Please tell me that you are not comparing anti-war protesters to the likes of these. To even reference them in your response, cheapens your position.
more protestors
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Valid point Greg and no I wouldn't --was just an way to show Freedom of Speech is not black and whilte--there are degrees.
--and I think protesting a war is defintely a valid freedom--however when they are organized by political elements the question arises are they people expressing their freedoms or political or radical elements trying to score political points.
I've just have a sore spot from the past when I saw these same protests with "concern" for troops and civilian casualties--only to find their real motives when I returned.
--and I think protesting a war is defintely a valid freedom--however when they are organized by political elements the question arises are they people expressing their freedoms or political or radical elements trying to score political points.
I've just have a sore spot from the past when I saw these same protests with "concern" for troops and civilian casualties--only to find their real motives when I returned.
DTB, I believe I remember reading that you are a Vietnam veteran and in light of that, I can certainly understand your disdain for anti-war protesters. This Iraq situation however, is an entirely different animal and the protests are centered around our adminstration's policies and not around the actions of our soldiers. Whether or not one agrees with the premises behind the decision to go to war, I think that we can all agree that Bush's bunch has done a very poor job of managing this conflict.
Gardenweasal : The solution:
1. Start doing everything we need to do that will allow us to get away from our dpendence on foreign energy. We need to be self sufficient so that their will be no need to deal with the nasty people we currently deal with.
2. In the meantime, we need to be talking to everyone involved in the middle east with several goals in mind. Peace, stability, and prosperity for all of the middle east people. Not just the selected few. All international players should participate. Talking should continue, even if it takes years.
3. In dealing with Hamas, Al Queda and the like; if they don't want to talk. These groups will be left with no optionbut to talk. These groups need to understand that the only other outcome must be the COMPLETE destruction of these groups and any country that helps them.
4. We can only be in a position to do these things and settle this problem if we are energy independent. That has to happen.
1. Start doing everything we need to do that will allow us to get away from our dpendence on foreign energy. We need to be self sufficient so that their will be no need to deal with the nasty people we currently deal with.
2. In the meantime, we need to be talking to everyone involved in the middle east with several goals in mind. Peace, stability, and prosperity for all of the middle east people. Not just the selected few. All international players should participate. Talking should continue, even if it takes years.
3. In dealing with Hamas, Al Queda and the like; if they don't want to talk. These groups will be left with no optionbut to talk. These groups need to understand that the only other outcome must be the COMPLETE destruction of these groups and any country that helps them.
4. We can only be in a position to do these things and settle this problem if we are energy independent. That has to happen.
Everything is political when it comes to war. THE DECISION TO ENTER THIS WAR WAS ORGANIZED BY POLITICAL ELEMENTS. In our system who decides what elements should be heard. Whats the harm in everyone being heard ? The damage of this war goes way beyond the casualties. The greater damage is what happens the next time our politicians have to make the decision to go to war. It will be hard for most politicians to make the right decision for the right reason. This debacle in Iraq is going to cripple our country and our ability to defend our self, for a long time, in many ways. We were gun shy after Vietnam, what happens after Iraq ?
Gregg I would like to elaborate just a little in view that you are one of my favs here and your opinion and thoughts are important to me.
In my mind Viet Nam and Iraq are quite similiar in these respects.
Both are very controversial as to whether we should be there in 1st place--and I can understand that as if I had not gone I might have been protesting right with them--but once we were involved the whole thing becomes a different matter.
Once in Viet nam my perception change--we were fighting for and with the people of the south who were being slaughtered by the communist of the north--same situation as NK/SK previously.
In Iraq you had 66% of people being mass murdered by a dictator.
the protestors in VN appeared to have empathy for the troops--we know what followed when we got home--they appeared to have same for civilian casualties and their protesting took us from situation that was finally well in hand to the most horrendous slaughter of civiilians in modern era--and never heard a peep of them claiiming this responsibilty which lies directly on their shoulders.
Now I do give one element of protestors a pass--and that was those that did so in fear of draft--Fear is real and to be forced to fight some elses war at risk of their life is a valid reason to protest in my view.
Iraq does not have the # of protestors as VN for the very reason --no draft.
That is my reason for giving few a pass--we had the Penn's slash moviestars /moveon ect prior to war with their excuse of saving civilian casuaties--What about the Shite and Kurd civilians
massacred under Saddam?--now we have the pretense of the troops--yet the troops that made the sacrifices that the other 66% of Iraqi's could be free--must watch our one time attorney general defend this mass murderer they went though hell to catch and then lead org and protestors trying to act like they are defenders of troops--and if it's not our troops--then what are they protesting--the liberation of the 66% from Saddam?
I will post something here for you tomorrow because I said your opinions are important to me and I want you to know where I'm coming from.
Then I will ask you a favor. At the conclusion I hope you can understand why I do not call the people below legitamate protestors---
from this weeks protests--
http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2012088&l=c6305&id=65201211
In my mind Viet Nam and Iraq are quite similiar in these respects.
Both are very controversial as to whether we should be there in 1st place--and I can understand that as if I had not gone I might have been protesting right with them--but once we were involved the whole thing becomes a different matter.
Once in Viet nam my perception change--we were fighting for and with the people of the south who were being slaughtered by the communist of the north--same situation as NK/SK previously.
In Iraq you had 66% of people being mass murdered by a dictator.
the protestors in VN appeared to have empathy for the troops--we know what followed when we got home--they appeared to have same for civilian casualties and their protesting took us from situation that was finally well in hand to the most horrendous slaughter of civiilians in modern era--and never heard a peep of them claiiming this responsibilty which lies directly on their shoulders.
Now I do give one element of protestors a pass--and that was those that did so in fear of draft--Fear is real and to be forced to fight some elses war at risk of their life is a valid reason to protest in my view.
Iraq does not have the # of protestors as VN for the very reason --no draft.
That is my reason for giving few a pass--we had the Penn's slash moviestars /moveon ect prior to war with their excuse of saving civilian casuaties--What about the Shite and Kurd civilians
massacred under Saddam?--now we have the pretense of the troops--yet the troops that made the sacrifices that the other 66% of Iraqi's could be free--must watch our one time attorney general defend this mass murderer they went though hell to catch and then lead org and protestors trying to act like they are defenders of troops--and if it's not our troops--then what are they protesting--the liberation of the 66% from Saddam?
I will post something here for you tomorrow because I said your opinions are important to me and I want you to know where I'm coming from.
Then I will ask you a favor. At the conclusion I hope you can understand why I do not call the people below legitamate protestors---
from this weeks protests--
http://linfield.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2012088&l=c6305&id=65201211
Last edited:
what is your source behind this statistic? are you claiming that saddam killed like 20 million iraqis?
because that obviously is not true.
Looks like one group of jackesses out of an overwhelmingly peaceful protest. Even the person posting the pictures say they disapprove of the idiots who burned the flag.
Do you always let 0.1% of something determine your overall view about it? ...or only when it suits you?
So, DTB: what do all of you that think our current stay the course policy is o.k. recommend. That we should stay there forever? WITH WHICH SOLDIERS DO YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE DO THAT? WITH WHAT MONEY/ WITH WHAT EQUIPMENT? This administration has proven time and again that planning anything is beyond their understanding. Why should we now believe that this is going to change? It isn't. The difference between Vietnam and Iraq is this: we have already won in Iraq. Saddam is gone. WMD never found, even so they are not a threat. New government in place. By any definition we have won the military side of this. What remains cannot be settled by the military. Now of course, we have the enemy reverting to VC tactics...using children as a decoy. Let's get out before we have to again face a picture of one of our GI's forced to gun down a 10 year old. We have been there before. We know where this will lead. Our military has done everything and more than was asked. Time for American involvement in this civil war to end.
Yes there are Generals now past and present saying it has slip to a civil war. That leaves us no side to take in it. And we should not even think of doing that. God I wish Bush would wake from his coma. You can tell from the Kurd area where little is going on. Why? They wish to try peace. And we have few troops there. But it's Open season in rest of Iraq. This is where we should get off the bus. Count our win and go. Do We need another Saddam to come along to pull Iraq back in line. I'm afraid it looks that way.
Gregg --We had several discussions on Kerry back in 04 and while contributing heavily I thought it necessary to have 6-5 post my military records (I didn't know how) as to afford credibilty on my points of view--here is page from back then since from your comment above I doubt you saw them and I believe it is relevent to my opinion.
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146823&page=2&pp
Now I will say this--Attitudes tend to change when you work next to/with people that at one time who had little hope and look to you for hope and you can watch that hope turn to pride as they develops skill to stand on their own. I had the pleasure to watch that very thing occur--the NVA no longer were mounting large scale attacks as they had been decimated on any such ventures--The south was within a wisker of being able to take complete control and shoe was on other foot with NVA having little hope--then NVA hopes were totally uplifted by the most surprising ally --the U.S. protestor. Not only were the troops remove but so was the aid--the south was left with not even parts to keep their arsenal operational--The protestors turned things completely around without ever firing a shot.
So rather than most that served there thinking our pullout was victory --we knew it was victory for the enemy--and all those hopes and pride we had seen and all the sacrifices the south and our troops collectively made together were decimated --by those that knew little of what was really going on--and while the North went to brag how "they" turned things around by being persistant in the face of defeat--they played little part in the outcome--it was lack persistancy from our side the changed the war--had we remained with just a back up force as in korea I have no doubt the outcome would have been the same as with Korea----and to me it looks like( de ja vu) in Iraq.
so my friend--whether I am right or wrong I hope you can understand why I look at "political" protestors with distain.
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146823&page=2&pp
Now I will say this--Attitudes tend to change when you work next to/with people that at one time who had little hope and look to you for hope and you can watch that hope turn to pride as they develops skill to stand on their own. I had the pleasure to watch that very thing occur--the NVA no longer were mounting large scale attacks as they had been decimated on any such ventures--The south was within a wisker of being able to take complete control and shoe was on other foot with NVA having little hope--then NVA hopes were totally uplifted by the most surprising ally --the U.S. protestor. Not only were the troops remove but so was the aid--the south was left with not even parts to keep their arsenal operational--The protestors turned things completely around without ever firing a shot.
So rather than most that served there thinking our pullout was victory --we knew it was victory for the enemy--and all those hopes and pride we had seen and all the sacrifices the south and our troops collectively made together were decimated --by those that knew little of what was really going on--and while the North went to brag how "they" turned things around by being persistant in the face of defeat--they played little part in the outcome--it was lack persistancy from our side the changed the war--had we remained with just a back up force as in korea I have no doubt the outcome would have been the same as with Korea----and to me it looks like( de ja vu) in Iraq.
so my friend--whether I am right or wrong I hope you can understand why I look at "political" protestors with distain.
This is an absolutely accurate point, and one that needs to be focused on. I guess I really never thought of it before seeing this posted, but it is SO TRUE. It's sadly funny that supporters of Bush and this war - like Wayne and Wease - are critical of those that say criticisms of the war effort are political, and the main reason we entered into this war is because of political games and the political control of information about the need to go to war. Liberals - and at least non supporters of the war - are roundly beaten up in this forum and in the forum of public opinion when we find fault with this war effort, because we are accused of being political. The main reason we went to Iraq in the first place - and definitely the reason we are still there - is because of this administrations political agenda.
I know it was easier for you fellas when you had people thinking they were a part of a majority. Now that people know the truth, and the motivation behind what our current administration wanted to accomplish, it must be hard being in the minority. Your words just don't ring true anymore, at least for most of America, who have realized the folly in believing the current administration when it comes to much of anything.
--until the next 911--Chad
Maybe you could explain why so many were for it after 911 and after its calm for a few years they lose their fear.
Believe the vote was 77-23
Apparently some stand behind their convictions--and some don't.
They say the way to solve Iran is through base of people there that are pro western and change their politics internally--If both parties told them we would back them to the end--which party would you trust to do so--and which would you think would pull out at 1st hint of public dissent?
If you would the other guy running for pres in 00 and tell me how his speach differed from Bush's.
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.
Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.
The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.
Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.--
Maybe you could explain why so many were for it after 911 and after its calm for a few years they lose their fear.
Believe the vote was 77-23
Apparently some stand behind their convictions--and some don't.
They say the way to solve Iran is through base of people there that are pro western and change their politics internally--If both parties told them we would back them to the end--which party would you trust to do so--and which would you think would pull out at 1st hint of public dissent?
If you would the other guy running for pres in 00 and tell me how his speach differed from Bush's.
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.
Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.
The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.
Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.--
Last edited:
I'm pretty busy this morning, but I enjoyed your link, Wayne. It lends even more credence to my point that Bush and the cabal mislead not only Americans, but legislators in taking that final leap into war. Kerry said a lot in that statement...I see that you conveniently picked out the few paragraphs that help your case. There is a lot more there if people want to read it, which puts the honus back the President to further prove the need for war, which he did with falsehoods.
Two important lines from the paragraphs YOU posted:
" I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past..."
and
"...and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case."
I'll have more on all of that statement, which is illuminating if you study it. As to your initial point, voting to give a President authority to go to war - with many reservations and caveats - is much different than falsifying a case for war and actually starting a war. But, that never matters in your case building, much like it never did in the Bush administration's case building.
Two important lines from the paragraphs YOU posted:
" I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past..."
and
"...and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case."
I'll have more on all of that statement, which is illuminating if you study it. As to your initial point, voting to give a President authority to go to war - with many reservations and caveats - is much different than falsifying a case for war and actually starting a war. But, that never matters in your case building, much like it never did in the Bush administration's case building.
When the President declares that a country presents itself as a "Clear and present danger" to the United States no Senator should ever not vote to give that President everything he needs. That is why it is so wrong for Bush to have misused that sacred trust.
Now, as far as staying in Iraq so Halliburten can continue to make money, it seems to me that we have met all of our objectives in Iraq. No WMD, Hussien gone. Not sure I remember hearing Bush say we had to rebuild the country. :shrug:
Wayne, maybe you can provide a post, pre-invasion, link where Bush outlines to the American people how we will rebuild Iraq and keep our soldiers in the middle of a Civel War. Maybe something where he discusses the cost of this too?
Now, as far as staying in Iraq so Halliburten can continue to make money, it seems to me that we have met all of our objectives in Iraq. No WMD, Hussien gone. Not sure I remember hearing Bush say we had to rebuild the country. :shrug:
Wayne, maybe you can provide a post, pre-invasion, link where Bush outlines to the American people how we will rebuild Iraq and keep our soldiers in the middle of a Civel War. Maybe something where he discusses the cost of this too?
Not sure if either Bush or Cheney specifically flip-flopped later in their game, but they are on record with these:
"We are not in the business of nation building"
George W.Bush in 2000
"We can not invade Iraq,because we do not have an exit strategy"
Dick Cheney in 1991
I guess the fact that we blew giant holes in the country means that we are technically RE-building Iraq, so he's probably cool with that. At least RE-building the oil interests that will be run by "International Interests." That's where the money is, fo' sho'. Remember this, invest in those companies, and you should be fine, at least.
"We are not in the business of nation building"
George W.Bush in 2000
"We can not invade Iraq,because we do not have an exit strategy"
Dick Cheney in 1991
I guess the fact that we blew giant holes in the country means that we are technically RE-building Iraq, so he's probably cool with that. At least RE-building the oil interests that will be run by "International Interests." That's where the money is, fo' sho'. Remember this, invest in those companies, and you should be fine, at least.
Couldn't pass on this NYT article yesterday on their fair fair and balanced reporting on trying to get sympathizers for protestors--
NY police spied on convention protesters: NY Times
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Undercover New York City police, apparently acting partially in response to the September 11 attacks, conducted covert observations across the United States and in Europe of people planning protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention, the New York Times said.
The newspaper said in Sunday's edition that records indicated the "R.N.C. Intelligence Squad" attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or activists, to glean information on people or groups intending to disrupt the convention.
But hundreds of reports, stamped "N.Y.P.D. Secret," indicated that church groups, theater companies and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists, anti-death penalty activists and others opposed to globalization, were all surveyed and included in the files, the Times said.
Intelligence on apparently lawful activities was also shared with police departments in other cities, it said.
"Detectives collected information both in-state and out-of-state to learn in advance what was coming our way," the Times quoted the NYPD's chief spokesman Paul Browne as saying, and adding "All our activities were legal."
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who took the post in January 2002 after the September 11 attacks, "took the position that the NYPD could no longer rely on the federal government alone, and that the department had to build an intelligence capacity worthy of the name," Browne told the Times.
David Cohen, the deputy police commissioner for intelligence and a former CIA official, said the long period of preparation by a sleeper cell for an act of terrorism requires the department's entire resources "be available to conduct investigations into political activity and intelligence-related issues," he wrote in a 2002 affidavit.
According to the newspaper, the city's police department applied newly ramped-up intelligence resources aimed at fighting terrorism to a different context -- that of gathering information on people joining political protests.
But the bulk of hundreds of reports dating back to 2003 reviewed by the Times pertained to people with no clear intention of breaking any laws, the Times said.
Federal lawsuits have been brought over mass arrests made at the time, with lawyers slated to begin depositions next week of Cohen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now lets look at what the NYT fails to tell you--and how they dupe the readers in their liberal agenda--
Wonder if anyone thinks this might have had anything to survailence from these people with "clearly no intent of breaking the law"
From 2004
NEW YORK ? Radical protesters are reportedly trying to cause chaos at the Republican National Convention (search) in New York City at the end of August.
Reports show that fringe groups are hatching a plot on the Internet, telling people how to attack and trick police with the ultimate goal of evacuating Madison Square Garden (search). The suggestions include everything from throwing marbles in the path of police-mounted horses to going to shooting ranges before heading to the convention so that their clothes will reek of gunpowder and trick bomb-sniffing dogs on the subways and commuter trains.
New York City police (search) say they are worried about the tactics diverting their time and resources from preventing authentic attacks, and add that they are preparing for "black blocs" of anarchists who cover their face with bandanas and vandalize corporate targets.
NY police spied on convention protesters: NY Times
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Undercover New York City police, apparently acting partially in response to the September 11 attacks, conducted covert observations across the United States and in Europe of people planning protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention, the New York Times said.
The newspaper said in Sunday's edition that records indicated the "R.N.C. Intelligence Squad" attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or activists, to glean information on people or groups intending to disrupt the convention.
But hundreds of reports, stamped "N.Y.P.D. Secret," indicated that church groups, theater companies and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists, anti-death penalty activists and others opposed to globalization, were all surveyed and included in the files, the Times said.
Intelligence on apparently lawful activities was also shared with police departments in other cities, it said.
"Detectives collected information both in-state and out-of-state to learn in advance what was coming our way," the Times quoted the NYPD's chief spokesman Paul Browne as saying, and adding "All our activities were legal."
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who took the post in January 2002 after the September 11 attacks, "took the position that the NYPD could no longer rely on the federal government alone, and that the department had to build an intelligence capacity worthy of the name," Browne told the Times.
David Cohen, the deputy police commissioner for intelligence and a former CIA official, said the long period of preparation by a sleeper cell for an act of terrorism requires the department's entire resources "be available to conduct investigations into political activity and intelligence-related issues," he wrote in a 2002 affidavit.
According to the newspaper, the city's police department applied newly ramped-up intelligence resources aimed at fighting terrorism to a different context -- that of gathering information on people joining political protests.
But the bulk of hundreds of reports dating back to 2003 reviewed by the Times pertained to people with no clear intention of breaking any laws, the Times said.
Federal lawsuits have been brought over mass arrests made at the time, with lawyers slated to begin depositions next week of Cohen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now lets look at what the NYT fails to tell you--and how they dupe the readers in their liberal agenda--
Wonder if anyone thinks this might have had anything to survailence from these people with "clearly no intent of breaking the law"
From 2004
NEW YORK ? Radical protesters are reportedly trying to cause chaos at the Republican National Convention (search) in New York City at the end of August.
Reports show that fringe groups are hatching a plot on the Internet, telling people how to attack and trick police with the ultimate goal of evacuating Madison Square Garden (search). The suggestions include everything from throwing marbles in the path of police-mounted horses to going to shooting ranges before heading to the convention so that their clothes will reek of gunpowder and trick bomb-sniffing dogs on the subways and commuter trains.
New York City police (search) say they are worried about the tactics diverting their time and resources from preventing authentic attacks, and add that they are preparing for "black blocs" of anarchists who cover their face with bandanas and vandalize corporate targets.
