Consider this quote: "Suffer little children who come unto Me". It is the only quote from my religious upbringing that I have in the house. What do you think it means?

It means, at least what I was taught, is that whomever hurts little children (and 'children' in this also includes all people) cannot enter the Kingdom of God. This command covers so many issues, e.g. by one's examples, teaching, role modelling, etc. It means leaders, teachers, parents, government, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, etc. are held to a higher standard than us people. They have a moral and imperative duty/obligation to lead by example.

In this case, it is even more imperative. GWB is not only the president of the u.s.a., but is also sees himself as the leader of american christianity within his church and the u.s.a.

Let me give you an example on a personal level. I was once married to a very personal charming man. He died 5 years ago. He went to church every Sunday, received communion, was actively involved in church events, in community sports, theatre activities, was a well known and liked businessman, he had the gift of the "blarney." He could persuade almost anybody to do what he wanted and he often did.

To the outside public, he was wonderful. Within his family (our family and his family of origin) he was a monster. That is all I am going to say. It is the first time I have said it publically.

The church was well aware of the problems within the family, did they help or care, NO, NO, NO. Lots of people knew within the community, but they did not help either. So many turned away, hid and pretended they didn't know. Some of my children's lives are ruined and only after many many years of counselling can they even begin to somehow put some semblance of a life together.

I hate the church and anyone who espouses to be a man of God and then goes out and espouses murdering another people, while at the same time taking away their country.

We have no way of knowing what kind of a husband or father, or what his children or his relatives are like. It has all been swept under the carpet, that is well documented. GWB and his cronies are a very scary bunch of individuals, much worse than the mafia. There are individuals within the Dem party who are like this too. Also within Canada too.

"Suffer little children who come unto Me." Other children around the world do not deserve to die to fulfill GWB's mandate. That includes american children fighting in the middle east and elsewhere doing GWB's dirty work. I don't see GWB and his groupies or any of his children and his cronies' children alongside the soldiers. Oh no, heaven forbid that they would deem themselves worthy of dieing to supposedly make America safe. What a load of crap!

By the way I don't hate the Lord. How He must be suffering to see His Word so taken out of context by so many.

Corinne

Therefore a deliberate act of the President to mislead our Country ? The evidence is just not there.

Corinne, you said,
"I hate the church and anyone who espouses to be a man of God and then goes out and espouses murdering another people, while at the same time taking away their country."

I see our President as a man wanting to protect the people of the USA. after witnessing the horrific actions of 9/11. Yes, they were Saudi's who perpetrated those acts, yet we are dealing with many more terrorists cells than live just in SA.

It's incredulous to me that the threat of additional acts of terror happening on our soil is not recognized by you who are so opposed to what we are doing in Iraq.
If we sat back, adopted a hands off position, treated Saddam with kid gloves.....I shudder to think of the "other" acts of terror that were waiting in the wings, set on more acts of jihad here in another major city of this nation.

Oh, No..... thank God for collective wisdom by the leaders of this Country that didn't sit back , lulled into false security!

"The church was well aware of the problems within the family, did they help or care, NO, NO, NO. Lots of people knew within the community, but they did not help either. So many turned away, hid and pretended they didn't know. Some of my children's lives are ruined and only after many many years of counselling can they even begin to somehow put some semblance of a life together."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~by, Corinne

Sounds like you suffered long Corinne under the hands of a miserable man and for that I feel much compassion for you and your children.
I have to wonder why you stayed in an abusive marriage however. IMO. it's never worth it and God above would never expect it from you.

A Church that turns a blind eye to a family in crisis and does nothing, is NOT a true Church and I would shake the dust off my feet and go; that's a definite red flag that the living Spirit of God is not inhabiting the people there!

God will judge your husband for his wicked deeds done in silence, never you fear. For his sake I hope he had a repentant heart at death, but I seriousely doubt it, since he lived his life that way for so long with such a hardened heart.

That's one of the most sanctimonious posts from you to date.
I'm shocked that judgement such as this is passed on a personal situation that you know nothing about.
Though sugar coated..your reply is insensitive and way out of line.

..and, No..BUSH LIED, along with his administration many times over and still are.
Do you mean to say what they did and said can be blamed on "false intelligence"..and that's that?

No responsibility in any of it? (simply looking back on what they said and did at the time makes things very clear)

Oh..so now..are we srill fighting terror by remaining in a bloody conflict in Iraq, or are we humanitarians fighting for Iraqui freedom and peace..??

See..I get confused, as the reasons for being there flip and flop depending on how strong an arguement is made.

So many times that some people still believe we are fighting Terror attacks by waging War on Iraq.

There is no proof or evidence that such a statement has one ounce of truth..and it has also been prooven throughout history, and we see now in Iraq..that Imperialism breeds Terror.

Iraq has become one of the largest training grounds for Terrorists since the invasion, as a result of the invasion.

Musilm extremeists did not attack us "because we're free"..how pompous that statement is by Bush..

They attacked us because of years of oppression in the Middle East by the US.

Military action, mass death and destruction has only bred deeper hatred.

All this is well documented, if one cares to open their eyes and look beyond the Bush agenda.

I contend the religious Right are ignoring the welfare of the World due to their own selfish motives and political agenda.

A sort of supremist attitude, that is dangerous to mankind.

1400 soldiers DEAD, many thousands more wounded, maimed for life, psychologically traumatized..
100,000 Iraquis dead according to the Johns Hopkins study.

And poor Mr. Bush just didn't know what was going on (????)

Here's a few references on LIES you asked for.

I know the outcome will be the same..multiple sources and quotes will be poo-pooed (msnbc, CNN, Guardian, WP, AP, NYT, ect), grandiose excuses made, or simply denounced as false without really looking.
I know the drill.

This is for anyone who wants to read it.

*********************************************

The Ethics of Persuasion: Some Guidelines

1. Do Not Use False Evidence
2. Do Not Use Illogical, Unsupported Reasoning
3. Do Not Falsely Represent Yourself
4. Do Not Conceal Your Purpose or Interest
5. Do Not Cover Up Consequences
6. Do Not Use Baseless Emotional Appeals
7. Do Not Oversimplify Complex Situations
8. Do Not Pretend Certainty
9. Do Not Advocate What You Don't Believe Yourself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POWELL'S UN CHARGES AGAINST IRAQ (And Some Plausible Explanations)

Recorded conversations - Iraqi officers discussing removal of a "modified vehicle" and deleting references to nerve gas from documents. If genuine, and not spliced, these radio intercepts suggest Iraq may have been hiding some biowarfare arms, or was racing to eliminate any residues or evidence of its 1980s weapons program in advance of UN inspections.
(Considering the U.S. military loses tens of millions worth of weapons and supplies each year, and the Los Alamos centre has misplaced large amounts of nuclear materials, it's not implausible that Iraq has bits and pieces of chemical arms scattered about, such as the empty 122-mm rockets recently discovered in a bunker, that escaped its UN-mandated inventory.)

Satellite imagery - ammo storage bunkers which Powell claimed were used for chemical weapons that were moved out prior to inspection.

(UN inspectors examined them and found nothing suspicious. "Sniffers" used by inspectors can detect the past presence of chemical and biological weapons.)

The infamous mobile biological weapons labs mounted on trucks - a.k.a. "Saddam's vans of death." Powell claimed defectors reported there were 18 of these cruising around Iraq.

(Defector information is always suspect. UN chief arms inspector Hans Blix said his men had examined some of the "death trucks" and found they were, in fact, mobile food-testing labs.)

Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.

(UN nuclear inspectors have repeatedly contradicted U.S. claims. They concluded the notorious aluminum tubes Powell said were for uranium-enrichment centrifuges were actually conventional 122-mm rocket artillery casings.)

Powell claimed he had proof positive Iraq was linked to al-Qaida through Ansar al-Islam, a small, 600-man Islamist group in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq (not under Saddam's control), and through a "deadly terrorist network" led by one Abu Musa al-Zarqawi.

(The first charge was immediately dismissed by Ansar's leader, Mullah Krekar, a longtime, bitter foe of Saddam. And al-Zarqawi turned out to be an unknown nobody, not on any FBI wanted list. His name came from suspects being tortured in Jordan. Many reputable experts on terrorism scoffed at Powell's overblown charges.)

Sitting silently behind Powell was Central Intelligence Agency chief George Tenet. His agency has contradicted White House claims that Iraq had nuclear capability and posed an imminent threat to the U.S. or anyone else. In a recent article, former CIA Iraq desk chief Stephen Pelletiere cast doubt on the charge, repeated by Bush and Powell, that Iraq gassed its own Kurdish citizens in the town of Halabja.

Faked intelligence

Note: America's two most recent major wars - Vietnam and the Gulf - began with release of faked "intelligence" information: the non-existent Gulf of Tonkin attack in 1964, and doctored photos of a non-existent Iraqi invasion buildup on the Saudi border in 1990.

A more neutral observer might have concluded the U.S. was exaggerating scraps of uncorroborated information, while Iraq was trying to appear co-operative while still hiding some of its most sensitive military secrets.

Polls show most people around the globe remain skeptical of Powell's charges. Starting a war that could kill tens of thousands on the basis of vague audio intercepts, photos of empty buildings and defectors' tales makes no sense. Further inspections, not war, is the right answer. --Eric Margolis, 02.09.02

***

BLAIR-POWELL "DECEPTION CAN ONLY CORRODE PUBLIC TRUST" "The Government has grudgingly admitted a failure to acknowledge sources - while insisting that the information remains valid. This misses the point. Plagiarism is not the main issue. The central issue is that of public trust. At best, this episode demonstrates incompetence and the failure to oversee the most important claims which the Government puts into the public domain. At worst, a deliberate attempt to hoodwink and mislead the public will undermine trust in anything the Government says about the Iraqi threat at this vital time." 02.09.03
guardian ed |related stories

INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT POWELL PRAISED AS EVIDENCE CUT AND PASTED BY SECRETARY OF BLAIR'S SPIN DOCTOR AND GOFERS FROM PUBLIC SOURCES, MAJOR ONE 12 YEARS OLD "Late last Tuesday night, a three-page email started circulating among a select group of friends concerned about the impact of sanctions on Iraq... Full of academic outrage, it explained how the so-called 'secret spy dossier' published last week by the Government as a crucial plank in the argument for why the West should go to war was largely cribbed from an American postgraduate's doctoral thesis - grammatical mistakes and all - based on evidence 12 years out of date... And, to cap it all, the finished document appeared to have been cobbled together not by Middle East experts, but by the secretary of Alastair Campbell, the Government's chief spin doctor, and some gofers...One crumb of comfort is that with Blair's reputation for trustworthiness on the war already dented - a poll last week found that, while 81 per cent of Britons believe UN inspector Hans Blix, only 43 per cent trust Blair to tell the truth over the war and only 22 per cent trust Bush - the dossier debacle is unlikely to make it any worse." 02.09.03
guardian |related stories

Britain Admits That Much of Its Report on Iraq, Cited by Powell As Reason For War, Came From Magazines With Obsolete Data "The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as "a fine paper" in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals.... The document, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," was posted on No. 10 Downing Street's Web site on Monday. It was depicted as an up-to-date and unsettling assessment by the British intelligence services of Iraq's security apparatus and its efforts to hide its activities from weapons inspectors and to resist international efforts to force it to disarm. But much of the material actually came, sometimes verbatim, from several nonsecret published articles, according to critics of the government's policy who have studied the documents. These include an article published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs in September 2002, as well as three articles from Jane's Intelligence Review, two of them published in the summer of 1997 and one in November 2002. In some cases, the critics said, parts of the articles -- or of summaries posted on the Internet -- were paraphrased in the report. In other cases, they were plagiarized -- to the extent that even spelling and punctuation errors in the originals were reproduced.... But critics of the government said that not only did the document appear to have been largely cut and pasted together, but also that the articles it relied on were based on information that is, by now, obsolete.... Critics of the British and American policy toward Iraq said the report showed how little concrete evidence the two governments actually have against Iraq, as well as how poor their intelligence sources were. " 02.08.03
nyt |related stories

POWELL'S CLAIMS OF IRAQ-AL QAEDA CONNECTION NOT CREDIBLE "The Bush administration creates the impression that the US is still as wounded and ready to lash out as it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Centre. I am not sure that this is true of the majority of Americans, but the country's moribund political structure and the Democrats' horror of appearing unpatriotic combine to make effective opposition very difficult. The President may take comfort from the thought that Tony Blair's Gladstonian vision lends him some moral authority, but it does not wash over here. If the world has become a more dangerous place since 11 September 2001, it is not solely because of the activities of a bunch of Islamic terrorists. " 02.09.03
smith |related stories

POWELL'S "TERRORIST FACTORY" TURNS OUT TO BE RUINS, BAKERY "If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.' Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking." " 02.09.03
hardy |related stories

***

"MUCH U.S. EVIDENCE MUST BE ACCEPTED ON TRUST" "This is the heart of the matter. Much of the US evidence must be accepted, if it is accepted at all, on trust. Mr Powell's sources were mostly anonymous defectors, detainees, third country spooks and US intelligence. His overall case was undercut by the recycling of old tales about al-Qaida "poison plotters" in Baghdad. He refused to accept the IAEA's conclusions on Iraqi nuclear bomb-making. His evidential interpretations were often harsher than those of Hans Blix. Mr Powell certainly did the UN a service in finally opening his Iraq dossier to public view. But the way forward must now be expanded, intensified inspections equipped with this new evidence, as France proposes. Iraq must disarm. The US and Britain must not jump the gun." 02.06.03
guardian ed |related stories

BRITISH INTELLIGENCE CONTRADICTS POWELL. NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA, THEY SAY "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past. But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies. That conclusion flatly contradicts one of the main charges laid against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by the United States and Britain - that he has cultivated contacts with the group blamed for the 11 September attacks. The report emerges even as Washington was calling Saddam a liar for denying, in a television interview with former Labour MP and minister Tony Benn, that he had any links to al-Qaeda. " 02.06.03
bbc |related stories

IRAQI TERRORIST GROUP POWELL IDENTIFIES AS LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA RULES KURDISH TERRORITY NOT CONTROLLED BY SADDAM AND TARGETS SADDAM AS THEIR ENEMY "As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council today, he said there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" -- the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is now at the center of the U.S. case. Powell showed a satellite photograph of what he said was a chemical weapons training center in Northern Iraq, used by al Qaeda and protected by Ansar al-Islam. "Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq," said Powell. The group, whose name means "Supporters of Islam," rules a remote portion of the autonomous northern Kurdish territories in Iraq near the Iran border, which is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government...In an interview with ABCNEWS, the man considered the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to al Qaeda. "They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim." 02.06.03
abc | related stories

***

SMOLDERING GUN OF IRAQ'S NUKE PROGRAM LEFT IRAQ IN '95 FOR U.S. "In the summer of 1998, when Hamza first went public with his story about Saddam's relentless desire for the Bomb, much of the press ignored him. The country was transfixed by the saga of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But in March 2001, the scientist found himself sitting next to an influential Republican named Richard Perle at a seminar at George Washington University. He briefed Perle, one of the earliest and most vehement proponents of regime change in Iraq, about his past. "I came away very impressed, thinking this is a sensible, sober fellow," says Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's advisory Defense Policy Board. Hamza said he'd been debriefed only by low-level "civil servants" in the Clinton years. Perle soon introduced the defector to the top tier of the Bush administration, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. " 02.06.03
wp |related stories

IRAQI NUKE SCIENTIST LIVING IN CANADA SINCE '98 CONTRADICTS HAMZA

"Given its history, US intelligence should come with a health warning " "We know from experience that politicians about to go to war are not above manipulating information to heat up public opinion. They have manufactured international incidents - the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin "clash", for example, which President Johnson used to deceive the Senate into giving him a declaration of war against North Vietnam. They can be the simple peddling of "evil Hun" stories, as with the discredited accounts of Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators. History has revealed the truth about such episodes, but too late. On the few occasions we are allowed sufficient facts to form an independent assessment, the intelligence on offer is rarely persuasive. " 02.06.03
bennett+perman |related stories

QUESTIONED PENATGON CLASSIFIED PHOTOS USED PRIOR TO FIRST GULF WAR REMAIN CLASSIFIED "The photographs, which are still classified in the US (for security reasons, according to Brent Scowcroft, President Bush senior's national security advisor), purportedly showed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border poised to pounce. Except, when a resourceful Florida-based reporter at the St Petersburg Times persuaded her newspaper to buy the same independently commissioned satellite photos from a commercial satellite to verify the Pentagon's line, she saw no sign of a quarter of a million troops or their tanks." 02.06.03
o'kane |related stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US claim dismissed by Blix
The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council. Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived. In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found." Dr Blix said that the problem of bio-weapons laboratories on trucks had been around for a while and that he had received tips from the US that led him to inspect trucks in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed that the trucks were used to inspect the quality of food production. He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear. --The Guardian, 02.05.03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***BUSH SPEECH "SKIMMED ALONG EDGES OF REALITY," PARTICULARLY RE SADDAM AND AL QUEDA "As far as the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is concerned, one of the most prominent authorities on the deadly terrorist group remains unimpressed by the evidence offered up to date - including Bush's stab at connecting those dots in the State of the Union, during which he insisted that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, Inc. (Free Press, 2001) and a fellow at the New America Foundation, told me after the speech that the Saddam/Osama connection "is really [the administration's] default mode, isn't it?" Bergen pointed me to his December article in the Nation, in which he pooh-poohs the Iraq/Al Qaeda link as "somewhere between tenuous and nonexistent." "Al Qaeda members live in 60 countries around the globe," Bergen wrote in the Nation, "so by the law of averages a few of them will show up in Iraq. Indeed, intelligence estimates suggest there are some 100 Al Qaeda members at large in the United States, although that is not an argument to start bombing Washington." " 02.03.03
byrne | related stories

U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS PUZZLED BY BUSH, POWELL CLAIMS OF SADDAM-AL QUEDA CONNECTION "Intelligence officials said they are puzzled by the administration's new push. "To my knowledge, there's nothing new," said a senior U.S. intelligence official who asked not to be identified. The expectation within the CIA regarding Powell's speech, the source said, "is that it's going to be more comprehensive than bombastic and new." Intelligence officials have discounted if not dismissed other information believed to point to possible links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The CIA said it can find no evidence supporting post-Sept. 11 reports that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers in the attacks, met with an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital, Prague, in 2001. Similarly, intelligence officials described reports that Hussein is funding an Al Qaeda-connected extremist group in northern Iraq as "wildly overstated." There is no evidence so far to confirm that Iraq is arming, financing or controlling the group, known as Ansar al-Islam, one official said. "There isn't a factual basis for such assertions," the official said. " 02.03.03
lat | related stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence For Iraq Attack Found...In U.S.

At a moment when Americans were hungry for reassurance that the monomaniacal focus on Iraq makes sense when the economy is sputtering, Mr. Bush offered a rousing closing argument for war, but no convincing bill of particulars. Republican senators tried to back up the president. While admitting that there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction yet, John Warner told reporters that an attack was justified "if you put together all the bits and pieces that are out there right now." Americans will never understand the Bush rationale for war if they simply look at the bits and pieces of physical evidence. They will understand the Bush rationale for war only if they look at the metaphysical evidence, the perfect storm of imperial schemes and ideological stratagems driving the desire to topple Saddam. --Maureen Dowd, 01.29.03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"LAST NIGHT BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"
--Katrina vanden Heuvel
On Chris Mathews this evening, the editor of the Nation magazine said "Bush lied to the American people" last night when he said Iraq's shipment of aluminum tubes is evidence of Saddam's ongoing weapons of mass destruction program. She noted that last week Pentagon official and Bush Administration Neocon War Hawk Paul Wolfowitz said, when asked about previous Bush Administration statements that pointed to the aluminum tubes as evidence, "We made a mistake." Here's what Bush said last night: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. "

It turns out that the aluminum tube story was floated by the Bush Administration in September and was commented upon by Iraq to the UN thereafter. "Citing Bush administration officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that Iraq tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes, Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." (CNN, Sept.8)

In December Christiane Amanpour reported that Iraq told U.N. weapons inspectors that they, indeed, tried to import aluminum tubes and failed, but the tubes were intended for conventional rockets, not a nuclear weapons program, and they were not usable for the latter: "The official also said that the Iraqis presented details of what they said were the diameter, the thickness (and) the size specifications of the aluminum tubes. And weapons experts are saying that if this does turn out to be true -- that these sizes they were trying to procure are as Iraq says they were -- then these tubes could not have been used as centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium," as Rice had claimed. Iraq did, however, break their UN agreement in trying to obtain aluminum tubes for any reason.

A fuller discussion of aluminum tubes and centrifuge building concludes, "The administration claims that these intercepted shipments are specific to centrifuges. The public evidence for this case is fragmentary and the government has released little officially. Instead, unnamed officials have released a series of difficult to understand statements to the media. Nothing in these statements provides clear technical evidence that the tubes were intended for centrifuges." Earlier this evening top nuclear inspector for the UN Mohamed ElBaradei, who "made it a top priority for his team to investigate the matter when inspections resumed" in November, told AP, "'We believe the tubes were destined for the conventional rocket program. They could be used for enrichment but they need substantial modification before they could be used. He said such a process would be expensive, time-consuming and detectable."

ElBaradei also dismissed another Bush's allegation that "Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview" by suggesting that the inspectors wouldn't fall for that: "We know all the scientists from the past and I think our people could easily detect if that person is a scientist or not." --Politex, 01.29.03

***

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush Documents Supporting Iraq Attack Do Not Exist

In a September 7 press conference with Prime Minister Blair, Bush leaned on what he called a report from the International Atomic Energy Commission, based on Hussein's nixing of inspections in 1998. "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied--finally denied--access, a report came out...that they were six months away from developing a weapon," the president said. "I don't know what more evidence we need." But last week the commission claimed that no such document exists. "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, head of the group, told Reuters last week. Asked why Bush referred to an apparently imaginary document, the White House claimed he was really talking about a report from 1991. But Gwozdecky told Reuters no paper to that effect was issued by his agency in 1991, either. --James Ridgeway, Sept. 30, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Blair Report to Link Hussein With Al Qaeda "
A British newspaper said on Sunday Prime Minister Tony Blair's promised dossier on Iraq will reveal that Saddam Hussein trained some of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants....Blair's Downing Street office declined to comment on the report, but a British government source voiced skepticism. ``I wouldn't go down that route,'' the source said....

The Sunday Telegraph said a draft version of the dossier contains detailed information about how two leading alleged al Qaeda members, Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah, underwent training in Iraq and are still linked to the Baghdad government.It said Abu Zubair was an Iraqi intelligence officer trained in terrorism techniques against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Rafid Fatah also worked with him against the Kurds, the paper added. They were then said to have joined ranks with bin Laden.

-- REUTERS, Sept. 15, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme."
"Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations des troyed most of Iraq's wea pons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now. According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'. Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.' He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

"The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme. Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked. 'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'" -- SH, Sept. 8, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"54 Percent...Would Support War If..."
The George H. W. Bush administration concerned itself with trying to propagandize the public into supporting war. According to the November 14, 1990, New York Times, then-Secretary of State James Baker had "grown exasperated with White House speech writers" who had not yet come up with a way to sell the Gulf War to the American people. Baker said he wanted to "bring it down to the level of the average American citizen."

At first, Baker thought the American people might support the Gulf War if they feared job losses. The same issue of the New York Times said, "Mr. Baker first began to say that what was at stake in the Gulf was the 'pocketbook' and 'standard of living' of every American."

Then in the fall of 1990, according to James Ridgeway (The March to War, 1991), a New York Times opinion poll showed that 54 percent of respondents would support war if they thought the war would prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. A short time later, at Thanksgiving, Bush told troops, "Every day that passes brings Saddam one step closer to realizing his goal of a nuclear weapons arsenal."

The fact was there was no immediate nuclear weapons threat from Iraq. In April of 1992, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded Iraq was "at least three years away from making one crude atomic weapon." (Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time, Thunder's Mouth Press, 1994.) --Online Journal, Sept. 16, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Atta Consulted Saddam...We Have Proof"
On Sunday, Sept. 8, The TimesofIndia.com reported: "Mohammed Atta consulted Saddam Hussein prior to leading the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, according to Richard Perle, an advisor to the US defense secretary. 'Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday' Perle told Italy's business daily Il Sole 24 Ore. 'The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq,' added Perle, who is chairman of the Defense Policy Board and consultant to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a leading advocate of an attack on Iraq. 'The main objective of the American administration is to avoid weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands,' said Perle."

"The administration has proof that the 9/11 hijackers met with Saddam and they're not shouting it out from the highest rooftop? Instead a surrogate just happens to mention it casually in an interview with a foreign business newspaper most Americans have never even heard of?" -- Tom Tomorrow

U.S. Not Claiming Iraqi Link To Terror. As it makes its case against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has for now dropped what had been one of the central arguments presented by supporters of a military campaign against Baghdad: Iraq's links to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Although administration officials say they are still trying to develop a strong case tying Hussein to global terrorism, the CIA has yet to find convincing evidence despite having combed its files and redoubled its efforts to collect and analyze information related to Iraq, according to senior intelligence officials and outside experts with knowledge of discussions within the U.S. government." --Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2002

"You Don't Introduce New Products In August"

An agitated Vice President Cheney, in a t�te-�-t�te with NBC's Tim Russert on Sunday, said it was "reprehensible" that people would think the administration had "saved" its ammunition on Iraq to bring it out now, 60 days before an election. "So the suggestion that somehow, you know, we husbanded this and we waited is just not true," Cheney said. Now where would people get such a cockamamie idea? Well, maybe from White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who made the case to the New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller last week that they pretty much did what Cheney said they didn't do -- waited patiently and deliberately to launch a long-planned rollout. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," Card said. Added Rove: "The thought was that in August the president is sort of on vacation." --WP, Sept. 10, 2002

"PRESIDENT MISSTATES `FACTS'"

In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.

Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

``I don't know what more evidence we need,'' Bush said, standing alongside Blair. ``We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem.''

In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam's ouster was the only way to stop Iraq's pursuit -- and potential use -- of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

``The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to,'' Blair said as he joined Bush in trying to rally reluctant allies to deal with Saddam, perhaps by military force.

--MSNBC, Sept. 9, 2002

"CONTRARY TO BUSH'S CLAIM..."

Contrary to Bush's claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News' Robert Windrem reported Saturday.

Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.

The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq's nuclear infrastructure and required Iraq to turn over its highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Windrem reported.

In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that ``based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.''

--MSNBC, Sept. 9, 2002

"WHITE HOUSE ADMITS ERROR"

A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. ``What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report,'' the official told NBC News' Norah O'Donnell.

Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush's and Blair's assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.

The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, Gwozdecky said. He said that the IAEA reviewed commercial satellite imagery regularly and that, from time to time, it noticed construction at sites it had previously examined.

Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. ``There is not a single building we see,'' he said.

--MSNBC, Sept. 9, 2002

"Useful In Mobilizing Public Opinion"

In the fall of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah.

In the girl's testimony before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."

Seven US Senators later referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five votes. In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were like "Hitler revisited."

But just weeks before the US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise questions about the validity of the incubator tale.

Later, it was learned that Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.

She had been coached - along with the handful of others who would "corroborate" the story - by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the Kuwaitis to make the case for war.

"We didn't know it wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public opinion." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002

"It Was A Pretty Serious Fib"

- When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf - to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait - part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid-September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border - just empty desert.

"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story.

The White House is now making its case. to Congress and the public for another invasion of Iraq; President George W. Bush is expected to present specific evidence of the threat posed by Iraq during a speech to the United Nations next week.

But past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action....

That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis - offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified....

"My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence," says former US Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) of Indiana, a 34-year veteran lawmaker until 1999, who served on numerous foreign affairs and intelligence committees, and is now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. The Bush team "understands it has not yet carried the burden of persuasion [about an imminent Iraqi threat], so they will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise," Mr. Hamilton says. "I think we have to be skeptical about it." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002

1) I maintain we didn't have accurate intelligence information when Congress agreed to go to war.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weeza,

That's one of the most sanctimonious posts from you to date.
I'm shocked that judgement such as this is passed on a personal situation that you know nothing about.
Though sugar coated..your reply is insensitive and way out of line.

2) Mo, Corinne shared an incident from her past, and I asked her questions that I belive are relevant to her situation. I in turn expressed empathy for her lack of support by the Church she went to at the time and denounced them for the apparent lack of brotherly love.

You missed the point entirely. You cannot judge a book by its cover. "Sugar coated" - Bush is sugar coated.

Yes, the middle east is breeding ground for terrorists. Huge article in National Post the other day, russia is also huge breeding ground for terrorists. It was an interesting article. I am going to see if I can find it here and type out some of the comments. Right now many countries are breeding grounds for terrorism.

As for the church and my abusive marriage. If you haven't lived in an abusive marriage, you have no idea what it is like nor the reasons why one cannot or is not able to leave. And by the way, my husband did die remorseful, very remorseful, but by that time, he had destroyed whatever vestige of faith they had in a god. Regardless of their lack of faith in a god, they are truly unique, caring, loving people.

Let's just say as in most religions, many women are counselled to remain for the sake of the marriage, the sake of the husband's soul, the sake of the children, ad nauseum.... IMO most churches really do believe that we women and children are not human, only chattels. And I have looked at quite extensively other religions/churches, etc., and I find them all wanting. Let's just say I am only too happy to consider myself a humanist.

You know no matter what proof is presented to you and others who follow so blindly behind Bush, you will never change your because you don't want to change your mind.
None are so blind, but those who won't see.

When Bush lies, Thousands Die.

The reports they had were widely overstated and misrepresented by the administration themselves. That has been uncovered and written on extensively.

Even if one is willing to excuse the Predident and all other major players for going to War without anything solid to begin with (even if one is willing to justify this by saying the "intelligence was bad", and excuse the fact that it should be the main priority of the Commander in Chief and his staff to make darn sure it's right before committing our childrens lives and killing masses of Iraqui children, maiming them for life)..
beyond that, the little "evidence" (which was not evidence at all in fact, even the intelligence agancies themselves came out and said they could not understand the administrations' statements at that time!) ..the info they had was misrepresented, inflated, and manipulated by the Bush administration in order to follow a long standing agenda that had nothing to do with 911 or freeing Iraquis.

There is huge difference between that action (inflating, misrepresenting, and lying), and being simply given the "wrong information"..which in their positions would be an enourmous mistake on thier part as well. I should think they would confirm information under those circumstances and not take the flimsy stuff they had and run with it (see sources above)

Furthermore, the complete shift in our reason for being there since, the exploitation of the Iraq voting day, and GWB's crusade speach are equally horrendous, as all this is based on little truth as well.

So..onward we go..just recently having Syria and Iran respond by forming a coalition to attempt to protect themselves from the public threats of military action against them by the US (who can blame them?)..and Russia is making deals with Syria to supply them with uranium.

I guess we had some lacking intelligence there, too..someone should have told this administration that threats of military force are not the way to bring peace to a region.

Especially when Syria and Russia were interested in dialogue.

I expect my administration to have a certain level of intelligence themselves.

I believe they do..but are operating on motives they do not put forth to the American public..we get the hard sell, twisted and re-formed based on the circumstances of the moment.

Weeza and others..do you think we should extend this War to Syria and Iran?

Mo

Enough voters thought he made enough of the right decisions. I believe he's being prayed for in huge numbers which gives me much confidence that this isn't all about George Bush for which I think he would agree.

I don't think we can afford to wait in this case..that attitude is dismissive of the issues in question. These issues are too huge and far too dangerous. It calls for much more response than wait and see and pray.

We're talking War Crimes and continued endangering of our own country, the Middle East, Terrorism and World Peace.

There is a large movement for Bush's impeachment..an unpresidented movement..and unprecidented protest at his innauguration.

There are groups very active, including military families and Veterans, as well as massive movements and protest in countries oversees. Ine can shoose to ignore all that, or take a look at why this is happening (an objective look)

The country is deeply divided, going into the "election" ..and beyond, and the unfolding in Iraq is pushing polls againt Bush's policies upward, despite considerable propaganda efforts put out by the White House and media.

All the above (in my previous posts) points to issues that require immediate investigation, and with the evidence, immediate impeachment of this administration for the sake of our country, our children.. and the state of the Middle East and global relations.

We're not talking about a disgruntled party who would prefer a different mindset in Washington. This admin is moving forward and reeking further havoc day by day, with plans to expand military action unilaterally in other counties, despite the calamity in Iraq.

Prayer helps our state of mind, but will not turn this administration into something they are not.

Mo

It is no use arguing about GWB and his policies, the dirty deeds are done. We can argue until blue in the face. As I have said before, no matter what proof is put before you, you will not change your stance. So I have been thinking - why would you or anybody accept/follow GWB and his cronies' policies. There is always the WHY? There are lot of people who believe they know why GWB does the things he does. Remember actions speak louder than words.

As for GWB's "sheep", I heard some comments/conversation this afternoon between some wealthy businessmen (church leaders in the mennonite church here) discussing the middle east situation. You want to know why they support GWB and his policies? They believe that muslims and anybody who does not follow the christian faith are not real human beings, akin to how the church and the bible and whites truly believed that slavery was acceptable years ago.

One man even said there are many people who would still practice slavery if they could get away with it. It didn't matter if women and children and innocent people died in the conflict. Because they were not christians, they did not deserve to live. Until these "people" converted to christianity, they were not really human. They did not see them as part of humanity.

I believe there is a large segment of society who feel/believe this. The funny thing is even if muslims, etc., converted to christianity, a lot of these church going individuals would find another excuse to terminate these people, find another reason to hate them. Heck, I am sure if all people were white, there are some people who would find more reasons to terminate some people. Greedy people are always able to find some excuse to enrich themselves.

I haven't had a migraine all week, but after listening to these idiots, I have one now. It's easy to say you care about innocent people (men, women and children)the world over, but how do you put this ideology into practice. How do you help "save" these people in the middle east. What message/mandate do you give to GWB and his cronies that as part of your faith, the same faith he professes to belong to, that his actions are part of God's teachings?

Take the common phrase: "Do unto others as you have them do unto you." As a christian, what is YOUR justification for giving GWB and his cronies the thumbs up to go to war? You knew that many many innocent people (here and abroad) would die and it now looks like those numbers will keep on growing before this situation ever comes to an end, if it ever does, so how do you justify this within your faith or as part of your faith.

You say you will pray, many many many people the world over and throughout the ages have prayed and they still died and are dieing (sp?)today. Some people pray and when something good happens, they say it's b/c they prayed. Then there are people who pray and pray and pray and life is awful for them, so does that mean that these people were somehow not deserving of God's intervention or that they didn't pray hard enough.

You voted to elect GWB and now you pray that it all works out. Well it's not working out right now for so many, so what exactly does that mean? How many have to die in the hope that it all turns out and for how long and in the meantime, more and more are dieing. How is God's hand a part of those actions? Aren't you scared at times, Weeza3, that you might have made the wrong decision by voting for GWB? I mean, he is the one making all the decisions right now, the american people voted him in, so you and others in essence gave him the thumbs up to do the christian thing. At least that is what I have lead to believe that is why you elected him in, because he is a christian. So why do I and so many others feel that many of these "things" that he is doing are so unchristian. I guess what I am asking is: does the end justify the means? Because I think that is why so many elected him in. For example, many people say they believe in capital punishment, and yet if they were the ones who actually had to push the button or pull the switch, they would be too cowardly to do it. And yet somehow by giving the authority/power to the government, then you are not responsible for the government's actions. I don't think God works that way. I know when I stand before Him on judgement day, and if I say well I wasn't really responsible, some other person was or the government was, what do you think God would say to me.

I don't think most people think about this. I also think that is why most people are afraid of dieing and don't talk about it.

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. 1
Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. 2
The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude-and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. 3
Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 4
Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of slavery" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 5
While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, 6 not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. 7
Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. 8

Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America's separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, "[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave." 9
Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 10 CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]. 11JOHN DICKINSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. 12 JOHN JAY, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE U. S. SUPREME COURT

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. 13THOMAS JEFFERSON

Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. 14RICHARD HENRY LEE, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. 15 WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 16LUTHER MARTIN, DELEGATE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. 17

Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. 18 JOSEPH REED, REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 19 BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]-Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 20 NOAH WEBSTER, RESPONSIBLE FOR ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, � 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. 21 JAMES WILSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power. 22 JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 23
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; 24 Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; 25 Vermont in 1786; 26 New Hampshire in 1792; 27 New York in 1799; 28 and New Jersey did so in 1804. 29

Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King 30 and signed into law by President George Washington, 31 which prohibited slavery in those territories. 32 It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 33
The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address "To the People of Color," he explained:

Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. 34
While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery's proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks-and there were many, North as well as South-counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? 35THOMAS WEST

It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. 36 WALTER WILLIAMS (emphasis added)
Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:�
Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. 37

While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.

Endnotes

1. Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776.

2. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay,
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=94

The above web address is another article even better than the one above; abit more lengthy but excellent entitled: The Bible, Slavery and America's Founders

This is not unlike the justification for the Iraq War by GWB, his staff, and the far Right, and Christian Right.

This is frightening, when what is being justified has to do with tremendous sufering and loss of life for certain groups of people.

Corrine, I thought your post was very throught provoking and hit on some deep questions that deserve a look.

Well written..I think you should publish a variation of it.

"Take the common phrase: "Do unto others as you have them do unto you." As a christian, what is YOUR justification for giving GWB and his cronies the thumbs up to go to war? You knew that many many innocent people (here and abroad) would die and it now looks like those numbers will keep on growing before this situation ever comes to an end, if it ever does, so how do you justify this within your faith or as part of your faith. " by Corinne

The same reason all the other wars have been fought that set captives free, to protect our Country and Democracy, to go to a Nation in distress as Iraq was in need of liberation, to help restore a country after the engagement is over, show that we as a Country will fight terrorism and nuclear aggression. So many reasons Corinne.
People have to die in a war, sacrifice of life for those things that are worth living for is why our young soldiers enlist and risk their lives.

How has this War done these things?

How has it liberated the people of Iraq?

How has it fought Terrorism and Nuclear proliferation?

How has it protected our country and Democracy?

All that says any of these things have happened comes out of the White House claims
and/or neo-Conservative opinion writing.

Please don't say we must wait and see, there surely would be some sign by now, surely there would not be the mounting/snowballing awful realities in contrast..

There is a large body of hard evidance that the direct opposite is happening on all counts.

(Let us also not forget we went in(unilaterally).. with this admin convincing congress that Hussein was a threat to the World, and changed gears once evidence became public that he was not, never was..connected to Al Qaida, nor was he a threat to other nations.)

I do agree that that is why our military signs on, to do the things you mention, but look at what is happening to them, and the fact that this is not what the administration is accomplishing, and was not the motivation of our "leaders".

Our soldiers are not even getting proper treatment/medically/financially when they leave their tours or become injured.

Mo

As to conversation with church group, did not mis-understand them. I asked them to repeat/discuss what they were talking about. They readily admitted it. I have also heard this same line of thinking among catholic church goers, protestant church goers. You have to remember this is the bible belt and people here often speak openly about what their beliefs are. I don't often think the worst, these people do. That is what is so appalling.

So if so many do not deny the divinity inherent in every human being within christianity, why such willingness and ease at which so many are ready to slaughter so many innocents. That line of reasoning is so ambiguous. Words versus actions are in direct conflict with each others. How do you explain this?

As for my making such sweeping statements, no not all were involved in slavery or believed in it, but there were certainly a vast number of people involved in the slave trade around the globe for such a long long time on such a large scale, again I find it puzzling that you so easily dismiss this aspect of supposedly higher human intelligence. Slavery and enslavement was/is all about money and greed.

As for the reasons for war, which captives in the u.s.a. have been set free? It is now known that Iraq had no connection to the attack on u.s.a. You can keep harping on it, but harping on it will not make it so. As for liberating Iraq, there are many more deserving countries that were in need of being freed, and I don't see GWB rushing in to free these countries, yet!! But then these countries did not have oil and water. But I am sure it won't be long before GWB goes into Africa and a few other countries. The groundwork is being laid already.

"People have to die in a war," ya, but it's not you or 24bit, or GWB and his cronies or their families/friends and much of the wealthy. I guess as long as it's someone else, that makes it OK, eh?

What's behind this global march - greed and hate.

As for Mo repeating the same old, the same old, and GWB and cronies keeps doing the same old, the same old. I believe Mo is much more the christian, she is at least putting into practice some of the ten commandments, e.g. Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not covet. She is not throwing temper tantrums, SHE is actually putting into practice what you, Weeze3, preach as part of your faith. Since when has the Ten Commandments gone out of vogue and become all of a sudden "temper tantrums?"

And of course 24bit, when you can't come up with good reasoning, you just bow out. Because you have no good reasoning, you believe what you do, because that is what you personally want to believe. That's OK, but when you vote in someone to do your bidding who then sends in innocent soliders to do his and your dirty work, someone who has no qualms or conscience about anything he does, then I find that so cowardly.

Again Weeza3, when and if this whole situation blows up, what will you say then? I can just imagine the excuses and justifications. You know, I don't think you or 24bit really care. You both couch your responses in different ways, but the outcome and end result is still the same. Just because I know there is no changing your minds or methods, doesn't mean that I do not have a duty and responsibility to speak up and out about injustices, etc. This is still a democractic country so far I think. If you don't want to reply, you don't have to. Hey, it's a free country.

Corinne

[This message has been edited by Corinne E (edited 20 February 2005).]

i followed this post from the begining.you all have strong will's. nobody need's to "win" this.

pick another subject,there are plenty..

thank's for the enlightenment...gary

p.s. i see you "lyme veteran"..

I think it's a pity when Christians per se are misrepresented. It's not that it's uncommon; it happened while Jesus was walking the earth and still evident today.

"As to conversation with church group, did not mis-understand them. I asked them to repeat/discuss what they were talking about. They readily admitted it. I have also heard this same line of thinking among catholic church goers, protestant church goers. You have to remember this is the bible belt and people here often speak openly about what their beliefs are. I don't often think the worst, these people do. That is what is so appalling." quote: Corinne

Corinne, I don't know about Canada's bible belt, but I live in the bible belt here in the USA. and the only "religious group" I'm aware of that would openly say those things you inferred were said above, would be the racist white supremasist groups. These extremists are in no way acknowledged as mainstream Christians. I have never heard a teaching or a personal racist comment like you mentioned by anyone I've ever gone to church with over the past 18 years.
To me it's very sad if that's all you know of people with the love of God in their hearts.....believe you me I've had plenty of Christian actions and charity from my brother and sisters in Christ.
Sure there are problems within the "Church", yet like your family, you stick with them and try to work out the differences.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"So if so many do not deny the divinity inherent in every human being within christianity, why such willingness and ease at which so many are ready to slaughter so many innocents. That line of reasoning is so ambiguous. Words versus actions are in direct conflict with each others. How do you explain this?" Corinne

War is NOT unbiblical Corinne. We've had posts on this subject before. Wars have always been necessary in making changes in cultures and behaviors. Think WW 11, Korea, Vietnam, Now Iraq; sometimes it's a form of judgement of one country over another. Our America has had more than it's share of intervening, trying to protect the weak and vulnerable from the iron fist of controlling dictators. Why is this empirical law of survival hard for you and Mo to understand ? Acts of war has legitimacy without having to hear that all war is inherently evil.

"As for the reasons for war, which captives in the u.s.a. have been set free? It is now known that Iraq had no connection to the attack on usa." Corinne

I wasn't referring to captives of the USA, but of the other countries we've helped when we did have to go to war. Such as Great Britian in WW11,
The Halocaust Survivors, Isreal, South Korea, and so on. As far as Iraq having no connection to 9/11 IMO is naiive. You have to think it terms of the whole of the Middle East when it comes to the attack we suffered. Terror cells are entirely throughout , interdependent , moving in and out of Iran, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan....How can one with authority say that Iraq is presumed innocent when all these threats, even recently are still coming from that entire region? You'd have to be like the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, monkeys to not see what is in the clear light of day.

"People have to die in a war," ya, but it's not you or 24bit, or GWB and his cronies or their families/friends and much of the wealthy. I guess as long as it's someone else, that makes it OK, eh? " Corinne

Now THAT'S what I mean by sweeping statements Corinne. Certainly there are friends of the Presidents as well as Cabinet members, Military Officials whom I have personally seen interviewed in the past months that have a son or daughter serving in Iraq.
Corinne, I'm 55 years old, I'm not qualified to join the military and even if I were younger.....not everyone has a personal calling to go into service. Most women present and wars past were needed to remain at home to maintain a home for their children so that someone would be there to come home to for the soldiers returning from war. I feel your comment was not a logical argument at all when implying that those that support our presence in Iraq, should all go and fight. It would be like me saying to all who are opposed to the war involvement; why don't you all go and join the insurgents in Iraq and fight against us since the war is so offensive to you.

Backward logic to say the least. Although.... it just may have some merit in truth.

Re: Iraq..

If a pre-emptive strike was justified in the case of Iraq..

wouldn't that mean the Japanese were justified in attacking at Pearl Harbor?

Even moreso, for they knew the US had the capabilities, and public threats were made by the US at the time.

Wouldn't it also mean, then, that Syria and Iran have the right to strike pre-emptively under present circumstances?

..based on the justification that we were right to do so in Iraq.. and that was based on assumption, no threats or capabilities existed.

Then of course, the other reason we are there..to "free" the people..
(which is not happening) ..however there are countries who's people are in much greater need, thousands dying daily under the hand of horrible leaders..

..and Terrorist groups..the War in Iraq has only made them grow in large numbers. (well documented)

If my posts are tantrums, then what is continuously refusing to look at these points considered?
The same old, same old ..to me..is that questions on justification of the War are never answered, other than in rhetoric or opinion.

Support of the War may not be openly supremist in nature by the groups most vehemently supporting GWB, but that is still it's nature.

Noone answered with any validity the questions on how exactly this War has accomplished the things put forth to justify it I posted above. Noone ever has.

Mo

..oh, and I think Corrine's point on going to War was more "would you"..or would you send your children..is the cause that real and true..
..rather than whether you could actually physically go.

What Cabinet members have their children there? Just wondering..

..and I don't see how that question is at all comperable to asking War protestors to fight with the insurgency

The insurgency is a direct bi-product of the unjust, poorly planned invasion.

m

Well, you lasted longer than I ever would have I guess you could say I am a veteran over here in off topic..lol! But I am in retirement when it comes to political stuff over here..

I have learned a valuable lesson over here, that no matter how hard you try to get the "other side" to see your point or understand what you are trying to say, it will unfortunately fall on deaf ears or eyes in this case.

This goes for both sides...

we all like to think we are open minded, but in truth we have our beliefs/opinions and nothing anyone here writes will change that.

Everyone here is very passionate about their political beliefs ..on both sides, and that is a good thing.

I am very firm in my beliefs...and those who disagree with me, do so with strong beliefs as well.

So who am I to try and change their opinion?

Lately, political debates on OT all end the same... the same folks support Bush and the same folks dislike Bush..

I guess I consider political talks over here, like a Chess game. And for me, it has become a Stale Mate..

Neither side can win this debate..it's a stale mate.

~LymeBrat

You said:

"Bill Clinton, as so many Bush supporters love to point to..did something immoral on his persoanl life..yes.
He didn't bring this country to War based on lies, and keep us there based on more lies, and was not responsible for needless and destruction (other than Monica's dress), death, desruction of environment, domestic demise..ect, ect, ect."

I know I know, I should just SOB, but you know me, ..I just had to respond

If one is trying to compare Bush to Clinton...there is no comparison. Bush the "MAN" has morals and values...that includes not repeatedly cheating on his wife. And talk about a liar..oy!

Even if one dislike Bush, as far as personal character goes..Bush wins hands down.

As for Clinton not getting us into a war based on lies, I can't tell if he did or didn't. But I do know he handled many situations.."conflicts" poorly.

The first that comes to my mind is the way he handled the Semolia conflict...

Remember Blackhawk down?

I watched a documentary about this conflict.. it brought me to tears...over and over again. I heard soldier after soldier tell their story and tell how Clinton failed them and those who died in this conflict.

I will never forget seeing our American soldiers being killed and dragged through the streets. Never.

I'm not trying to compare this to the present day war... or say one war was more justified that the other. I am only trying to point out that presidents are forced to make decisions about going to war and when to end a war...

I think ( as do many other Americans) Clinton betrayed our soldiers in Somalia. Once he decided to commit to this conflict, he should have seen it through..

And many Americans think that Bush went into this war with his eyes completely closed and that he is a liar.

I think that all presidents do the best job they can to try and protect our country. Clinton in my opinion, was a lousy president..but I have never claimed he was malicious and purposely killed our soldiers in Bosnia...

He made a mistake..a deadly mistake.

As for Bush..time will tell. I know he isn't perfect, I never claimed he was.

But no matter what folks write here, I'm not going to buy into the theory that he is malicious and purposely put our soldiers into harms way because he is a lair or had a personal score to settle for his father.

I don't know what information the administration used to decide to go into this war..but the fact is that everyone... including Bush senior, Clinton, Gore..knew that Suddam and Osama (Alquida) was a threat..

They all knew these terrorist were very real and were a very real threat..

And be it right or be it wrong.....I can't help my gut instinct... that keeps telling me that had we dealt with terrorists such as Saddam and Osama when they first became a threat...than we wouldn't be in Iraq today.

And regardless of what circumstances brought us to war in Iraq....I also can't help but think that if we don't deal with this evil now...it will only come back to haunt us in the near future.

I would feel this way no matter who was in the White House...

Samolia Conflict..Blackhawk Down

The October 3, 1993, firefight in south Mogadishu was America's bloodiest military encounter in nearly 10 years. Why was the firefight in south Mogadishu such a disaster for the U.S.A.? What went wrong? Why were U.S. soldiers on the ground without armed vehicles? Why were they not backed up and protected by sufficient firepower from the air?

To a very great extent, the source of the problems that plagued the Rangers in executing their mission was the fact that, prior to the firefight, the Clinton Presidency repeatedly denied the requests of the Special Operations team for Bradley Fighting Vehicles (on-ground armored vehicles) and for AC-130 gunships (propeller-driven aircraft designed to fly around battlefields and deliver highly accurate and destructive gunfire on enemy ground forces).

U.S. Secretary of Defense Aspin, admitting that the refusal to make available the requested armored vehicles and gunships was a serious mistake, took full responsibility for the error and its disastrous results, even though he knew the real responsibility lay with Commander-in- Chief Clinton.

The U.S. military commanders in Somalia concluded that the October 3 disaster was, in part, caused by the unavailability of sufficient U.S. ground forces--ground forces sufficient to quickly and effectively come to the aid of and rescue of Rangers surviving the helicopter crashes and thus prevent them from being captured and slaughtered by the rampaging, murder- ous Somali mobs.

If the Rangers had been provided with sufficient U.S. ground-force back-up and protection, the duration of the October 3 battle would have been substantially reduced and there would not have been so many casualties. The U.S. forces, according to General Howe, would have had enough "muscle, resources, and people" to effectively control the situation on the battlefield and minimize American casualties.

Unmentioned, but clearly understood, was the reason for absence of enough U.S. ground forces in Somalia to back up and protect the Rangers: the action taken by President Clinton three months earlier--his ordering the withdrawal of most of the U.S. military personnel and equipment that had been present in Somalia before late March, 1993.

In Somalia, the Rangers and other Special Operations units deployed there performed excellently. They did their best, considering the handicaps to which they were subjected by the top political leadership in Washington, D.C. In the final analysis, the troops were forced to suffer the consequences of the shortsightedness and blunders of the Clinton Presidency, which was much more concerned with keeping its domestic political image well polished and enhancing Democratic candidates chances in the coming 1994 and 1996 federal elections than it was with properly equipping and providing the necessary back-up and protection for American troops sent into very dangerous situations overseas.

In geopolitical terms, the disastrous outcome of the October 3 firefight was costly to the U.S.A. and the Clinton Presidency. General Aidid and his political faction were unexpect- edly left with what appeared to be a military and political victory. In standing firm against the U.S. military onslaught and preventing the mission from being accomplished, Aidid and the USC/SNA emerged from the battle with an international reputation and an enhanced stature, both internally and externally.

The outcome of the battle increased Aidid's political support within Somalia and encouraged terrorist groups, hostile states, and revolutionary conspiracies throughout the world.

Within populations making up states, international movements, and other entities hostile to the U.S.A. and its national interests, there emerged the obvious conclusion: If the Somalis can successfully challenge the U.S.A. and neutralize its military might, we can do likewise. If others can defy and bring down "the great U.S.A.," so can we.

Moreover, President Clinton, immediately after October 3, made matters worse by assenting to Aidid's demand for a "Somali-based political settlement" and by publicly announcing that all U.S. military forces would be withdrawn from Somalia no later than March 31, 1994.

Clinton seemed to be raising a diplomatic white flag. Undoubtedly, he was reinforcing the emerging conclusion that the U.S.A. had lost the war in Somalia, was now in the process of surrendering to the inevitable, and could be defeated by other groups, states, and movements seeking to thwart and seriously damage the American colossus.

In terms of American domestic politics, the events of October 3 were costly to the Clinton Presidency and its military policy in Somalia.

The massacre of American troops in south Mogadishu, the desecration of their bodies by crowds of rampaging Somali barbarians, and the portrayal of these gruesome scenes on television sets throughout the U.S.A. upset the entire country. Congress and the general American public were outraged by the debacle. There were calls for immediate termination of the Somali mission.

In Congress, there were demands for a shakeup and housecleaning at high levels in the executive branch of the U.S. national government. These demands, made by both Democrats and Republicans, included calls for President Clinton to remove from office all executive officers and policy advisers serving under him and playing key roles in shaping and/or implementing the Somalia policy, including Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, and U.S. Envoy Robert Gosende.

To save his own political hide and minimize Democratic losses in the coming 1994 congressional elections, Clinton started looking around for scapegoats to take the fall. Almost immediately, Gosende lost his position as U.S. Envoy to Somalia, recalled by Secretary of State Christopher, who apologized to the American public for not giving the Somalia affair greater personal attention. Late in 1993, Secretary of Defense Aspin resigned his position, citing "personal reasons" for his leaving public office.

Clinton seemed to have come out of the situation smelling like a rose. However, his political party, in the November, 1994, congressional elections, lost majority control of both houses of Congress. And since January 3, 1995, Clinton has had to face Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Within a few months after October 3, 1993, President Clinton withdrew all U.S. troops from Somalia, doing so nearly three months earlier than the announced March 31, 1994, deadline. The U.N. peacekeeping force remained there for nearly two more years, the last of the peacekeepers withdrawing with the assistance of U.S. Marines. Thus ended one of the most mismanaged and ill-conceived military operations in the history of the U.S.A.

Military Action Against Iraq

In June of 1993, while the U.S. Quick Reaction Force and U.N. peacekeepers were bogged down in Somalia and were being subjected to armed attacks by Aidid's militia,

President Clinton decided to initiate U.S. military action against Iraq, doing so without consultation with Congress or seeking its endorsement of the particular military action initiated, asserting that he was acting under the authority of various U.N. resolutions and the Persian Gulf Resolution

(U.S. Public Law 102-1), the latter being the congressional joint resolution of January 14, 1991, passed by Congress on January 12, signed into law by the President on January 14 (two days before he ordered the launching of Operation Desert Storm), and still in force as American law. On Clinton's orders, U.S. air strikes, aimed at the Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad, were launched on June 26.

In justifying the cruise missile attack, the Clinton Presidency cited evidence that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had instigated and fostered a conspiracy to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during his visit to Kuwait two months earlier (April 14-16).

In April, the Kuwaiti authorities had uncovered the assassination plot, arresting 14 Iraqi and Kuwaiti nationals for planning to put a 175-pound bomb in a location where it would have exploded and killed Bush as he was being presented an award honoring him as the leader of the Persian Gulf War coalition which drove the Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait.

The Kuwaiti authorities immediately informed the U.S. government of the conspiracy and arrests. Receipt of the information was quickly followed by President Clinton's ordering the FBI and CIA to conduct a thorough investigation to find out whether Saddam Hussein had authorized and sponsored the plot. The investigation uncovered convincing evidence of links between the would-be assassins and the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

President Clinton perceived the situation as a major test of his mettle as U.S. Commander- in-Chief and leader of the Western powers. He suddenly abandoned his attempts to send Hussein a conciliatory and somewhat ambiguous message--a message to the effect that he thought Hussein could redeem himself with the U.S.A. and that, if he did so, Clinton would be open to normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations.

On the evening of June 23, when he met with his National Security Adviser and Deputy National Security Adviser, the National Security Council members and General Colin Powell, Clinton was determined to send Hussein a different message, one which, in the words of George Stephanopoulos, the President's Senior Political Adviser, would be "an unambiguous, unapologetic message ... but with weapons, not words." [George Stephanopoulos, ALL TOO HUMAN--A POLITICAL EDUCATION (Little, Brown and Company: Boston, 1999), p. 159.]

The President's plan for launching missile trikes against Baghdad. Scheduled for Saturday, June 26, the attack commenced at 4:22 p.m. (EDT), when cruise missiles were launched toward Baghdad from two U.S. Navy vessels positioned in the Persian Gulf--the destroyer USS Peterson and the AEGIS cruiser USS Chancellorville. Once the missiles had landed in Baghdad, President Clinton delivered from the Oval Office a public address announcing the military action he had initiated against Iraq and explaining why he had done so.

. Intervention into the Political Turmoil in Haiti

In early 1994, while President Clinton was striving to extricate his Presidency and the U.S.A. from the military and political quagmire in Somalia, he initiated U.S. military action that could have involved American troops in a bloody civil war in Haiti.

Three years earlier, (in December, 1990), Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide had been elected President of Haiti, only to be forcibly overthrown by the Haitian military during September of 1991. With Aristide arrested and expelled from the country, power to govern Haiti was assumed by a military junta--a troika of military dictators led by General Raoul Cedras.

After the junta's seizure of power, political and economic conditions within the country went from bad to worse. Faced with the certainty of continued political repression and severe economic hardship if they remained in Haiti, some 35,000 Haitians left the country in boats and attempted to enter the U.S.A. as refugees. Intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard, most of the refugees were returned to Haiti. Beginning in late 1993, however, there occurred a new wave of Haitian boat people headed for Florida.

Concerned about the deteriorating situation in Haiti and the resurgence of refugee efforts to sneak into the U.S.A., the Clinton Presidency intensified its diplomatic and economic pressures on General Cedras to relinquish power and reinstate President Aristide. Cedras refused to do so and stepped up his reign of terror over the Haitian people.

By July, 1994, President Clinton had decided that military intervention into the Haitian political mess was unavoidable as well as morally justified. The Clinton Presidency pushed an authorizing resolution through the U.N. Security Council. The U.N. resolution, passed by the Security Council on July 31, authorized a multinational military force to invade Haiti, forcibly depose the Cedras junta, and restore governing power to democratically elected President Aristide.

Since President Clinton, without consulting with or seeking the approval of Congress, had already decided to send U.S. troops to Haiti and had issued the necessary orders, the American invasion force was en route to Haiti when the U.N. resolution was adopted. With the resolution's adoption, the Cedras junta gave in to U.S. demands. Hence, the necessity of an immediate and massive U.S. military assault on and bloody conquest of Haiti was obviated.

On September 18, 1994, the Cedras regime agreed that he and the other military leaders would step down and Aristide would resume governing power. As part of the agreement, 20,000 U.S. troops began to arrive in Haiti on September 19. On October 15, Aristide returned to Haiti and was reinstated as President. On March 31, 1995, responsibility for guaranteeing politican legitimacy and democratic governance in Haiti was turned over to a U.N. peacekeeping force. On April 17, 1998, the last U.S. combat troops departed from Haiti.

On September 7, 1994, when President Clinton met with his National Security Adviser and members of the National Security Council to discuss plans for the impending U.S. invasion of Haiti, he was concerned about the problem of obtaining congressional support for the invasion. A major purpose of the meeting was to help the President decide whether to seek congressional passage of a joint resolution authorizing U.S. military action in Haiti.

Secretary of State Christopher argued against the President's requesting such a resolution from Congress, holding that, if Clinton took this course of action, he would be encouraging congressional interference with the President's constitutional powers as Commander-in- Chief, resulting in undue legislative restraints on exercise of those powers by Clinton and his successors. George Stephanopoulos, who was present at the meeting, has given the following account of the issue and its resolution:

"Colored by my years in the House [of Rep-
resentatives], I believed that a president
shouldn't send soldiers into combat without
congressional support. But that principle
was now being tested by hard reality: We
didn't have the votes, not even close.
Congress wasn't about to give the Presi-
dent political cover for an unpopular in-
vasion, so restoring democracy in Haiti
required sacrificing a bit of it here at
home. I thought the cost was justified,
but Congress would howl, and partisan ten-
sions were so high that a few members might
even argue for impeachment if American
casualties mounted. To cover our flank,
I suggested that the State Department draft
a public 'white paper' making the case for
unilateral presidential action. Like me,
Clinton had just read in Doris Kearns
Goodwin's new book that FDR had used this
tactic when he circumvented Congress on
lend-lease. He took the suggestion."
[IBID, pp. 306-307.]

At the White House on September 13, President Clinton met with Democratic members of Congress to discuss the Haiti problem and what the U.S.A. should do about it. The meeting, however, was hardly a consultation with Congress or a move to lay the groundwork for an attempt to secure official congressional of the President's planned military initiative.

The Capitol Hill Democrats attending the meeting were well aware that Clinton had already made up his mind and could not be persuaded to abort his projected invasion of Haiti, regardless of the number and intensity of the complaints uttered by congressional Democrats.

The Haiti mission, which was accomplished without effective Haitian resistance or mounting American casualties, functioned as a restraint on both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The President dispatched U.S. combat troops to Haiti and kept them there for over four and a half years. Yet, Clinton's initiation and pursuit of his Haiti policy did not raise a major storm of congressional criticism and protest.

You mentioned that we all have our own "beliefs"..

It seems many do..

I have beliefs about God, health, happiness, ect..but I don't carry "beliefs" toward men and women leading our country to War. They, in my view, need to answer to reality.

The questions and I've posted on this thread (and others) that noone addresses have to to with this War in Iraq, and facts around it.

it's not belief based, at least not for me.
..it's based on policies, outcomes, actions, facts..

These things go unaddressed, other than expressing beliefs and opinions.

..or bringing up Clinton.

IMO, he's no innocent in foreign relations, nor on personal ones
..that doesn't negate the fact that the GWB administrations actions are with HUGE consequence to so many in the World.
(Iraqui innocents and our military at the top of a long list)

At the same time, I have no idea whether Bush the MAN is a better person than ol' Bill, none at all.. other than what he claims publicly..and his supporters echo.

(interesting tapes out on Bush, talking sbout smoking weed, and gave the big "no comment" on cocaine ..and the rest of his history, is under lock and key, so how would we know anything really?)

Anywho..

My point was that BUSH THE PRESIDENT has lied as President regarding things that have caused enourmous death and suffering among our troops, the Iraquis, and domestinc living here at home. These things are horrendous.

As far as unilateral military invasion and attack..wouldn't it then have to be considered OK for other countries to act in this way as well?

Mo

The reason why Bush won the election is because a majority of Americans see that......even a fair amount of moderate democrats. So even if you think he lied, which he didn't, his policies save lives. If you have a dysfuntional view of the world, it's not going to be easy to see that.....but we do have our fair share of illogical thinking people here, and that's a bummer.

24 sez: Even if you think Bush lied,

He did lie, it's documented, over and over again.

the evidence is obviously there to prove that his actions will save lives by the tens or hundreds of thousands.

Where is the evidence? I would really like to see it.

Mo, I know it's hard for you to realize how many people Saddam killed, but it happened and it would've continued to happen.

Yes, he was a horrible leader, and it's good that h's gone. Did it require unilateral military invasion and occupation, killing 1400 soldiers, injuring many thousands more..not to mention mental abuse by those not yet phisically injured (I talked with a soldier on his return New Year's Eve who is suicidal due to his inability to deal with what he faced under US orders), and the death of 100,000 Iraquis (as reported by Johns Hopkins), and the death and destruction of the children's lives/futures, future health for years to come to do so?
What good is freedom when you are destined to a life of disability and sickness?
(see post on the children)
the truth is their lives are a thousand times worse off than they were even uner Saddam.,due to the occupation coming off of a decade of sanctions, devistating lack of basic needs (water, food, nedicine) since the invasion, the ravages of US imposed Depleated Uranium that will last a generation, and witnessing of family and friends dying greuesome deaths on a daily basis for two years.

Noone thinks about that when they cheer for the 'liberation' of Iraquis.

They don't feel liberated at all.

Are they? Just because some say so?

...and if the Bush assertion that pre-emptive attack was necessary based on the evidance they had, would you agre then that japan was right to attack us at Pearl Harbor, and then Syria and Iran would be right to attack us now?

He's responsible for about 3 million deaths under his regime,

Actually, it was 300,000.. but probably just a typo on your part.

Horrible, just the same. There are many odious leaders around the World.

10,000 innocents per day continue to die in Darfur, just a note worth considering.

so project some of that forward in time and it's a no brainer for a logical thinking person.

OK..splain it then.

And that's not to mention the lives that may be saved with the possibility of middle east peace, potential terrorism aided by Saddam, etc.

How will they be saved, how have they been saved? Saddam has been gone since shortly after the War began..what of the death and destruction since, for all this time?

The ravages of the insurgency, as well as well documented Terrorist training camps flourish as a direct result of the occupation.

Besides.. this statement ignores documented results regarding Terrorism growth (not aided by Saddam, no..he's gone)..but by fractions of Al Quaida (remember, the ones who attacked the US on September 11th 2001, and the rapid growth within Iraq and other nations as a result of the US led occupation.
Well documented.

The reason why Bush won the election is because a majority of Americans see that......

Maybe, maybe not.

Even if we overlook the massive evidence of voter disenfrancisement, and the fact that many hundreds of thousands of votes were taken under electronic machines that are unable to be traced under companies that were known Bush supporters, and the jazz in Ohio..forget all that..

The majority who voted for Bush (other than the 25% Christian evangelical Right vote who were interested in a political agenda over the interests if Iraquis and other Domestic policies)..
the majority who voted for him felt that his policies in Iraq would protect us from Terorism.

But, alas, no evidance of that being true has emerged. Quite the opposite..and those who voted for that reason are disillusioned.

Bush's Innaugural speech, much like his debate performance, have raised many a once supportive eyebrow, despite the media machine the White House has masterfully orchestrated.

There are many questions in their minds, many outcomes unbecoming.. and no real answers.

even a fair amount of moderate democrats.

At this point in time, a fair amount of moderate Republicans are speaking out against the GWB admin Iraq War policies.

So even if you think he lied, which he didn't,

He did, according to government information and Congressional records.

his policies save lives.

There is no evidance presented ro support that whatsoever, and mounds of evidence to refute it. GWB anmin policies have cost rhousands upon thousands of lives that have not yet been justified.

If you have a dysfuntional view of the world, it's not going to be easy to see that.....

Agreed, except on what there is to see.

but we do have our fair share of illogical thinking people here, and that's a bummer.

Yes, it is. It's an awful shame.

-------------------------------------------

I pray everyday that more and more people will look outside the BOX, bryond pride and other motivations, becuase this effects all our future, and our kids' future.

Mo

Published on Friday, January 14, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

Iraq War May Incite Terror, CIA Study Says
Think tank sees a breeding ground for militants. It says the risk of a germ attack is rising.

by Bob Drogin

WASHINGTON -- The war in Iraq is creating a training and recruitment ground for a new generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists, and the risk of a terrorist attack involving a germ weapon is steadily growing, an in-house CIA think tank said in a report released Thursday.

The "dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq" to other countries will create a new threat in the coming 15 years, especially as the Al Qaeda network mutates into a volatile brew of independent extremist groups, cells and individuals, according to the report by the National Intelligence Council.

David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said those who survived the Iraq war would pose a threat when they went home, "even under the best of scenarios."

But broader trends are likely to overshadow terrorism on the world stage.

Most important, India and China increasingly will flex powerful political and economic muscles as major new global players by 2020, said the council, which likened the rise of the two countries to the emergence of the United States as a world power a century ago.

The two nuclear-armed Asian giants -- one a vibrant democracy, the other a one-party state -- will "transform the geopolitical landscape" because of their robust economic growth, expanding military capabilities and large populations, the council predicted.

"The rise of these new powers is a virtual certainty," the council said in the report, titled "Mapping the Global Future."

Partly as a result, the council expects the world economy to be about 80% larger than in 2000, and per capita income 50% higher.

The bad news: The United States "will see its relative power position eroded" and the world will face a "more pervasive sense of insecurity" from terrorism, the spread of unconventional weapons and political upheaval that could reverse recent democratic gains in parts of Central and Southeast Asia.

"Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict in some areas," the authors warned. "Our greatest concern is that terrorists might acquire biological agents, or less likely, a nuclear device, either of which could cause mass casualties."

The 119-page report is intended to help the White House and other policymakers prepare for probable challenges by tracing how key trends may develop and influence world events over the next 15 years.

"It's designed to stimulate thought," Robert L. Hutchings, chairman of the council, said at a news briefing at CIA headquarters.

Although few of the forecasts come as surprises, Hutchings said the authors sought to challenge conventional thinking.

"Linear analysis will get you a much-changed caterpillar," he said, "but it won't get you a butterfly. For that you need a leap of imagination. We hope this ... will help us make that leap."

The report, the third in a project launched in the mid-1990s, is based on the thinking and comments of more than 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts who participated in more than 30 conferences and workshops over the last year. The text and a computer simulation of possible scenarios are available online at http://www.cia.gov/nic .

The United States will retain enormous advantages and will continue to play a pivotal role in economic, political and military affairs, the report concludes. But Washington "may be increasingly confronted" with managing fast-shifting international relations and alignments.

Washington probably will face "dramatically altered alliances and relations with Europe and Asia," for example, with the European Union increasingly supplanting NATO on the world stage.

The United Nations and international financial institutions "risk sliding into obsolescence unless they adjust" to the changes in the global system, the authors wrote.

"While no single power looks within striking distance of rivaling U.S. military power by 2020, more countries will be in a position to make the United States pay a heavy price for any military action they oppose," they said.

Suspected possession of unconventional weapons by Iran, North Korea and perhaps others will "also increase the potential cost of any military action" by U.S. forces.

� Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

About the Clinton comment, you brought him up first... hee hee

Seriously though, it is clear we have different views about the competency of President Bush.

My "beliefs", moral, religious or other, have nothing to do with why I think he was the better presidential candidate.
I voted for Bush because in my opinion, he was the better of the 2 candidates.

I understand that you and others dislike Bush..and I respect your opinions. All I ask is that you and others who dislike Bush, simply respect me and others who support Bush ...and our opinions.

I respect the members of this board too much to bring their political views/beliefs into a debate any longer. I am firm in my views and others are firm in their views..

just because we differ in opinion, doesn't mean one of us is wrong..or that our political views/beliefs are up for debate.

It is what it is and I accept that

Also, I have no delusion that Bush is the perfect president..none at all.

But the fact is, we are at war in Iraq..nothing I do or say will change that.

And bickering about how we got into this war, isn't going to help anything either. No one will ever convince me that Bush went into this war with malice on his mind..and no one will ever convince me that the world ( including past presidents) didn't believe, as the Bush administration believed, that Suddam was a threat and harbored WMD.

As I said, had the past administrations done their job and dealt with Suddam and Osama when they first became a threat, then we wouldn't be having to deal with it now...

So it is crystal clear that we all have a pretty cemented opinion when it comes to this subject......they just differ.. So I just can't see the point in continuing to debate it..as I said this issue/debate is a stale mate.

So let's start a new game/debate

..Re: WMD's..my point was/is..of the US was right to desimate Iraq based on the unconfirmed idea that Saddam had WMD's that were a threat to the World..
then certainly, Japan was right to attack us at Pearl harbor, and Syria and Iran are right to attack us now..becuase the US DEFINATELY has WMD's, and have proven they are not afraid to use them..and have made public statements that they are thinking about it in many countries.

Point being: this is a disasterous way to conduct foreign policy..has been and will continue to be a disaster. This way of dealing with other nations has only brought MORE WAR..not peace.

I have no interest in bickering about why the War started, and I don't think I'm doing that..
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my posts that way.

I'm also not out to challange "beliefs"..
as I said, I don't see holding "beliefs" as steadfast, personal, and never changing a very safe way to go regarding things like War and foreign/domestic policy decisions/actions taken by our administration.

I mean..shouldn't "beliefs" change with the realities that unfold? (political beliefs, I'm talking about..IMO, certainly should)
current events..the War..

I'm asking some pretty basic questions about the here and now, they're all in my posts.
..including my last one.

What's happened in this War and continuing is really the focus, for me, anyway.

Noone has to discuss this with me if they would rather not.

I'm simply pointing out that those basic questions are never answered (with any validity)..not beliefs..reality.

And many of the terrible realities are overlooked...just completely pushed aside.
or in some cases, justified with a sweeping comment on how we are helping people with this occupation, and agin totally ignoring the state of the nation of Iraq, and the abuse and consition of our military.

See, if people really, truly looked at that (and I contend many are NOT, plus it's kept out of mainstream conciousness)..I think if people looked at reality ..startong with the children and our soldiers, and working out to foreign relations and global Terrorism.. if folks really were to look
..the ham-handed justifications made would be much more difficult to swallow.

Mo

1. No, sorry, you have zero evidence Bush lied. Regarding WMD he was given bad info. In order for someone to "lie", there must be intent to mislead people. You don't know this man's heart, so how could you know that he lied? How do you know what he was really thinking? That's pretty mean spirited and blindly judgemental.....but that's your MO, pun intended.

2. Clear minded, objective, logical people are able to project forward the killing that Saddam carried out when he was in power. The facts of the past would be a clear indicator of the future. The logical conclusion is that the past continuing into the future is logical evidence that a continued Saddam rule would result in the same averge yearly deaths in the past and comparing this with the liberation of Iraq clearly shows that Bush's policies will save millions of peoples lives in the future. But like I said, this is for clear minded, objective, logical thought.

3. I'm glad that you stated that the women and people are 1,000 times worse than before the war. This is proof to most people that you are sooooooooo far out there in la-la land. Even some far lefties are conceding progress in Iraq. If you would actually listen to the people and read the poles done in Iraq, you'd find that they have tremendous hope and for most life is much, much better and feel it will continue to get better. Wacko groups like Amnesty would've said that the Jews would've been better off if we didn't save them from the Nazi's. Absolutely a joke those lefty activists are.

4. Sorry Mo, Saddam has killed 3 million people and that counts the people he killed in the war he started with Iran. You're not counting those people? Gee, you hold Bush responsible for the people killed in SAVING people and increasing our national security, yet you don't hold Saddam accountable for people he killed in his wars? Can we say 'hypocrite'?

5. Based on your statements, you don't understand the Middle East, its history, the peace process and Saddams role with the Palestinian terrorists, etc. So I'll leave that one at that. Too funny.

6. And the best one for last!!!!! There's nothing sadder than an extremely scorned left winger still in denial about getting a good spanking at the polls. Only the extremely fanatical, left wing conspiracy theorists believe Ohio might have been stolen, and you show your colors again and again Mo. This is too funny. Bush won by how many tens of thousands? And for those few who couldn't find the right polling place or didn't know how to work the machine that were supposely disenfranchised? I say it's awesome that their votes didn't count because they shouldn't be voting if they're that stupid. If you can't find the right poling location, how are you going to find the right candidate? No, this is a natural way (a voting survival of the fitest) of weeding out and keeping morons from voting regardless of what party. You make it sound like some Republicans are jumping ship on the war? Not true. There are a few concerned individuals, but as of late that has died down especially with the elections. You have Democrats like lefty Hillary that were just over there saying that she was "catiously optimistic" about the course in Iraq and that there was lots of great things happenning there. So there are lots of Democrats and virtually all Republicans on board, especially after the wonderful elections. Poor Mo, it's getting lonely out there, isn't it? LOL.

That's pretty mean spirited and blindly judgemental.....but that's your MO, pun intended.

Bit..do you feel you represent the "clear minded, logical" majority?

I'm not going to bother refuting the rest of this repeated rhetoric, it has no basis in fact, and/or is selective information used to support a very limited view.
I'm not going to engage with you unless you control the personal attacking. If you make a sound arguement, you don't have to resort to calling someone stupid or illogical.

But as far as just one point: the women in Iraq being worse off..

it's stated in the Amnesty International Report just released..and you call them crazy leftists, too? Wow.
Along with govenment reports and irrefutable info on this administrations telling of "untruths"..and on to documentation of outcomes in Iraq and regarding global Terror networks.
Sorry, backhanded remarks that that is all bunk just doesn't fly.

You seem to be getting your information from very limited sources, 24..I think it's important for us not to shut out information just because it refutes our own beliefs about this War. It's paramount to have an open mind in this. It's not about who's side (repub or Dem) is "winning", or getting "spanked"..this issue is so much bigger than that. This War effects all of us.

I've appended a piece on women in Iraq, just in case you, or anyone else might want to read it.

There are also new threads on the death toll of children in Iraq..in addition to considering the numbers under Saddam's reign, over half a million children (children alone) have been recorded as dying as a direct result of the US sactions..with devistating numbers added to that as a result of the US led occupation.

Mo

*******************************************

Women 'no better off' than before

Reuters

23feb05

LONDON: Almost two years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, women there are no better off than under the rule of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, according to human rights group Amnesty International.

In a report entitled Iraq -- Decades of Suffering, Amnesty said the systematic repression under Saddam had been replaced by increased murders and sexual abuse, including by US forces.
Washington promised Saddam's overthrow would free the Iraqi people from years of oppression and set them on the road to democracy. But Amnesty said postwar insecurity had left women at risk of violence, leading to a reduction in freedom.

"The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work," Amnesty said.

"Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the US-led forces and some women detained by US forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped."

Amnesty said several women detained by US troops had spoken in interviews with them of beatings, threats of rape, humiliating treatment and long periods of solitary confinement.

And by the way, do you really think that there are no stupid people in this world? You know, they invented the word "stupid" because there are actually people that do stupid things and aren't that bright for various reasons. So it's a fact that there are stupid people, and beleive it or not, some of them try to vote! Well, they try to (on both sides), lol. So tell me, isn't it a fact that there are stupid people? I think that's reality Mo.

No, my sources, for example, are Zogby and other polls that actually poll the women in Iraq and let THEM speak for themselves. They don't need a wacky far left org like Amnesty speaking for them. How degrading and insulting it must be for an Iraqi woman to speak out with freedom by voting and answering polls, and then to have an org like Amnesty speak for them saying the exact opposite of their feelings, and then have someone like Mo repeat in the USA as fact. How terrible. Propaganists like yourself are very hurtful to people like this and you should stop. Propaganda is just plain old evil. Sorry, but that's the truth. Listen to the masses of Iraqi women, Mo. The polls don't lie. Your supposed "sources" are just left wing propaganga, and that propaganda hurts people.

Under your definition of "personal attack", you're actually attacking their character because you're ignoring THEIR voices and then spreading the opposite. It's as if you think that they're lying. Amazing.

Your posts are geared to degrade the poster you address, 24..and that is quite clear.
You're doing it yet again..so I ask you to stop.

Re: the women in Iraq..

Zogby polls cannot posibly paint a clear picture of the women in Iraq's suffering..after all..most of them are afraid to leave their homes, and are fighting for thier children's survival.
How are they even able to be polled?

Where is any valid communication from Iraqi women and children that refutes the Amnesty Report?

Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.

They don't deserve to be degraded and dismissed either, IMO..
(it's like the CDC saying PCR testing is valid in all pathogens except Lyme)

..and some Iraqi women have found the courage to speak out in detail, others remain anonymous..but a study of the people yeilds the truth..as thier suffering is great.

For the White House to persistantly fail to address this fact, and for some media groups and Pro-War support to continue to refute and dismiss the Iraqi people's suffering, some even misrepresenting it intentionally, or at the very least..hiding it..is haneous, IMO..
when done simply to a advance political agenda.

To continue to hold up the suffering under Hussein as justification for the occupation, while completely failing to address or acknowledge the citizens long term horrible suffering and death at the hands of the US is hypocritical and beyond criminal negligence when it comes to higher officials hand in this deception.

It's a gross misrepresentation using selective facts and ignoring truths in order to garner support for this awful "War".

The truth of the suffering of the Iraqis under 10 years of sanctions, and the horrific conditions brought on as a direct result of the US led occupation remains, that some dismiss it or pretend it isn't there doesn't change (or justify) that.

Mo

Now Mo, put yourself in NK, Iran or Syria's shoes. Would you be sleeping well at night? Mostly has to do with what the ``no defense'' in our name can come up with. I'm sure the anti-American groups will do as much damage to America as they can, they always do!

I remain amazed that someone in a bathrobe sitting in front of a computer can know with absolute certainly that all the propaganda she's cuts and pasts is accurate. Nice touch about the kids, read the first paragraph or most of it. Couldn't hold back the tears till I figured out why it was there. Any new angle on a tired old thread bare theme. We're bad their good and the left never lies or omits the truth! Yada,yada!

I could almost excuse your complete inability to consider any and all information, no matter what it is..(in order to support your party, or your pride, or whatever it is that makes you tick).. IF this statement within your above diatribe was at all true:

"Seems everything he said he would do, he has pretty much done."

How so, exactly? How has he (and his admin) done anything they said they would do, in reality?
*Key word being reality..
sure.. GWB has done what he said he would do in a sence (ie: he said he would unilatirally invade Iraq and he did)..however, how has that spelled out in outcome? (yes, Saddam was overthrown, and that is good in and of itself)...and were his reasons for action, and are his reasons for action.. now continuing..truthful?, and prooven so?

Oh, and my point isn't only that they lied..but are still lying..and when it's about War, that's about as big as it gets.

All politicians lie, of course, to a degree..
but War crimes, genocide, threats to Global Security, US economic futuer, health..ect.. is something allot of people take very heavily.

(and very PRO American, I might add)

To commemerate that..I am borrowing a pin from your friend and mine
the one and only..Miss Shoprat:

Speaking of the anti-war bunch. How many wars have they won and what opponents have they picketed and demonstrated against? Just America? You'll have to switch your support to that mob soon as you've lost Iraq!

`Voices of Iraq'

Documentary. Produced by Eric Manes, Archie Drury and Martin Kunert. (Not rated. 80 minutes. At the Opera Plaza.)

Do the producers of this film have an agenda to show a more positive side of Iraq? Do they want to give evidence that the U.S.-led war in Iraq, despite the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the deaths of Iraqi civilians, is at least preferable to the reign of Saddam Hussein? These questions are open to debate, but one thing is clear: ``Voices of Iraq'' shows Iraqi society in all its complexity -- one of the first times that a theatrically released documentary has ever done that. For this reason alone, ``Voices of Iraq'' is a must-see for anyone still coming to terms with the chaos in Iraq.

Nearly all the footage was taken by Iraqis who were handed video equipment, and nearly all the footage was taken within the past six months. The project happened when three U.S. producers (including one who created MTV's ``Fear'' reality series) gave 150 digital video cameras to everyday people who live in Baghdad, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities. More than 1,500 Iraqis took videos of their lives. We see a children's birthday party where adults and youngsters are happily celebrating. We see students at Baghdad University rushing off to classes, flirting, talking about their future. We see a young man in a rock band playing drums and rapping. But we also see the aftermath of car bombings, we hear Iraqis say their country is less safe than it was under Hussein, and we meet a young girl named Farah who was shot in the arm and stomach by U.S. soldiers.

``Voices of Iraq'' has conflicting viewpoints -- which is one of its strengths. Tucked into the film are videos, apparently made by Iraqi insurgents, who urge Arabs to attack U.S. soldiers. These are juxtaposed with video, apparently made by Hussein's son Uday, that show extreme torture of Iraqi prisoners. Some Iraqis claim that the Abu Ghraib prison abuse was tame compared with what they endured under Hussein.

There are certainly indications that ``Voices of Iraq'' is an attempt to counteract ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' and other anti-war documentaries. The movie's Web site names the production company as ``Voices of Freedom, LLC.'' The conservative Washington Times newspaper has written that the film is a ``potent negation'' of anti-war views held by Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages lean right, has opined that ``Voices of Iraq'' ``overwhelmingly (shows) signs of life and optimism'' in Iraq. In an interview with The Chronicle, Archie Drury, one of the film's three producers, acknowledges that the film ``makes Bush look good'' and that the producers selectively edited the Iraqis' footage -- but says the film's main point is to ``humanize'' the Iraqi people.

Drury is a Democrat. As a Marine, he served in the first Persian Gulf war, where he got to know Iraqi children who walked up to his observation post. Anyone who has met Iraqis -- whether it's in Baghdad or Berkeley -- knows they're more than the images that air on the nightly news. ``Voices of Iraq'' gives us this more nuanced picture. It's more upbeat than not, more hopeful than not. In a world where people often see things as either half full or half empty, this is a film that's half full. It's an approach that even the war's harshest critics should find interesting.

Advisory: This film has occasional rough language, scenes of people with bullet scars and extremely disturbing footage of prisoner torture.

�10 STEPS TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF IRAQI WOMEN

1. The Coalition is working to ensure that women play an important role in all parts of the government.
2. Three Iraqi women who are members of the new Governing Council are fully engaged in promoting the involvement of women in Iraq's future.
3. An esteemed former female Iraqi judge in the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of laws, legal practices, and the legal profession in Iraq for ways to increase equality and participation of women.
4. The Ministry of Interior conducted an assessment of the former Iraqi Police Force in early April. This resulted in a requirement to target recruitment of women and their inclusion in training offered at all academies. The program will become a reality August 15 when the recruiting drive begins with women as one of the groups targeted for selection.
5. The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has adopted a policy of equal access to services and benefits for all those eligible, and this policy will ultimately expand services as well as quality to larger numbers of Iraqis including women.
6. Iraqi women will have a role in the development of democracy and civil society. A senior administration official from the CPA Democracy and Governance team is conducting outreach activities to involve Iraqi women.
7. The Coalition team has held numerous meetings with Iraqi women from all walks of life to hear their concerns and to listen to their ideas for the future development of democracy in their country. In addition, the CPA has met with various women's groups and with international organizations regarding their ideas and efforts to meet the needs of Iraqi women.
8. The Coalition helped a group of Iraqi women conduct a conference July 9 that included workshops on the constitution and democracy, legal reform, education, health and social affairs, and economic and employment issues. More than 70 women attended, the majority of whom were Iraqi women experts in such fields as law, academia, medicine, and business.
9. Quotas restricting the entry of women into certain university courses have been raised or lifted altogether.
10. Iraqi women's organizations are being created to expand opportunities for women to improve their lives and those of their families.

When members of Congress recently asked a delegation of Iraqi women what they thought of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the answer came right back, ``What took you so long?'' For the women of Iraq, the American and allied intervention holds the promise of better lives, more freedom, contact with the world, political participation. After life under Saddam Hussein with its oppressive strictures, secret intelligence agencies, control by torture for anyone who dissented, the immediate elation was palpable.

The State Department, through its office of International Women's Issues, is banking on the idea that the women of Iraq and Afghanistan can be a moderating, modernizing force within those countries. The Iraqi delegation spent half a day at the Heritage Foundation, which provided a program in public speaking, media appearances and professional presentation for this highly educated and motivated group of ladies. Anyone who has doubts about or opposes the liberation of Iraq ought to hear the stories of Iraqi women who have been through so much, and now face an uncertain future, with determination, hope, as well as trepidation.

They, and we, still have a long way to go. Iraq's Interim Constitution may mandate that Iraqi women occupy 25 percent of the seats in the new parliament to be elected in January, yet cultural attitudes and an unstable security situation in the country could make these promises hard to fulfill. Women - indeed anyone -- seeking higher government positions in the new Iraq, or becoming visible parliamentarians, may well be risking their lives. You hear the same fears expressed time and again.

``I would like to run for parliament,'' says a young female City Council member from Mosul. ``I would like to be involved in politics, but I fear it would be too dangerous.'' Many of Iraq's well-educated women remain scared, which means that a great human resource in Iraq cannot reach its full potential until the security situation improves.

Despite concerted American efforts through the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the earlier provisional Iraqi government boasted just one female member, Nesreen Berwani, minister for reconstruction and development for the Kurdistan Regional Government. In February this year, Iraqi women and moderate Islamic leaders narrowly fought back a resolution that would have given religious courts jurisdiction over inheritance, marriage and divorce, previously governed by Iraq's 1959 Uniform Civil Code for family law.

One member of the delegation to Washington, Deputy Minister for Higher Education Beriwan Khailany, had been tapped by the Coalition Provisional Authority to be a minister. Yet, she declined on the grounds that it would be too dangerous; in fact, just being friendly with Americans can be a serious security hazard. With a doctorate from a University College, London and years of teaching at Baghdad University, she was an obvious choice. Eloquent, thoughtful, dedicated and politically and religiously moderate, she's exactly the kind of person one would like to see shape the new Iraq. At present, she prefers to make her contribution at a lower level of visibility, working to rebuild Iraq fractured university systems with the help of a grant from USAID and the University of Oklahoma. Just speaking to the media, any kind of media, makes her nervous.

It is important to keep in mind the generally high educational level of Iraq's women, Miss Khailany says. While the social lives of Iraqi women remain extremely constricted, and arranged marriages are basically the only kind that exists, ``more than 50 percent of Iraqi women have some degree of higher education.'' Education under the rule of the Ba'ath Party clearly had a political agenda - for instance, English textbooks were banned and Arabic mandated everywhere - but female literacy was high. Iraqi women moved ahead in fields like medicine, education, and engineering.

By contrast, under Saddam, Iraqi men were less likely to receive higher education. During the 1980s, they became cannon fodder in the Iran-Iraq war waged by Saddam Hussein. During the 1990s, the hardships under international sanctions meant that Iraqi men had to work several jobs to sustain their families. This disparity in education -- which clashes head-on with traditional Muslim attitudes toward the roles of women and men -- compounds the challenges facing Iraq's women today. Particularly in rural areas, educated women are regarded with suspicion and accused of being too influenced by the Americans.

Well, some of them are influenced by Americans, and one hopes in all the right ways. During their visit to the U.S. Capitol, a member of the delegation was spell bound by the quotations of the American Founding father's inscribed above portals in the building. One in particular stood out: Jefferson on ``Government by the consent of the governed.'' ``We never had anything like that,'' she said. Hopefully, someday, they will.

Helle Dale is director of Foreign Policy and Defense Studies at the Heritage Foundation. E-mail: [email protected]. Her column ordinarily appears on Wednesdays.

we have a dept that your children are going to pay for.

now he want's to play with social security.that he want's to "fix" it.

he can't even manage his own business affair's.he has been bankrupt.he has no concept of money.or where it come's from.

so don't try to song and dance me.i may not be as brite as you,but i can still see black and white.right and wrong..i don't see grey..

i also don't throw bull$&^%# to cover my trail.....gary

Gary..I think your bulb burns mighty brite.
You always cut through the cr@p.

These posts are all more of the same..highly selective "support" for this War, chosen expressly to support a rigid point of view..not to raise an issue.
That's the major difference.
Noone wants to acknowledge the Amnesty report, the death tolls, the illnesses, suffering of Iraqis and soldiers..
and will grab onto anything just to refute that. Anything to keep from adressing these realities.

.. while ignoring facts, enourmous ones to do with masive destruction of life and other ..complete lack of balance..totally one-sided grasping for justification.

Weeza..that video is not depicting the lives of the women and children suffering in Iraq, and it is IMO extremely hurtful to present their situation untruthfully. More later.

Leave it to the conservative view to look to an American production (which despite what Washington Times said was reviewes to have been presented and edited in a Pro-War light)..leave it to that group to take that kind of production as truth on the situation for those living in Iraq!

Why not look to what Iraqis feel about their life now?

..then there is Afghanistan..we had all this hype over their "freedoms"..look at them now.
(beyond the conservative fiction write ups)

I can't fathom how people can continue to do this. I really can't.

Mo

Give up on Iraq and plan your next campaign! As a friend of mine once said,'' where we going, who we gonna fight ``! We have the rest of our lives to take sides. On a train 40 years ago, a Russian smiled and pointed a finger at me and said, ``next time, you take the Arabs.'' (Arab-Israeli conflict)

I have been thinking the past week about the arguments put forth during the last year about why you all back WGB.

The most read theme quoted is you value his morals and side with these values. Now I purport that the "moral" GWB and the "moral" right-wing conservative party are in collusion together with the same objective in mind. You feed off each other, using this nice, touchy-feely, sugar-coated, trash.

GWB says he a moral man, you all say you are moral. That is the so-called reason for this war in Iraq. The government's excuse always given for their actions stems from, (presumably this is what they say) what their populace tells that is what they (the people) want, so they are just following the populace's demands.

So the people who voted to elect gwb/republican party - WHAT DO THEY STAND TO GAIN? Well we already know what gwb stands to gain -lots and lots of money for himself and his cronies, that's a given. A lot of people who voted for him stand to become very wealth also. So many followers have their fingers in the pie. And then there is the power and control associated with having wealth. American society gets to keep their nice warm materialistic cosy life style and domination and control over the middle east (oil and water and Iraqi people). The Iraqis in power do not give two hoots about their own people either. gwb and his followers do not give two hoots either. The government dances to and fro with your money, meanwhile enriching themself and casting pennies to the populace. Power and wealth speak the same language in any country in the world.

So where am I going with this? Both gwb and right wing use their "morality" as justification for this war, when in fact I believe that they both use "morality" as a "cover" for their actions.

I remember reading oh in about 1989-1990, about the religious right and the "tack", their whole long-term strategy for getting into the white house. What I find so evil, and it really is evil, about all this is using God and religion as a front to obtain their goal. There is nothing Godly or moral or religious or right about how all this was obtained. You can say it does, forever for that matter, but yours' and gwb's actions belie the "lie". I think a great many people have been duped, both by the religious right and gwb.

There is no Godly, christian, moral, religious justification for this war. It's sole goal was to enrich yourselves at other's expense, the stench of blood money. When voting to elect gwb, you knew he would go to war on your behalf. This makes you an accomplice in the death of all these people, both iraqi and american. For the religious right, you can argue all you want and try to justify that what you do/did, but your conscious choice doesn't hold sway with the dictum "Thou shalt not kill."

As for the rest, you vacilate between being bullies and cowards, and in the meantime enrich yourself at others expense.

As for the anti-war populace, what do we hope to gain? Well I can't see how stopping the war before it ever started or now would have given us "material riches", except the "richness of soul" in knowing that we were not/are not responsible (would not rest on our conscious) for the death of thousands of people in iraq and america.

Labrat and 24bit, you somehow portray us as being cowards, I dunno in my opinion, standing up to bullies/murderers takes great courage. Weeza3, because of you I have spent more time in the last 2 weeks thinking about God and religion and reading about both, and my role as a child of God and what that means.

I have made a conscious decision to join Amnesty International and put all my strengths and resources into helping the "downtrodden" (I think that word is mentioned somewhere in the Bible), I will act upon my belief that there truly is a just and caring and loving God. There are millions of christians and humanists and atheists who do care about the "downtrodden" in this world and work towards making the world a "safer" and "better" place, without resorting to murder and theft.

"So where am I going with this? Both gwb and right wing use their "morality" as justification for this war, when in fact I believe that they both use "morality" as a "cover" for their actions. " by Corinne
=====================================
I wish you didn't really believe this Corinne as it's just so not true! This is not a conspiracy of those that have trust in the fundamental truths of Judeo Christianity. The beliefs are rooted within the Holy Scriptures, the word of God himself..... a return to those values that God himself will bring blessing , peace and good to all that follow Godly principles.
In my heart I DO believe the USA ismuch more secured and safe since we went into Iraq to help that country gain its independence. Had we not, I
fear what would have come next with Saddam in cahoots with terrorists ready to bring on more assaults.
Though we see things differently concerning the war efforts, I think you have a lot of heart and that you want to believe in a God who is approachble and personal, involved in the needs of those that are hurting. HE REALLY IS !

Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.

They truly work only to protect the downtrodden..no bias, no hidden agenda.
Claiming that is like saying Mother Teresa is
a left winger.

Excerpts from their recent report on the suffering of Iraqi women, I also highlighted above...will post again below for your convenience..

24 awiftly accused them of being a "left" group ...and I guess others just skipped it, to go on and post selective arguement that Iraqis are better off.

Amnesty has no political afiliation or agenda..

I agree with Corrine that only those who do are capable of ignoring a regions masive suffering, and pretend it isn't happening.
Only those with some sort of self-gratifying agenda (even if it's just a matter of pride)..could possibly be supporting the GWB admin, when exposed to info such as this report and so many other things. (IMO)

(I think it's different for many Americans who aren't exposed to anything but propaganda on the Tee-Vee through Fox and others like them, that's a little different..
but you all here are certainly exposed, but seem to choose to degrade or dismiss it, rather than considering things beyond your own ideals)

..and Weeza, I believe in God's viryue as you describe it, and because of those things .. know without a doubt that He is not pleased with what "we" have done, and continue to do.. in the Middle East.

That's the most horrific part of all this, as Corrine mentioned..that there is a religious Right (as well as GW) making lots of references to God, and yet at the same time are proponents of things that are as unGodly as it gets.

Mo

One "Mo" time:

Women 'no better off' than before

Reuters

23feb05

LONDON: Almost two years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, women there are no better off than under the rule of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, according to human rights group Amnesty International.

In a report entitled Iraq -- Decades of Suffering, Amnesty said the systematic repression under Saddam had been replaced by increased murders and sexual abuse, including by US forces.
Washington promised Saddam's overthrow would free the Iraqi people from years of oppression and set them on the road to democracy. But Amnesty said postwar insecurity had left women at risk of violence, leading to a reduction in freedom.

"The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work," Amnesty said.

"Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the US-led forces and some women detained by US forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped."

Amnesty said several women detained by US troops had spoken in interviews with them of beatings, threats of rape, humiliating treatment and long periods of solitary confinement.

[

Geden......IMO. you are very intelligent and I wish you will read with open mind.
==================================
------------------------------------------------------
Lying about Iraq...
Mark Alexander
1/28/2005
(archive)
"Lying to Congress, lying to our committees and lying to the American people -- it's wrong, it's immoral." So said self-appointed arbiter of truth and morality Sen. Mark Dayton at this week's confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. (This would be the same Minnesota Democrat better known as "Chicken of 10,000 Lakes" for his cowardly pre-holiday Beltway skedaddle from a terrorist alert that none of his 99 senatorial colleagues bothered to heed. Dayton is up for re-election in 2006.)
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, apparently eyeing a 2008 presidential run, inveighed, "The list of errors is lengthy and profound, and unfortunately many could have been avoided, had [the Bush administration] only listened to [my] counsel." (Speaking of errors, this is the same Evan Bayh who, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, declared, "I don't understand those who want to wait until the threat [from Iraq] is imminent. The consequences of error could be catastrophic.")
Of course, where prevaricators gather, like sharks sensing blood in the water, one always finds the portly and pickled Ted Kennedy, who provided this insight on the eve of Iraq's first democratic election: "We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe -- the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation. ... Our military presence has become part of the problem, not the solution." Heck, who needs Baghdad Bob or Peter Arnett when Kennedy's on the case?
Other Demos joined this tired anti-American Leftist refrain, doing what they do best -- fomenting division in order to undermine support for anything Republican, regardless of the consequences. What consequences? Not only are these Demos spreading lies and dividing American support for critical national-security operations, but their words aid, abet, and encourage our enemy to continue killing U.S. service personnel and innocent Iraqis -- and on the eve of the first democratic elections in Iraq's history. (In fairness to Kennedy, et al., though, America will hold democratic mid-term elections in 2006.)
So, just what is the truth about our military operations in and around Iraq?
To counter all the Leftist obfuscation about U.S. national security interests in the Middle East and to explain the necessity of our military presence in the region, what follows is a much-needed primer -- not only on why our Armed Forces are in Iraq (and border states), but also why they should remain in the region for the foreseeable future.
Western democracies, particularly those beacons of liberty (the U.S. and our Allies), are at war with Jihadistan, a borderless nation of Islamic fascists comprising al-Qa'ida and other Islamist terrorist groups and their malcontent sects. A borderless nation? The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war," against all "the enemies of God." They thus constitute an enemy without borders -- a nation of "holy" warriors called Jihadistan.
While the Bush administration is careful not to paint Islam with a broad brush, the correct way to understand this enemy, in order to engage and destroy it, is to cast off the historic symmetric-warfare model; this enemy is simply not a political entity. As President George Bush correctly noted in October of 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qa'ida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. ... This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."
Jihadi terrorism (type asymmetric warfare) had its origins with the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) almost 40 years ago. There, Islamists inflicted terror first against Israel, and then, working westward, against democratic targets in Europe. Yet despite subsequent attacks on U.S. personnel in that region -- the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, for example -- it was not until 1993 that our homeland became a frontline in the war with Jihadistan.
On 26 February, 1993, Pakistani native Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and his terrorist brethren (who had entered the United States on Iraqi passports under the control of Iraqi intelligence) bombed the north tower of the World Trade Center in an effort to topple that tower into the south tower and inflict mass civilian casualties. Fortunately, due to Ramzi's lack of engineering knowledge, his crude truck-bomb didn't topple the building, though it created a six-story crater in the parking garage.
Although Ramzi escaped, several other terrorists were captured and tried. Ramzi himself was finally arrested in 1995, while formulating plans to bomb a number of U.S. international flights simultaneously. After 1995, al-Qa'ida Jihadis focused on American targets abroad -- the Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 -- all without reprisal from the Clinton administration.
In 2001, Ramzi's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the number-three thug in the al-Qa'ida organization), and Ramzi's mentor, Jihadi sheik Osama bin Laden himself, revised Ramzi's plan to use civilian aircraft for terrorist ends -- using them as bombs rather than bombing them. On 11 September of that year, one of al-Qa'ida's U.S. terrorist cells finished the business that Ramzi started almost a decade earlier, with devastating consequences.
On that Tuesday morning, the American people were awakened to an imminent threat to our homeland, and before noon that day, our common sense of invincibility had all but vanished. Indeed, given the nature, planning and sophistication of the attack, a larger question loomed in the minds of all rational people: What moral obstacles would prevent surrogate terrorists from using WMD provided by rogue nation states under tyrants like Saddam Hussein? What would prevent al-Qa'ida from detonating a fissionable weapon in a U.S. urban center?
That question would have to be answered by President George W. Bush, whose administration had been operational for only eight months prior to the 9/11 attack -- a period preceded by eight long years of Clinton administration inaction and appeasement of terrorists, as repeatedly noted in this column during those years.
President Bush determined, correctly, that the war being waged on the U.S. and its Allies could not be resolved diplomatically, nor could it be won defensively. Al-Qa'ida and other elements of Jihadistan, he surmised, could be defeated only by way of pre-emptive strikes, in keeping with the dictum of military strategist Carl von Clausewitz: "The best form of defense is attack."
In 2001, The Patriot's military and intelligence analysts were out front in our characterization of the war with Jihadistan and our support for the Bush strategic doctrine of preemption -- taking the battle to the enemy.
To that end Sen. Edward Kennedy, never one to miss an opportunity to use the deaths of American military personnel as political fodder, unwittingly endorsed the Bush Doctrine this week: "The war has made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism...."
Precisely.
The principal objective of President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption -- Operation Enduring Freedom (or "Operation Let's Roll," as it's known around our shop) -- is to keep the front lines of our war with Jihadistan on their turf, rather than our own. Our Armed Forces are the most capable, best-trained and best-equipped in history, and they've issued a standing invitation to Jihadis worldwide to engage them in Iraq, where tens of thousands of these vermin have met their fate.
Why Iraq? In 1991, Saddam Hussein signed a binding agreement of surrender as a precondition to the cessation of Gulf War hostilities -- the subsequent violation of which was, in effect, grounds to resume the military campaign against Iraq. After a jaw-slackening 17th UN resolution to disarm was flouted by Saddam, the Bush administration determined that Iraq would be a suitable, logical and defensible front line with Jihadistan.
Let's be clear: American forces are NOT, first and foremost, "fighting for Iraq's freedom." They are fighting for U.S. national-security interests and those of the free world, which was, and to a lesser degree (thanks to our considerable military achievements), remains, in great peril. Ultimately, these two objectives are inextricably bound. Our ultimate objective in Iraq is to establish a forward deployed presence in the Middle East -- military personnel, but primarily equipment -- now that the Saudis have pulled our lease. Our analysts estimate that once the new Iraqi government is seated, the U.S. will be invited to establish permanent military installations in southern Iraq. This presence is critical, given that it would place us in the heart of Jihadistan, with the ability to protect our national interests in the region quickly without having to respond via sea and airlift. Our sources indicate that this new forward presence will be offset by part of our Cold War tactical and strategic assets in Germany.
Regarding all the clatter about Saddam's "nonexistent" WMD programs and stores, what we don't know only constitutes what is yet to be known: and ignorance, when it comes to WMD, is not bliss.
As The Patriot noted in October 2002, our well-placed sources in the region and intelligence sources with the NSA and NRO estimated that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD materials and components. At that time, we reported that Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq's WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN's ruse.
According to publicly released findings, Saddam was not successful in his attempts to reconstitute his nuclear-arms program in 2000 and 2001 -- leaving Iraq's research programs short of the progress made by other terrorist states such as Iran and Libya (as recently discovered). In other words, Saddam's formal nuclear WMD research programs were in disarray, but we do not know how much material and technological capability Iraq imported to support this program prior to 2002. (Our intelligence sources suggest it is very possible that Saddam had the capability to construct as many as three crude portable nuclear devices prior to 2002.)
To that end, our military sources assure us that Special Forces/CIA units continue search-and-destroy missions in the region -- outside Iraq. (Don't expect to read about these missions in The New York Times or The Washington Post.)
As for the elections in Iraq, clearly the establishment of a democracy in the Jewel of Islam is antithetical to the tyrannical rule desired by Jihadi sheiks. In December, Osama bin Laden proclaimed, "Anyone who participates in these elections has committed apostasy against Allah." And last week, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qa'ida's "prince of terror" in Iraq, declared: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion, [and that] is against the rule of God."
The pro-liberty pressures will undoubtedly (even if unsuccessful in the short term) counteract the advance of Jihadistan across the globe. The difficulty will be evaluating what constitutes success -- and our objectives must of necessity be limited.
Regarding international support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush's responsibility is to the people of the United States, not to cheese-eating surrender monkeys such as French President Jacques Chirac, nor any of his like-minded pantywaist Euro-snivelers.
No primer on our war with Jihadistan would be complete without this final note of caution: According to our analysts, the FBI estimates that as many as six Jihadi terrorist cells -- cells materially supported by domestic Islamic groups -- remain intact in U.S. urban centers, mostly on the East Coast. In addition, there are more than 1,200 terrorist-related investigations ongoing in the U.S., most involving individuals suspected of raising funds or recruiting for al-Qa'ida.
How do you differentiate between "peaceful Muslims" and Islamists? Omar Ahmad, Chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated clearly, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran...should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Does that clear things up?
Make no mistake -- while the warfront with Jihadistan is in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jihadis terrorists are still on our soil -- ready and willing.
Publisher's Note: Early Wednesday, a CH-53E crashed, killing 30 Marines and a sailor. Initial reports indicate the pilot was unable to navigate in a sandstorm. We mourn the loss of these Patriots -- and this tragic event serves to remind all that military operations are dangerous, whether in a war zone or stateside. As always, we extend our heartfelt prayers to the families of all military personnel who have been killed or wounded in such operations.
Quote of the week...
"Because our own freedom is enhanced by the expansion of freedom in other nations, I set out the long-term goal of ending tyranny in our world. This will require the commitment of generations, but we're seeing much progress in our time. In late 2004, the people of Afghanistan defied the threats of terrorists and went to the polls to choose their leaders. The Palestinian people have elected a President who has renounced violence. And just four days from now, the people of Iraq will vote in free national elections." --President George W. Bush
We might add to this list the recent elections in the crucial Muslim states of Indonesia and Malaysia, where Islamic parties suffered serious defeat -- we hope a sign of things to come in the Middle East.
"[I]t is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." --Benjamin Franklin
On cross-examination...
"Since terrorists are pouring into Iraq in response to calls from international terrorist networks, the number of those who are killed is especially important, for these are people who will no longer be around to launch more attacks on American soil. Iraq has become a magnet for enemies of the United States, a place where they can be killed wholesale, thousands of miles away." --Thomas Sowell
Open query...
"In a world that has gone global, we no longer have a choice. If we don't export freedom, we risk importing the viruses which have corrupted other nations. ... Some critics complained that President Bush was arrogant when he suggested America can and should export freedom to other countries. This implies the people of unfree countries may not wish to be free. Which is the greater arrogance?" --Cal Thomas

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the bare bones,brass tacks, fundamental,essential facts,basics for WHY we should be there for all that are "puzzled" over the just course this President has had to take.

Hardly!

That's the same guy who wrote the derogatory blog on the "Left" you posted earlier today, Weeza..

How is this taking an objective view?? If this is all one reads, how can they be objective?

He's one of the voices perpetrating what we are pointing out.

(How could this man trump reports from international humanitarian groups?)

He has an agenda.

(and also an outspoken ulrta conservative Christian republican who writes for the federalist Republic..my point exactly.)

Complete dissmissal and degredation with selective supportive info right down the line.

Some of his other "works"..for perspective..

2/25/2005
Pathology of the Left...

Dean of the Demo Demise...
2/11/2005

What Social Security Crisis?
2/4/2005

The Demo Duo's recycled rhetoric...
1/28/2005

Lying about Iraq...
1/21/2005

On the Right Track -- The Conservative Mandate
11/24/2004

Right man, right job, right time
10/29/2004

Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge
10/15/2004

John Kerry: More "aid and comfort"
10/1/2004

John Kerry, Useful Idiot
9/17/2004

Jihadistan: A clear and present danger
9/3/2004

Kerry's Quagmire
8/20/2004

On Feinstein-Schumer gun-control -- just say "Nay"!
8/6/2004

Kerry is AWOL from Iraq
7/30/2004

The impostures of pretended patriotism
7/23/2004

Kerry-Edwards -- The "one went to war -- one grew up poor" dream ticket
7/2/2004

The Better Angels of Our Republic
6/25/2004

Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry record
6/11/2004

The Abu Ghraib Feeding Frenzy
4/30/2004

John Kerry -- Jihadistan's great white hope...
4/16/2004

9/11 hindsight: more woulda-shoulda-coulda...
4/9/2004

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
1/24/2004

The Dean of Demo-derri�res...
12/5/2003

For those in still in denial, Saddam's WMD went to Syria...
10/24/2003

UN coming around -- and not a minute too soon...
10/10/2003

D�mocrate Tin Men and Teddy...
9/22/2003

That what I mean. You look for a reason from the people who have the most to gain from this war. Why don't you look at the people who have nothing to gain from this war. Then you might come away with a different perspective, or is the thought just too scary. I know it would be for me.

My daughter and I were talking last night about some of this and other things. She is one smart cookie, a political scientist grad and one of the most caring and lovable persons I have ever known. One of her professors at the University of Alberta who is a staunch conservative changed his mind about a belief/theory he had held dearly for many many years, all on account of how she was to persuade him to see a different viewpoint. She was the only student who was ever able to get an A on one of his papers.

Because of her intelligence and goodness, I tend to listen closely when she speaks. She said that instead of listening to and reading about all the complex answers for this war, just keep it simple and look for the obvious reasons. The more convoluted, extraneous and ludicrous the reasons given, the more likely they are to be false.

Just to keep it simple, "Thou shalt not kill". Why is gwb etal there? For power and wealth. You are told that it was necessary to get rid of sudam. Well that would have been easy thing to do. So why wasn't it done. Get rid of one person or get rid of thousands. Why did you choose the thousands, when it would have been so much easier and simpler to get rid of one. Well getting rid of just sudam would not have allowed gwb and cronies to grab oil and water rights and dominate an entire nation, all in the name of "spreading freedom". Whose freedom? Do you see where I am going? This war was not necessary, unless someone had another agenda, the real one actually.

You say gwb had to attack first, before they attacked u.s.a. Well there is no proof they were planning on attacking u.s.a. None whatsoever. You have been bamboozled into thinking that you were going to be attacked. gwb knew that al-quita was going to attack and did nothing. Why? Because that would mean he would have had to reverse/change his strategies/plans for occupying the middle east. Do you really think he cared about the people in new york city and anyone for that matter? Is it too horrendous to just come to the realization that gwb (an immoral man IMO) had another agenda, or are your goals in alignment with his? Or, this is something that Tincup posted last week, are you one of the people "who stand silently on the sidelines and watch as people are hurt... yet do nothing to help the situation..
Are as guilty as those doing the nasty deeds".

I don't need to, nor have I spent, spend copious amounts of time looking up justification for my choices or decisions. I know within my heart what is right or wrong. And yet I still make mistakes and errors in judgement. But I also know that from day to day, I consciously choose to try and live my life in such ways that will not deliberately harm someone else. Now if my government at this time came up with a plan that would do so much harm, just to enrich themselves and their friends, I would seriously have to break off any ties with that government. My conscious would not allow me to follow and agree to such a plan. I have asked this before, how do you justify voting to elect gwb, knowing that he embarked on an immoral war. Knowing that you are a christian, this just doesn't jive. I am so perplexed.

Now does that mean, if myself or anyone for that matter feels that someone might jump the gun on me (and that could mean anyone who I think might do me any harm) that gives me the right to jump them first. Heck, that's a good definition of a bully or a very fearful person. And I think that gwb has used many peoples' fears to justify this war. Then the rest of the people who support gwb are just plain bullies and get their jollies from seeing the aftermath and partaking of the goodies. How do you wipe the images of these dead and injured suffering iraqi from your mind?

I mean, the catholic church went on a crusade that killed millions and today have had to apologize (a weak apology IMO). But at the time they chose this path. I have been taught that the infallible pope takes his cues from God, and yet we have had some very bad popes with horrendous results. When I questioned this, I was told that popes are only human, they make mistakes. And yet, we are lead to believe that what the pope says is God's command, much like what gwb says and believes. He has often spoke about being on a crusade.

You know, it is just too easy and so easy to follow gwb's commands, and sweep the deadly results under the carpet and out of your mind. If You truly believe in a just and loving God, you know or must know in your heart that following the path of least resistance (gwb's path)is wrong. It's false security.

Corinne

My view on why we are there.
One reason is to enforce ALL the UN resolutions Saddam broke time and time agian.
Another reason is to let other countries and terrorist goups understand that, Ya mess with tha Bull, Ya get tha Horns.
Even if you have the most powerful military in the world, if you show time and time agian that you won't retaliate to agression the agression will get worse and worse.

If ya think trying to side with the terrorist groups will buy safety just ask France that just stoped a terrorist plot to blow up the Eifel Tower.

If ya think this is a war for oil, find out the facts.

Trying to understand your viewpoint..

The long standing agenda of the GWB clan and thier major contributors has been to control the region (not just Iraq)..there is huge financial gain in that.
..and beyond that, many choice companies are reaping the benefits of exclusive bids to bebuild..as an added bonus.

Of course it's good that Saddam is no longer in power, I agree.. but did it require all thar has taken place to accomplish that?

So..you are saying you feel this War is necessary to fight Global Terrorism?
To make an example of sorts in Iraq.

Confusing to me because Iraq ia a country that never attacked us..and results of intensive government investigation prooved never had any connections with those who attacked us.. did not have the capabilities to attack another country.

I take it tou feel Iraq is not really a humanitarian effort, but like an aggressive defence.

I also agree we cannot side with the Terrorists..but how is aggresion and desimation of Iraq is fighting Terror groups that threaten the US?

I don't see it. History has proven that Terrorists are borne out of regions of intense oppression..
The Middle East as a whole (other than Israel and others we do "business" with) has viewed the US oppression as the core of their people's suffering for a long, long time.

On top of that, our military action, and focus of future action, has proven to be very selective.
(All outposts of tyranny are forwarned..except the ones we benefit from financially will never be threatened or touched)

It seems clear that this administration is manipulating a potion of the population with claims of threat, playing on fear..along with the bogus humanitarian claims.

I don't blame the supporters of the War for this at all..this is the oldest trick in the book, and the GW machine and media backing have pulled it off quite well.

The question is how can we fight terror with Terror..the killing of an enourmous number of innocents, children..

Throughout history..
Imperialism breeds terrorism..always has.

Occupying and oppressing regions has always been at the root of the cause.

We are seeing this again play out in the growth and activity of Global terrorist networks, Islamic extremists and others..documented..
as a direct result of the Iraq invasion.

Also look at Afghanistan today..a ripening hotbed. Hpw we left them after funding the Taliban to fight Russia had dire consequences, and we have again abandoned them..without promised aide.

And what of the massive death and destruction in this offensive move?
The innocents..100,000 civilians..
Only a very few "Terrorists" have been killed, and of those, they are all insurgents come to protect Iraq..not many are from the groups still planning attacks on other countries (including ours).

People should consider whether this Iraq War and this administrations foreign policy is fanning a huge fire.

This thing doesn't make sence, to many..including all those who have made their carrer and life's work about studying the relations within the Middle East.
Their ideas have been ignored, and mush of what they saw as the danger in handling Iraq this way is turning out to be true.

Mo

I find his analysis of the evidence presented to be extremely accurate, and I totally disagree with you two that this war is all about oil or money How shallow you must believe the core beliefs are of those in positions of Leadership are. What little faith you have in people in authority; someone must have let you both down terribly at some point in your lives; someone that you wanted to trust in and look up to. Sadly it does happen to most of us, but to have developed such suspicion of this President and to think so lowly of him when there has been no concrete evidence, merely heresay and speculation re: oil and personal gain! Very Unfair.

Once again.... in the majority of Americans beliefs, this war is being waged on the basis of Terrorism and the grave danger posed to us here in the USA. +++++++++++++++++++

"The principal objective of President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption -- Operation Enduring Freedom (or "Operation Let's Roll," as it's known around our shop) -- is to keep the front lines of our war with Jihadistan on their turf, rather than our own. Our Armed Forces are the most capable, best-trained and best-equipped in history, and they've issued a standing invitation to Jihadis worldwide to engage them in Iraq, where tens of thousands of these vermin have met their fate.
Why Iraq? In 1991, Saddam Hussein signed a binding agreement of surrender as a precondition to the cessation of Gulf War hostilities -- the subsequent violation of which was, in effect, grounds to resume the military campaign against Iraq. After a jaw-slackening 17th UN resolution to disarm was flouted by Saddam, the Bush administration determined that Iraq would be a suitable, logical and defensible front line with Jihadistan.
Let's be clear: American forces are NOT, first and foremost, "fighting for Iraq's freedom." They are fighting for U.S. national-security interests and those of the free world, which was, and to a lesser degree (thanks to our considerable military achievements), remains, in great peril. Ultimately, these two objectives are inextricably bound."
======================================
No amount of persuasion will cause either one of you to likely see things any differently, with the possible exception of time and evidence that life for the Iraqi people will be made better as we see progress evolve.

Corinne, You hold fast to one of the commandments of : "Thou Shall Not Kill"

Yes, that is one of ten that God gave his people in the Old Testament and is of course legitimate and speaks of the Moral Character of God Himself. However, " All of scripture", not only a portion, is meant to be understood in the context for when and why it was written.

God Himself never said there won't be wars or killing of people. On the contrary, He Himself even sanctioned them, directed them, and used them for HIS Righteous purposes. Within the NEW Testament which is primarily spoken to believers/Chrisitians in this day and time, God gives us predictions that there will be wars. The evil that is within the hearts of man apart form the saving grace of Jesus Christ, will create war and destruction for their own selfish gain as in the Jihadist Terrorists who believe they should wipe out all other religions with death and violence.....perverted to say the least!

NO, war in itself is not evil....there have been throughout the ages, just and unjust wars. Some have been very necessary to cleanse and purge the likes of Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Moussolini,
Saddam and sadly, perhaps many more to come.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A Brief Survey of What the Bible Says About War

The Bible is not silent on the subject of war. Wars there are a-plenty in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, where pages are often drenched in blood. The difficulty in appealing directly to Scripture for this topic is that the Bible does not much ponder war as a subject of inquiry in itself. There is no "theory of war" or theology of war in the Scriptures.

The Old Testament

One of the earliest characterizations of God is that God is a warrior: "The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name" (Exod 15:3). The Psalms say, "Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle" (Ps 24:8).

The Jewish Scriptures relate that wars were sometimes waged on the command of God himself. Sometimes the conduct of Hebrew soldiers was so brutal that nowadays they would all be hauled before a war crimes tribunal. Hebrew armies sometimes stormed a town and killed every living thing in it - men, women, children, infants, cattle, and then burned it to the ground. Doing so was a religious duty. They thought doing so was the will of God. For example, see 1 Sam 15:1-3:

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

Later, Hebrew prophets explained wars as a way by which the people of Israel were punished by God for their social injustice and religious infidelity. Isaiah compared Israel with a vineyard carefully planted and tended by God, but the vineyard yielded only sour grapes. God therefore abandoned Israel and turned it over to destruction by foreign armies (Isa 5:5-9):

Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed; I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled. I will make it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated, and briers and thorns will grow there. I will command the clouds not to rain on it." The vineyard of the LORD Almighty is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight. And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress. Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land. The LORD Almighty has declared in my hearing: "Surely the great houses will become desolate, the fine mansions left without occupants.

An appeal to the Ten Commandments does not help. The sixth commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not kill," as it is commonly misquoted. Its Hebrew original simply says, "No murder." The word used for murder is never used anywhere in the Bible to refer to killing in combat. The children of Israel accepted warfare as a fact of life.

The Psalms reflect the ambivalence of the Hebrews with war. The Psalms refer to war a great deal, but do not embrace war a positive good. The Psalms pray for peace, which cannot be attained except by God's will. If there is to be an end to war, the 46th Psalm realizes it can only be by God's hand: "He makes wars cease unto the ends of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear asunder, he burns the shields with fire."

The Psalms indicate that only when all nations acknowledge the sovereignty of the one true God can there be peace. Nations must "be still" and know that the Lord is God. When the Lord in exalted among all the nations, war will be no more. That day had not come then, and it has not come now.

The prophet Micah gave us a vision for the peace of God. God will judge between all the peoples of the earth and will settle disputes among nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. All people will be at peace, and no one will make them afraid, for the Lord Almighty has spoken, says Micah (Micah 4:3-4).

The main thrust of the Hebrew prophets is that the ultimate will of God for relations among nations is peace. Even so, time and time again, the Hebrews found themselves taking up the sword.

The New Testament

The New Testament is not really more helpful than the Old in pondering war. I would caution against taking the New Testament's statements on non-violence out of context. For example, Jesus said that we should turn the other cheek if someone hits us. He was speaking to Jews under Roman oppression at the time. It was wise advice for individuals under the heel of an overwhelmingly powerful occupying army. Is it wise in deciding how America should respond to terrorists who have killed us by the thousands, and are almost certainly seeking weapons capable of killing tens of thousands or more at one time?

In their letters to various Christian churches the apostles emphasized peace, tranquility and harmony in living. This advice was given to groups of men and women who acknowledged the same Lord and Savior, lived under repression, and who were being advised how to live together as a congregation rather than as national leaders struggling with the most difficult problems of peace or war. Does that advice, given to small groups, apply to national leaders trying to shape defense of their people? Should we literalize the apostolic advice beyond its intentions?

The apostle James wrote that fighting and killing result from desires that battle within us all. We kill and covet because we don't have what we want, and when we get what we want, we waste it on pleasure. James calls on everyone to submit to God. Who can argue with that? James is firmly within the prophetic tradition of his Jewish faith, but he offers us little insight about dealing with suicidal terrorists.

The New Testament's considerations of war and peace are complicated by the strong apocalyptic language it uses throughout. In Revelation, cosmic warfare in the heavens between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is reflected in fearful warfare and killing on earth. Revelation takes actual glee at the destruction of sinners. At the end of Revelation, New Jerusalem is built and permanent peace is established by God. But it seems to me that the cost is so high that we can hardly pray for history to unfold as Revelation says.

what about the ball player who thank's God that he had a great game and sez God was with "ME" today. why not the other team?

is God sitting in front of rock'em ,sock'em robot's, and going "best outa three win's?

this will never be resolved as long as there are free thinker's...gary

The Terrorists go about TERRORIZING THEIR OWN PEOPLE with bombs and weapons in THEIR OWN STREETS. THEY ARE INTOLERANT OF ANY RELIGION OTHER THAN THEIR EXTREMIST RELIGION WHOSE GOD TELLS THEM TO DESTROY EVERYONE ELSE.

Driving by the football size fields with super intelligence equipment,one would think the tax dollars are well at work,and that all memos are being received in timely fashion.

The massive golf balls positioned at the NSA head quarters makes you feel very patriotic and proud and safe.

Where else in the world does such a mighty golf ball reign?Where else in the world do millions and millions pour in to protect a country?

Are we to believe the intelligence gathering at this facility,let us down?

Are we to believe memos were never passed on?

Are we to believe,the most sophisticated agencies in the world,let us down.

Did the billions and billions of dollars go down the drain,did we lose faith in those golf balls?

What is unfair is the fact that those football size facilities were doing their job,memos were sent and somewhere along the line ALL of Americans were let down.

To think this war is solely about terroism is being shallow.

to each his/her own way in the way they worship.i will not critque another for what they believe or the way they worship.

i will not discuss the bible the anyone either.everthing is open to iterpatation(sp?).my belief's have been forged over the year's.and i believe them to be true.

this post is on politic's and religion.they (subject's) alway's criss cross each other.

they alway's end in who's right and who's wrong.i don't see religion as who is right or wrong.i see it as a choice.

as far as politic's ? i get involved only when it directly involve's me.(most time's).my son is in the service.(1) 2nd..bush is trying to play with social security..oh yeah, and this lyme debacle.that is politic's..

now i told you my view's,and my way of thinking. i have room to tweek my view's and belief's. i try to leave wiggle room in everything i do/believe.(adjustment's)

i don't know the reason for you using capital letter's. i figure it is either you are angry or you want to get your point across..i hope your not angry.

if i offended you,i am sorry...like i said,to each his/ her own.

now ! are you any good with a snow shovel?my house is due for about a foot.i need strong back's and weak mind's...on second thought!!lol.....gary

How shallow you must believe the core beliefs are of those in positions of Leadership are. What little faith you have in people in authority;

Not all people in authority, just the ones with financial ties and motives who have lied to the public..and started and continued Wars based on misrepresentation of facts..using manipulative tactics, responsible for the death of more than 100,000 innocents, and the abuse of out troops.

Goodness..we mortals must speak up in the event of such circumstances!

Our leadership has proven themselves very shallow, and dangerous.

The IDSA is an authority on infectious disease..but their acts are clearly not for the good of those ill with TBD's.

many government authorities have proven to be horribly dangerous..was not Hitler an "authority" ?

"someone must have let you both down terribly at some point in your lives; someone that you wanted to trust in and look up to. Sadly it does happen to most of us, but to have developed such suspicion of this President and to think so lowly of him.."

Interesting that you feel compelled to say that there must be some psychological problem, unresolved issue..that Corrine and I have to be pointing out factual issues that depict this administrations policies, actions, outcomes as horrible.

Hey 3Great..what's wrong with you

Jeez Louise..I guess the majority of the World must have had someone let them down if they insist on raising huge isues regarding this administrations policies.

I never feel Pro-War folks have personal defects..I just think they are basing their "beliefs" on half-triths, and in some cases even dismissing an enourmous amount of factual evidence.
It never occurs to me to give an armchair psycho-analisis of anyone

I'm just looking at disturbing facts, and others certainly are as well.

I also share sentiment with Gary in the idea that pointing to hard issues results in lessons from the Bible, and even excerpts from the Bible condoning War.

I wonder if you could respect the fact that we are all very close and comfortable with our spirituality, for me..it's a relationshio with God, for others..its another source..
You feel God supports this War..I know in my heart there is no way He could. No way.
I find selective justification pulled out of the Bible extremely offensive, actually.
But we're not here to debate religion.

It is another example of selective reasoning, though.

..I do not feel justified to analize your personal understanding of Gods word, however.
Just looking for the same respect.

when there has been no concrete evidence, merely heresay and speculation re: oil and personal gain! Very Unfair.

But there has been, and it is more than unfair, especially to those who die and suffer as a result.

Once again.... in the majority of Americans beliefs, this war is being waged on the basis of Terrorism and the grave danger posed to us here in the USA.

Those who believe this are basing it on what the White House tells us..or what the news tells them..
or ..as you say Weeza..a need to trust authority, because this is America..we couldn't possibly have corrupt leadership.

OR..are spending their time looking not for truth, but consistantly looking for justification, by way of writers such as Alexander..
who is also a man with an agenda.

There is no proof whatsoever that this War is waging War on Global Terrorism, and much to point to in grave concern that this occupation has in fact done quite the opposite.

..but I thought it was a humanitariam effort? I get so confused at how this flips..

But, regardless, neither justification is based in any truth when you look beyond the rhetoric and at the realities and outcomes.

The reasons presented by this administration are untrue.

Mo

This thread has come along way from our women soldiers being called "American Whores" to all this...

As my opinion is just that....my opinion and you all know where I stand on these issues, I guess I'll just SOB...( scroll on by)

But I wanted to wish you all a wonderful day! :-)

Not what I meant, or think i said, Mo. I know we've had corruption in the government before; with Clinton corrupting the position of President with his immoral indiscretions. Nixon with his lies and
scandle.

Yes, power within the Government can and had corrupted some; I so not see it with our current leader and I don't think the majority of supporters will let him get away with anything dishonorable; he's under more scrutiny than most President's have been in a long time!
=====================================

"I wonder if you could respect the fact that we are all very close and comfortable with our spirituality, for me..it's a relationshio with God, for others..its another source..
You feel God supports this War..I know in my heart there is no way He could. No way.
I find selective justification pulled out of the Bible extremely offensive, actually." Mo

Noone knows for certain what God is allowing or permitting Mo. I feel reassured that there is basis for truth in the Bible when GOD speaks about setting captives free and liberation of those oppressed; there are too many supportive scriptures to mention and you wouldn't want that anyway. But once again, the essential reason we are in Iraq is for me, and manh others a matter of National Security, and to make impotent the Religious fanaticism throughout the Middle East.

Geden, I respect your privacy with respect to your personal beliefs, although I disagree that everything in the Bible is open to interpretation. God isn't a God of confusion about what it is he said to us .
I personally believe one needs the indwelling Holy Spirit which scriptures refer to as The One Who Teaches us all truth as God intended.

"i don't know the reason for you using capital letter's. i figure it is either you are angry or you want to get your point across..i hope your not angry."

Sorry bout that Geden, should have given you an explanation for the Caps. it's about emphasis on the "thought", not intended to be about anger in the least. So, sorry it was confusing.

One thing leads to another and another,so on and so on.

You know how hard it is for a lyme brain to focus.

the people blindly fell in behind him because he was efforting an end to vietnam.

what were the other issue's back then? see? you have to think hard.(i do)

he had the confidence of the people,those who voted him in.blind trust..you know the rest of the story.

so when question's are asked of OUR leader's ,they side step,"refer that question to dept. X. what you heard ,you didn't hear!

and (my favorite) " takin out of context".another good one is"you are asking the wrong question,the question you should be asking is"....

i am saying ALL politic's are that way.

how many nixon supporter's ,stood by him,and went down with the ship? there is a saying about that, ain't thar'...gary

Now, GWB even though from Texas is not a relative and we have no connection. My support is for America and those that defend and protect her. There's all sorts, soldiers who carry guns and engage our enemies. Farmers, ranchers, firemen, policemen, doctors and nurses and all of the men and women who keep America humming along!

I support GWB because he made a point to the world, ``screw with us at your peril''! The UN had been bought and paid for and was never going to be of any assistance to us, Bush figured this out before the rest of us. We were on our own except for the Brits! So much for the UN.

This was the first of a new kind of war and as mo likes to point out, it's messy! If you ever show an enemy a weakness, you'll be seeing it every day.

The wealth thing, I don't know anything about that but I often feel like there are two rival street gangs fighting for turf . I don't know what goes on but would think that it happens no matter who wins.

About the ``two hoots'', well, we're going to a lot of trouble what with getting the middle east interested in voting. Gosh, it seems they all want to get in on this and if the Iraqis under the infidels can vote, why can't we? Things are rarely as simple as they first seem.

Morality? That can mean anything to anybody. Mo, would I think see something far different than I would. To me good and proper morality would have been to slit Arafat's throat over twenty years ago when he first started suggesting to school children they should consider sacrificing their lives. The man never had a job but owned an airline and had net worth estimated at 1 1/2 billion. Who says hatred doesn't pay?

Then you go off the deep end with what seem to be an anti-morality tirade that was as inappropriate as most of the stuff I write. I haven't made a dime off this war and I don't support it on religious grounds either. Having said that, I don't want to have to stoop down and kiss Mohammad's ass five times a day either! There are reasons a plenty for this war. I'm not going to set here and tick off the ones I can think of. If your ``agin it'', there's nothing I can say to change your mind. I will say just in case you've been locked in a box somewhere, the dictator was giving money to terrorist!

Now onward through the fog where we have Anti-war losers standing up to thugs and murders? Well yes, my feeling are well known. You demonstrate while others protect you and your families. Brave indeed! Remember the protesters who went to Baghdad to act as human shields? After they got their coverage they packed up to leave and the Iraqis wouldn't let em go! That was really great, most got out one way or the other, shame.

There are many organization you can join. Most have opaque reasons for existing. There's my personal favorite, Fair Play for Cuba! Send five bucks and you can be a Cuban Colonel or some such ridiculous scam.