Now that the god-impersonator has stopped,
I'd like to say a few words about the discussion of the situation in Israel on this list.

First, though, a message to those confused about the spelling. The ending is indeed the same as the names of some of the angels--because the ending is the Hebrew root for the word "god" which is pronounced "el".
The name "Israel" can be loosely translated as "the one that struggles with G-d" and it comes from the story of Yaacov who wrestles with some entity on the far side of the Wadi Yavvok. (See Genesis). The word Israel is actually pronounced Yis-rah-el in Hebrew and not Is-Real.

Now on to the politics. Yes, the settlements are an obscenity and the Israelis will pull out from them eventually--not only more ethical reasons but also for practical reasons--they are not defensible. They exist not because settlers were bribed but because Israel has a real problem with a small number of parties on the religious right wing who believe that Israel should have the borders that King David had. Due to the parlimentary system of government coalitions gave in to them time and again in order to keep the government from falling apart.

However, it is unlikely that Israel will pull out of the settlements immediately. They will not do that because Israeli leaders know their enemy and they know that such a pull-out would be a sign of weakness that would invite further Hammas and Hezbollah activity. This is the messy reality that Israel now must deal with on a daily basis.

It is not antisemitic to discuss the policies of the Israeli government any more than it is anti-American to discuss and disagree with US policy. What I see happening, rather, is a moral relativism that equates the actions of the IDF with the actions of Hammas, Hezbollah and the suicide bombers whose families receive payment from Yassir Arafat's Fatah movement. IDF soldiers are going house to house in Janin and Nablus and their orders are such that they are placing themselves in danger in order to try to arrest the terrorist cells that incite suicide bombers to go into Israel proper and murder civilians. They are attempting to prevent massive civilian casualties. Although I do not like Sharon and I would not vote for him because I am concerned about his history as a loose cannon in the IDF, in this case he is doing what he has to do to protect the lives of Israeli citizens from terrorist attack.

The incursions of terrorist bombers into Israel proper demonstrates that the goal of such organizations as Hammas and Hezbollah is the destruction of the State of Israel and murder of all of her citizens. This is not suprising given the teaching that can be read in the textbooks given to the children in Gaza and the West Bank for the past 50 years. We can now get online and read about it in newspapers from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia.
Israel is fighting for her very existance at this point. Sharon is not going to withdraw until there is a security agreement that has teeth.

How does this relate to the 4th turning? I see it as a rehearsal for the much bigger conflict to come. I think the comparison with the Spanish Civil War is apt (understanding, as we do, that no historical event is exactly like any other)and
I also think that the actions of Bush and Powell are indicative of an early fourth turning. They are desperately trying to avoid what is coming--just as Europe did in the 1930's.

Before signing off, I'd also like to recommend a book by Bernard Lewis: What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response.

This book was in the galley proofs by the time of September 11 and it deals with the 18th-20th centuries but I think it gives background to help us understand better what the conflict is about for the Islamic world.

Have a good weekend,

Elisheva Levin

"Currently, the major impact is on the right-of-return and social issues like marriage and divorce. But slowly and ever surely, Israel is becoming more hidebound and less open."

It amazes me how intolerant most people think the Israelis are. I would suggest that, with a few exceptions, the complete opposite is ture. Many Arabs have assimilated quite nicely into the Jewish community of democracy and free market economy. And most are even now cheering with Jews against, the now obvious despot, Arafat.

Quite frankly, I disagree with Mr. Levin. I think once Arafat and Saddam are gone, Yis-rah-el will experience a mini revival of something never before seen there: A breath of peace and freedom.

And then the sons of Saddam et al will rise against them in a manner heretofore never seen.

On 2002-04-12 15:59, Marc Lamb wrote:


"Currently, the major impact is on the right-of-return and social issues like marriage and divorce. But slowly and ever surely, Israel is becoming more hidebound and less open."

It amazes me how intolerant most people think the Israelis are. I would suggest that, with a few exceptions, the complete opposite is ture. Many Arabs have assimilated quite nicely into the Jewish community of democracy and free market economy. And most are even now cheering with Jews against, the now obvious despot, Arafat.

Quite frankly, I disagree with Mr. Levin. I think once Arafat and Saddam are gone, Yis-rah-el will experience a mini revival of something never before seen there: A breath of peace and freedom.

And then the sons of Saddam et al will rise against them in a manner heretofore never seen.

Actually, Mr. Lamb, I did not write the quote you use at the beginning of your post. That quote that you suggest is mine appeared somewhere back in the thread of conversation.

I have spent time in Eretz Yisrael and I would never suggest that such a dynamic place is becoming hideabound.

Whoever wrote that quote was discussing the hold that the religious parties have on issues of personal status. This is a problem in the land because the majority of Israeli citizens are decidedly secular and do not agree with the decisions of the rabbinate on many of these issues. However, the Israeli Supreme Court recently handed down a decision that broadens the law of return to include converts to the liberal Jewish movements (Reform,Conservative and Recontstructionist) and even those who were converted in the United States. It's never over, though, so we'll see how the religious parties respond...dialogue becomes rather heated in the Eretz.

Please read posts carefully, for I think you will find that I agree with your statement that Arafat is a problem. I believe that he is able to incite violence, manipulate and dissemble, but he appears incapable of actually building a state. This is one big problem for the Palestinians and for Israel.

Finally, I am not a "Mr.", I am in fact a woman and my title is not gender-specific due to a terminal degree I once got when I had nothing better to do with my time.

My full name is Elisheva Hannah Levin. I hope no heterozygote at chromosome pair 23 is ever cursed with such a feminine name.

Have a good weekend!

Elisheva Levin

"Americans are driven by our Puritan sense of calling, the deeply held belief that we Americans have a special mission to spread our way of life around the globe."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/102gwtnf.asp

Long, long article.

Ms. Elisheva writes,
"My full name is Elisheva Hannah Levin. I hope no heterozygote at chromosome pair 23 is ever cursed with such a feminine name."

Well, as far as the misquote goes, I was responding to David'47, but I, in a mistaken oversight, failed to put his name on it. Otherwise, I just took the opportunity to address your feelings in my response to him.

That said, I was very impressed with your overall take on the Palestinian issue which, until recently would have been rare for a stateside Jew, I might add. Now I hearing that thousands are preparing to march on Washington.

And thanks for clearing up the gender issue. Now that I look at your first name (I saw only the male "Eli"), I'm feeling kind of dopey. :smile:

On 2002-04-12 17:25, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:

"Americans are driven by our Puritan sense of calling, the deeply held belief that we Americans have a special mission to spread our way of life around the globe."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/102gwtnf.asp

Long, long article.

Chris, that Weakly Standard sputum is getting more play than a tag team of Neapolitan riccione when Marc Lamb goes ashore.

On 2002-04-12 17:25, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:
"Americans are driven by our Puritan sense of calling, the deeply held belief that we Americans have a special mission to spread our way of life around the globe."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/102gwtnf.asp

Long, long article.

I would agree with that statement, no other western nation has this drive to spread their way of life throughout the world.

On 2002-04-12 06:24, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Many who hail Mr. Netanyahu in America would be appalled if a, say Democrat running for President had such a squalor of a personal life. Recall, all that "character counts" tripe when Mr. Clinton was being taken to task for his sins of emission. Mr. Netanyahu has been less than honest with his wife(ves); could he be less than honest with his ally?

I generally thought Clinton was a reasonable president (he did make mistakes and screwed up from time to time, however is there is any president who didn't). I do not care much for presidental moral lives. Some people in the USA are just too hyper-moralistic for my tastes.

On 2002-04-12 07:29, Brian Rush wrote:


They were there in small numbers, certainly not enough of them to form a viable state. It was the massive influx of Jews in the aftermath of World War II, enjoying the support of a (rightly) guilty world, that allowed Israel to exist. Without that, we would have some Jews living in an Arab-controlled Palestine, not Israel.

Actually 600,000 Jews from Arab countries arrived in Israel after she declared indpendence. After the Arab countries neighbouring her delcared war on Israel, they kicked out their Jewish populations. That influx alone would have made a Jewish state viable.

That large majority, however, has not restrained the fanatical minority that have been committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank with the tacit, and sometimes overt, support of the Israeli government.

There have been establishment of settlements in the occupied territories by Israel. Ethnic Cleansing?, no way. If Israel have done that, there would be no Arabs living in the West Bank or Gaza now.

Tristan:

Actually 600,000 Jews from Arab countries arrived in Israel after she declared indpendence. After the Arab countries neighbouring her delcared war on Israel, they kicked out their Jewish populations. That influx alone would have made a Jewish state viable.

Without the massive postwar influx of Jews from Europe, Israel never would have declared independence, thus the Arab countries would never have declared war, thus there would never have been said immigration from Arab countries.


Israel is a product of the Holocaust. Hitler created Israel. Not exactly his intent but many actions have unforeseen consequences. Sadly, this unforeseen consequence has proven nearly as tragic as what he did have in mind.


But while his, and Germany's, are the bloodiest hands in this mess, we Americans (or our ancestors) are not blameless either. There were thousands upon thousands of Jews in neutral countries of Europe, refugees from the Nazis, during the war. Had America accepted these refugees, the countries where they were staying would have accepted more themselves. As it was, they were reluctant to do so, and the Jews they might otherwise have accepted remained in Nazi occupied territory and went eventually to their deaths. That makes America an accessory to the crime.


If the Nazis had managed to murder only half a million Jews rather than a staggering six million, the world's outrage would have been blunted and very likely there would be no Israel today. Rather disgusting to put it in those terms but it is true. So America, by shutting its doors at a crucial moment, also created Israel.

Ethnic Cleansing?, no way. If Israel have done that, there would be no Arabs living in the West Bank or Gaza now.

I know off the top of my head of no completely successful examples of ethnic cleansing in history. The Israelis haven't even been united, or open, in their efforts. It should not surprise us that it has not been wholly successful.


Nevertheless the intent is clear. And wrong.

On 2002-04-12 22:30, Brian Rush wrote:


I know off the top of my head of no completely successful examples of ethnic cleansing in history.

Actually after WW2 the government of Czechslovakia expelled every ethnic German from inside it's borders.

Here's some evidence that Germany remains in a Third Turning.

How much for the bike that the photo shows Chancellor Schroeder riding?

Israel is a natural ally of the United States it is a liberal democratic pluralist nation like the United States.

I don't see much difference between it and aparteid South Africa, ever since its occupation of Palestine began. If anything it may be worse, since it goes in and destroys Arab homes and replaces them with Israeli ones. It might be better to describe Israel as a combination of democracy and colonial empire.

Why are we not allies with Russia now instead? That is a real democracy now.

We have to defend the Israelis from being thrown into the sea because they are a "democracy." We are supposedly the guardians of every Democratic country. But I don't see the Israelis as very democratic if they occupy their neighbor, and refuse to negotiate a way out of it, but rather conduct a terror campaign with atrocities and mass burials of civilian refugees.

Also, I don't see that the USA is very democratic. Our media is bought and paid for, and so are our politicians. The majority of citizens don't vote. The 2000 election was a sham, decided upon by Republican officials in Florida. I'm not sure what we're doing defending some alleged "democracies" and ignoring others; meanwhile not practicing it in our own country.

Is our defense of Sharon leading us into the 4T, in which we defend genocidal Israelis against Arabs, with the rest of the world neutral or against us? Do the Arabs have the courage or foolhardiness to fight us?

Will an oil embargo set us into 4T? I doubt it, since it didn't last time. Unless it is the one final card in a house of cards waiting to fall.

Will an oil embargo set us into 4T? I doubt it, since it didn't last time. Unless it is the one final card in a house of cards waiting to fall.

Last time was in the 1970s, clearly a 2T constellation. It would have taken something truly massive then to put us into Crisis mode.


What the embargo, if enacted (by more than just Iraq, of course) would do is to keep us in 4T mode and prevent our sliding back into 3T -- which we haven't yet done, but probably would do if things were to calm down for a year or so.


An oil embargo isn't the only thing that could do that, but would certainly qualify. Generalized war in the Middle East, sucking in American troops, would also do it. A lasting tailspin in the global economy, likewise. Or a serious eco-crisis, but that I don't expect for about another eight years.

On 2002-04-13 11:36, Eric A Meece wrote:

Will an oil embargo set us into 4T? I doubt it, since it didn't last time. Unless it is the one final card in a house of cards waiting to fall.

Of course the last oil embargo failed to send us into 4T. The generational constellation in 1973 and 1979 was as all wrong for a 4T to be set off as it could get. Please reread 'Generations' pp. 374-375.

Last time was in the 1970s, clearly a 2T constellation. It would have taken something truly massive then to put us into Crisis mode.


What the embargo, if enacted (by more than just Iraq, of course) would do is to keep us in 4T mode and prevent our sliding back into 3T -- which we haven't yet done, but probably would do if things were to calm down for a year or so.


An oil embargo isn't the only thing that could do that, but would certainly qualify. Generalized war in the Middle East, sucking in American troops, would also do it. A lasting tailspin in the global economy, likewise. Or a serious eco-crisis, but that I don't expect for about another eight years.

I am not sure that I agree that Iraq's embargo is going to be that serious. I doubt that the other oil exporters in the mideast will embargo--they need the money and oil is the only real export of value they have. But even if they do all embargo the US, they will have to sell to somebody and those somebodies will sell to us.
If we are embargoed (is this even a word?), then oil and gas prices in the US will rise but we will also be looking to buy more and more oil from places like Russia.

Anyway,I think if such a thing happened in this time and place the national mood is such that we would bite the bullet and pay higher prices and do whatever it takes to get the oil from Iraq. My mother of all people has even gone so far as to say to me that she will again put up with meatless Thursdays and gas-less Mondays (or however it was done in WWII when she was a girl). And my mother, doveish in the Vietnam era, is decidely hawkish on this issue. Times have certainly changed.

Elisheva

On 2002-04-12 17:33, Marc Lamb wrote:




That said, I was very impressed with your overall take on the Palestinian issue which, until recently would have been rare for a stateside Jew, I might add. Now I hearing that thousands are preparing to march on Washington.

And thanks for clearing up the gender issue. Now that I look at your first name (I saw only the male "Eli"), I'm feeling kind of dopey. :smile:

Transliteration does strange things! Actually, when I spell my name as some people call me I spell it "elie" simply so that people pronounce it el-lie and not the English masculine Ee-li. In Hebrew, there is no difference and both are pronounced El-lie. But that is how it goes...

I don't think my views are uncommon for American Jews--it is just that certain rather wealthy Jews who donate lots to world Jewish organizations believe that they speak for all of us when, in fact, no one elected them to the position of official spokepersons for American Jewry.

I will support with all that I have the right of Israel to exist as a nation-state. However, I do not think that this should include the settlements--they are indefensible and they have created a nightmare for Israelis now. And I think the Palestinians should have a state.

That said, I think the Palestinians either need to get new leadership pronto or that state will die aborning--not because of Sharon but because the current Palestinian leadership is incapable of building a state. And I am not talking about physical infrastructure--I am talking about the mental infrastructure--the ability to get in people who are experts if one is not, the ability to compromise in one's own governance and the ability to lead. Yassir Arafat has shown no interest or talent in any of these areas. Let's not forget that those Palestinians who are being branded as collaborators and killed by their own are generally moderates who are saying that they'd like to accept the existance of Israel and get on with the state-building thing. Remember that whereas Sharon was elected and will eventually be voted out of office, no one elected Yassir Arafat.

These are observations from someone who has been there.

Have a great Week--and keep up the discussions. I enjoy lurking on this site even when I don't have time to write as much as I'd like.

Elisheva Hannah

On 2002-04-13 11:36, Eric A Meece wrote:

I don't see much difference between it and aparteid South Africa, ever since its occupation of Palestine began. If anything it may be worse, since it goes in and destroys Arab homes and replaces them with Israeli ones. It might be better to describe Israel as a combination of democracy and colonial empire.

The Palestinian territories aren't a part of Israel, Israel has not annexed them. They are territories in dispiute, the people in those areas have no civil rights. Because they are not citizens of Israel. Arabs living inside Israel enjoy equal rights to the Jewish population.

Your comparsion of Israel to South Africa is just plain silly.

We have to defend the Israelis from being thrown into the sea because they are a "democracy." We are supposedly the guardians of every Democratic country. But I don't see the Israelis as very democratic if they occupy their neighbor, and refuse to negotiate a way out of it, but rather conduct a terror campaign with atrocities and mass burials of civilian refugees.

Israel is fighting a war for her surivial, she is being attacked (in a unconventional way). In war people get killed and nasty things happen. To it's credit the Israeli Army has remained pretty civilised, hence no Nazi style atrocites.

The whole Palestinian and Israeli Arab population can be regarded as the enemy in Israeli eyes. Because of their desire to destory Israel and drive the Jews to the sea.

Is our defense of Sharon leading us into the 4T, in which we defend genocidal Israelis against Arabs, with the rest of the world neutral or against us? Do the Arabs have the courage or foolhardiness to fight us?

Wake up and smell the roses Eric, Israel is not waging a genocidal war aganist the Arabs. They want to root out terrorist groups which have been attacking Israeli civilians. The Arabs are waging a genocidal war aganist Israel which they deem a illegal zionist enity. You have to compare the Mainstream Israeli and Arab presses, The Arab press by far is the more xenophobic than the Israeli press.

Will an oil embargo set us into 4T? I doubt it, since it didn't last time. Unless it is the one final card in a house of cards waiting to fall.

I have my doubts on a oil embargo personally :smile:

I agree with everything Tristan wrote in the previous post responding to Eric's post. Also, I have an additional comment.

On 2002-04-13 11:36, Eric A Meece wrote:
Why are we not allies with Russia now instead? That is a real democracy now.

Er, um, Eric, we ARE allies with Russia now. The relationship is a fledgling one, and there are still a lot of spats, but on the whole, Putin has aligned Russia with the West since 9/11. Russia was quite helpful with our actions in Afghanistan, and Russia's actions on the world's oil markets have intentionally weakened the influence of the Arab tyrannies.

Man, are you out of it. Sheesh!

Of course, Russia's democratic credentials remain iffy, and Putin is pretty autocratic, but there's reason for hope that they're gradually moving in the right direction. With Russia about to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's largest exporter of oil, I'll bet in decades to follow the Russians do a lot better job investing their oil wealth than the Saudis have.

On 2002-04-13 00:20, Tristan Jones wrote:

On 2002-04-12 22:30, Brian Rush wrote:


I know off the top of my head of no completely successful examples of ethnic cleansing in history.

Actually after WW2 the government of Czechslovakia expelled every ethnic German from inside it's borders.

As did Poland at about the same time - including from the parts of eastern Germany which had been turned over to them. The reason nobody remembers these instances of ethnic cleansing is that most people at the time felt, with considerable justification, that the German people were simply getting a part of what was coming to them, after their support of the Nazis. Thus, there were no protests to speak of, making it easier to forget.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-14 09:07 ]</font>

Elilevin:

I am not sure that I agree that Iraq's embargo is going to be that serious.

I didn't say it was. By itself, Iraq cannot put us in a bind by refusing to sell us oil. There are enough other exporters to take up the slack.


Whether the other Arab states will join the embargo remains to be seen. Right now, they don't seem so inclined, but much depends on the course of future political and military events. The Arab governments have to keep their own people's tacit consent to be governed. If tempers rise much more, they might have no choice.

But even if they do all embargo the US, they will have to sell to somebody and those somebodies will sell to us.

Not necessarily. You're assuming rational behavior where that is a chancy assumption. In the 1970s, we were unable to buy OPEC oil from third parties. The same might obtain this time around.

If we are embargoed (is this even a word?), then oil and gas prices in the US will rise but we will also be looking to buy more and more oil from places like Russia.

No doubt, but there won't be enough oil available to make up the difference.


The reason this sort of thing can happen at all is that the planet is approaching the oil production peak. Many regions, including the U.S., have already reached that peak and ceased to be oil exporters.


We reached our domestic production peak in 1970. Since then, U.S. oil production has gone only downward. It will continue to decline indefinitely. The first oil embargo by OPEC occurred three years after we reached the peak. It could not have been done at all before 1970, because then the U.S. was an exporter not an importer.


Our situation has grown more precarious ever since, as more and more regions of the world have reached their production peaks and subsequently declined in output. Today, world oil production can still be increased, since the global peak is not here yet. But the sources of that increased production have become fewer and fewer. They include Russia, South America, and the Persian Gulf region, and AFAIK that's it. What's more, if you subtract the Persian Gulf from calculations, then the world has already reached the production peak even including Russia and South America; the decline in production in other parts of the world will outweigh any increases in Russia and South America (but not all three expandable regions together). Which means that a working embargo by OPEC could not be replaced even with maximum production increases from those other two sources.


The true global production peak will hit approximately 2010. After that, we will see oil shortages that have nothing to do with politics. But as that date approaches, the oil lifeline becomes ever more tenuous and ever more vulnerable. It is all too likely that some political development will sever it before nature does. It's already happened twice.

Anyway,I think if such a thing happened in this time and place the national mood is such that we would bite the bullet and pay higher prices and do whatever it takes to get the oil from Iraq.

What we did in the 1970s was to greatly increase energy efficiency. I would hope we would have the same response this time around, only more so. In the final analysis, we cannot free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil until we free ourselves from oil, period. And that will require a greatly improved efficiency factor.


Tristan:

Wake up and smell the roses Eric, Israel is not waging a genocidal war aganist the Arabs.

Which Israel? That is exactly what the settlers, and their political supporters in the Knesset, are doing. To the extent that the government supports the settlers, that is what it is doing, too.

The very day after William Strauss appeared on the Art Bell radio show, one named "choselh" suddenly appeared as a voice of pentrating insight within these 4T threads.

The first (of many to come) profound utterance was seen in the Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning? on September 22, 2001 at 9:06 MT. It went like this:

"Wow. I really hate to say this, but the idea that the Bush administration knew about the WTC attacks but did nothing to prevent them actually makes sense to me. I never would have thought of it before reading this board, but it certainly explains a lot of things."

I reeled as I read these words. I thought to myself, The kook cometh...! I quickly got hold of myself, gathered my wits about me, and posted this observation at 10:38 in the same thread, "It looks like having played the fourthturn.com song on Art Bell's show has yielded predictable results."

Ah, how long before a staggered America actually finds herself thinking this way? How long before America returns to infantile 3T kookdom, I wondered? Well not very long. :smile: The word is now out, championed now in the hallowed halls of Congress by the one, and the only Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.)!

And, she is handed a great megaphone to harken unto those living in kooksville by none other than the Washington Post. Folks, it just doesn't get any funnier than this. :lol:


* choselh now calls herself "Xer of Evil" in honor of Bush's "Axis of evil" terrorist doctrine. Surprised?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-14 14:29 ]</font>

On 2002-04-14 13:14, Marc Lamb wrote:

The very day after William Strauss appeared on the Art Bell radio show, one named "choselh" suddenly appeared as a voice of pentrating insight within these 4T threads.

The first (of many to come) profound utterence was seen in the Is the 911 Attack Triggering A Fourth Turning? on September 22, 2001 at 9:06 MT. It went like this:

"Wow. I really hate to say this, but the idea that the Bush administration knew about the WTC attacks but did nothing to prevent them actually makes sense to me. I never would have thought of it before reading this board, but it certainly explains a lot of things."

I reeled as I read these words. I thought to myself, The kook cometh...! I quickly got hold of myself, gathered my wits about me, and posted this observation at 10:38 in the same thread, "It looks like having played the fourthturn.com song on Art Bell's show has yielded predictable results."

Ah, how long before a staggered America actually finds herself thinking this way? How long before America returns to infantile 3T kookdom, I wondered? Well not very long. :smile: The word is now out, championed now in the hollowed halls of Congress by the one, and the only Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.)!

And, she is handed a great megaphone to harken unto those living in kooksville by none other than the Washington Post. Folks, it just doesn't get any funnier than this. :lol:


* choselh now calls herself "Xer of Evil" in honor of Bush's "Axis of evil" terrorist doctrine. Surprised?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-14 13:18 ]</font>

So if there is no foul play here, then Ms. McKinney will turn up nothing, right? Why even bother with all your hyperbole about "kooks" above? Is there still free inquiry in this country? Are we still allowed to investigate government and hold it accountable? And what if Ms. McKinney should turn up something? Would you have a problem with that? I do not see where the problem is here, Marc.

BTW, do you not find it the least bit ironic that, in a world of 6 billion people, the two main actors here, GWB and Osama, are former business partners? Of course that does not mean that there is foul play here. But does Marc Lamb forbid Americans to note the extreme irony here? Obviously, Americans are no longer allowed to govern themselves but are they no longer allowed to think for themselves?

I do not see what the problem is here, Marc. The truth is all that matters, right? If there is no foul play, then none will be found. So why do you get all upset when people investigate and attempt to hold government accountable when, as far as you are concerned, your man has absolutely nothing to fear from such investigations? And even if there were foul play, do you honestly think that Congress would do anything about it anyway? Our government has become a joke over the past 15 years and Ms. McKinney's investigation could not possibly turn out to be anything but a joke as well.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-04-14 13:49 ]</font>

In case anyone is interested, I found a page of links to media reports dealing with different aspects of the charge that the US Government had prior knowledge of the 911 attacks. I have not looked over this page so there may be a whole lot of BS here for all I know. But I did catch the link to David Schippers' interview(s) wherein he detailed the prior knowledge he in fact received in the course of investigating Middle Eastern terrorists in Chicago. The FBI refused to put him through to Ashcroft after repeated attempts and the FBI underlings refused to act on his information. David Schippers was of course a hero to "conservatives" after the Clinton impeachment. Is he just a no good "commie" who "makes stuff up" now? Inquiring minds want to know.

Here is the link (and again there may indeed be a whole lot of BS here for all I know):

infowars.com/resources.html


Choselh, I had no idea you were Cynthia McKinney! You had me fooled all the way! How about a digital autograph or something?


I guess the moral of the story is that it is OK to question and investigate Democrats but we are obliged to accept Republicans at their word. Wrong answer. ALL politicians should be questioned and investigated. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear. And people cease to be free as soon as they stop questioning their elected officials and begin to accept the word of officials purely on faith. End of story. Wrong answer. Not in America, by God.