On 2002-04-14 14:32, Stonewall Patton wrote:
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.

VERY true... what we need is true consistency in that

Gee, Mr. Patton, I checked out your infowars.com site. Hummm, that's more CFR conspiracy stuff than I've seen in a long time. :lol: This one I found familar though:

MAG: SUDAN TRIED TO GIVE CLINTON ADMIN FILES ON BIN LADEN
Vanity Fair has obtained letters and memorandums that document approaches made by Sudanese intelligence officials and other emissaries to members of the Clinton administration to share information about many of the 22 terrorists on the government's most-wanted list, including: Osama bin Laden.

Gosh, back in December, I posted some stuff on Clinton's failure to deal with Osama and an LA Times story about "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

And what did our so-called liberty loving, concerned friends have to say in response?

"I would like to volunteer to prescribe some Prozac for Marc "S" Lamb, which should treat his obsessive compulsive disorder and stop these endless, repetitive posts about Bill Clinton." --choselh

"I am beginning to think that Marc is that Dr. Remulac guy who calls into the Howard Stern show. Marc: "I am Dr. Remulac. I am Dr. Remulac. I am Dr. Remulac. I am Dr. Remulac. I am...." --Stonewall Patton


Two peas in a pod? Uh, I'm beginning to really wonder about you two fruitcakes. I mean, ya'll aren't merely exploring out on the lunatic fringe, you've made it your home!

Too much fun. :smile:

On 2002-04-14 15:27, Marc Lamb wrote:

Gee, Mr. Patton, I checked out your infowars.com site. Hummm, that's more CFR conspiracy stuff than I've seen in a long time. :lol: This one I found familar though:

MAG: SUDAN TRIED TO GIVE CLINTON ADMIN FILES ON BIN LADEN
Vanity Fair has obtained letters and memorandums that document approaches made by Sudanese intelligence officials and other emissaries to members of the Clinton administration to share information about many of the 22 terrorists on the government's most-wanted list, including: Osama bin Laden.

Gosh, back in December, I posted some stuff on Clinton's failure to deal with Osama and an LA Times story about "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

And what did our so-called liberty loving, concerned friends have to say in response?

"I would like to volunteer to prescribe some Prozac for Marc "S" Lamb, which should treat his obsessive compulsive disorder and stop these endless, repetitive posts about Bill Clinton." --choselh

"I am beginning to think that Marc is that Dr. Remulac guy who calls into the Howard Stern show. Marc: "I am Dr. Remulac. I am Dr. Remulac. I am Dr. Remulac. I am Dr. Remulac. I am...." --Stonewall Patton


Two peas in a pod? Uh, I'm beginning to really wonder about you two fruitcakes. I mean, ya'll aren't merely exploring out on the lunatic fringe, you've made it your home!

Too much fun. :smile:

Yep. The same BS as anybody here could predict. Once again you steer clear of addressing any of the actual points made. Why did you not object to all those investigations of Clinton over those eight years? Why do you only now object to investigations with a Republican in office? Regardless of whether the office-holder is Republican or Democrat, if there is no foul play, then no investigation will turn up foul play. Only the truth matters, not partisan political label, correct? No, Marc Lamb does not care one whit about the truth. All that matters is winning his side of his stupid Boomer War, even if victory comes at the price of his soul. Don't pack any winter clothes, Marc. You ain't gonna need it.

On 2002-04-14 14:32, Stonewall Patton wrote:
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.

As juicy and wonderfully tasty as many of you might think that it would be to go haring off on a conspiracy binge that claims that GWB and company knew all about 911 before it happened, you might just want to take a deep breath, let it out and explore the above mentioned website.
I didn't have to go very far on this website before I began encountering news items such as "red heifer calf born in Israel" (said calf is acceptable for sacrifice in the soon to be rebuilt Temple) and proofs that the government is spraying anthrax over U.S. cities and that the U.N. is plotting on taking over America, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I've followed a certain amount of the conspiracy theory crowd over the years, its been a minor hobby of mine. A lot of the old familiar names and theories popped up on this website, they're largely from the "patriot" movement, those fine folks who often have their bunkers well stocked and have been ready to lead the armed resistance to the dreaded U.N. takeover which will use black helicopters and UFOs and the Chinese army invading from Canada and following the invasion route by using the little blue reflectors in the middle of the road. Boy howdy! :lol:


I've been fascinated, since E2K, by the way that the left jumped over to the conspiracy theorist bandwagon that had largely been a far-right wing/nutcase playground. Now the lefties see conspiracies under their beds and in their closets and they don't seem to be able to discriminate between actual/real collusions such as Enron and the machinations of the Trilateral commission, the Bilderburgers (yummm!), the Group of Rome, the Freemasons, and all the rest, including, lastly but certainly not leastly, the international Zionist Conspiracy.

IMHO, Cynthia McKinney is a loon. Hopefully, she's merely a cynical opportunist who's playing to an audience of people who are/or feel themselves to be disenfranchised. That would make her rather repugnant but it wouldn't reflect too badly on her basic intelligence. It should be remembered that Ms Mckinney is a member of Congress and that elections are being held this fall. If she can create enough FUD (fear, uncertainty, and Doubt), then she increases her likelihood of re-election by appealing to her constituents' fears of disenfranchisement relative to the Bush Administration.(As I understand it, her district is pretty secure but it never hurts to nail down a few more votes)
Anyway, to wrap this up, this "Patriot" crowd contains a lot of unsavory people whom you might not particularly want to find yourself in bed with. If you don't like GWB, there's plenty of real, actual policy-type things to be against.

Thanks, Alan, you said about all that needs to be said on the matter. Except, of course:

"Once again you steer clear of addressing any of the actual points made." --That Patton fella

There's a very good reason for that, Mr. Patton: I ain't gonna waste my time debating with a bonafide kook about a load of hogwash conspiracy crap.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-14 16:59 ]</font>

On 2002-04-14 16:56, Marc Lamb wrote:

Thanks, Alan, you said about all that needs to be said on the matter. Except, of course:

"Once again you steer clear of addressing any of the actual points made." --That Patton fella

There's a very good reason for that, Mr. Patton: I ain't gonna waste my time debating with a bonafide kook about a load of hogwash conspiracy crap.

That does not change the fact that:

"Once again you steer clear of addressing any of the actual points made." --That Patton fella

I never said that I believed that the Bush administration planned the thing, Marc. Indeed I just cannot bring myself to believe that. I was merely responding to your objection to Ms. McKinney's investigation when you would in no way put the brakes on the earlier investigation of a stained blue dress. So Ms. McKinney want to investigate. So what? If there was no foul play on the part of the Bush administration, then the Bush administration has nothing to fear.

Mr. Lamb objects to any questioning of the Holy Word of our Messiah George W. Bush. But many Americans feel that they have a right to know just what the hell they are paying for with so much of their money going to these intelligence and law enforcement agencies (most of them not even authorized by the Constitution) when these agencies supposedly did not have a clue about the events of 911. Predictably, these agencies claimed to be understaffed, etc., and stated that they need even more or our money. Do they? That is what Ms. McKinney is trying to ascertain, I believe. What did these agencies know and when did they know it? Are we getting our money's worth? If not, then what the hell is the real problem here?

This is nothing more than proper congressional oversight. Yet Mr. Lamb and the Kool-Aid Kavalry don't want anybody looking too closely at this incredibly secretive Bush administration. Again, what the hell are we paying for? Heads should roll, but none have. Why is that? So Ms. McKinney is acting responsibly as a member of Congress in attempting to ascertain what we are getting (or not getting) for our money and it is a wonder that it took this long for a Congress critter to stand up and ask this very basic question: what the hell are we paying for and how come no heads have rolled?

Note that there is no necessity that some far-reaching "conspiracy" be present. Let's just locate any incompetence and remove it. It is very simple, very basic. And it is the way our government is supposed to work. (Not that anything will ever come of this nor that any heads will roll.)

Here is an earlier column by Farah over at WorldNetDaily. He is pointing out documented facts and asking very basic questions. Again, there is no need for a vast "conspiracy." But in the absence of "conspiracy," why should not incompetence be fully investigated and rooted out by Congress as Ms. McKinney is finally trying to do?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=24996

(For info and discussion)

The failure of government

? 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

During the Watergate investigation into Nixon administration corruption, a familiar question to witnesses was: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

A good variation on that question more than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack is: "What did the government know and when did it know it?"

There's a growing body of evidence that those entrusted and paid by the people to know about threats indeed had some warning, but failed to pass it on to the public.

For instance, according to a report in the London Telegraph, Israeli intelligence agents traveled to Washington in August to warn the FBI and Central Intelligence Agency that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent. The Israelis warned that as many as 200 terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden and Iraq were preparing a big operation.

Now that may not seem like enough information to have prevented the attacks. But that's not all the information that was available to our intelligence agencies ? not by a long shot.

The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies also knew that two of the hijackers were in the country, according to the Los Angeles Times. They were on a terrorist watch list. But the airlines were not notified.

In addition, the FBI and CIA were well aware of bin Laden's plans to hijack U.S. airliners. The plot was uncovered six years earlier in the Philippines when police found detailed information on a laptop computer belonging to a bin Laden operative, Ramsi Youssef. The plan called for hijacking U.S. airliners and crashing them into U.S. buildings including the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

In case the FBI and CIA had just forgotten about Project Bojinka, which I sincerely doubt, they should have received a reminder with the 1999 publication of Yossef Bodansky's book, "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," in which he spells it out. The original plan called for the hijacking of 11 airliners at once.

In other words, had the FBI and CIA simply added two plus two, the threat of hijackings would have been obvious.

But there was even more.

The FBI had several terrorists under surveillance, according to the Oct. 1 issue of Newsweek. They intercepted communications just prior to Sept. 11 that suggested something very big was about to happen.

Still, there were more clues.

Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested after flight trainers tipped off the feds that he wanted to learn how to fly a 747 but wasn't interested in takeoffs or landings. Zacarias was traveling on a French passport. When contacted, the French government reported that he was a suspected terrorist.

There were even more reasons to be on high alert ? and specifically to be thinking about the threat of dramatic hijackings.

The question then is: Were they ignored? And, if so, why?

But there is evidence that the threat wasn't ignored ? at least not entirely.

A day after the attack, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Mayor Willie Brown was called eight hours before the hijackings and warned by his security staff not to travel.

On Sept. 27, the London Times reported that Salman Rushdie got a similar warning about avoiding U.S. and Canadian airliners. That warning, said Rushdie, came from no less authority than the Federal Aviation Administration.

Now, you're probably wondering why Willie Brown and Salman Rushdie are more important to the U.S. government than you and me and Barbara Olson. I'm wondering the same thing.

These selective warnings ? and I have no doubt there were many more we have not yet heard about ? suggest strongly that the FBI, CIA and other federal agencies had the information, knew something big was up, something that involved terrorist attacks on airliners, but failed to disclose the information to the airlines and the flying public in general.

I think heads should roll at the FBI and CIA. I think there ought to be an investigation into what the FAA knew and when it knew it. I think, once again, the federal government has neglected its main responsibility under the Constitution ? protecting the American people from attack.

[quote]
On 2002-04-14 13:47, Stonewall Patton wrote:

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?

Dear Mr. Patton, I am quite sure that irony was among the deceased of 9-11. The obit was in the papers of the time...the lead was Everything changed....

Irony was survived by b its longtime companion, sarcasm and a <S>bastard</S> lovechild, wit. HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-14 19:43 ]</font>

On 2002-04-14 16:56, Marc Lamb wrote:

Thanks, Alan, you said about all that needs to be said on the matter. Except, of course:

"Once again you steer clear of addressing any of the actual points made." --That Patton fella

There's a very good reason for that, Mr. Patton: I ain't gonna waste my time debating with a bonafide kook about a load of hogwash conspiracy crap.

Whether the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the attacks is entirely moot in this argument. The issue here is whether or not we have a RIGHT to question the actions of our government.

As Stonewall said before, if Bush really didn't do anything, then there is nothing to fear.

The founders of America built a nation that was rooted in distrust of government. Because of that, our founders created a nation of laws. Paradoxically, this notion of distrust built trust within the system.

The founders realized that leaders are only human, and that leaders should be held as accountable as everyone else.

And as it turned out, they were right. History is full of leaders who sold out their own people. Many can remember the Shah of Iran. Or how about the Kingdom of Oyo, whom sold their own civilians to the slave trade? History is full of MANY such examples.

As such, I think that our government should face an investigation if there is enough evidence to support one. Besides, our own government has engaged in very questionable practices, whether it is the Iran-Contra scandal or Clinton allegedly selling nuclear missle technology to China, or any of the extracurricular CIA activities. I doubt that Bush is heads and shoulders above Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, LBJ, etc. In the 1990s, there was enough evidence that Clinton might have sold nuclear technology to China.

This is a nation "for the people, by the people, and of the people." When we put people into office, it is our responsibility to make sure that they do everything right. This means that we need to watch our leaders. At the end, it is the civilians who rule. It is us who have the last word.

"Whether the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the attacks is entirely moot in this argument. The issue here is whether or not we have a RIGHT to question the actions of our government."

This is getting really ridiculous. Ain't nobody trying to abridge anybody's "RIGHT" to say whatever they wish, Mr. Patton, Reed et al. Least of all, my "RIGHT" to call Patton a bonafide kook.

This is either quite a silly smoke screen (in order to avoid some real embarrassment here), or else you folks aren't even fit to be called kooks. Sheesh.

On 2002-04-14 20:40, Marc Lamb wrote:

"Whether the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the attacks is entirely moot in this argument. The issue here is whether or not we have a RIGHT to question the actions of our government."

This is getting really ridiculous. Ain't nobody trying to abridge anybody's "RIGHT" to say whatever they wish, Mr. Patton, Reed et al. Least of all, my "RIGHT" to call Patton a bonafide kook.

This is either quite a silly smoke screen (in order to avoid some real embarrassment here), or else you folks aren't even fit to be called kooks. Sheesh.

Basically, I looked up the word "kook" in a dictionary. Perhaps, I will make it a secondary nickname. Besides, I was always highly eccentric, and do have some crazy ideas. :smile:

The idea isn't completely about anyone's right to say anything they want about the government. That is already guaranteed in the constitution. The question is whether or not people have the right to investigate the government IF there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

Let me ask you: what is the central issue of this discussion about whether or not to investigate whether or not the government had any prior knowledge of the attacks?

On 2002-04-14 16:48, alan wrote:


I've been fascinated, since E2K, by the way that the left jumped over to the conspiracy theorist bandwagon that had largely been a far-right wing/nutcase playground. Now the lefties see conspiracies under their beds and in their closets and they don't seem to be able to discriminate between actual/real collusions such as Enron and the machinations of the Trilateral commission, the Bilderburgers (yummm!), the Group of Rome, the Freemasons, and all the rest, including, lastly but certainly not leastly, the international Zionist Conspiracy.

OOPS! You forgot about the Illuminati! :lol:

On 2002-04-14 20:50, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-04-14 20:40, Marc Lamb wrote:

"Whether the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the attacks is entirely moot in this argument. The issue here is whether or not we have a RIGHT to question the actions of our government."

This is getting really ridiculous. Ain't nobody trying to abridge anybody's "RIGHT" to say whatever they wish, Mr. Patton, Reed et al. Least of all, my "RIGHT" to call Patton a bonafide kook.

This is either quite a silly smoke screen (in order to avoid some real embarrassment here), or else you folks aren't even fit to be called kooks. Sheesh.

Basically, I looked up the word "kook" in a dictionary. Perhaps, I will make it a secondary nickname. Besides, I was always highly eccentric, and do have some crazy ideas. :smile:

The idea isn't completely about anyone's right to say anything they want about the government. That is already guaranteed in the constitution. The question is whether or not people have the right to investigate the government IF there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

Let me ask you: what is the central issue of this discussion about whether or not to investigate whether or not the government had any prior knowledge of the attacks?

Robert, you have to get with the program. Congress is only permitted to exercise its oversight responsibilities when a Democrat is at the head of the executive agencies. Didn't you see the relevant clause of the Constitution? Republican executives are beyond reproach and the current Republican executive is the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior. No one is to question the Holy Word of our Lord and Savior in the White House because he is Truth. Let us pray....

On 2002-04-14 20:06, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-04-14 16:56, Marc Lamb wrote:

Thanks, Alan, you said about all that needs to be said on the matter. Except, of course:

"Once again you steer clear of addressing any of the actual points made." --That Patton fella

There's a very good reason for that, Mr. Patton: I ain't gonna waste my time debating with a bonafide kook about a load of hogwash conspiracy crap.

Whether the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the attacks is entirely moot in this argument. The issue here is whether or not we have a RIGHT to question the actions of our government.

Robert, Robert, stop it! Don't you know that is blasphemy, young man! NO ONE questions our Lord and Savior in the White House. Constitutional limitations on power and governmental accountability only apply to mortal men. George W. Bush is the Word made Flesh. Quick! We must restore your Grace. Let's sing a hymn to the Almighty in the White House. On your knees now:


Guide me, O, thou great Jehovah,
Pilgrim through this barren land!
I am weak, and thou art mighty,
Hold me with thy powerful hand!

Bread of heaven,
Bread of heaven,
Feed me till I want no more!
Feed me till I want no more!


Do you feel the power, Robert? Let the Spirit consume you. You must not allow your wickedness to put you on the wrong side of our Lord and Savior in the White House. There is hell to pay for such blasphemy! Vaya con Dubya...I mean, Dios.

On 2002-04-14 08:25, firemind wrote:
I agree with everything Tristan wrote in the previous post responding to Eric's post. Also, I have an additional comment.

Anyway here is a reply for Eric, Martin Luther King jnr said this once When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews.... I do think that quote sums up some people's accusations aganist Israel.

To be fair Russia has had a very hard time in turning itself from a communist country into a democratic captialist one. However given the state Russia was in a few years ago, it is making good progress.

Russia becoming more democratic has made it's foregin policy stance more friendly towards the West and less hostile towards it's neighbours.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0414-04.htm

Is this part of the "civic risk taking" that S&H warned us about?

Large jump in government spending: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Apr14.html

On 2002-04-14 13:37, Xer of Evil wrote:
I can't hide the truth any longer. My real name is Cynthia McKinney. Nice detective work, Marc.

Cindy

But Congresswoman McKinney is a Boomer, isn't she? :lol: :lol:

On 2002-04-15 08:45, madscientist wrote:

Large jump in government spending: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Apr14.html

LBJ is Risen! He is reincarnated in the form of our Lord and Savior George W. Bush! Behold the Power and the Glory!

On 2002-04-15 07:50, madscientist wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0414-04.htm

Is this part of the "civic risk taking" that S&H warned us about?

Robert, Alan Keyes has not been worth a damn since 911. However he did include a sharp comment in his latest column relevant to the Bush administration's new Iraq crusade:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27229

"But have we forgotten that the human and financial instruments of the Sept. 11 attack came from Saudi Arabia, and that the Saudi government and other "moderate" Arab states are the chief supporters of Palestinian terror? Is it reasonable to slacken our support for Israel's war on terror, in deference to regimes implicated in the very evil we are fighting?"

Of course, Keyes is a hawk with respect to both Israel and Iraq. But he at least states the obvious but monumentally inconvenient truth to our oil interest-dominated Bush administration that Saudi Arabia is the fulcrum of all this terrorist crap. Hey, but who gives a damn about the actual terrorism? It is that Caspian oil we are after!

On to Baku! On to Baku!

In response to a comment by Marc Lamb, elilevin wrote in part:

... 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.

This seems very much like the "free speech" issue that's been raised by those arguing about election finance reform. It's always easier to get heard if you have the wherewithall to make yourself heard.

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.

I agree. Begin did his country no favor by starting down that path. I also agree that the ability to undo that decision is not in anyone's hands - Israeli or Palestinian.

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.

Revolutionaries rarely make suitable adminstrators, and the biggest challenge for the Palestinians will be to rebuild.

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.

Sun Tzu warned that a prolonged war benefitted neither side. Instead of victory, the result is resentment.


Those most anxious to replace Arafat should keep in mind that inciting blood-lust is much easier than satisfying it. At the very time that toughtful Israelis and Palestinians are seeing the futility of more fighting, the most extreme are calling for more - more - more. Only a few of those voices are Jews, so the chief burden lies with the Arabs

These are observations from someone who has been there.

Your comments are timely and thoughful. I hope we get to hear more.

Return to 3T?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/738848.asp

Does not look likely at all. Perhaps, the Bush Administration should stop focusing on Iraq, and focus on <strikeout>killing</strikeout> bringing OBL to justice once and for all. Perhaps, Bush holding the severed and dripping head of OBL will help ease the 4T mindset.

Despite having once voted for him, by the late 90's, I was certainly no fan of Bill Clinton. However, even when I had made up my mind that the man was almost entirely without a sense of honor and seemed to hold almost no convictions worth mentioning, I could still recognize that there existed a brand of "Clinton-hater" who had lost all rationality about him.

There were (and still are) people who would find something bad to say about practically anything Clinton said or did, regardless of how benign it was. If Bill Clinton stood behind a podium and recited the key passages from the Declaration of Independence, they would find something bad to say about it. If Clinton smiled at a puppy dog, these people would find something bad to say about it. If Clinton decided to go into a restroom to urinate, these people would find something negative about it.

These people had so brainwashed themselves that absolutely nothing Clinton could do would meet with their approval. I remember one instance where Clinton's stance on a subject and a certain rabid-Clinton-hater radio personality's stance on the same subject were EXACTLY THE SAME, and Clinton had publically stated the exact arguments used by the Clinton-hater, and, eerily, the Clinton-hater appeared to have HEARD THE EXACT OPPOSITE from Clinton's lips, even though it was a recording that the radio guy played more than once. This radio personality proceeded to denounce Clinton for holding exactly the opposite stance that Clinton had clearly professed, despite a meager attempt by one of the radio guy's cohorts to point out that Clinton had, in fact, said exactly what the radio guy was saying.

It was the fact that I could still recognize when people were attacking Clinton irrationally that I felt MY low opinion of Clinton was rational and justified.

I have come to the conclusion that Stonewall is exactly like this when it comes to GWB. He has lost all rationality on the subject of GWB, believing the most ridiculous things even when all of the evidence contradicts his beliefs. He is a "rabid-Bush-hater". Stonewall has lost all objectivity. Stonewall lives in a dreamworld. GWB is Stonewall's Satan incarnate.

No matter what happens, Stonewall will denounce GWB. If Bush decides to topple Saddam Hussein, something Stonewall believes should have been done in 1991, Stonewall will denounce the decision. Stonewall points out that the Saudis are responsible for 9/11. If GWB then topples the government of Saudi Arabia, Stonewall will still denounce the decision. Anything GWB decides to do in the future will be wrong as far as Stonewall is concerned.

It is Stonewall who drinks Kool-Aid, from wacky conspiracy sites to the more loony libertarian fringe groups. His vision of the world is black-and-white. The black helicopters are coming for him, even now; he can hear them off in the background. He alone knows the truth, and they will get him for it.

It's funny that Stonewall thinks the observation that the Saudi's are hip-deep in responsibility for 9/11 is such as huge revelation, and uses it to attack Bush.

What's funny is, Stonewall hates "neocons", but this exact same observation is VERY prevalent among "neocons", who argue that Saudi Arabia should be targeted soon, perhaps even before Iraq. Many "neocons" attack Bush for ANY amount of cordial behavior towards the Saudis, although even they recognize that there has been a severe and sudden cooling of Saudi-American relations, a recognition that has so far escaped Stonewall.

Michael Moore makes this same mistake about the Saudis, openly arguing that we should be targeting them as a way to attack Bush. If the Saudis are eventually targeted, which remains uncertain one way or the other, it will be funny watching Moore, and Stonewall, squirm.

No doubt, if such a thing came to pass, Moore's arguments and Stonewall's would reverse (again), with them saying that it is Saudi oil we are after, not an end to terrorism.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TraceyX on 2002-04-15 10:35 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 10:13, TraceyX wrote:
Despite having once voted for him, by the late 90's, I was certainly no fan of Bill Clinton. However, even when I had made up my mind that the man was almost entirely without a sense of honor and seemed to hold almost no convictions worth mentioning, I could still recognize that there existed a brand of "Clinton-hater" who had lost all rationality about him.

There were (and still are) people who would find something bad to say about practically anything Clinton said or did, regardless of how benign it was. If Bill Clinton stood behind a podium and recited the key passages from the Declaration of Independence, they would find something bad to say about it. If Clinton smiled at a puppy dog, these people would find something bad to say about it. If Clinton decided to go into a restroom to urinate, these people would find something negative about it.

These people had so brainwashed themselves that absolutely nothing Clinton could do would meet with their approval. I remember one instance where Clinton's stance on a subject and a certain rabid-Clinton-hater radio personality's stance on the same subject were EXACTLY THE SAME, and Clinton had publically stated the exact arguments used by the Clinton-hater, and, eerily, the Clinton-hater appeared to have HEARD THE EXACT OPPOSITE from Clinton's lips, even though it was a recording that the radio guy played more than once. This radio personality proceeded to denounce Clinton for holding exactly the opposite stance that Clinton had clearly professed, despite a meager attempt by one of the radio guy's cohorts to point out that Clinton had, in fact, said exactly what the radio guy was saying.

It was the fact that I could still recognize when people were attacking Clinton irrationally that I felt MY low opinion of Clinton was rational and justified.

I have come to the conclusion that Stonewall is exactly like this when it comes to GWB. He has lost all rationality on the subject of GWB, believing the most ridiculous things even when all of the evidence contradicts his beliefs. He is a "rabid-Bush-hater". Stonewall has lost all objectivity. Stonewall lives in a dreamworld. GWB is Stonewall's Satan incarnate.

No matter what happens, Stonewall will denounce GWB. If Bush decides to topple Saddam Hussein, something Stonewall believes should have been done in 1991, Stonewall will denounce the decision. Stonewall points out that the Saudis are responsible for 9/11. If GWB then topples the government of Saudi Arabia, Stonewall will still denounce the decision. Anything GWB decides to do in the future will be wrong as far as Stonewall is concerned.

It is Stonewall who drinks Kool-Aid, from wacky conspiracy sites to the more loony libertarian fringe groups. His vision of the world is black-and-white. The black helicopters are coming for him, even now; he can hear them off in the background. He alone knows the truth, and they will get him for it.

I would not agree. Sure, he has a strong dislike of Bush, but I would not call him a "rabid-Bush-hater"...not even close. Besides, there are many people here (including moi) who dislike Bush.

Stonewall still maintains his objectivity, but his boundaries of objectivity lie within his libertarian ideals.

Basically, Stonewall is an idealist. He follows ideologies rather than people. While he dislikes Bush, he dislikes him because Stonewall perceives that Bush is acting in a way contrary to his ideals of what America should be.

Someone could make the exact same argument about me, and I bet that Marc feels the exact way about me, as my ideals are obviously entirely different from his, as he is a born-again Christian Conservative while I am an atheist classical liberal.

For people with different ideals, the arena is different, as people ask different questions about what society is, and what society should be. Of course, these may overlap. For instance, both me and Stonewall share libertarian ideals, and both of us are decidely Jeffersonian in many ideals. However, it would be more accurate to call me the crazy one as I not only subscribe to a libertarian ideal, but also a borderline radical leftist one. So I am probably more anti-Bush than Stonewall is.