and not allowed to make sure that Sadam is living up to his end of the bargain.
If you are worried about the CIA, then how about British Prime Minister Tony Blair who is set to release a dossier on how Saddam Hussein trained some of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants? Or how about American satellite photographs showing that Saddam Hussein has reconstructed three weapons plants? No? Would it help if Russia, China, Britain and France all supported the return of inspectors and Baghdad's fulfillment of its U.N. obligations as they recently have stated?
Does President George W. Bush really want to be the president who starts a war where we are to be the aggressor for the first time in our country's history?
I seriously doubt that anyone would want to be in that position, but it is a job that must be done before things get too far out of hand.
Being the world's caretaker is one thing, but to start a war is the height of arrogance.
It is the act of keeping a mad man from causing worldwide havoc that most surely would involve the U.S. as well.
The consequences are monumental.
The consequences of inaction are even worse.
Do we really want a holy war, another crusade, an Armageddon we can't control because it can get out of hand?
Armageddon is exactly what Sadam has in his mind. That is exactly what President Bush is trying to avoid.
Give me a break. What kind of future can we expect for our kids if we get in this habit?
What kind of future can we expect for our kids if Sadam or some other terrorist gets his hands on a nuclear device?
I'm plenty puckered, and I'm one of those who voted for Bush. Let's stop the madness now!
Stopping the madness is what is on our minds. Go hide under your bed until it is all over and then come back to whine about how terrible we are for not letting this madman get his hands on weapons such as these.
What really pisses me off is the fact that people like you were crying at the end of the gulf war about how we shouldn't take him out when we had him on the ropes. Your advise was followed. We gave peace a chance. Now, more than a decade later, we must go back and finish the job against a rebuilt army. Any deaths, civilian or otherwise, are now going to be on your head.
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right." ~Mark Twain
The administration's war hysteria is scaring them away in droves...
...Although I'm morally outraged by the prospect of U.S. aggression against Iraq, I'd be dishonest if I said I wasn't excited by how their pursuit of this madness is inexorably pushing the Republicans toward political suicide.
Iraq Attack Gains Momentum
A Newsweek polls finds more support for war with Iraq
By Jennifer Barrett
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Sept. 14 — President George W. Bush’s speeches to the nation on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks and at the United Nations the next morning seem to have built support among the American public for the use of military force against Iraq, a new NEWSWEEK poll has found.
MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS of Americans (69 percent) now say they would support the use of military force against Iraq (26 percent do not, and 7 percent aren’t sure). That’s an increase of five percent from late August (though still down from 81 percent in a poll taken a month after last year’s terrorist attacks). Bush’s overall approval rating got a boost this week as well, jumping to 70 percent from 61 percent in late August. The increase is the first in six months, though his rating is 18 percent lower than its October high...
...Most believe that not taking action against Saddam could have dire consequences as well. Eighty-five percent say that if the United States does not act, Saddam will be play an instrumental role in helping Al Qaeda terrorists carry out future attacks against U.S. targets, and three-quarters of those polled say Iraq would eventually use weapons of mass destruction against a neighboring country...
VIETNAM VETS RESIST IRAQ FOLLY
Another lie to die for is the one that says Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors. Actually, they were told to get out by the U.S. 48 hours before the commencement of Operation Desert Fox. Much of that operation depended upon intelligence information supplied by the inspectors, consequently Saddam is very reluctant to let them back in. Would we give the KGB free run of the country?
Saddam may very well be a vicious dictator and the world may indeed be better off without him, but we have no legal or moral right to kill anyone to accomplich his removal.
We cannot justify the deaths of thousands of innocents with the lies and wishful thinking of a very small and dangerous group of men.
It is a fact that we have overthrown or intervened in more democratically reformist governments than any terrorist group in history, and as such are responsible for more deaths and destruction than any terrorist group in history. It is just possible that our leaders are more dangerous than Saddam Hussein...
Perhaps it's time to stop killing and dying for lies and start living for truth. It's something to think about.
--Philip M. Kern, in Reader Weekly
Sunday morning, there was that draft dodging scum...Dick Cheney on TV just wanting to get lots of American young men and women killed in a war with Iraq. Dick was too busy to go to war when he was of that age, but he has no qualms about sending our kids there. Dick kept saying how Saddam had attacked two of his neighbors, but Dick forgot to tell us that one of those attacks, the one on Iran was financed by the United States and that we supplied all the weapons...
You have to know that much of this world thinks of the United States as a Terrorist State. Just think of the last few years. We have attacked the Balkans, Afghanistan, Panama, Somalia, Sudan, and right now we are spraying millions of gallons of chemicals on the poor farmers of Colombia, because we can't control our own borders nor our appetite for cocaine...
--James Glaser, same issue of Reader Weekly
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Statement on the "War Against Terrorism"
The September 11 attacks in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania shocked and saddened much of the world. VVAW continues to condemn those attacks as criminal actions, and continues to call for the capture and punishment of those actually responsible.
As we grieve for our losses of September 11, we also mourn the losses, military and civilian, of Afghans and Americans.
During the intervening months, anyone designated a "terrorist" has become the new bogeyman. We realize that anyone can be called a terrorist or freedom fighter, depending on who is doing the labeling. Our own Minutemen would certainly have been branded terrorists by the English in 1776.
Our military response to the attacks has caused more civilian deaths in Afghanistan than the hijackers caused in our country. This would suggest that the United States is also engaging in terrorism. Our leaders want to carry this into other countries.
The broadening of this undeclared war to include a so-called "Axis of Evil" includes loosening the standards for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China and Russia. We strongly oppose any open-ended carte blanche theory of war and this use of U.S. military power without proper cause or caution.
There are those in our government who will tout the short-term outcome of our "war on terrorism" as a victory. We notice that Israel has employed victorious military actions against terrorism for twenty years. None of their victories has stopped the sniping or bombing or made Israel a safer place. On the contrary, military responses have caused an increase in disruptive actions.
We feel that holding prisoners as "detainees" on a military base sets a bad precedent and is bad policy. American citizens will, sooner or later, suffer the consequences of this policy. The detainees must be charged and tried as criminals, granted POW status, or set free. They are clearly accorded rights under the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Convention and other human rights laws, including our own. We also oppose any use of torture against these detainees and demand that they be given decent shelter.
Domestically, we demand the equal protection of everyone's civil rights. We condemn the fact that several thousand Muslims in the United States have been detained and held incommunicado without trial, or charge, or even legal rights. We oppose such practices and their corollary, racial profiling, in the domestic side of this "war on terrorism."
Finally, we in VVAW call upon all who support peace with social justice to act on their principles and join with others in their communities to oppose the "war on terrorism" as it is currently being waged, and to oppose domestic terrorism in the guise of "public safety" as it is codified in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (HR 3162) and other legislation.
Find 5 Polls that the people give him total support, and I would be surprised.
You left yourself a way out by not describing total support, but here you go. 5 more polls from differing sources with left and right tendencies:
1) FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Latest: Sept. 8-9, 2002. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you support or oppose U.S. military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?"
support 66, oppose 22, not sure 12
2) CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 2-5, 2002. N=937 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).
"Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
Approve 68, Disapprove 24, Don't know 8
3) CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Latest: Sept. 2-4, 2002. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).
"Would you favor or oppose sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?"
favor 58, oppose 36, no opinion 6
4) ABC News Poll. Latest: Aug. 29, 2002. N=504 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.5 (total sample). Field work by TNS Intersearch.
"Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?"
favor 56, oppose 34, no opinion 10
5) Los Angeles Times Poll. Aug. 22-25, 2002. N=1,372 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).
"Do you think the United States should take military action in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, or not?"
Should 59, Should not 29, Don't know 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18841-2002Sep14.html
Polls will show a brief up-blip of support for Bush as he does anything that seems to suggest he isn't blatantly bumbling and stumbling, especially in surveys taken right after major addresses in which "patriorism" is manipulatively invoked, and for which critical analysis hasn't yet had a time to be delivered or to sink in.
Meanwhile...
Here's damning confirmation for the claims of those of us who've said
oil lust is the true motivation for attacking Iraq (plus an obvious inter-imperialist rivalry under which America is clearly playing to be
unequivocal, global top dog).
Another point about current polls:
They've shown strong opposition for unilateral U.S. action.
They've likewise reflected a majority desire for Congressional approval and UN sanction for what we ultimately do.
Additionally, poll numbers reveal a widespread fear that our efforts won't do any good or will backfire.
And, very importantly, they show a degree of opposition to a PROSPECTIVE war that didn't materialize against an actual, ONGOING war
in the case of Vietnam...until quite late in the conflict.
Furthermore, international public opinion is massively opposed to what Bush is proposing.
The "backing" Bush tries to assert he has will soon prove as substantial as cotton candy caught out in the rain.
Polls will show a brief up-blip of support...
This is true, but if you go back as far as august or even further you will still see that twice as many people are in favor of U.S. military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein than are against it. Your excitement over political suicide is based on mere propaganda that you have been following.
From your link:
They should
be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
So we have not used this stance as you have suggested.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.
Russia is the one worried about oil and getting their money. They appear to be able to be bought with the promise of oil and money after Sadam is gone.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage.
How is this "damning confirmation for the claims of those of us who've said oil lust is the true motivation for attacking Iraq"?
The article, read for what it plainly says about overall U.S. energy industry approval (actually "glee" or "rapture") regarding getting into Iraq to exploit its oil reserves under firm American control...clearly shows what's truly at stake.
Naturally, when asked outright, no oil-industry spokesperson is going to say:
"We're just salivating profit gluttons and we don't care about other countries' sovereign rights."
They'll blow smoke.
Just as in Afghanistan.
Karzai was involved with UNOCAL negotiations in the past.
He gets to be president, and the first thing he does is "authorize"
an oil deal that contains essentially all elements of those previous plans.
All the while being a complete U.S. puppet.
I wonder where Bush is going to snag an "Iraqi opposition leader"
to put up as an alternative to Saddam.
From New Jersey, as was the case with Vietnam's lackey, Ngo Dinh Diem?!
Did the Founding Fathers envision an America engaged in defacto empire-building via wars of aggression?
No.
So stand up for this nation's original precepts and values.
Or be prepared to live the rest of your lives with the onus of betrayal of our most sacred ideals.