BUSH MENDACITY WILL SHOCK HISTORIANS
By Bill Gallagher

DETROIT -- When historians write about our times, they'll shake their heads and wonder how so many people could believe so many lies for so long. They might actually write two parallel books -- one describing the cascading lies and deceptions George W. Bush and the Republicans sold and the other telling the truth.

We're told, in effect, that trampling on civil liberties and eroding freedom are a sure way to protect us from terrorists who envy our freedom. That colossal lie will be one of the lasting stains on this era, and I fear the day coming when the Busheviks or their political heirs, gripped in fascist fever, will silence those who expose the fraud.

The latest assault on liberty cloaked as protection is the Republican campaign in Congress for national identity cards. Of course, they don't call them that. Such candor sparks opposition. It's much more benevolent sounding to call the measure the Real ID Act.

The plan is to impose national standards for driver's licenses and require four pieces of identification before states issue them. The House Republicans attached the proposed law to the bill for appropriating funds for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposal is really aimed at immigrants and has nothing to do with terrorism. It would create a bureaucratic nightmare, impose an unfunded mandate on state governments and do nothing to protect us from al-Qaeda. What it means is that many laborers in California and Texas will no longer have a driver's license.

While the ignorant are licking up the lie that national ID cards will make us safer, the Bush administration is making it easier for Saudis to get visitor visas. That's right. The same folks who brought us 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11, bin Laden himself, and the hateful Wahhabi sect will now have their tightened visa restrictions lifted.

While the American media devoted enormous resources covering Paula Abdul's fling with an "American Idol" contestant, an announcement last week from the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia was buried. We should be following Abdullah, not Abdul.

On the heels of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, we now know the prince and the president were doing more than holding hands in public. They were privately playing footsie to make it much easier for Saudis to enter the United States.

After Sept. 11, Bush reluctantly allowed the State Department to impose some tightened restrictions on Saudi visitors attempting to enter the United States. Up until then, all a Saudi citizen had to do was fill out a form at a travel agent's office and they were here in a jiffy. That's just what the 15 Saudi hijackers did.

But the tighter restrictions required security reviews and sometimes long waits. Saudi businessmen whined about the inconvenience, and after a few of them were denied visas, they went to the prince. He carried their complaints to the president, who listened.

In a remarkably under-reported story, the Arab News carried an announcement from James C. Oberwetter, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, declaring that visa restrictions for Saudi visitors would be eased.

"Last week's visit by Crown Prince Abdullah to the United States has given a major boost to bilateral relations," the ambassador said.

The Saudis were surely miffed when one of the members of their own delegation was denied a U.S. visa because his name appeared on a watch list for alleged terrorists. Both the Dallas Morning News and the Agence France-Press (AFP) wire service reported the incident, in which the name of one of Prince Abdullah's minions popped up on a government no-fly list.

"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in a routine check of the delegation passenger manifest, found that one traveler was on a government list meant to screen out possible terrorists," an official said on condition of anonymity to the AFP.

The Dallas Morning News confirmed the report and quoted an administration official saying, "We're not going to discuss the individual because the information is classified."

So let's get this straight. We're going to make it harder for Mexicans to drive cabs in Los Angeles and send them packing if they're caught without a driver's license and make it easier for Saudis -- proven producers of mass murderers -- to enter the country. That's just what George W. Bush is doing. The more ignorant and oblivious the American people are, the more the Busheviks and their lies thrive.

The horrible carnage in Iraq is getting worse. The insurgents are hitting targets in most areas of the country and over the last 10 days more than 300 people have died in bombings and ambushes.
But we're being offered the lie that the violence is sputtering out and the new government will bring stability.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former commander in Iraq, says the insurgent forces are desperate and they can't sustain these attacks.

"We do know that some of the insurgent Web sites have called this the jihad Super Bowl, if you will, and now's the time to come fight and try to kick the Americans out of the region," Conway told reporters. "How much people are responding to that, we're just not certain at this point, but we continue to seek that answer." The answer is bloody obvious.

Two years after the chicken-hawk in chief made his cocky flight-deck strut and proclaimed victory under the Mission Accomplished banner, Iraq is in turmoil and the continued U.S. occupation there is a terrorist recruiter's dream.

The two supreme lies about the war of choice in Iraq that future historians will marvel at are:

Saddam was a serious and imminent threat to the United States because he had or planned to build terrible weapons.

George W. Bush sought peace and did everything he could to prevent war that would only happen "as a last resort."

The weapons of mass destruction lies are thoroughly documented. UN weapons inspectors came up empty-handed and our own multibillion dollar search yielded nothing. It's abundantly clear intelligence was shaped and distorted to create the myth of Saddam's weapons. No serious person believes otherwise.

Now, we have the first document proving Bush had Iraq in his crosshairs and was committed to "regime change" removed from any factual findings.His public posture that he longed for peace was a damnable lie.

The most important item coming from Britain in recent days was not Tony Blair's re-election but the publication of a "smoking gun" memo proving the Bush administration had no intention of dealing with Iraq peacefully and diplomatically.

The Sunday Times of London got hold of the minutes of a 2002 meeting Blair had with members of his cabinet to discuss consultations with the Bush people on U.S. intentions toward Iraq.

A Blair foreign police adviser, Matthew Rycroft, incorporated the minutes of the meeting in a memorandum described as "extremely sensitive." The document shows Bush and Blair had already decided to go to war in Iraq a year before the invasion.

All the subsequent moves -- asking for a UN Security Council resolution, more weapons inspections, Bush's speeches to Congress and the case he presented to the American people -- were all ruses, hollow lies. He and his buddy Blair were already committed to war and their words in public were meaningless. The die was cast.

The words of Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, blow the lid off the lies. Known as "C" in spy talk, his read on the U.S. position contained in the memo tells all.

It states, "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wants to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. The NSC (National Security Council) has no patience with the UN route. There is little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw buttresses Sir Richard's views at the same meeting. "The Foreign Secretary said he will discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the meeting minutes note.

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

This document is dynamite. As Joe Conason writes in "Salon" online magazine, it has received little notice outside the U.K. "Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damming evidence of those lies?"

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

George W. Bush lied to the world when he said he sought peace in Iraq and war was a "last resort."

That's what historians will write and they now have a document proving it.

Journalism is often called the first draft of history. For the most part, America's big corporate media's first draft of Bush's war has been devoted to his propagating lies. That's very dangerous in a fragile democracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News.

Bush is backed by many..unfortunaltely, he's not in this alone.

Maybe try reading?

Pretty clear this is about the policies that are so dangerous....War crimes.
Massive death by lies incites something other than a personal grudge.

but ya, I suppose I'm not fond of odious leaders.

Mo

Corinne

The scary thing is, the distant Right
(not to mention the religious Right) doesn't seem to care now that it's formally 'out there'..detailed memos as well as previous documentation of events.
"Doesn't matter..Iraq needed cleansing (beyond Saddam)" "They'll be better off somewhere down the line now.."

How can one not care that this War was
pre-meditated and had nothing to do with what the White House claimed?

Does pride trump the reality? We're talking War here..
far more gruesome than breaking into a hotel, wouldn't you say?

Mo

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1989) says that in the 20th century the word propaganda developed the following meaning: "The systematic propagation of information or ideas by an interested party, esp. in a tendentious way in order to encourage or instil a particular attitude or response. Also, the ideas, doctrines, etc., disseminated thus; the vehicle of such propagation." I define it as information (words, images, sounds, etc.) used to manipulate people's behavior or beliefs. Regardless of whether the message is true or false, it is always manipulative. The target of a successful propagandist will feel that s/he has made a voluntary choice, even though s/he was never given a real chance to do so. And later, only very effective counter propaganda will be likely to effect a change.

During World War II, the word became a pejorative in the U.S. Therefore our advertisers, marketers, public relations officials and public information officers no longer call their product propaganda. Nevertheless, that is what it remains.

Most of us have come to think of propaganda as synonymous with lie. And while any piece of propaganda can convey a lie, the best is usually true - true in that the specific things it says are true, even though its implications (the message(s) people actually take away from it) may be false. For example, many people will remember the 1994 video clip of the CEOs of the major U.S. tobacco companies testifying before a Congressional committee, raising their right hands and swearing to tell the truth, then proceeding to say repeatedly that they believed nicotine was non-addictive. The key word here is believe. (see Is That a Fact?) They may well have held that belief. If so, their statements were true. Proving otherwise would be very difficult, if not impossible. However, their intended message, that conveyed by the weight of their testimony, their companies' advertising and the positions they'd taken in courts throughout the land, was that smoking was not harmful. Given the evidence produced in their own research labs, and those of independent researchers, they could not honestly say that it was safe; only that they believed it to be so. It is a subtle but very important difference. They knew that most people listening to them would hear what they wanted them to, even though they hadn't actually said it. Intangibles like body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc., things for which the executives could not be held to account, explain why many people ended up hearing something different than was actually said. This type of behavior is one of the major tools in the propagandists' arsenal. I call it the Big Lie technique. The specific things one says are true, but the larger message one wants the listener to take away is not. If pressed, or taken to court, the propagandist can plead innocence and apologize for any misunderstandings; but they can do it in a way that maintains the Big Lie. Trapping them is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:
[b]"Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damming evidence of those lies?"

The scary thing is, the distant Right
(not to mention the religious Right) doesn't seem to care now that it's formally 'out there'..detailed memos as well as previous documentation of events.
"Doesn't matter..Iraq needed cleansing (beyond Saddam)" "They'll be better off somewhere down the line now.."

How can one not care that this War was
pre-meditated and had nothing to do with what the White House claimed?

Does pride trump the reality? We're talking War here..
far more gruesome than breaking into a hotel, wouldn't you say?

Mo

[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 10 May 2005).][/B]

---

Choose optimism, Mo!

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." Winston Baby!

What is it, exactly.. and in reality, we have to be optomistic about this War?

It also seems blatantly dissmissive of those involved, those actually paying for it..
to ingore the issues entirely. They pay dearly for this blind 'optimism.'

I'm optimistic that this situation may turn, crimes exposed..soldiers honored, death stops.

By definition:

optimism: The opinion or doctrine that everything in nature, being the work of God, is ordered for the best, or that the ordering of things in the universe is such as to produce the highest good.

..I hold this. The current administration and policy is in stark opposition to nature and works of God --
mere mortals doing immense harm to the 'universe'.

But, clearly, you two don't give a flying fart..

Mo

Never do you have a positive remark or suggestion; in fact you don't offer suggestions, just complaints. What ever the government is trying to do is met with a complaint from you in the form of a cut and paste of someone else's attack, the more vicious the better! It actually seems your incapable of reasonable and rational thought.

Obstructing the administration is the be all and end all of your existence. Doesn't matter if it would be good for America or not. You might consider, even animals don't usually foul their nest!

There can be no logical comparison made between this situation and WWII.

I thought we'd been over this..pay attention, will ya?

Cootay..
most of the commentary is on the memo, which was between Bush and Blair govt's..

It would be interesting to me, too..to see what the 'other side' has to say about it.

So far, I've heard them say nothing at all..
in the media, except sheer dismissal.

It kind of open's that can of worms that the 'other side' has been dismissing for a long time. So far, this memo has been strangely kept in low profile.

The memo has no "slant"..because it is what it is, plain and simple.

In England, this has made very public, and Blair has taken a huge hit.

Yet, a memo documanting an impeachable offence is not spoken of very much at all here in the US.

IMHO, ya gotta wonder about that, no matter what side you're on.

Mo

As to, "Some of the best brains in the country stay up late thinking of ways to keep your sorry butt safe". No, they stay up late thinking of ways to keep THEIR sorry butt safe. Us mere mortals do not matter, except we are ones paying for it, financially, physically, etc.

As for making suggestions, if suggestions do not benefit the rich and wealthy (such as perhaps yourself), seeing as they are the ones in power (for now that is), for those of us who must keep on preaching about the many "wrongs" done by some in your government, that is at this moment, the only thing we can do - expose the absolute corruption and hope and pray that some of the people who believed in bush et al will somehow see how bush et all has wronged the American people.

Mo - I don't believe anything will ever be done, at least while bushie et all are in power, big money, especially for today, can buy off anybody, even the justice system.

People who have no conscience are deemed evil.

Corinne

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:

Never do you have a positive remark or suggestion; in fact you don't offer suggestions, just complaints. What ever the government is trying to do is met with a complaint from you in the form of a cut and paste of someone else's attack, the more vicious the better! It actually seems your incapable of reasonable and rational thought.

---

That is so true, not just for Mo, but for the rest of the bomb throwing far left. That's why they're considered bomb throwers. They have no solutions, just militant complaints, temper tantrums....emotional driven everything. And if you press them for a solution, they prove how little they know about how the complicated world works....as well as the lessons learned from the past.

Then, please do..tell us, oh wise and
enlightened one

I'm getting tired of the two of you repeatedly making long posts in judgement of my personal character and intelligence,
and having nothing to say about the topic posted.

But I guess I'm all dark and dreary and you two are balls of sunshine.

The topic is the memo, essentially..and the fact that this War was pre-meditated, and the intelligence was formed around the policy.

Everything sold to the public was a lie, not to mention the way things have played out for our dear soldiers and the Iraqui innocents. Not to mention the cost in dollars and life. It certainly begs reasonable doubt regarding credibility to date, and continuing.

You can pooh-pooh all that of you like..
but there's no need to expend so much energy
attempting to defame the messenger.

You think this is no big deal and choose not to address it..OK..got it.
Of you have nothing to say on topic, 24
..kindly scroll along...

Mo

Smoking Gun Memo?
Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media

SOURCE: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

"Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies?," asked Salon columnist Joe Conason.

May 10, 2005--Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required--and major news outlets virtually ignore it.
A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that US intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the US press.

The document, first revealed by the London Times (5/1/05), was the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair's office with the prime minister's close advisors. The meeting was held to discuss Bush administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would support a US invasion of Iraq. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the minutes state.

The minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, the head of the British intelligence service MI6: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

That last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush administration was presenting as "facts" derived from intelligence. But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from the Knight Ridder wire service (5/6/05), which quoted an anonymous US official saying the memo was ''an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's meetings in Washington.

Few other outlets have pursued the leaked memo's key charge that the "facts were being fixed around the policy." The New York Times (5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.

On May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about 'the memo'--but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats' letter.

In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were "wondering why it's not getting more coverage in the US media." But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn't prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair's political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo-- but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats' letter.

Salon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:

"Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?"

As far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason's second question would seem to be yes. A May 8 New York Times news article asserted that "critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick." It's hard for charges to stick when major media are determined to ignore the evidence behind them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIR is a nonprofit media watchdog organization. For information, visit fair.org.

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

Copyright � 2005 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Did you notice on the news, well Kyra hasn't put it up yet, that British MP didn't get $600,000 for leading the anti war movement in Briton. It was $6,000,000. You're a looser mo (and I say that with the affection of being our looser and personal propagandist) Hopefully you'll be around a long time cause if you ever get good, I'm sure you'll move on up to de big time instead of roasting here with us chickens!

Lessons learned from the past..... hummm, yer right 24, past history of nations, civilizations
that are s l o w to recognize the inherent evil of dictatorships and uncontrolled power of domination. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Kaddafi, Saddam, N. Korea, Iran et al.

Would you think the citizens under those mentioned above who spoke out were
throwing temper tantrums?

Fact remains..the commentary on others persieved faults has nothing to do with the issue.

**Meetings documented where this War was planned before the intelligence was molded to justify it.

Since you three are here, representing support for the War..

let me highlight the way this has evolved.

First, Bush et al, cohorts and supporters
warned the nation and the World of the imminent threat, pending 'mushroom cloud'..
Saddam had WMD's..this required unilateral, immediate action. We had intelligence, that was proof.

Then..no WMD's found (ever)..

..rumors they must be in Syria circulated..
but the ties to 911 and Bin Laden (where is he, by the way?)..were center stage..
tho, there was no proof of that, and later the exhaustive 911 commission and other intelligence investigations determined there was not, nor ever was a connection..
describing Saddam as a toothless tiger.
(not to his own people, but to other countries, which was what was the selling point of invading Iraq)

He was overthrown in the very early stages of the War, and that was good for the people of Iraq (however things got horrific in the aftermath and to date)..and Bush took the photo op declaring victory on the Naval ship..

1500 American soldiers and well over 100,000 dead Iraquis later..not to mention the massive casualties and 200 Billion dollars spent, ect, ect..
things are not going very well.

..all along the way there was speculation that even tho there was no proof, Saddam was probably thinking about doing these things.
(I tend to worry more about the countries who are real threats, and the ones where genocide is being commited as we speak)

..and anyone who feels speculation justifies military attack and bombing, must then feel Japan was justified to attack us at Pearl Harbor. They actually had more solid reason's to..
since the US was making outright threats.
(and talk about yer WMDs..)
At least they attatcked a military base.

Then it was the War on Terror, last november the RNC has giant movie screen images exploiting 911 in support of the War --
but, not allot has been done to thwart the global terrorosm that still threatens the World.

Oh..then the Innauguration speech, where suddenly the idea became WE AMERICANS have been apponited World Police, and will take out all 'outposts of tyrrany'
(unless, no matter how bad an outpost it is, the leader of that country is invited to the Crawford ranch for burgers and beer and a little hand-holding, of course, so I guess it's selective, and they get to decide?)
But, I think some folks actually feel that we, America, somehow knows what's best for all the World? Muslim countries in particular?

The new mantra has been, up till recently, I believe Weeza and Mike both are quoted repeating this claim from the Right:
"the intelligence was faulty"

**and now, low and behold, at least most of the World has been informed of the fact that the intelligence was exhagerated intentionally to justify a War that had already been decided upon.
(tho -- this is no new concept)

So -- with that, the information is being glossed over, and here, in our little corner..just for posting it..
I'm a dark and twisted person..and there is no address of these facts. Like it doesn't matter.
How the rest of the World percieves the actions of our government appahrently doesn't matter to some, either.

Now..it's:
Iraq will be better off, anyway..
you know, becuase we know better. We are their saviors.

which, even if there was a shred of hard reality to back up that they willbe better off someday, instead of the horrible condition the country is in now which is far worse in many ways than ever before, with many lasting issues for Iraquis, health, the children, ect --
even if that were remotely substantiated, that they will be better off --
it would still mean this administration has initiated and carried on with this War criminally. Which would mean, odds are, they probably can't be trusted on other issues,
as War is a pretty huge deal.

Just to be clear ..

Mo

I hope you aren't saying Iraq is 'discriminate annailation'.

..also think George Bush's sence of 'humanity' is highly questionable..

Maybe I'll join Labrat in the sauce and things will start making sence..

Mo

1. She instantly loses credibility with about 99.6% of the American population.

2. It tells us that she's mean spirited and nasty.

One reason I think, is that it's hard for them to accept that there is, in its purest sense, with no gray area, individuals in this world that are sold out in mind, body and spirit, to evil intentions.

The notion that man is essentially good in nature is contrary to what God says about us.
We have an inborn blueprint to produce sinful acts whether in our minds or spirits. I think we all can be honest and admit we all struggle with troublesome thoughts and have to ask ourselves:
"Where did those ideas and thoughts originate?"

God says, they originate within yourself and your inclination to be your own "Gods" doing what seems right in our eyes. Eyes that are deceived by the lusts and temptations of a world system influenced by an evil entity (Satan).

Sound like science fiction? A star wars like plot? Well, it's no fairy tale "if" you believe there is more to this life than merely existing for existence sake and then off to some unknown destination of oblivion. Or rot and return to the dirt.

Naw, there is a far far far, higher higher, purpose for the faces of those created by the one who breathed life into Adam and made Eve his life companion; our original parents, not chimpanzees.

What I meant to convey after digressing;
is that we are fighting the elements of evil incarnate in "some" humans who have aligned themselves in heart and spirit to the depths of human depravity. They create disorder and pain in the lives of people under their influence, the poor, indefensible citizens of the countries they control.
Do not the majority of people that are not totally sold out to sinful depravity have a moral mandate to maintain a checks and balance of those that seek to destroy? God refers to those with such a mandate as the 'remnant of righteousness' and are compelled to restrain the wickedness without.

Because there exists unbelief within many that the world can't really be so bad, or people so uncivilized that they cannot be "reasoned' with, they will forever have a hard time dealing with war and it's purpose of cleansing, balancing the negative forces against evil within this world system.

What does what you write about have to do with the Iraqui population?
How does what you wrote justify this War?

24 - Bit sez:

"That's just pure out of control anger, folks. And the more someone can't control their anger, the more credibility they lose. Mo is out of control, plain and simple. Sorry Mo, this is an issue about you and your coninued issues with anger. It drastically distorts your positions on many things. How can I discuss the issues with someone that's out of control?"

Bit, you never discuss issues, you focus on attacking me.

I can't for the life of me figure out why they let you back on here.
The way you play the people on this board is very detrimental to the environment IMO.

This is I think the third time in this thread, and the umpteenth time in general I am asking you to stop attacking me personally.

You know nothing of my character, and let's face it --
it's my political position that causes you to attack me.
If I were of the "Right" minset, you wouldn't bother with this malicious and tedious attempt to
"warn the 'folks' about out-of-control-angry Mo"

I think most people have your number, tho not many call you out on it --
maybe also because of similar political stances, I don't know. That's kinda sad, for me...but I can't change my position on this administration to gain popularity.
Maybe people are afraid you'll start stalking them..
and for that, I wouldn't blame anybody.

(it ain't fun.)

But you can only go so far before I have to set a healthy boundary.

Clearly, I am talking about specific actions having to do with specific policies and this administration, as usual.

Again: noone is addressing that. Not one person is addressing the topic, the memo, or any of it.

My comment after Weeza brought up Hitler,ect was focused on the issue of a country's citizens looking the other way, or choosing not to.
..and honestly I was getting perturbed over your incescant brow beating, and folks like Weeza who see no problem with it.

Later Gators,
Mo

My most powerful one had a suggestion and I've learned to pay attention when she suggests something. (She's big, strong and can be mean!) She suggests that somehow one of those bombers comes back to life and explains why all those virgins are virgins! Concoct a tail of nagging and being beaten up. Mention slaving in the hot sun to pay down 72 credit cards.

Personally, between you and me, I don't think it would work. Remember the joke about the brain cells?!

"The plan is to impose national standards for driver's licenses and require four pieces of identification before states issue them. The House Republicans attached the proposed law to the bill for appropriating funds for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposal is really aimed at immigrants and has nothing to do with terrorism. It would create a bureaucratic nightmare, impose an unfunded mandate on state governments and do nothing to protect us from al-Qaeda. What it means is that many laborers in California and Texas will no longer have a driver's license.

While the ignorant are licking up the lie that national ID cards will make us safer, the Bush administration is making it easier for Saudis to get visitor visas. That's right. The same folks who brought us 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11, bin Laden himself, and the hateful Wahhabi sect will now have their tightened visa restrictions lifted.

While the American media devoted enormous resources covering Paula Abdul's fling with an "American Idol" contestant, an announcement last week from the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia was buried. We should be following Abdullah, not Abdul. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1) The author calls the ID program essentially a immigration control tactic. I ask the question he didn't, "Do we have an immigration problem?"

I would say yes, we do. If this will help us to identify illegals here, check out their bio's for possible terrorist ties, then what's the harm? Those here for innocent reasons, ie: work related, still need to abide by our laws.
Also, the author states this program would have no useful effect on identifying terrorists.

Didn't the central figure(can't recall name) who flew the plane that crashed into twin towers, get into the USA by using only a visa and drivers license? The proposal is to increase ID's by having 3 additional sources in addition to DL. which makes sense to me.

2) "While the ignorant are licking up the lie that national ID cards will make us safer, the Bush administration is making it easier for Saudis to get visitor visas. That's right. The same folks who brought us 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11, bin Laden himself, and the hateful Wahhabi sect will now have their tightened visa restrictions lifted. "
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, this I agree with the author, that it doesn't seem compatible with heightened security to loosen visa requirements for Saudi's!
This is foolish and makes me wonder WHY?

3)
'The weapons of mass destruction lies are thoroughly documented. UN weapons inspectors came up empty-handed and our own multibillion dollar search yielded nothing. It's abundantly clear intelligence was shaped and distorted to create the myth of Saddam's weapons. No serious person believes otherwise. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------I
I do accept the explanation, contrary to the authors inference that President Bush was behind faulty intelligence and deliberately misled the American people.
I accept that our pathetic intelligence agencies alone are responsible for "lazy" and unintelligent information about the WMD. IT has yet to be proven that the President conspired to mislead.
----------------------------------------------------------------

4)
"This document is dynamite. As Joe Conason writes in "Salon" online magazine, it has received little notice outside the U.K. "Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damming evidence of those lies?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
'If" we have been so blind as not to see a conspiracy by Bush and Blair to "create" a reason for war with Iraq, then what does it all say about the openess of our society and government? Their responsibility to be candid with we the people? We can say that we are in trouble as you assert Mo.
Yet, I have heard no confession by our President nor have there been any serious efforts to bring judicial actions against his term of service.
When and if this happens, I will with sadness and shame for the office of the Presidency throw up my hands to God above and pray for his protection, forgiveness of our arrogant nation.

I accept that our pathetic intelligence agencies alone are responsible for "lazy" and unintelligent information about the WMD. IT has yet to be proven that the President conspired to mislead.

Doesn't it seem, tho -- that this memo and the meetings that took place well before intelligence was 'found' at all..
prove that the government conspired to mislead?

Yes, the intelligence was absolutely faulty, and yet the Bush administration took drastic military action despite that, and were planning to go in before any reports were made on the supposed WMD's, ect..

Yet, I have heard no confession by our President nor have there been any serious efforts to bring judicial actions against his term of service.

Well -- I don't imagine we'd see a confession from an administration that continues to assert false claims, all of which are completely unsubstantiated throughout the duration of this War, and has admitted no mistake or attempted to change things so far.

Throughout history, leaders guilty of something of this magnitude aren't apt to confess.

Judicial action against the War crimes..
we can pray happens sooner than later.

I do think it's up to the masses as the political system is a mess right now, and hope that those who do not want to wait for others to make it happen will continue to
organize and speak out.

Or...that some sort of World Court is organized.

Seems that is in order, and the general sentiment around the World.

This has to stop.

I imagine most Americans are tired, and a bit forlorn, and want to hope that in the end Iraq will be better off (despite the reality that that is not reason for invasion and dessimation of a population, nor was it the reason given in the beginning)..and have enough to deal with keeping up with their own lives.

Totally understandable, but the War rages on, and those in harms way need to be protected by others now. And Americans need to protect themselves and children's future against this odious leadership.

Will they? We can hope...many are trying.

Mo

How is it that most religious right in any religion are mostly likely to be the most militant and vengeful? How Godly is that?

Tho, that seems to be the dissmissal dujour..

It is actually deeply distressing and confusing to hear and read about the 'religious Right'..
the Christian groups in staunch support of everything Bush does..including this War.

it's very hard to understand how those proclaiming to hold devout Christian beliefs
are excusing these things surrounding the War.

Not only excusing, or ignoring, but justifying it.

I guess when God is brought into the War, it becomes personal for people. Like attacking people's beliefs, in a way.

War is waged by man, and there needs to be justification and accountability, analysis of the actual effect in logical and tangible
terms when the actions of man destroys life and devours resources.
References to God cannot justify War.
Isn't that what Muslim extremists do?

This doesn't hold true for all Christians, not at all, as there are many who are very against these atrocities, the lies ect..
many others who at least hold the government accountable objectively and apply consideration. Question..

but the groups who ignore so much and believe this War is for the greater good without question and use God and the Bible as references in support , are very disturbing on a deep level, in that it rocks the core beliefs of many others who are deeply spiritual.

Bush himself referencing God in his justification of military action is extremely unnerving. The crusade-like innagural speech and other things quoted.
Deriving personal strength from God is one thing, using His name in taking an action like this is quite another.

Throughout history --
that has usually been connected to brutal imperialism..or worse.

This administration's continued actions, and the effect -- are in stark contrast with many
fundamental belief systems.

Mo

Now when you throw that old trash up, people attack you cause you piss em off. People (most) can easily see through the smoke and mirrors of propaganda. Those that don't are eaten up by it!

You don't seem to understand that for the price of a second hand tank, you can have a hundred web sites, all quoting and referencing one another. I wrote a long piece on that after 9-11.They can all have propaganda ran through them. By the way the fair.org, still say that's a moderate? When you put information like that out, you waste your creditability!

Sorry, but think you are too angry to have a discussion with."

Nope, not confused, just outraged at the religious right's continual audacity and arrogance in claiming that God is on your side. Remember my favourite saying, "Suffer little children who come unto Me". Nothing justifies and supports what is being done to innocent and helpless people, first within their own country by their own leader, and then by the "great white hope" bush et all, and then utilizing your own soldiers to do your dirty work. Shame, shame.

I and quite a few others worldwide find your characterization of religious right quite offensive and bigoted, you took the words right out of my mouth.

No, you can't or won't discuss this topic and anything to do with bush et all with me, because you just can't justify what you and bush et all advocate.

Funny, when you use the Bible and your religious knowledge to justify what you advocate, you and so many others like yourself sound just like other tyrants and dictators. It's uncanny and eerie how similar what your espouse is to the fanatical islamic faith and a lot of other rabid ideologies.

Is your conscience clear in that you agree with what has happened and is happening today in iraq is according to God's plan, do you have any moments where there is doubt about this.

By the way, how is your lyme doing these days? I haven't seen you post about your lyme for ages. Are you all better, because if you are, perhaps you can let me know what it is you were taking.

Turn off the tv, put the newspapers in the bin, turn off your conscience and sweet dreams.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:

I don't do propaganda!

---

Good. So let us read Mo's diatribe without reservation, since it is indeed totally devoid of any kind of propaganda! Then we are sure to LEARN SOMETHING....! (UNLIKE what happens when one is exposed, especially, unknowingly, to mendacious propaganda!)
DaveS

You dish it out, and when someone confronts you with your attitude and describes your behavior, you call that an attack. OK fine, you can define it anyway you want. But don't go around acting like you're the attack victim. Per your definition, let's analyze your last response to me:

Attack #1: "Bit, you never discuss issues, you focus on attacking me."

Two lies about me in one sentence. I do discuss issues on the board, and I don't focus on attacking you. I ask you to calm down, be happy, and stop with the out of control antics. It's your behavior, not mine.

Attack #2: "I can't for the life of me figure out why they let you back on here."

I was briefly banned because I used the html code to block extremely horrific pictures you were posting of dead children...close up shots of gory dead people....and for also using it once as a joke like Dan. Dan's joke was funny, I did the same thing and mine wasn't funny. It's all who your friends are that run the show, right? I got the temporary boot and I'm back.

And by the way, I didn't get banned at the Yahoo Marshall Protocol board for being obnoxious and rude. It was you that got banned. I have an email from Penny (the moderator) saying that she did ban you.....just in case you accuse me of making this up again.

Attack #3: "The way you play the people on this board is very detrimental to the environment IMO."

Another delusional accusation/attack on your part. I have a lot of friends here that are pretty sure I'm not playing them. If it were coming from someone rather than yourself, I would be deeply offended. I get along with almost everyone here except for you.

Attack #4: "This is I think the third time in this thread, and the umpteenth time in general I am asking you to stop attacking me personally.

Characterizing me as an attacker is an attack itself by your own definition.

Attack #5: "You know nothing of my character, and let's face it --
it's my political position that causes you to attack me.

Another false charge. All I know is the behavior you present on this board, and that's all I address. You're probably a nice person in person.

Attack #6: "If I were of the "Right" minset, you wouldn't bother with this malicious and tedious attempt to "warn the 'folks' about out-of-control-angry Mo""

This is disgraceful. In many of my posts on many discussions I talk about how I dislike the far right and the far left. I talk about how I disagree with Bush on border issues, and a few others. I agree with Democrats on some issues for sure. Making me out to be a far right wing guy that picks on anyone that disagrees with me is just a big fat lie and attack on my character. I have lots of Democrat friends, even had a few girlfriends on the left.

It's your obnoxious style that annoys many of us Mo. It's the way you disagree on your high horse. It's your anger and unchecked emotion that's the problem....and if you agreed with what I did I'd still ask you to calm down. For example, I can't stand Ann Coulter and I'm always on her for being obnoxious. But like I said, I don't like right wing ideology either.

Attack #7: "I think most people have your number, tho not many call you out on it --
maybe also because of similar political stances, I don't know. That's kinda sad, for me...but I can't change my position on this administration to gain popularity."

Again, another slam.

Attack #8: "Maybe people are afraid you'll start stalking them..and for that, I wouldn't blame anybody. (it ain't fun.)"

A truly low blow. If there's anyone remotely close to being defined as a stalker, it wouldn't be me. Based on some of your angry-scary statements about Bush, I wouldn't be surprised if the secret service didn't call you one day.

Angry-Bossy Den Mother Statement #1: "But you can only go so far before I have to set a healthy boundary."

Look out, she's got power and you're going to your room with no dinner!

Attack #9: "..and honestly I was getting perturbed over your incescant brow beating, and folks like Weeza who see no problem with it."

I'm a brow beater too?

Please stop this, noone here needs it. It doesn't bother me, so much as it concerns me for others and the effect it has on this board.

I almost regret confronting you, at the same time, I know I shouldn't accept being your target.

In the past, the only thing that has stopped this when you have done this very thing, in the very same way..is if the poster leaves.
The scary thing is it's same reason I left the yahoo board, I was never banned.
I had to walk away from possible treatment for my son because of this same thing from you.

I had questions posted that came from my son's pediatritian.

This some time before the board was shut down by Dr. M. because of the atmosphere there. You were the same way there with me as you have been with at least two other posters here. I left because it was too caustic.

I'm truly sorry if you are ill. You cannot be excused for this kind of manipulatuion and attack despite that.

I don't want to leave, but I also don't want Lymenet members to have to be subjected to reading this kind of thing.
..nor to the ongoing games.

It's really very simple. People can post, if they wish, on topic (political is usually hot topic)..but not attacking individuals. The reason I spoke of you in this thread, is because you have been continuously crossing that line again.

Mo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mo:
The scary thing is it's same reason I left the yahoo board, and was never banned.
I had to walk away from possible treatment for my son because of the same thing from you.
[This message has been edited by Mo (edited 15 May 2005).]

---

This is so funny. Maybe we can have Penny stop by and clear things up.

You were showing some interest in the protocol, but you spent most of your time obnoxiously and rudely questioning it and the people researching it. It was how you were coming across that had some people upset. You had ongoing arguements with Suzanne, Penny, and a few other regular women posters there that had done a lot of research. I rarely posted over there at all, but I did make a few comments to you about your attitude.....99% from was other people though. Penny was getting a lot of complaints about you, and she wasn't too thrilled with your attitude either. And you WERE banned. It's funny how you put this all on me, and try to blame me for not allowing your son to have a treatment. That's pretty darn low Mo. I think you're above those kind of tactics.

Bit unfair.

it would sure be NICE if people who have something to say ---> about the article Mo posted for discussion <--- could simply get a discussion in! instead what we have here is no more than 'mud slinging' and anyone who dares step in gets some in the face.

straight to MY point, Corinne, can't ya be nice to Weeza or just leave her alone? dang! i like hearing from you on topics, but i sure hate having to see Weeza get trashed for her imput.

24bit, why is it that you are even posting on THIS thread? you haven't said a thing about the topic (unless i missed something), just trying to stir $hit up with Mo. you have plenty of interesting things to say on other threads, why bother with this trash and nonsence? why not just move on to another topic?

some of us would actually like to 'hear' other views of these political topics without having to sort through the rubble, or is it rubbish? ...and without the original posters getting THROWN so off topic that it isn't interesting anymore because they aren't being allowed to discuss their topic.

it would sure be nice to be able to read other peoples' opinions without a few others completely trashing the poster and turning it into a bunch of crap (IMO) nobody wants to read...

their personal opinions haven't anything to do with 'YOU' so why get so dang worked up and feel the need to batter them (and us other readers in the process, btw) about it? can't we just be mature enough to discuss a topic and not trash any person who disagrees? isn't one person's opinion on a topic just as important as another's - it is to me.

sorry Mo, to be posting off the topic of your thread, but it seemed to already have been hijacked...

this kind of thing always brings a quote from 'my hero' Maxine to mind... "If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still HAVE one?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by LabRat:

Sure gets old. The same old, ``we're defeated'' and ``Bush is bad'' bunch, and no I didn't read the whole thing. I don't do propaganda!

---

haha, OK, OK, Labrat, i stand corrected. guess some of you DO want to read it (up, up, up)

guess i'll just scroll on down to Lou's bird watching post (dang birds are eatin' my strawberries )

too bad tho, really, because i do like to read other points of view on political issues, i have learned a lot from all of you, yup, you too Labrat

haha, OK, OK, Labrat, i stand corrected. guess some of you DO want to read it (up, up, up)

guess i'll just scroll on down to Lou's bird watching post (dang birds are eatin' my strawberries )

too bad tho, really, because i do like to read other points of view on political issues, i have learned a lot from all of you, yup, you too Labrat

quote:

---

Originally posted by weeza3:
" That is so true, not just for Mo, but for the rest of the bomb throwing far left. That's why they're considered bomb throwers. They have no solutions, just militant complaints, temper tantrums....emotional driven everything. And if you press them for a solution, they prove how little they know about how the complicated world works....as well as the lessons learned from the past." quote, 24bit
=========================

Lessons learned from the past..... hummm, yer right 24, past history of nations, civilizations
that are s l o w to recognize the inherent evil of dictatorships and uncontrolled power of domination. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Kaddafi, Saddam, N. Korea, Iran et al.

---

Yep, and they're especially slow to recognise that 'et al' includes as one of the most criminal examples, gw bush....!!
Look at: http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush%20Hitler%20Comparison
for example, or just read the news without the red-white-abd blue star-studded filter, in which, if you look a little closer, those stars are all little swastikas....
DS