Teheran’s confidence in its ability to press on with its prohibited nuclear weapons program while blowing hot and cold on international threats was rudely shattered last week. Against all its expectations, a tough US-backed ultimatum was tabled and carried by the International Atomic Energy Agency board in Vienna on Friday, September 12. Iran was given until October 31 to stump up with full details of its nuclear activities program and prove it was not engaged in covert weapons production.
If this deadline is not met, the screw will turn again: The IAEA will pronounce Iran in violation of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, opening the door to a UN Security Council debate in December 2003 or January 2004 and economic sanctions, one of which will prohibit UN members from purchasing oil and energy products from Iran, a measure that would bring havoc to Iran’s limping economy.
At one stroke, Iran’s options were reduced to two:
1. Knuckle under to the ultimatum and open up its nuclear site to full, unannounced international inspections. This would be tantamount to halting the enrichment of uranium for the manufacture of a bomb, a surrender the Islamic clerical regime might not survive.
2. Defy the ultimatum by emulating North Korea’s tactics of confronting every international threat with an escalation, such as testing missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads or staging nuclear tests. The price for this defiance will be steep, punishing sanctions that will further cripple an economy already hobbled by roaring unemployment that in some places reaches 50 percent.
DEBKAfile’s Persian Gulf sources reveal that Tehran was stunned when Moscow and New Delhi lined up behind the tough US measure at the IAEA board meeting. Multibillion deals for the construction of Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr and other technology transfers net Russia invaluable revenues, while India’s close trade and military exchanges with Iran are worth some $2.5 bn per annum. Tehran had counted on the two powers dragging their feet or toning down a US measure - not supporting it. In fact, both feigned sympathy for the Iranian position until the final vote, when they switched sides
DEBKAfile reveals that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon played an active role in the diplomacy leading up to the American diplomatic coup in Vienna. He made discreet telephone calls to Russian president Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin and placed it on the agenda of his talks with Indian prime minister Atali Bihar Vajpayee when they met in New Delhi last Tuesday, September 9.
In its last issue of September 12, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Tehran sources revealed that prior to the Vienna meeting, Iran’s radical spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his top advisers had carefully plotted a deception-by-procrastination strategy in anticipation of a much milder IAEA resolution. They decided to offer to start talks on signing the Additional Protocol that permit snap international inspections of its nuclear sites and so meet a longstanding demand. Their plan was to drag out these talks month after month in order to buy time enough to move their nuclear weapons program forward before the axe descended.
Tehran would meanwhile demand to be rewarded for its “flexibility” by IAEA approval for technology transfers to be made for its “peaceful” nuclear energy projects. Eventually, the Additional Protocol would get signed. But that wouldn’t be the end of it. A bevy of Iranian bureaucratic and elected institutions, such as the all-powerful, Khamenei-ruled Council of Guardians, would have to ratify the signature before it took effect – after due deliberation in each of them. Then, Khamenei would lay down his last trump card, declaring that only he as spiritual ruler was qualified to grant final approval for a paramount national issue.
By these tricks and stratagems, Iranian rulers expected to win time to manufacture a “primitive” nuclear bomb. They also believed the Americans would be too distracted by crises in Iraq and elsewhere to keep an eye on their clandestine activities and would therefore leave them free to spring Iran’s Muslim Shiite nuclear bomb on the world.
To find out how much time he had, Khamenei demanded to know how long before the national nuclear weapons program reached its point of no return, namely one stage before the assembly of a nuclear bomb. Summoned to his office were the 37 top nuclear experts heading the different projects at Natanz, Arak, Esfahan and Kashan, together with Iran’s atomic energy commission director, Gholam-reza Aghazadeh.
The told him that the testing of the centrifuges in Natanz should be completed in months and uranium enrichment can begin as soon as December 2003. An enrichment level of 70 percent or more would then be just months away, enabling Iran to build a “primitive” bomb similar to the one Tehran believes North Korea possesses.
Before the US-backed ultimatum was slapped down last Friday, the clerics of Tehran had banked on being treated by Washington with the same diplomatic caution as Pyongyang. They believed they could run rings around the Americans with time on their side. Last Friday, the tables were turned. America grabbed the time factor and confronted the Islamic Republic with a resounding diplomatic debacle.
Let's see, it's a quagmire like Vietnam. Let's compare.
At no point in the Vietnam war did we utterly destroy the North Vietnamese army. At no point did we send HoChi Min into hiding or kill or capture his top aides, generals and advisors not to mention his sons or his politburo. Not the case here, 85% of his henchmen are dead or locked up.
At no point did we occupy the entire country of Vietnam. At no point did we occupy Hanoi. Not the case here.
In South Vietnam there was a corrupt and incompetent government that was riddled with spies. The VC and NVA had the support of most of the people. Â Â Â Â In Iraq, we overthrew a murderous dictator who was unpopular and corrupt, he and his henchmen are being ratted out by locals because they hate him and his regime.
Vietnam is mostly Jungle which can hide and sustain, train and recoup forces, they can live off the land if needed and water was availible. In the desert and flatlands of suthern Iraq, that's simply NOT an option.
Most Iraqi's want us there and are glad to have Saddamn gone. Not the case in Vietnam.
In Vietnam, more than 58,000 Americans lost their lives. At the height of the war, 500 soldiers were being killed each week.
In the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation, we have lost fewer men to hostile fire than in a single terrorist attack in Lebanon in 1983.
We've been losing about a soldier a day since the first of June. At this rate, we'll reach the Vietnam total in about 158 years.
Vietnam = 13 years. Iraq = 6 months.
Politically it's not even close. In Vietnam we couldn't go to many places that we knew troops were because of political differences. The war in Vietnam was run from Washington instead of letting the commanders in the field do as they wanted to achieve victory. Total victory was never an option. Politically we were fighting with one hand behind our back. Don't go here, don't target that. Not the case in Iraq. The differences are stunning. The only reason we lost in Vietnam was due to lack of resolve. Some here apparently are ready to throw in the towel after 6 months. 6 months in which we engaged and defeated an entire army and travled hundreds of miles in mere weeks without massive prepatory bombing, without bombing vast areas. Overthrew a murderous dictator and liberated millions. A government is being set up, elections will be held, infastructure is coming back, commerce is starting, people can worship how they want, they can read what they want, they can listen to numerous radio and TV stations without fear of jail or death. Brides can go to their wedding without fear of being raped, people aren't being fed into shredders and life is hopeful for the first time in 35 years for the people of Iraq.
Do you see any of the good we're doing and the majority of people happy we're there being interviewed ? Of course not. Things are better than what the media would have you believe because crisis sells. The attacks are actually declining. Last week the whole week went by without any troops killed. That doesn't make the news much. The total twisting of the actual situation by the press is appaling and a complete lack of candor and journalistic ethics. Are their problems, absolutley. It took 5 years to get Japan rebuilt and 10 for Germany. We're less than a half year into rebuilding. There's going to be problems and challenges.
Politically the same as Vietnam ? I get the feeling some wish it would be and are doing there damndest to make it that way. The lack of resolve and support is telling. It's also EXACTLY what jihaidiots and baaath party members want and I'm sure they are tickled when they see it. That way they can get us to leave again as we did numerous times before because some would rather use it for political gain than to do what's right and see it through.
Then again these are the same "experts" who claimed we'd lose 10,000 troops taking Bagdhad. The same patient and dedicated ones who claimed we were bogged down after 1 whole week of fighting, yes 1 week !
And there wouldn't be anything biased about what they have to say? Like eharing about the reconstruction process from the people responsible for it? Hearing about security from the people responsible for it? Is it the job of these people to research what's going on or are they just giving their own limited perspective? Are you only listening to those that have favorable things to say and then calling that the truth?
The media have people that are actually there as well.
Are you only listening to those that have favorable things to say and then calling that the truth?
Nope, they have plenty of negative things to say as well. Not one of them will tell you it's perfect or their aren't problems, there are. The positive aspects are overlooked and it's an inacurrate picture of what's happening there. They have no reason to sugar coat it.
They are the ones there and in danger, the sooner they get to come home the better. So if they thought for one minute that we were in a "quagmire" or unwinnable battle they'd be the first to say so. As much as any of my frineds and family I talked to want to go home they also want to finish the mission because they see the progress, they see the opportunity the country has and believe in what they were doing. They'd be the first to say, screw it, this is unwinnable, we aren't making progress, the people don't want us here. They risk their lives every minute they are there and see it everyday. They'll tell you aside from the problems that there is and has been tremendous progess.
I would and did trust my lives to some of these guys, I have no reason to believe they'd tell me something just to make people and themselves feel better. They're living it.
The media have people that are actually there as well.
And where do they go for interviews ? Guess.
Are the editorial writers there ? The columnists ? The news anchors ?
Funny that the media got brought up. Here's a story today in fact from a New York times columnist who was in Iraq. This article is failry scathing to his peers in the media and the way it covered Iraq.
Sept 15th 2003 John Burns: 'There Is Corruption in Our Business' NY Times' Writer on the Terror of Baghdad  Â
Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place.
It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay.
There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the ministry of information, and particularly the director of the ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror.
In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.
Yeah, it was an absolutely disgraceful performance. CNN's Eason Jordan's op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn't preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won't talk about how your driver's brother was murdered.
Now left with the residue of all of this, I would say there are serious lessons to be learned. Editors of great newspapers, and small newspapers, and editors of great television networks should exact from their correspondents the obligation of telling the truth about these places. It's not impossible to tell the truth. I have a conviction about closed societies, that they're actually much easier to report on than they seem, because the act of closure is itself revealing. Every lie tells you a truth. If you just leave your eyes and ears open, it's extremely revealing.
We now know that this place was a lot more terrible than even people like me had thought. There is such a thing as absolute evil. I think people just simply didn't recognize it. They rationalized it away. I cannot tell you with what fury I listened to people tell me throughout the autumn that I must be on a kamikaze mission. They said it with a great deal of glee, over the years, that this was not a place like the others.
There is corruption in our business. We need to get back to basics. This war should be studied and talked about. In the run up to this war, to my mind, there was a gross abdication of responsibility. You have to be ready to listen to whispers.
Muskwa... the ideologies, the land, the resources and the faces of the enemy are perhaps not quite the same as those in the Vietnam War, but the political gamesmanship and the unmistakable quagmire that LBJ was faced with (namely, winning the battles, but LOSING the war?) are exactly the same as those faced by GDubbya.
Do you believe those lies, fold, or are you just one of those left wing malcontents willing to sacrifice U.S. security for political gain?
KOUTS -- On a peaceful rural porch overlooking a broad stretch of cornfield, with silent hummingbirds hovering at a feeder, Pfc. Jacob Cristea shows photos of blown-out tanks, himself assembling shrapnel grenades and the grim discoveries in a mass grave.
Cristea has blood and guts war stories from his six months in Iraq and Kuwait, but he says the last thing he wants to do is to tell them. Instead, the Marine prefers Americans see beyond the fighting and dying in Iraq and know the good he and his comrades-in-arms have brought to that country.
"What's important to me is that my country knows the good we did for (Iraq). You see stuff every day on TV. What they don't hear is the progress we've made over there."
That progress, according to the 1999 Valparaiso High School graduate, includes bringing law and order, government services and freedom.
"We did so much for those people."
Cristea, who returned to his base at Camp Pendleton in California in mid-August, is on leave, visiting his parents in Kouts for several weeks.
"We're thankful, thankful, thankful he's home," his mother, Debi, said,
Cristea wants to counter the prevailing media view of the reception U.S. troops have received in Iraq.
"All you hear is negativity. Ninety-five percent of the population in Iraq, in my experience with the locals -- they had nothing but good to say about us.
"A lot of them would come to us with information, a lot would come to thank us."
Kids jumped up and down when they saw his convoy, Cristea said. In Baghdad, Iraqis would crowd the barbed wire perimeter of his unit's compound and call out "USA! USA! Bush! Bush!"
"Whenever we drove anyplace, it was like we were in a parade," he said....
LUV, first of all, you wasted a lot of bandwidth to explain the geological differences in these two countries/Wars, but my point was about the Political Quagmire, and I said so... Succinctly.
Right and we're losing the war. And thanks for the admonishment about wasting bandwith, remember that the next time you decide to respond in your and Jethro's ongoing battle. I also adressed how politically they are completly different as well.
I know you want to support your buddies over there and that's fine, but most of my friends while in the service we of like-minded opinions, and my bet is that, so are yours. Hardly scientific.
And your's is scientific? An editorial and a talking head gives you soild proof we're in a Nam' like quagmire politcal or otherwise ? Well the guy in the news said so and so did a presidential candidate and an editorial said it to. I guess it must be true, there's science. I'll take the word of my friends any day of the week thanks.
Here's another little "Trouble-Spot" brewing, as I predicted when this all began last year... We are overstretched and dangerously exxposed worldwide, because of manpower-shortages, and all the rhetoric of Dubbya's campaign, is now... just so much rhetoric...?
Of course the difference with Willie is that he was cutting the budget the whole time and that whole little pesky notion that we weren't at war. Think that might have something to do with it ? Nah. Hell blame Eisenhower. Nobody was worried about being streched thin before. Their sudden concern for our troops is appreciated though.
Quagmire ? Sure.
BTW How long have we been in Bosnia ? Glad that's not drainign troops, I mean thank God that was a multination operation or I'm sure it would be "quagmire".
Let's see what a federal judge who was opposed to going into Iraq had to say about it after he visited Iraq. He initially opposed the war vehemnetly.
During the first two weeks, we talked to a few hundred Iraqis and interviewed about 60 judges. Our help came from our Danish colleagues and the First Armored Division (UK), not from the civil authorities - OPCA, Office of the Provisional Coalition Authority, (formerly ORHA), Ambassador Brenner's group. Â Â
Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now convinced, whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we should have overthrown the Baathists, indeed, we should have done it sooner. Â Â
What changed my mind?
When we left mid June, 57 mass graves had been found, one with the bodies of 1200 children. There have been credible reports of murder, brutality and torture of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens. There is poverty on a monumental scale and fear on a larger one. That fear is still palpable. Â Â
I have seen the machines and places of torture. I will tell you one story told to me by the Chief of Pediatrics at the Medical College in Basra. It was one of the most shocking to me, but I heard worse. One of Saddam's security agents was sent to question a Shiite in his home. The interrogation took place in the living room in the presence of the man's wife, who held their three month old child. A question was asked and the thug did not like the answer; he asked it again, same answer. He grabbed the baby from its mother and plucked its eye out. And then repeated his question. Worse things happened with the knowledge, indeed with the participation, of Saddam, his family and the Baathist regime. Â Â
Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France and Russia and Germany and the UN. Every one of them knew what was going on there, but France and the UN were making millions administering the food for oil program. We cannot, I know, remake the world, nor do I believe we should. We cannot stamp out evil, I know. But this time we were morally right and our economic and strategic interests were involved. I submit that just because we can't do everything doesn't mean that we should do nothing. Â Â
Hmmmm. I guess he just didn't watch enough ABC or CNN, they know better apparently.
We must have the moral courage to see this through, to do whatever it takes to secure responsible government for the Iraqi people. Having decided to topple Saddam, we cannot abandon those who trust us. I fear we will quit as the horrors of war come into our living rooms. Look at the stories you are getting from the media today. The steady drip, drip, drip of bad news may destroy our will to fulfill the obligations we have assumed. Â Â
!!!!!!!!!
WE ARE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE TRUTH FROM THE NEWS MEDIA. The news you watch, listen to and read is highly selective. Good news doesn't sell. 90% of the damage you see on tv was caused by Iraqis, not by US. All the damage you see to schools, hospitals, power generation facilities, refineries, pipelines and water supplies, as well as shops, museums, and semi-public buildings (like hotels) was caused either by the Iraqi army in its death throes or Iraqi civilians looting and rioting. Â Â
The day after the war was over, there was nearly 0 power being generated in Iraq. 45 days later, 1/3 of the total national potential of 8000 MW is up and running. Downed power lines are being repaired and were about 70% complete when I left. There is water purification where little or none existed before...this time to everyone. Oil is 95% of the Iraqi GNP. In order for Iraq to survive, it must sell oil. All the damage to the oil fields was done by the Iraqi army or looters. The 14 story office building of the Southern Iraq Oil Company in Basra was torched by Baathist, destroying all of the books, records and computers of the company. Today, the refinery at Bayji is at 75% of capacity. The crude pipeline between Kirkuk and Bayji has been repaired, though the Baathist keep trying to disrupt it. If we are doing all this for the people, why are they shooting us? The general population isn't. By my sample, 90% are glad we came and the majority doesn't want us to leave for some time to come, but there are still plenty of bad guys, the Baathists who lived well under Saddam. The thugs of the old regime still hope to return to power, and there are plenty of them, mostly located in Sunni areas. Â Â
fold wrote: I know you think you you are putting forth your best ideas here, but you are too ignorant to even be IN this group, and you're the only one that doesn't seem to be aware of that simple fact.
other than you, fold, I don't think anyone believes that. My guess is you don't believe it either. I know you don't like me, fine, the feeling is mutual.
Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now convinced, whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we should have overthrown the Baathists, indeed, we should have done it sooner.
That may be true, but then that should have been presented as the reason to begin with. That should have been the subject that was debated and offered as the basis for a general resolve. Then we could rally behind the cause and say we support the effort because this is what we decided to do.
But that's not what happened. We were given a totally different reason as to why we had to go to war. A reason that was dubious to begin with and has become even more suspicious now. And now people are trying to retrofit a different line of reasoning by saying look at the good the war did by getting rid of a monster like Saddam. Well that may be true, but we didn't talk about that. We never had a debate and decided ahead of time that this is what we as a country wanted to do. Instead we're being told after the fact that this reason should be good enough. Well I don't know. It was never good enough in the past, but maybe it would have been this time.
The point is this was not a democratic decision. One reason for going to war seems to now be false and the other reason was never put up for discussion. It's being thrown at us after the fact. That is bad leadership on the part of Bush and it's not the American way. Now, as a result, we've made new enemies throughout the world and lost a lot of friends. We're being made to shoulder a greater part of the burden of this endeavor than we might have had to otherwise and our "let's just do whatever we think is right for us" attitude is spreading to other countries and coming back to bite us in the butt.
In the end, I very much doubt that anyone believes this was a war about humanitarianism.
So the administration never talked about the humanitarian side ? They did. Was it the top reason. Heck no. The other reason was his failure to comply with 17 resolutions, 17 of them. The burden was on him, he never did end of story.
So jethro, you see no parallels at all between what Lincoln did when faced with the Civil War and what Bush is doing whan faced with terrorism? You don't think it will have a similar detrimental effect on the country?
A member of the Orlando, Fla. city council is under fire for bird-dogging an official city proclamation that honors the religious group Exodus International, which believes it can turn homosexuals straight, reports the Orlando Sentinel.
Council member Vicki Vargo got the city to declare July 21 Exodus International Day and commended the group for "providing ministry to hurting people in our community."
Local activists call Exodus a hate group and the proclamation, which includes a couple of Bible passages, a violation of the separation of church and state.
Local First Amendment attorney Richard Wilson called the proclamation "very inappropriate" and says he is “investigating” it for constitutional violations.
So jethro, you see no parallels at all between what Lincoln did when faced with the Civil War and what Bush is doing whan faced with terrorism? You don't think it will have a similar detrimental effect on the country?
I haven't studied in detail each of the actions taken by Lincoln during the civil war. He did suspend the right to habeus corpus and I believe the Supreme Court determined after the war that it was a violation of the constitution. I do know that the war resulted in more federal power which has been growing ever since. It wouldn't surprise me that similar war time actions would betaken during the war on terror. But I do see a big distinction between the times. Lincoln had a choice to fight HIS war but Bush doesn't have that option.
I'm sure most of you have seen this but I thought I'd post it anyway.
Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan ... what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message. Robin Williams' plan... I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan 1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys, 'We will never "interfere" again.' 2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence. 3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them. 4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers. 5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby. 6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while. 7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.) 8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything. 9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens. 10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE... "The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"
I really rather doubt Robin Williams had anything to do with that. That kind of thinking is way right wing, plus I think Robin Williams is smarter than to buy into some of that rhetoric. If you go to http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.aspyou can find out for sure. Unfortunately, for some reason our firewall here at work has that site blocked as a "Sex" site. I don't know why. Maybe someone else can tell me what it says.
We don't yet know who is responsible for the piece quoted above, but it definitely wasn't actor-comedian Robin Williams (of Mork & Mindy fame). This item's debut appears to have been a 20 March 2003 posting to the USENET newsgroup alt.motorcycles.harley, and from there it was rapidly disseminated via e-mail and blogs, credited to either "author unknown" or no one at all. The Robin Williams attribution wasn't tacked on until several weeks later, apparently because along the way someone appended a genuine Robin Williams quote to the list as an eleventh item:
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'" - Robin Williams. Obviously the Robin Williams attribution for the final item was interpreted as applying to the list as a whole, so now the entire piece is making the rounds as 'the Robin Williams plan.'
Lileks had a great blog today. I won't post all of it but one thing he found was pretty telling in te differnce between editorials from 98' when we bobmbed Saddamn to todays which are vitolic.
From the "Strib" in 98'
Let’s go back to the editorial page the day after the 1998 bombing. Lead edit.
Title: “BOMBING SADDAM. Reason is clear; let attack be sustained.” The writer lays out the case: Saddam has not complied with his obligations; he threw away the last chance that President Clinton gave him in November; Tony Blair agrees. Said the editorial: “Neither will the attack be credible if it is limited to a few cruise missiles lobbed at Iraq. This must be the sustained, punishing effort that Clinton has promised.”
The end result of which was five more years of Saddam’s rule. Interesting choice of words, that: “Punishing.” Saddam must be punished, then left in power. He must be hit with a credible attack, then left in power. The punishing, credible attack that leaves him in power must be sustained. And so forth.
I’ve read enough editorials from various papers from this period to reinforce something I’ve long suspected: the reason many editorialists hate this war is because they don’t feel it’s theirs.
If Clinton had risen to the occasion, wiped out al-Qaeda, sent Marines to kick down the statues and put bullets in those filthy sons’ brainpans, this would be the most noble effort of our time. We would hear clear echoes of JFK’s call to bear any burden. FDR, Truman, Marshall Plan, forbearance, patience - the editorial pages of the land would absolutely brim with encouragement and optimism every damn day, because the good fight was being waged, and the right people were waging it.
Not all on the left would feel this way; of course not. When Wellstone backed Desert Fox, he took a hit from the peace-at-any-price people. But the very fact that Wellstone supported Clinton in that operation tells me that there is an element in the Democratic party (or perhaps, more accurately, the non-Republican demographic) that would have roared for a war that took the struggle against terrorism to the Middle East itself. If many Dems balk now, it's hardly news - some elements in the Republican party took a powder in the Balkans because they didn’t like the guy behind the big desk. They would have approved if their boy pushed the button.
Understandable - to a point. But the stakes in this war are far greater than the stakes in Kosovo, and that’s what dismays me about editorials like the one in the Strib. The people who write these bitter tracts don’t seem to have a clue what we’re up against. They’ll pore over transcripts from some news conference, looking for the two-bit money quote: ah hah! Rummy said military operations wouldn’t last past five months! He misled us! Uh - well, perhaps he was referring to the obvious fact that the Iraqi army couldn’t hold out for five months against the US military? No! He said five months! It’s been five months and two weeks! Misleader! Misleader! Do-overs! Set the wayback machine to Feb 03!
I can’t help but come back to the central theme these edits imply: we should have left Iraq alone. We should have left this charnel house stand. We should have bought a wad of nice French cotton to shove in our ears so the buzz of the flies over the graves didn’t distract us from the important business of deciding whether Syria or China should have the rotating observer-status seat in the Oil-for-Palaces program. Afghanistan, well, that’s understandable, in a way; we were mad. We lashed out. But we should have stopped there, and let the UN deploy its extra-strong Frown Beams against the Iraqi ambassador in the hopes that Saddam would reduce the money he gave to Palestinian suicide bombers down to five grand. Five grand! Hell, that hardly covers the parking tickets your average ambassador owes to the city of New York; who’d blow themselves up for that.
Would the editorialists of the nation be happier if Saddam was still cutting checks to people who blew up not just our allies, but our own citizens? I’d like an answer. Please. Essay question: “Families of terrorists who blow up men, women and children, some of whom are Americans, no longer receive money from Saddam, because Saddam no longer rules Iraq. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Explain.”
In short: the same people who chide America for its short-attention span think we should have stopped military operations after the Taliban was routed. (And they quite probably opposed that, for the usual reasons.) The people who think it’s all about oil like to snark that we should go after Saudi Arabia. The people who complain that the current administration is unable to act with nuance and diplomacy cannot admit that we have completely different approaches for Iraq, for Iran, for North Korea. The same people who insist we need the UN deride the Administration when it gives the UN a chance to do something other than throw rotten fruit.
The same people who accuse America of coddling dictators are sputtering with bilious fury because we actually deposed one.
Complain, yes! Carp! Criticize! Bitch! Moan! But there’s a difference between criticizing the particulars of the Normandy invasion, and insisting that Hitler can be contained with bauxite sanctions. (Imagine if these people had been running papers in the 40s: enough troops? Supply line problems? Plans in place for getting the Berlin power grid up? Oh no! Battle of the Bulge! Quagmire! Bastogne is a mess! Roosevelt lied, Private Ryan died!) To those who sniff “this isn’t World War Two,” I’ll agree: it’s worse. It’s going to be longer, meaner, and it sprawls across every map. Its ultimate severity won’t be apparent to some people until a band of god-bothering raisin seekers sneaks a nuke into Baltimore on a cargo container.
God forbid.
But. If it happens three years into President Dean’s tenure, the same people who wanted Saddam kept in a box - where he was free to spoon out the eyes of his citizens and beat them to death for their failings at an Olympic event - those same people will blame Bush for invading Iraq and radicalizing the Arab world. Iraq in 2007 could be stable and free, but that would count for nothing. We erred. We took the UN resolutions seriously. We spent blood and money to establish Beachhead One in that wretched abattoir, and for that we should expect to pay.
Iraq will probably never be nuked because of the actions of its leaders. We can now expect the editorialists of the world to tell us we had it coming if we get nuked for making that future possible.
Let us go back to that editorial from 1998.
“There is one sound conclusion to be drawn from the confluence of events in Washington and Iraq: The conduct of foreign policy is a weighty responsibility that at times requires the undivided attention of a whole, unencumbered president. It is a sad commentary that some voices in Washington are complaint that momentous world events have interrupted their sideshow. . . . Events in Iraq make it clear that there is a world out there which requires the attention of the US Government. It’s time to shift focus away from the neighborhood farce and back to the world stage.”
This was a reference to the impeachment proceedings, of course. The editorialists were appalled that Congress was impeaching the president when the threat of Iraq loomed so large. Now the threat has been dispatched - and does this count for anything? No. The terrorist training campes are closed down, the torture barracks padlocked, the mass gravesare opened to the wailings of the families, the official hospitals of Baghdad no longer welcome cancerous terrorists, the Kurds no longer watch the skies for the helicopters and their bitter gusts, the citizens no longer wonder whether the government men will rip out the eyes of their infant children to produce the proper confession -
Swinging her legs, happy and relaxed like I have never seen her before, Sama says: "If we hadn't been to Iraq, we'd be really depressed right now. I came back, saw the news and thought, `Are they talking about the same Iraq?'" Is this, I wonder, because the media can only deal with Arabs as victims or terrorists? The IPO members don't think so. Rather, Yasser says, there are several reasons why the reporting from Iraq is stressing the negative over the positive. "First, buildings being bombed is a much better story than the formation of the Baghdad city council to clear up the rubbish and sort out the sewers. Angry Iraqis make a better story than hopeful Iraqis."
"Second, a lot of the media was openly anti-war, so now that there are hundreds of thousands of mass graves being opened up and all the evidence shows that the Iraqis supported [the war], the media are latching on to the few things, like the looting and, of course, the weapons issue - that was always a red herring - that seem to vindicate their position. And third - I know this sounds like a petty point, but it's very important - a lot of journalists are using the same guides and translators that they used before the war, because they know them. They don't seem to realise that those people were carefully selected by the regime because of their loyalty to Saddam's line. So most journalists are getting a totally distorted picture."
Veteran New York Times foreign correspondent Thomas Friedman charged that the media played up to Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime – so much so it willfully covered up the dictator's crimes against his own people.
Echoing fellow New York Times correspondent John Burns, Friedman appeared on "The Charlie Rose Show" to blast pre-war press coverage.
"The press has something to answer for," Friedman told Rose, adding, "I don’t think that the reporting from Iraq in the ten years before this war was a shining example of the best in American or world journalism."
"What the press never conveyed, partly because they wanted their visas and they wanted to get in, whether they were TV or print – everybody got caught up in this Faustian bargain of wanting to get in and get out, and [they did] not report on the atrocities in order to get access."
Moreover, in the face of a drumfire of criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq from the media, and his own New York Times in particular, Friedman said we must stay the course in Iraq.
Like?
Everything about this war is different from Vietnam.
I get the feeling they'd like it to be.
Sigh.... I have a hard time of following who is talking to whom on this thread. I enjoy reading it thouhgh.
Rich T 9/15/03 12:37pm
We're not very good at copying the link. It's probably because their only a few of us we know who said what in general. How goes it BTW ?
Luv2Fly 9/15/03 1:01pm
It goes pretty well. Thanks for asking. And you?
Just another day in paradise.....
Common Sense Conservative 9/15/03 1:09pm
You live in paradise? How are the housing costs there? ;)
Isn't Minnesota paradise?
This just in, the war against Texas democrats is over!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=6&u=/ap/20030915/ap_on_re_us/texas_redistricting_36
Looks like the next war is being headed by the other super-power:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20030915/ts_nyt/chinasendsarmedforcestomonitornorthkoreanborder
Iran’s Nuclear Debacle in Vienna
From DEBKA-Net-Weekly 125 Updated by DEBKAfile
September 15, 2003, 10:18 PM (GMT+02:00)
Teheran’s confidence in its ability to press on with its prohibited nuclear weapons program while blowing hot and cold on international threats was rudely shattered last week. Against all its expectations, a tough US-backed ultimatum was tabled and carried by the International Atomic Energy Agency board in Vienna on Friday, September 12. Iran was given until October 31 to stump up with full details of its nuclear activities program and prove it was not engaged in covert weapons production.
If this deadline is not met, the screw will turn again: The IAEA will pronounce Iran in violation of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, opening the door to a UN Security Council debate in December 2003 or January 2004 and economic sanctions, one of which will prohibit UN members from purchasing oil and energy products from Iran, a measure that would bring havoc to Iran’s limping economy.
At one stroke, Iran’s options were reduced to two:
1. Knuckle under to the ultimatum and open up its nuclear site to full, unannounced international inspections. This would be tantamount to halting the enrichment of uranium for the manufacture of a bomb, a surrender the Islamic clerical regime might not survive.
2. Defy the ultimatum by emulating North Korea’s tactics of confronting every international threat with an escalation, such as testing missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads or staging nuclear tests. The price for this defiance will be steep, punishing sanctions that will further cripple an economy already hobbled by roaring unemployment that in some places reaches 50 percent.
DEBKAfile’s Persian Gulf sources reveal that Tehran was stunned when Moscow and New Delhi lined up behind the tough US measure at the IAEA board meeting. Multibillion deals for the construction of Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr and other technology transfers net Russia invaluable revenues, while India’s close trade and military exchanges with Iran are worth some $2.5 bn per annum. Tehran had counted on the two powers dragging their feet or toning down a US measure - not supporting it. In fact, both feigned sympathy for the Iranian position until the final vote, when they switched sides
DEBKAfile reveals that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon played an active role in the diplomacy leading up to the American diplomatic coup in Vienna. He made discreet telephone calls to Russian president Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin and placed it on the agenda of his talks with Indian prime minister Atali Bihar Vajpayee when they met in New Delhi last Tuesday, September 9.
In its last issue of September 12, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Tehran sources revealed that prior to the Vienna meeting, Iran’s radical spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his top advisers had carefully plotted a deception-by-procrastination strategy in anticipation of a much milder IAEA resolution. They decided to offer to start talks on signing the Additional Protocol that permit snap international inspections of its nuclear sites and so meet a longstanding demand. Their plan was to drag out these talks month after month in order to buy time enough to move their nuclear weapons program forward before the axe descended.
Tehran would meanwhile demand to be rewarded for its “flexibility” by IAEA approval for technology transfers to be made for its “peaceful” nuclear energy projects. Eventually, the Additional Protocol would get signed. But that wouldn’t be the end of it. A bevy of Iranian bureaucratic and elected institutions, such as the all-powerful, Khamenei-ruled Council of Guardians, would have to ratify the signature before it took effect – after due deliberation in each of them. Then, Khamenei would lay down his last trump card, declaring that only he as spiritual ruler was qualified to grant final approval for a paramount national issue.
By these tricks and stratagems, Iranian rulers expected to win time to manufacture a “primitive” nuclear bomb. They also believed the Americans would be too distracted by crises in Iraq and elsewhere to keep an eye on their clandestine activities and would therefore leave them free to spring Iran’s Muslim Shiite nuclear bomb on the world.
To find out how much time he had, Khamenei demanded to know how long before the national nuclear weapons program reached its point of no return, namely one stage before the assembly of a nuclear bomb. Summoned to his office were the 37 top nuclear experts heading the different projects at Natanz, Arak, Esfahan and Kashan, together with Iran’s atomic energy commission director, Gholam-reza Aghazadeh.
The told him that the testing of the centrifuges in Natanz should be completed in months and uranium enrichment can begin as soon as December 2003. An enrichment level of 70 percent or more would then be just months away, enabling Iran to build a “primitive” bomb similar to the one Tehran believes North Korea possesses.
Before the US-backed ultimatum was slapped down last Friday, the clerics of Tehran had banked on being treated by Washington with the same diplomatic caution as Pyongyang. They believed they could run rings around the Americans with time on their side. Last Friday, the tables were turned. America grabbed the time factor and confronted the Islamic Republic with a resounding diplomatic debacle.
Lol... or maybe hockin a loogy on the whitehouse lawn on national televison....
'Bill - Fold' 9/16/03 3:32am
Let's see, it's a quagmire like Vietnam. Let's compare.
At no point in the Vietnam war did we utterly destroy the North Vietnamese army. At no point did we send HoChi Min into hiding or kill or capture his top aides, generals and advisors not to mention his sons or his politburo. Not the case here, 85% of his henchmen are dead or locked up.
At no point did we occupy the entire country of Vietnam. At no point did we occupy Hanoi. Not the case here.
In South Vietnam there was a corrupt and incompetent government that was riddled with spies. The VC and NVA had the support of most of the people.
    In Iraq, we overthrew a murderous dictator who was unpopular and corrupt, he and his henchmen are being ratted out by locals because they hate him and his regime.
Vietnam is mostly Jungle which can hide and sustain, train and recoup forces, they can live off the land if needed and water was availible. In the desert and flatlands of suthern Iraq, that's simply NOT an option.
Most Iraqi's want us there and are glad to have Saddamn gone. Not the case in Vietnam.
In Vietnam, more than 58,000 Americans lost their lives. At the height of the war, 500 soldiers were being killed each week.
In the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation, we have lost fewer men to hostile fire than in a single terrorist attack in Lebanon in 1983.
We've been losing about a soldier a day since the first of June. At this rate, we'll reach the Vietnam total in about 158 years.
Vietnam = 13 years.
Iraq = 6 months.
Politically it's not even close. In Vietnam we couldn't go to many places that we knew troops were because of political differences. The war in Vietnam was run from Washington instead of letting the commanders in the field do as they wanted to achieve victory. Total victory was never an option. Politically we were fighting with one hand behind our back. Don't go here, don't target that. Not the case in Iraq. The differences are stunning. The only reason we lost in Vietnam was due to lack of resolve. Some here apparently are ready to throw in the towel after 6 months. 6 months in which we engaged and defeated an entire army and travled hundreds of miles in mere weeks without massive prepatory bombing, without bombing vast areas. Overthrew a murderous dictator and liberated millions. A government is being set up, elections will be held, infastructure is coming back, commerce is starting, people can worship how they want, they can read what they want, they can listen to numerous radio and TV stations without fear of jail or death. Brides can go to their wedding without fear of being raped, people aren't being fed into shredders and life is hopeful for the first time in 35 years for the people of Iraq.
Do you see any of the good we're doing and the majority of people happy we're there being interviewed ? Of course not. Things are better than what the media would have you believe because crisis sells. The attacks are actually declining. Last week the whole week went by without any troops killed. That doesn't make the news much. The total twisting of the actual situation by the press is appaling and a complete lack of candor and journalistic ethics. Are their problems, absolutley. It took 5 years to get Japan rebuilt and 10 for Germany. We're less than a half year into rebuilding. There's going to be problems and challenges.
Politically the same as Vietnam ? I get the feeling some wish it would be and are doing there damndest to make it that way. The lack of resolve and support is telling. It's also EXACTLY what jihaidiots and baaath party members want and I'm sure they are tickled when they see it. That way they can get us to leave again as we did numerous times before because some would rather use it for political gain than to do what's right and see it through.
Then again these are the same "experts" who claimed we'd lose 10,000 troops taking Bagdhad. The same patient and dedicated ones who claimed we were bogged down after 1 whole week of fighting, yes 1 week !
Things are better than what the media would have you believe because crisis sells.
And what is your source for that if you're ignoring what the media says?
People that are actually there.
People that are actually there.
And there wouldn't be anything biased about what they have to say? Like eharing about the reconstruction process from the people responsible for it? Hearing about security from the people responsible for it? Is it the job of these people to research what's going on or are they just giving their own limited perspective? Are you only listening to those that have favorable things to say and then calling that the truth?
The media have people that are actually there as well.
Nope, they have plenty of negative things to say as well. Not one of them will tell you it's perfect or their aren't problems, there are. The positive aspects are overlooked and it's an inacurrate picture of what's happening there. They have no reason to sugar coat it.
They are the ones there and in danger, the sooner they get to come home the better. So if they thought for one minute that we were in a "quagmire" or unwinnable battle they'd be the first to say so. As much as any of my frineds and family I talked to want to go home they also want to finish the mission because they see the progress, they see the opportunity the country has and believe in what they were doing. They'd be the first to say, screw it, this is unwinnable, we aren't making progress, the people don't want us here. They risk their lives every minute they are there and see it everyday. They'll tell you aside from the problems that there is and has been tremendous progess.
I would and did trust my lives to some of these guys, I have no reason to believe they'd tell me something just to make people and themselves feel better. They're living it.
And where do they go for interviews ? Guess.
Are the editorial writers there ? The columnists ? The news anchors ?
Funny that the media got brought up. Here's a story today in fact from a New York times columnist who was in Iraq. This article is failry scathing to his peers in the media and the way it covered Iraq.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1979014
Hmmm.
Muskwa... the ideologies, the land, the resources and the faces of the enemy are perhaps not quite the same as those in the Vietnam War, but the political gamesmanship and the unmistakable quagmire that LBJ was faced with (namely, winning the battles, but LOSING the war?) are exactly the same as those faced by GDubbya.
Do you believe those lies, fold, or are you just one of those left wing malcontents willing to sacrifice U.S. security for political gain?
And where do they go for interviews ? Guess.
And what's their motivation? To get viewers or readership.
THX 1138 9/16/03 5:53pm
Yup
.
.
QUAGMIRE!!! They hate us!!!
'They did not want us to leave whatsoever'
Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops, local Marine says
BY BRIAN WILLIAMS
Times Staff Writer
KOUTS -- On a peaceful rural porch overlooking a broad stretch of cornfield, with silent hummingbirds hovering at a feeder, Pfc. Jacob Cristea shows photos of blown-out tanks, himself assembling shrapnel grenades and the grim discoveries in a mass grave.
Cristea has blood and guts war stories from his six months in Iraq and Kuwait, but he says the last thing he wants to do is to tell them. Instead, the Marine prefers Americans see beyond the fighting and dying in Iraq and know the good he and his comrades-in-arms have brought to that country.
"What's important to me is that my country knows the good we did for (Iraq). You see stuff every day on TV. What they don't hear is the progress we've made over there."
That progress, according to the 1999 Valparaiso High School graduate, includes bringing law and order, government services and freedom.
"We did so much for those people."
Cristea, who returned to his base at Camp Pendleton in California in mid-August, is on leave, visiting his parents in Kouts for several weeks.
"We're thankful, thankful, thankful he's home," his mother, Debi, said,
Cristea wants to counter the prevailing media view of the reception U.S. troops have received in Iraq.
"All you hear is negativity. Ninety-five percent of the population in Iraq, in my experience with the locals -- they had nothing but good to say about us.
"A lot of them would come to us with information, a lot would come to thank us."
Kids jumped up and down when they saw his convoy, Cristea said. In Baghdad, Iraqis would crowd the barbed wire perimeter of his unit's compound and call out "USA! USA! Bush! Bush!"
"Whenever we drove anyplace, it was like we were in a parade," he said....
'Bill - Fold' 9/17/03 3:09am
Right and we're losing the war. And thanks for the admonishment about wasting bandwith, remember that the next time you decide to respond in your and Jethro's ongoing battle. I also adressed how politically they are completly different as well.
And your's is scientific? An editorial and a talking head gives you soild proof we're in a Nam' like quagmire politcal or otherwise ? Well the guy in the news said so and so did a presidential candidate and an editorial said it to. I guess it must be true, there's science. I'll take the word of my friends any day of the week thanks.
Of course the difference with Willie is that he was cutting the budget the whole time and that whole little pesky notion that we weren't at war. Think that might have something to do with it ? Nah. Hell blame Eisenhower. Nobody was worried about being streched thin before. Their sudden concern for our troops is appreciated though.
Quagmire ? Sure.
BTW How long have we been in Bosnia ? Glad that's not drainign troops, I mean thank God that was a multination operation or I'm sure it would be "quagmire".
Let's see what a federal judge who was opposed to going into Iraq had to say about it after he visited Iraq. He initially opposed the war vehemnetly.
Hmmmm. I guess he just didn't watch enough ABC or CNN, they know better apparently.
!!!!!!!!!
http://globalspecops.com/view.html
He grabbed the baby from its mother and plucked its eye out.
Oh my God. That's just evil.
fold wrote: I know you think you you are putting forth your best ideas here, but you are too ignorant to even be IN this group, and you're the only one that doesn't seem to be aware of that simple fact.
other than you, fold, I don't think anyone believes that. My guess is you don't believe it either. I know you don't like me, fine, the feeling is mutual.
Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now convinced, whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we should have overthrown the Baathists, indeed, we should have done it sooner.
That may be true, but then that should have been presented as the reason to begin with. That should have been the subject that was debated and offered as the basis for a general resolve. Then we could rally behind the cause and say we support the effort because this is what we decided to do.
But that's not what happened. We were given a totally different reason as to why we had to go to war. A reason that was dubious to begin with and has become even more suspicious now. And now people are trying to retrofit a different line of reasoning by saying look at the good the war did by getting rid of a monster like Saddam. Well that may be true, but we didn't talk about that. We never had a debate and decided ahead of time that this is what we as a country wanted to do. Instead we're being told after the fact that this reason should be good enough. Well I don't know. It was never good enough in the past, but maybe it would have been this time.
The point is this was not a democratic decision. One reason for going to war seems to now be false and the other reason was never put up for discussion. It's being thrown at us after the fact. That is bad leadership on the part of Bush and it's not the American way. Now, as a result, we've made new enemies throughout the world and lost a lot of friends. We're being made to shoulder a greater part of the burden of this endeavor than we might have had to otherwise and our "let's just do whatever we think is right for us" attitude is spreading to other countries and coming back to bite us in the butt.
In the end, I very much doubt that anyone believes this was a war about humanitarianism.
in the end it doesn't matter what it was about but what it has and will accomplish. Possibly a step stone to Iran?
I said all along I didn't care if there were WMD in Iraq or not, that Saddam needed to be taken period.
The end doesn't always justify the means, and in this case, I think the means may have made things worse overall.
there is that liberal power of negative thinking. Let it Shine!!!
They just like it when kid's are thrown in to plastic shredders.
Allison Wonderland 9/17/03 12:04pm
So the administration never talked about the humanitarian side ? They did. Was it the top reason. Heck no. The other reason was his failure to comply with 17 resolutions, 17 of them. The burden was on him, he never did end of story.
So jethro, you see no parallels at all between what Lincoln did when faced with the Civil War and what Bush is doing whan faced with terrorism? You don't think it will have a similar detrimental effect on the country?
Defining 'Hate'
A member of the Orlando, Fla. city council is under fire for bird-dogging an official city proclamation that honors the religious group Exodus International, which believes it can turn homosexuals straight, reports the Orlando Sentinel.
Council member Vicki Vargo got the city to declare July 21 Exodus International Day and commended the group for "providing ministry to hurting people in our community."
Local activists call Exodus a hate group and the proclamation, which includes a couple of Bible passages, a violation of the separation of church and state.
Local First Amendment attorney Richard Wilson called the proclamation "very inappropriate" and says he is “investigating” it for constitutional violations.
Jethro,
Stay on topic please. Thanks
So jethro, you see no parallels at all between what Lincoln did when faced with the Civil War and what Bush is doing whan faced with terrorism? You don't think it will have a similar detrimental effect on the country?
I haven't studied in detail each of the actions taken by Lincoln during the civil war. He did suspend the right to habeus corpus and I believe the Supreme Court determined after the war that it was a violation of the constitution. I do know that the war resulted in more federal power which has been growing ever since. It wouldn't surprise me that similar war time actions would betaken during the war on terror. But I do see a big distinction between the times. Lincoln had a choice to fight HIS war but Bush doesn't have that option.
damn, I meant to post that in In the News. Sorry.
I'm sure most of you have seen this but I thought I'd post it anyway.
Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan ... what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.
Robin Williams' plan...
I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for
peace. So, here's one plan
1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their
affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega,
Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys, 'We will never "interfere"
again.'
2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with
Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would
station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.
3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave.
We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be
gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are.
France would welcome them.
4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days
unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be
allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide
here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab
drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't
attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise.
This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will
require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou
will have to cope for a while.
7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for
their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go
somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling
up the storage sites would be enough.)
8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will
not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement
or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given
to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need
the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a
good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can
call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.
The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired,
your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want
a piece of me?'"
Thanks CM. I hadn't seen that.
I really rather doubt Robin Williams had anything to do with that. That kind of thinking is way right wing, plus I think Robin Williams is smarter than to buy into some of that rhetoric. If you go to http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.aspyou can find out for sure. Unfortunately, for some reason our firewall here at work has that site blocked as a "Sex" site. I don't know why. Maybe someone else can tell me what it says.
To smart to buy into which part of the rhetoric?
You're right, it wasn't Williams.
I still liked it, whoever wrote it.
We don't yet know who is responsible for the piece quoted above, but it definitely wasn't actor-comedian Robin Williams (of Mork & Mindy fame). This item's debut appears to have been a 20 March 2003 posting to the USENET newsgroup alt.motorcycles.harley, and from there it was rapidly disseminated via e-mail and blogs, credited to either "author unknown" or no one at all. The Robin Williams attribution wasn't tacked on until several weeks later, apparently because along the way someone appended a genuine Robin Williams quote to the list as an eleventh item:
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'" - Robin Williams. Obviously the Robin Williams attribution for the final item was interpreted as applying to the list as a whole, so now the entire piece is making the rounds as 'the Robin Williams plan.'
To smart to buy into which part of the rhetoric?
You mean you can't tell? hehe
I am just trying to pin you down. Because I want to know what you think isn't "smart."
Lileks had a great blog today. I won't post all of it but one thing he found was pretty telling in te differnce between editorials from 98' when we bobmbed Saddamn to todays which are vitolic.
From the "Strib" in 98'
Title: “BOMBING SADDAM. Reason is clear; let attack be sustained.” The writer lays out the case: Saddam has not complied with his obligations; he threw away the last chance that President Clinton gave him in November; Tony Blair agrees. Said the editorial: “Neither will the attack be credible if it is limited to a few cruise missiles lobbed at Iraq. This must be the sustained, punishing effort that Clinton has promised.”
“There is one sound conclusion to be drawn from the confluence of events in Washington and Iraq: The conduct of foreign policy is a weighty responsibility that at times requires the undivided attention of a whole, unencumbered president. It is a sad commentary that some voices in Washington are complaint that momentous world events have interrupted their sideshow. . . . Events in Iraq make it clear that there is a world out there which requires the attention of the US Government. It’s time to shift focus away from the neighborhood farce and back to the world stage.”
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html
An Iraqi homecoming.
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=235
Veteran New York Times foreign correspondent Thomas Friedman charged that the media played up to Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime – so much so it willfully covered up the dictator's crimes against his own people.
Echoing fellow New York Times correspondent John Burns, Friedman appeared on "The Charlie Rose Show" to blast pre-war press coverage.
"The press has something to answer for," Friedman told Rose, adding, "I don’t think that the reporting from Iraq in the ten years before this war was a shining example of the best in American or world journalism."
"What the press never conveyed, partly because they wanted their visas and they wanted to get in, whether they were TV or print – everybody got caught up in this Faustian bargain of wanting to get in and get out, and [they did] not report on the atrocities in order to get access."
Moreover, in the face of a drumfire of criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq from the media, and his own New York Times in particular, Friedman said we must stay the course in Iraq.
http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15337