BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: bobad
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:38 PM

Someone's got a beef.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

???

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:27 PM

FUCKING TWATS!!!!
GO FUCK YOUR MOTHERS HAHAHAHA
YOU ALL SUCK BIG BLACK COCK
I FUCK YOUR MOTHER HARD IN THE ARSE SHE SCREAMED SILLY SHE LOVED IT SO MUCH
HER CUNT IS LIKE A HOTDOG BEING THROWN DOWN A CORRIDOR

FUCK YOU

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:58 PM

I agree that to nuke Japan twice was too much. But you have to consider the the state of affairs and the mindset at the time. Nobody knew the real horrors of nukes and they were so pissed off and worn out that they were numb to such things anyway. They were warned and given time between the two bombings to respond. What would Japan have done if they had the oppertunity to use nukes on US cities?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Watch the documentary "Fog of War" by Robert McNamara.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 08:31 PM

Well, deja vu, on the discussion of wheatehr or not the US ***had*** to nuke Japan, or if it had to ***re-nuke*** them as if they might have not gotten the 1st nuking...

I agree with Barry... There were other ways for the US to have shown the Japanese that they, the US, had indeed figured the nuke out before anyone else an' if Japan wanted to escape having one dropped over one of their population centers then perhaps Japan migh consider a surrender...

Yeah, the US could have dropped the Nuke off-shore and sent a communique for the Japenses to just look out over the horizon...

This would have been a more humane decision...

Yes, I understand the absolutely horrendous battles between our two countries... My uncle was wounded twice in the Pacific and came home after what he'd done and seen and drank himself into the grave but...

This would have been the more humane course...

No one can say theu ***own*** the correct opionion on this decision... Not Teribus, not Barry, not any one... There is no ***proof positive*** waiting to be unleashed on this decison that makes it right... or wrong...

There is, however, differences in the way that folks like Barry and I look at ***conflict resolution*** compared to the way that a Terribus, or breadedbruce or a Dickey would choose...

I have said many times that with an increasingly shrinking and interdependant world economy that *** killing*** folks with whom you disagree is no longer a ***luxary*** that the world can afford...

I wouldn't have made a decision to use the nuke over a population center, regarless of me anger... Just as I wouldn't have decided to invade and occupy Iraq... Neither, IMO, solved probelms but created larger ones that we just pass down to our kids to solve...

At some point in time, mankind will quit this cycle of failure...

...or it won't and given the amount of munitions now vailbale to mankind, mankind will just, for all practical purposes, put itself into the extinct column...

That was what the folks who marched on the Pentagon were trying to say...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 05:47 PM

Here's the opinions of Generals Eisenhower & MacArthur & Admirals Nimitz & Leahy & others about Japan's surrender prior to bombimg.

"Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.
One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[67][68]
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[68] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[69] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[70]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[71]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[71]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[72][71]


What was originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall has now been turned into the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead.
The survey assumed that continued conventional bombing attacks on Japan—with additional direct and indirect casualties—would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned.
Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyûshû, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.
Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945."

It was the 1st nuclear attack anywhere & it was uncalled for! It was a war crime & a crime against humanity.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM

"You always go for the killing effect 'T'. To you it's always the best way." - Barry Finn.

Not at all Barry, quite the opposite as a rule. Only difference is that if attacked I will fight back. I will stand by what I said before regarding the decision and necessity to drop the two Atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

"The decision made by the President of the United States at the time was the correct one, it saved the lives of his own countrymen, his primary responsibility. What your opinion of that decision is now after 62 years is irrelevant."

After those bombs were dropped and the Japanese did surrender unconditionally as required, a poll taken amongst the 650,000 predominantly American servicemen who had been earmarked for the invasion of mainland Japan I believe would have been greatly in favour of President Trumans actions.

Ready to sign were they Barry

The Potsdam Declaration or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender was a statement issued on July 26, 1945 by Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, and Chiang Kai-Shek which outlined the terms of surrender for Japan as agreed upon at the Potsdam Conference. The agreement stated that if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction".

Potsdam Declaration:

The proclamation stated that the full force of the United States, the British Empire, and National Government of the Republic of China would strike the final blows upon Japan.

They warned that "The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people" and this power of the Allies would lead to "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" unless Japan ended the war. Also that:

- Militarism in Japan must end.
- Japan would be occupied until the basic objectives set out in this proclamation were met.
- The terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out and Japanese sovereignty would be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as the Allies determined.
- The Japanese army would be completely disarmed and allowed to return home.
- Those who had led Japan to war must be permanently and finally discredited, and abandoned.
- War criminals would be punished including those who had "visited cruelties upon our prisoners".
- Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
- Japan should be permitted to maintain a viable industrial economy but not industries which would enable her to re-arm for war.
- The treaty was not intended to enslave the Japanese as a race or as a nation.
- Allied forces would be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Now that is what the Japanese, who Barry says were ready to sign, rejected out of hand on 26th July, 1945. The time then runs as follows:

6th August, 1945 - Attack on Hiroshima
9th August, 1945 - Attack on Nagasaki
15th August,1945 - Japan Surrenders unconditionally
2nd September, 1945 - World War 2 Officially ends with the signing of the Peace Agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 07:33 AM

That Japan was ready to sign.

"But there again Barry, you were never likely to be in the place of those US Marines who having just fought for Iwo Jima would be staring at the upper side of the ramp of the landing craft heading in to spearhead "Operation Olympic".

And that is a poor excuse for the desamation of innocents. That was a civilian target. But then so were the Iraqi targets.

No I wasn't there & neither were you but my father was & he believed it to have been inhuman, unnessary. He was a well decorated vet from that theater & he protested against Viet Nam. You always go for the killing effect 'T'. To you it's always the best way.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 04:54 AM

"We Nuked Japan & didn't need to (IMHO)." - Barry Finn

But there again Barry, you were never likely to be in the place of those US Marines who having just fought for Iwo Jima would be staring at the upper side of the ramp of the landing craft heading in to spearhead "Operation Olympic".

The decision made by the President of the United States at the time was the correct one, it saved the lives of his own countrymen his primary responsibility. What your opinion of that decision is now after 62 years is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:33 AM

"Or could it have been their development AS A DETERRANT that kept us from HAVING a nuclear war????????"

So does that mean that Iran won't use them if developed? Why would you worry in that case? Or are they so different & are we beyond them? If they are such a detterrant, then everyone ought to own a couple. A few for the West Bank a couple for the East Side of Brooklyn, South LA, Bora Bora?

We Nuked Japan & didn't need to (IMHO). What happens when some idiot thinks we need to?

Dickey, I'd say that the Iranian assesment was closest to what I saw. My guess was 25,000 to 30,000 could've been more, I'm not an expert on estimating crowd numbers. The amount of counter protesters were, I'm sure no more that two hundred, smaller I'd think with far less tha 50 on the other side of the bridge & hardly any on the bridge except for the one I saw being arrested. It's also close that very few remainded till the 5:00 pm ending. We arrived at the Pentagon at probably 2:00 so the 3 hr standing in the cold was a little tough on most. I'd also say that most weren't dressed for the temps. It started out nice, at 11:00 am I was tempted to leave my heavy coat on the bus. I could see line of marchers had extended from the Lincoln Memmorial over the bridge & to the Pentagon parking lot, probably 2 1/2 miles in length.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:34 PM

any examples dave, that were:
- Intervention not at the specific request of the government of the country involved;
- Intervention not as part of a United Nations Force
- Intervention at the request of the United Nations
- Intervention as part of a NATO Force

Iran 1953
Guatemala 1954
Lebanon 1958
Cuba 1961
Grenada 1983

Next?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 04:54 PM

At least Iranian Media is on the same wave length with ANSWER:
Anti-war protest rocks Pentagon
Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:20:12
Thousands of demonstrators marched to the Pentagon on Saturday to mark both the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invading Iraq and the 40th anniversary of the march along the same route to protest the Vietnam War.
According to the New York Times, the march coincided with other demonstrations in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and elsewhere in advance of the March 20 anniversary of the invasion.
In Washington, a coalition of liberal Christian groups on late Friday led several thousand people in a march that began with a service at the National Cathedral. More than 200 participants were arrested praying in front of the White House.
Saturday's march was organized by the Answer Coalition - named for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism - an organization that was initially associated with the Workers World Party and now affiliated with a breakaway faction called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
The turnout for the march was smaller than the crowd that gathered two months ago on the National Mall for a demonstration opposing the Bush plan to send more troops to Iraq, however, they were much agitated than before.
Judging by the speeches and placards, the marchers this time set their sights on sweeping goals, including not only ending the war but also impeaching George W. Bush and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Many carried Answer Coalition signs bearing the image of the Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara.
Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. "It is about radicalizing people," he said in an interview.
“You hook into a movement that exists - in this case the antiwar movement - and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism," Becker added.
In a speech before the march, Cindy Sheehan, who made headlines in 2005 camping outside the Bush's Texas ranch after her son was killed in Iraq, called the president and his military advisers “war criminals."
"We want the people in the White House out of our house and arrested for crimes against humanity," Sheehan said.
As they gathered before the march, the protesters met what several veterans of the anti-war movement described as an unusually large contingent of several hundred counter demonstrators.
Crossing the bridge toward the Pentagon, the marchers met another group of about 50 counter demonstrators by the Arlington Cemetery, one holding a sign that said," “Go to hell traitors."
Near the Pentagon, police officers in riot gear spread across the road, effectively blocking the demonstrators from approaching the building. Five people were arrested by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency for violating the orders, said Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
Many in the crowd though unfamiliar with the Answer Coalition but said they had come from across the country for a chance to voice their dismay at the war.
Alan Rainey, an adjunct professor and small publisher from West Lafayette, said he had not attended a protest since 1973, not long after he had returned from military duty in Vietnam. On Saturday, he carried a banner that read, "Help drive the snakes out of the White House," depicting snakes with the faces of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
“This war is criminal," Rainey voiced his anger, adding, "We impeached Clinton for a indiscretion with an adult."
Judy Creville, who came from Michigan with her two sisters, said she had opposed the war from the beginning but never attended a protest before. "They got on my last nerve," she said.
Zohrea Whitaker, another angry protestor who came from Sacramento she had a son serving over there, and wanted him home.
"Too many people have died and it doesn't solve anything," said Ann O'Grady, who drove through snow with her family from Ohio. "I feel bad carrying out my daily activities while people are suffering," she added.
Organizers of the Saturday protest did not anticipate comparable numbers. Authorities no longer give crowd estimates publicly.
Some active-duty servicemen also joined the anti-war protest, following rules that allow them to demonstrate but limit what they can say.
Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, who is on active duty with the U.S. Navy, told the crowd that the people had voted against the war in the November elections and "we're here to cash the check."

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 04:34 PM

From the ANSWER website:

Tens of thousands march on the Pentagon
50,000 march in Los Angeles, 40,000 in San Francisco
Le Monde, ran a significant article under the headline, "More than 50,000 People Protest Against the War in Iraq," about the March on the Pentagon

Quite a difference from what is reported elsewhere:

The Guardian:

   10,000 to 20,000 anti-war demonstrators marched, with a smaller but still sizable number of counterprotesters also out in force. An hour into the three-hour Pentagon rally, with the temperature near freezing, protesters had peeled away to a point where fewer than 1,000 were left.


The Washington Post
Veterans, Others Denounce Marchers Counter-Demonstrators Number in Thousands

Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as "War There Or War Here." Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago.


API
About 200 police officers were on scene in Hollywood for security, said Los Angeles police Sergeant D. Costi.
Authorities estimated attendance at 5,000 to 6,000 people, said Officer Norma Eisenman.

War protest draws 3,000 in march to S.F. City Hall
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Thousands of marchers, angry but energized by a sense of growing support for their cause, closed down a major downtown thoroughfare Sunday in a largely peaceful display of opposition to the Iraq war.

Protesters march against Iraq war
BBC

In Los Angeles, police estimated that up to 6,000 people demonstrated in anti-war rallies which included flag-draped coffins being carried through the streets of Hollywood.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:41 PM

Chicago - 4,000 march downtown to protest Iraq war.

Population of Chicago - 2.8 million

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:52 AM

"The White House said they were surprised by the size of the protesting crowds. Why doesn't it surprise me that they were surprised?" David Letterman

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:36 AM

4,000 march downtown to protest Iraq war

March 21, 2007
BY LISA DONOVAN Staff Reporter
About 4,000 war protesters, under the watchful eye of hundreds of Chicago Police officers, walked 1½ miles to the Loop Tuesday night pumping "Impeach Bush" signs and chanting "Hey, hey, ho, ho, our troops in Iraq have got to go."

With a chilly breeze off Lake Michigan, protesters marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq began at Oak and Michigan at 7:30 p.m., marching to Daley Plaza as approved in a request to the city. Police officers lined the marching route. No arrests were reported.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:00 AM

"You mean to tell me that the US doesn't mean to use these as needed after spending that kind of money not to mention the resources, they have every intention of using them "when & if". "

So, PLEASE give me the examples of the nuclear weapons USED by the US after 1945..... Since we developed so many, SURELY we used a whole bunch of them...

Or could it have been their development AS A DETERRANT that kept us from HAVING a nuclear war????????

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:29 AM

Yes action was taken BB, the wrong action & there is no lack of evidence of that either. If you think that all's well with the US & Iraq & the world then you are blinded by your beliefs.


<"It is obvious that we wanted to go to war against Iraq- and therefore we did.">

<"Only after careful evaluation based on the information available from the UN inspectors on the ground at the time - I am talking about 17th February, 1998.">

<"Barry was stating that the US is more likely to start a Global Thermonuclear War than anyone else.>

The US is spending millions if not billions on the development of "Bunker Busters". You mean to tell me that the US doesn't mean to use these as needed after spending that kind of money not to mention the resources, they have every intention of using them "when & if". Becuse of the development of these "BB's" the atomic clock was pushed ahead, of course there were a few other reasons but the "BB's" was a part.

<"If we don't fight them there we will fight them at home">

I believe they want US out of their backyard & out of their politics, which translates 'get the f&#k out of our lives. Which is what we should've been doing from the start.

We treated this whole mistake like a Doctor treats the symptoms of a disease. Treat the causes would've been the place to start.
Our failure to use intelligence was the first mistake. WE should've know that there were groups out there that hated US. No shit we dd, but we didn't bother to find out WHY, we didn't care why & we ignored why! Next when we did decided to try & find out about what these people & these groups were all about we found that we didn't know squat about them, their culture, their language, their habits, their religons, their beliefs, their values, & we really didn't care anyway. If we had we probably could've opened up a few channels for communication. BUT we don't do that & we still don't do that. We meddled in their lives & we still are treating the symptoms & are blinded to the causes. Oh well! "Live & learn" or "die dumb"!

LOOK TO THE CAUSES, FOLLOW THE MONEY, LISTEN TO THE WHISPER IN THE WIND!

Fuck, it useless!

Bush couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fist full of pardons! An' some idiot's have gone & given him a job, oh, shit! Damn drunk shouldn't be driving a cab never mind a the wheel of a nation.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:31 PM

Ebbie: Yeah, well, err, I did attribute that to Dianavan when in acutality she said she did not think it would end in two weeks. It was someone in a news story that she referred to that siad it woulkd be sorted out in a week or two. I also read something where a Sunni woman said it would be sorted out in two weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM

Yes Amos. Hence terms like neanderthal goons and outfits like al-Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:18 PM

Send him a bill fir 5 cents (aka Peanuts), Amos...

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

I think there's a lot of irrational fear and hatred in life, Dick. And when you soak up too much of it without facing it honestly, you become toxic. You make targets out of your fellow man, and believe great evil of your kind. You start waves of slaughter and turn a blind eye to human suffering. But deep down, behind the poison and the fear and the hatred and the pain you have swallowed up, you have a soul somewhere that knows all, and sees the truth. But the truth is unpalatable, so you need to scurry around and find explanations, hold them, close and regenerate them whenever they start to wobble. Because if you don't have it all explained, you might someday have to face the pure and plain truth of your own destructiveness. And that would drive you mad.

Well, I am glad you're holding them in place because I wouldn't want you going mad on us...but I do have to say it is a lot easier if instead of wholesale rationalizing, you face your own feelings plainly and get them squared away so you can live with yourself. If you untoxify your own heart, you will be a much freer being and you won't have to do all that heavy lifting to keep things rationalized and justified all the time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 05:26 PM

See, now here I stop playin' with the pudder long 'nuff to go have a yummy slald fir supper and there is Liar Bush on the TV over this issue of the firings of US attorneys and he says that all he is willing to do is send Harriet Myers and Karl Rove to Cogress to appear behind "closed doors' to answwer questions but under no cicumstances is he willing to do so if his people have to take an oath to tell the truth????????????????????????????

What they Hell is this all about, anyway????

"Well, sure, I'll send my people up there but they don't have to tell the truth..." is purdy much waht Bush's proposal amounts to...

But is this ***proof positive*** that Bush lies or his people lie, T-zer and others might ask??? Well, techncially, no but it certainly smell of a lie or he'd send 'um up and say "Hey, tell them folks the truth..." wouldn't he???

I mean, this entire argument is upsurd... It is beyond believe... Bush has become the O.J. Simpson president... Everyone knows it...

Okay, I will give him the shadow of the doubt that he actually, in his incompetance, believes the stuff he says and in that case he isn't just a liar but a ***pathological liar***...

I mean, this admionistartion has become a farce...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:58 PM

"What is your opinion on thse tree dwelling, leather jacketed, boot wearing, neanderthal goons? "

The Blackwater army?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:57 PM

Amos:

What is your point? Do you agree with Bobert the the "If we don't fight them there we will fight them at home" is a lie?

What is your opinion on thse tree dwelling, leather jacketed, boot wearing, neanderthal goons?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:47 PM

Well, T-zer... I'm not sure how you werer brought up but a "lie" in our family meant telling a story that weren't true... We ceratinly have been thru a lot of those scenerios with yer heros, Bush and Blair...

We've had Bush tell the Amercian people that in a State of the Union Adress that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger after his own intellegence folks had investigated such claims at the request of Cheney and found no evidence...

Why isn't that, in your book, a lie???

Well it's either a lie or incompetence on behalf of Bush...

And lets not forget the badly doctored 20 year old term paper (or what evr it was that the CIA later said was a joke) that Blair came up with and gave to Bush just before that address to the country...

Lie or just plain incompetence???

What about Bush still telling folks, as if it were a concrete hard fact, that if we "don't fight ''um there, we're gonna have to fight 'um here"... His own intellegence folk have just this week said that is "unlikely" yet Bush is out there with that story...

Yeah, maybe we disagree on just what constitutes a "lie"... What, if you are too politically steeped to ignore the "truth" and go telling stories that you thought might be the truth when, in reality, have nuthin' to do with the truth, that ain't liein"???

If that's yer take, T-zer an' others, then maybe you need to go back an' talk with yer mama's about what is lieing...

And just for the record, I've stuck with one story from the very beginning... Can you Bushites say the same???

Well, of course not... You move the goal posts every time the story isn't goin' yer way...

And, Ebbie, I've deducted that Dickey will say anything to get folks attention and to change the subject when he has a weak argument, which BTW is just 'bout all the time, so I'd suggest you do what I've been trying to do in ignorin' him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:34 PM

Ebbie:

You said not even close.

It looks close to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

Well now Ebbie:

* Saddam's air space- and therefore his wiggle room - had been severely constrained for a long time. We had eyes all over Iraq.

No actually we didn't have, "eyes all over Iraq". At least not according to the good Dr Blix, that was precisely one of the things that he complained about - matter of record, you can read about it in his reports to the UNSC.

* Had we gone into Afghanistan to punish and capture the al Quaeda and to confine our activities within its borders we would in all likelihood be well along today in restoring the livability of the country. And we would have kept the respect of the world.

Sort of in the category "If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle". Still leaves the question about how Saddam would have viewed Iran's nuclear programme. The situation in Afghanistan today would have been marginally better. As to the US "keeping" the respect of the world. A question for you, apart from a few places at very specific times and for extremely short durations, when did you ever think that the USA had the respect of the world? - Give you a clue - Apart from immediately after WW II in Europe, Never.

* It seems disingenuous for us to keep repeating that Saddam had ignored the UN's ruling when the UN itself saw no need to go into Iraq.

As pointed out by BB, the UN sees no need to anything, anywhere, anytime, given any set of circumstances. As an international organisation it has proved itself to be a complete and utter waste of space time, after time, after time.

* It is obvious that we wanted to go to war against Iraq- and therefore we did.

Only after careful evaluation based on the information available from the UN inspectors on the ground at the time - I am talking about 17th February, 1998.

Folkiedave:

It's a pity that you didn't also quote what Barry's contention was, i.e. "GTW, we are more likely to start a war of that scale that anyone else". Barry was stating that the US is more likely to start a Global Thermonuclear War than anyone else. That contention is baseless and is not borne out by history. During the period of the "Cold War" the USA had chances to do exactly that and did not take them. I will stand by what I have said regarding the US reliance on nuclear weapons as deterrants. Your link regarding the declassified documents from the Vietnam era tend to bear out US reluctance for "first-use".

I believe that there were verification inspections, by US and Soviet Officials, in place for both START and SALT.

This long list of countries invaded by the US, bearing in mind Little Hawks definition of "invasion", any examples dave, that were:
- Intervention not at the specific request of the government of the country involved;
- Intervention not as part of a United Nations Force
- Intervention at the request of the United Nations
- Intervention as part of a NATO Force

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

Dickey, what is the matter with you? You post this: "What I have heard on Mudcat is that if US forces pull out of Iraq, everything will get "sorted out in two weeks ".

and then for corroboration you use what dianavan said: I don't think it will end in two weeks but it will only end when the U.S. withdraws.

I repeat: What is the matter with you? Your own credibility matters not at all to you?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

"* It seems disingenuous for us to keep repeating that Saddam had ignored the UN's ruling when the UN itself saw no need to go into Iraq."

The UN itself saw no reason to act ( in time to save lives) about:

1. Cambodia
2. Bosnia
3. Rwanda
4. Sudan


So I guess we should not have done ( or do) anything in those cases?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM

Bobert:

Do those leather jacked, boot wearing, tree dwelling, neanderthal goons lack personal hygiene?

Neanderthal may refer to:

    * Homo neanderthalensis — a prehistoric hominid
    * Neanderthal Man — 1970 hit of the band Hotlegs
    * Neanderthal, Germany — a valley in Germany where the fossils of the former were first found
    * Neanderthal — a book written by author John Darnton
    * Neanderthal woodworker — in Internet woodworking communities, someone who uses hand tools exclusively

Neanderthal is also used as an insult meaning uncivilized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_%28disambiguation%29

Ted Kennedy November of 2003 referring to Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada:

"What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/14/ip.00.html

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:38 PM

Dear Dickey:

What is your point? Are you trying to imply that the invasion of Iraq is now rationalized by the fact that, since it was done, AlQeda in Iraq has grown fat?

Wouldn't the exacerbation of alienation and enmity in Iraq as a direct result of invasion have been a predictable result?

In fact, didn't some voices predict it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:33 PM

Dear Bobert:

ABC News. Details Emerge About Possible Terror Threat
Suspects, Reportedly Tied to Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sought Student Visas
By PIERRE THOMAS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007 — - Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."

At the time, Maples offered little additional insight into the possible terror plot. ABC News, however, has learned new details of what remains a classified incident that has been dealt with at the highest levels of government.

Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas -- the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11...

The plot was discovered six months ago, roughly the same time that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by coalition forces. Sources tell ABC News that the suspects involved in the effort to launch the U.S. attack were closely associated with Zarqawi.

The plan also came only months after Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, had requested that Zarqawi attempt an attack inside the United States.

"This appears to be the first hard evidence al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to attack us here at home," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, former chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council.

The plan was uncovered in its early stages, and sources say there is no indication that the suspects made it into the United States. Officials also emphasize that there is no evidence of an imminent attack.

The hunt for suspects continues, however, and some fear that al Qaeda recruits in Iraq could be easily redirected.

"Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight American troops is probably willing to try to come to the United States," Clarke said.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

Historical evidence runs counter to that Barry. Apart from the two weapons dropped on Japan in time of war, the US has never been to the fore in advocating first-use of nuclear weapons, they have always promoted their deterrant value.

Actually historical evidence doesn't. When you say "apart from the two weapons dropped on Japan in time of war" another way of saying it would be "the USA is the only country ever to have dropped nuclear weapons on a civilian people". And the clause "in time of war" is irrelevant unless you you believe they can be dropped in times of peace.

As for the inspection of nuclear weapons facilities does the USA allow other countries to inspect its nuclear weapons preparations? No it doesn't.

The USA has a long history of invading other countries, and nothing can take that away except a falsification of history. It has a long history of supporting dictators (including Saddam of course).

Nuclear weapons are contemplated and probably still will be.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s031003.html

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:03 PM

Ebbie:

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:19 AM

I think the violence will end quickly if the U.S. withdraws. I don't think it will end in two weeks but it will only end when the U.S. withdraws.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:11 PM

* Saddam's air space- and therefore his wiggle room - had been severely constrained for a long time. We had eyes all over Iraq.

* Had we gone into Afghanistan to punish and capture the al Quaeda and to confine our activities within its borders we would in all likelihood be well along today in restoring the livability of the country. And we would have kept the respect of the world.

* It seems disingenuous for us to keep repeating that Saddam had ignored the UN's ruling when the UN itself saw no need to go into Iraq.

* It is obvious that we wanted to go to war against Iraq- and therefore we did.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:24 AM

I seem to recall Ms Rice and several other mouthpieces for the regime saying "we wouldn't want the smoking gun to turn out to be a mushroom cloud." Although this statement is semantically nul, it is a powerful piece of rhetoric which directly communicates the notion that there is such a danger. This was a Bush house talking point, not some random articulation on her part. It was a party line.

As to your question of Saddam vice Iran, I have no idea. I expect he would get nervous about it. It's actually another vector, to me, of the possibility that Iran has done a lot more manipulating of events than has been known about; somehow they come out with the US drawn down and fatigued by taking out their worst neighbor and threat, Saddam. I am reminded that the Persians were renowned as chess players once upon a time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

"What do you think Saddam Hussein's reaction would have been to developments within Iran regarding that country's nuclear programme?"

With or without a nuclear programme, Saddam feared Iran.

Not even the Sunnis of Iran supported Saddam. Without the support of the U.S., Saddam would probably have been crushed by Iran sooner or later. With or without nuclear weapons, Saddam was vastly outnumbered.

Thats why it was stupid for the U.S. to get involved. They should have let Iran take care of Saddam in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM

Some comments with regard to Barry Finn's post of 20 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM:

1) "There was no evidence any type of weapon found or that had existed that would have had those capabilities."

We talking nuclear here right? What you say is very true, but there again nobody said that Saddam/Iraq HAD nuclear weapons. The points that were under evaluation and that were unknown at the time were:

- Is Iraq running a secret development programme directed towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons;

- Is Iraq running a secret development programme directed towards the acquisition of delivery systems for such weapons.

I'd still love to know what it was that Dr.A.Q.Khan had smuggled out of Iraq to Syria, where it was put onboard a Pakistan Air Force Transport aircraft and flown back to Pakistan - My guess is all relevant information, computers, etc related to the first of the points given above.


2) "GTW, we are more likely to start a war of that scale that anyone else & there is evidence that we have them & are capable of using them & delivering them within a 45 minute time line."

Historical evidence runs counter to that Barry. Apart from the two weapons dropped on Japan in time of war, the US has never been to the fore in advocating first-use of nuclear weapons, they have always promoted their deterrant value. The US definitely has nuclear weapons and they would, if necessary, be fully capable of using them, no point in having them if you are not. The readiness time to fire from "cold" is, I believe, about 14 minutes depending on type and launch vehicle, not 45 minutes, which time never applied to nuclear weapons, that was the time it takes to authorise use of and arm chemical or biological weapons.


3) "You keep spouting off about what we've done to prevent events that others were not capable of bringing to the table. You're all hype. There were no WMD's, roving bio-labs or chemical plants that were to be used for the purpose of attacking US. You keep saying that but we attacked a nation without just cause & couldn't find anything to back it up after the fact. Yes, we were sure, SURE!"

Subsequent to the actions taken four years ago Barry these are the differences:
- Pre-invasion the UN suspected Iraq of possessing WMD in defiance of numerous UNSC Resolutions demanding the destruction of such weapons;
- Post-invasion, the UN now knows that Iraq does not possess WMD;
- Pre-invasion the UN suspected Iraq of running secret research and development programmes associated with chemical and biological WMD in defiance of numerous UNSC Resolutions;
- Post-invasion, the UN now knows that no such programmes are being run in Iraq;
- Pre-invasion, the UN suspected Iraq of running secret research and development programmes associated with delivery systems for WMD in defiance of UNSC Resolutions;
- Post-Invasion, the UN now knows that all such programmes have been halted;
- Pre-invasion, the UN had taken Iraq to task with regard to human rights abuses demanding that appropriate UN organisations be allowed in to monitor events within Iraq. The Ba'athist regime in Iraq refused to allow such organisations entry to the country;
- Post-invasion, the UN are now free to send whoever they want into Iraq to monitor events;
- Pre-invasion, the UN requested that Iraq return 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and whose fate was unknown;
- Post-invasion, the UN now know that Saddam Hussein had them all executed.

All hype, eh Barry? There are things that were suspected about Iraq pre-invasion Barry that were believed to be true by many. All those uncertainties have now been removed. One thing is for certain Saddam Hussein was never going to let those facts be established, not for as long as his arse pointed downwards.

The premise of the invasion was perfectly justified, 48 countries were of a like mind, more in fact than took part in the action to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Didn't matter a toss whether anything was found or not, that was not the object of the exercise, that was to make sure that Saddam and Iraq could not pose a threat to the peace of the region in the future, and that most certainly was done.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:12 AM

Barry,

"You keep saying that but we attacked a nation without just cause "

I keep saying we attacked because Iraq was NOT complying with the UN resolutions, and HAD a PROGRAM of WMD and prohibited weapon system DEVELOPMENT.

The latter part of your statement is OPINION, until proven, which you have made no attempt to do. IMHO,

1. We had "just cause"

2. The prohibited items found are evidence that Saddam was in violation of his obligations.

3. Those who protested the invasion of Iraq without demanding that Saddam comply have the blood of all those killed or injured upon THEIR hands.


Just MY opinion, since you seem to have your own. I have presented, multiple times, the facts that led me to form this opinion- Please present the ones that give you YOURS.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

As we seem to be discussing GTW, a question for you Amos.

Had the US concentrated on Afghanistan and OBL after November 2001 to the exclusion of all else (i.e. never bothered acting on any other possible threats). What do you think Saddam Hussein's reaction would have been to developments within Iran regarding that country's nuclear programme?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM

There was no evidence any type of weapon found or that had existed that would have had those capabilities. GTW, we are more likely to start a war of that scale that anyone else & there is evidence that we have them & are capable of using them & delivering them within a 45 minute time line.
You keep spouting off about what we've done to prevent events that others were not capable of bringing to the table. You're all hype.
There were no WMD's, roving bio-labs or chemical plants that were to be used for the purpose of attacking US. You keep saying that but we attacked a nation without just cause & couldn't find anything to back it up after the fact. Yes, we were sure, SURE!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:43 AM

"you would have to make a case for any probability of GTW being a real event, in the world of real possibilities. If you seriously are arguing that the invasion of Iraq was to reduce the possibility of GTW, then you are arguing from fictitious grounds"

Why, because YOU say so? I will listen to evidence, but opinion is just that- OPINION. NOT proof that the premise is wrong.


"Well you were wrong, weren't you?"

DOES NOT address the facts of the matter in the least, and has NO support in any facts presented.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:38 AM

Specious logic, BB. To assert this string of rationalization, you would have to make a case for any probability of GTW being a real event, in the world of real possibilities. If you seriously are arguing that the invasion of Iraq was to reduce the possibility of GTW, then you are arguing from fictitious grounds, from which anything is possible. GTW is definitely a wrong, bad thing. So is having the leprechauns eliminate all the pretty girls in the world. GTW has a slightly higher possibility.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Scrump
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:18 AM

Sorry to interrupt, but...


...100!

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:23 AM

Amos,

"There are those who feel the LACK of action in Iraq would have lead us to Global Thermonuclear War."


IF we do not take action, THEN we will have a GTW.

Given that the first circumstance DID NOT OCCUR, the validity of the conclusion CANNOT be determined.


Had we NOT taken action, THEN it could be judged valid or invalid.

I happen to consider global thermonuclear war to be wrong, and a BAD THING.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:17 AM

"We took action. So how can you claim we were wrong?"

Ummm...Bruce, ole buddy... the guy who cut them to shreds in McDonalds, and the guy in the University of Texas clock tower, and the guy in Colorado in the black raincoat, were all men of action.

And they were all completely wrong.

The two things are independent variables indeed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:13 AM

"Well you were wrong, weren't you?"

We took action. So how can one state that we were wrong?

Or do YOU claim to have EVIDENCE of lack?


Lack of evidence IS NOT evidence of lack.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 03:35 AM

Count the lies Bobert, you and your fellow travellers to date have been unable to prove one.

How's the Impeachment going Bobert, I'd have thought that with the amount of "evidence" you lot claim exists, the whole process would be a "cake-walk". The fact that it isn't proving to be so, may have something to do with the fact that for those who actually know what "evidence" is they are far from convinced that a prima facia case could be made for impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:21 PM

False pretenses??? Let me count the lies...

The lastest, which I heard Bush use yet again today is that if we don't defeat the terorist over there (iraq) then we'll have to fight them here???

That's funny... DoD and independent analysts don't agree with this assumption one bit... No, quite to opposite...

They are sayin' that it is "Unlikely" (Mike McConnell, Director of National INtellegence, Washington Post, March 18) but like all the other now-debunked-lies for why the US needed to invade Iraq here we have the new-and-imporved-lie....

You know it's said that once opne begins to lie and is caught one will come up with bigger and better lies to cover up the 1st lie.... I'm not sure which generation of lies we're now hearing but it makes WMD's seem like a great, great grand-daddy...'Er is is great, great, great, great, great???

I've lost count...

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:00 PM

Lets not have a knee jerk response to Dickie.

What can happen after we pull out but keep air support in the area is that muslim jihadists/terrorists/alQida/isamo fascists/muslim brotherhoods/radical violent extremists/sons seeking revenge for their families death... will continue to bomb Spain, France, Italy, UK, Netherlands and the US.

I feel that as a result of the US blunders and invasions under false pretenses, it will take more terrorist acts to mobilize Europe and other attacked nations to get fed up and put their foot down. UK and France have a nuclear foot to put down.

The US has delayed a real coalition of western countries to react in a deliberate manner that would cause muslim policing of their extremists.

Then again maybe jihadists would celebrate victory and go home once we do. but I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:59 PM

Well, before Prickey, who has nuthing to add to this discussion other than playin' his usual ***ah-hah-gotcha-Bobert*** stalkin' game that has become his new hobby I have to confess that...

there is no neaderthal in the dictionary as being used as a adjective but...

..."Neanderthal" which can mean man, as in a noun, like in Neanderthat man or "Neanderthal" as an adjective meaning "boorish"...

Note: I have 'bout 12 dictionaries and I looked it up last night and set the one down that had "neanderthal" with lower case as an adjective but can't seem to find that edition so until I find it I'll have to stick with "Neanderthal Bushite goons", 'er "Neanderthal goon Bushites"....

Might of fact, I'll just let Prickey decide which one he likes better seein' as he has nuthin' really to add to this discussion other than critiquin' my posts...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 05:55 PM

neaderthal, not Neaderthal, Dickey...

Spend a little time with Mr. Webster...

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 04:23 PM

"There are those who feel the LACK of action in Iraq would have lead us to Global Thermonuclear War."

Well you were wrong, weren't you?

With what? They had little enough to blow their onw foot off with! (speaking literally, so please don't go there.

The majority seems to be in favor of an end now & had there been a little bit of thought & foresight the present saying of "if we had known now" wouldn't be heard round the chambers & on political trail today. Keeping on the same course after the wind's shifted is charting a course for disaster. We now know that there would've have been no "Global Thermonuclear War" now or then or any other "Global War", all hype but still there are those that can't get past that. Move on before it becomes the "100 Year War".


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM

There are those who say that the Vietnam war would have ended markedly sooner if Congress had cut off the funds for it. Do we really need to keep this war going?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 03:20 PM

NEW YORK (AP) -- Hundreds of protesters calling for the end of funding for the Iraq war or the immediate return of U.S. troops marched Sunday and converged on a park near the United Nations headquarters.

Union members, representatives of Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow-PUSH Coalition, war veterans and others joined the demonstration, one of several staged during the weekend across the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The crowd of a few hundred protesters grew as the procession, which stretched for several blocks, moved on.

Actor Tim Robbins, among the speakers at the rally, organized by the New York chapter of United for Peace and Justice, told the crowd that getting Congress to cut off funds for the war "would be a good way" to get the troops home.

"The American people want this war to end," Robbins said. "That's the message they sent last November in the election. When are we going to start listening to them?"

Robbins, a frequent war protest participant with his partner, actress Susan Sarandon, also referred to the recent revelations of substandard care and facilities at the military's Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

"You want to support the troops? First get them home, then take care of them," he said.

Police lined sidewalks, and some walked ahead of the protesters as they marched toward the offices of Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Demonstrators carried signs reading "Impeach Bush," and "Not one more dollar, not one more death."

No counter-demonstrators were visibly present, as they had been at a larger anti-war rally in Washington on Saturday.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:50 PM

Ahem!

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:50 PM

"We had no business there in the first place."

A matter of debate, which either side has reason to argue. There are those who feel the LACK of action in Iraq would have lead us to Global Thermonuclear War.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:44 PM

"What I have heard on Mudcat is that if US forces pull out of Iraq, everything will get "sorted out in two weeks ".


Please cite who said that and where and when. I have heard NOBODY say anything even close to that.

You wouldn't want to be suspected of being a liar, would you?

Something that those who fault the anti-war people as well as the Democratic party for not having a good or foolproof solution to the mess in Iraq bespeaks to the very problem: We had no business there in the first place. And it wasn't the anti-war people or the Democratic party who put us there.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:03 PM

What I have heard on Mudcat is that if US forces pull out of Iraq, everything will get "sorted out in two weeks ".

It took a little longer to get things sorted out in Rwanda.

"...Between April 6 and mid-July, a genocide that is estimated to have left between 800,000 and 1,071,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus dead at the hands of organized bands of militias, as reported by Helen Vesperini...
...Their Achilles tendons were cut so they couldn't run, and the Belgian soldiers — all of them privates — were castrated and died choking on their genitalia..."

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:17 PM

"I am sorry if I gave the impression that the thing about goon boy was me. I should have out it in quotaion marks and given a source."

You most certainly should have.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 12:46 PM

"These people think that if we withdraw from Iraq, that somehow, just magically, peace is going to happen," said supporter John Linares."

Dickey - Have you ever heard anyone on Mudcat say that? I doubt it. Its a gross misrepresentation of those who are opposed to the war and is a good example of those who can't listen to reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM

The last Neanderthal throwback I saw was in Lackawanna NY in 1973.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:39 AM

Ebbie:

I am sorry if I gave the impression that the thing about goon boy was me. I should have out it in quotaion marks and given a source.

I will do better in the future.

Bobert: I didn't know that goons lived in trees or that they always wear boots and leather jackets.

Where do Neanderthals live and what do they wear?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:56 AM

source: Pacifica radio caller. They incidents were reportedly at the Viet Nam war memorial where feeling ran hot.

UK paleo anthroplogists said this week that Neanderthals were most likely eaten by the hairless tribes of people.

They went on to say that mothers may have been the ones to select the cute hairless babies over the hairy ones which led to a predoominence of hairless people.

Neanderthals were at least as hairy as Robin Williams and were likely considered to be animal game.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:09 AM

Last words of "neanderthal goon Bushites"

neanderthal = adj., borish (Webster)

goon = thug, strike buster (Webster)

Bushite = supporter of Bush (mine and others)

So yeah, the biker types who heckled, cursed and prevented at least one Vietnam vet from seeing the Vietnam War Memorial because he had an anti-war sign seemed to fit the description to the tee...

BTW, the term goon has commonly been used as anti-union peoople who use violence and intimidation against folks trying to unionize a shop, "strike busters", so I don't see it's use to describe the kinds of activities that these thugs at the protest were involved as debatable...

Throw in the "BIG LIE" that the Bushites spread around their right winged blogs that the protesters planned to trash the Vietnem Memerial I'm not surprised that it got the goons down out of the trees withy their boots and leather jackets...

As for the beating of people or macing of peiople, I haven't seen any credible reports of that bu7t the Post certainly has reported on the cursing, the threats and the intimidation that the neanderthal goon Bushites used against the demonstrators...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Wordsmith
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:10 AM

Dickey, if certain blacks are now taking pledges not to use the "n" word, can we expect the same from you on your choice of equally unacceptable words?

Sorry to hear that Tom DeLay, who I'd hoped would just lie down and play dead, has risen up angry on Meet the Press. Shame on Meet the Press for inviting him in the first place. What relevant discourse could he possibly provide? Glad to hear the General took him down a peg or two. He should just go away and hide. Isn't he going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit soon? Guess he misses the limelight too much to do the decent thing. One could say, "he only opens his mouth to change feet!"

I, too, am glad that people still are actively marching for what they believe in...whatever their stripe. Ah, the good old days...the roar of the crowd, the smell of "ew, tear gas."

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:36 AM

Double Duh.

You pick one article out of thousands & stand one incident to pitch as a defination to define some sort of unrelevant point to back your slanted view!

YOUR FATHER WAS RIGHT!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:06 AM

Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 12:46 AM

Ebbie: What I was pointing out is that Goon and Neanderthal are pejoratives.

Who were the "Goons" at this protest?

Protesters, Supporters of Iraq War Voice March Downtown

Last Updated:
03-18-07 at 11:28AM

Opponents of the war in Iraq hit the streets of downtown San Diego Saturday, one of dozens of protests around the world calling an end to four years of war.

The protest in San Diego drew approximately 1,000 people and was relatively peaceful. The demonstrations came as the fourth anniversary of the war draws near.

San Diego police said their goal was to stand back and observe freely, admitting that a crowd this big and passionate could be unpredictable.

Marching through downtown, the protesters said that enough is enough.

"We are outnumbered in Iraq, our troops are dying, and we need to bring them home now," one protester said.

However, despite being outnumbered by war protesters, a small group of people showed up to voice their support for the war.

"I support the troops," war supporter Daniel Cord said. "We don't pull out on their watch, we'll pull out when the time is right."

When Cord was interviewed by News 8, the protesters chanted "fair and balanced," taking offense to the interview with Cord, who is a Marine.

The supporters of the war who gathered said they didn't want confrontation with the protesters, but wanted to say that Iraq is still a war worth winning.

"These people think that if we withdraw from Iraq, that somehow, just magically, peace is going to happen," said supporter John Linares, referring to the protesters.

Throughout the march, police were hoping to simply provide crowd and traffic control. However, approximately 20 minutes into the march, an anti-war protester grabbed the sign of one of the supporters of the war.

Police were able to get the supporters to safety.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 11:58 PM

Not only that, Barry, but if protesters had been beaten or maced it would have made the news. There are people who like nothing better than that.

For the record, I really admire you for making the effort and going, Barry. If I were in a reasonable distance, I would like to think I would go but I never have.

Dickey, stuff happens, doesn't it. I am sorry - very - that there are parents like that; is unforgivable and it cannot help but color one's spirit. May I add, however, that your father's actions in the past are no excuse for your actions today. It is up to us - no one else - to see and understand clearly and to vow that we will not be that kind of person.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 11:28 PM

I saw nothing to support the statement of people being beaten & maced & would think that if an incident like this had occured it would've caused a much noticed commotion. I did see many small groups of what I called above leather jacketed Viet Nam vets flying their colors, plowing through the crowds bumping into folks purposefully & trying to start a ruckus. They were mostly, by the time the event got rolling confined to the other side, where they were fliping the bird, shouting obsenties & shaking their fists. It was truely astonishing to see this mad display of hatred focus on those that would want not only bring soldiers home to saftey & end an unjust war but these were many of the same folks that brought them home saftely from Viet Nam. Essentially they behaved like mad dogs trying to snap at the hand that once fed them. Sadly there was also a small amount that saw a need & responded. My thoughts were that they deserved absolutely no attention at all & should not have been recognized by anyone.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 11:28 PM

My father already regarded me as hopelessly stupid: hence his favorite pejorative for me, "goon boy." He also considered me genetically deficient, something better to have been discarded in an abortionist's garbage can: "You're just like your mother," he often said. "You have shit in your blood."

In its pejorative sense, a Neanderthal is someone who is considered to be old-fashioned and unwilling to 'get with it.' Neanderthal is also used as an insult meaning uncivilized.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 08:42 PM

There were many complaints of agent provacateurs (goons) who roamed the crowd and maced protestors as well as lacerating people's legs with boots customized with metal blades. Some of the lady callers seemed to think a protest should be more like a picnic and were disturbed upon seeing protestors beaten and maced." Donuel

What? Oh, come on. Source, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

"Our day will come . . .".

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:49 PM

"The protesters are traitors to the United States and are guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy. It is sedition plain and simple. They should not have been allowed to be here."
quotes from Tom Delay on Meet the Press this Sunday morning.

Along with Tom Delay on Meet the Press was the neo con Richard Pearle. He accused a retired US Admiral who is now a democratic Congressman of being unpatriotic and the only ex military person to say that withdrawl of our troops will lead to peace.

Tom Delay said the Admiral's strategy for withdrawl was crazy. The other guest was a retired General who chimed in to say that he would prefer to take military advice from the Admiral, and not Tom Delay.
Tom then looked visibly shaken/angry.

___________________

On Pacifica radio and CSpan I listened to protestors who called in after the event.

There were many complaints of agent provacateurs (goons) who roamed the crowd and maced protestors as well as lacerating people's legs with boots customized with metal blades. Some of the lady callers seemed to think a protest should be more like a picnic and were disturbed upon seeing protestors beaten and maced. (It must have been her first protest. DC has a lot of VERY patriotic police)

The quotes of the anti anti protestors were profane but when they were not profane they were repeating what Tom Delay said word for word.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 06:42 PM

Thanks fir yer report, Barry...

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 06:36 PM

I got back at about 7am this morning so I'm just catching up on this thread, news & sleep.

The estimates seem close I'd say between 25,000 to 35,000 protested & a few hundred Bush/War supporters.

Dickey, you don't deserve an answer to your questions & won't get one from me but I will they you that there were people from all different life styles & backgrounds. There, that's more than you deserve.

The supporters of Bush & the War were mostly jacketed excuses for birth control who wandered through the crowd trying to provoke folks into confrontations & were extremely hostile at the side lines which agrees with the supporting of war & violence.

The march itself, I though was poorly attended but many airports were shutdown or delayed flights & it was the same with trains. We left Portsmouth NH an hour late & arrived at around 11:00 the next morning just in time a 13 hr ride from what shoul've been 9. Buses from Boston didn't leave as well as buses from Vermont, I was told by some that in all 67 buses didn't make it. SO I guess Bush does talk to God & God saw fit to throw a storm in the mix for him.

As for the event I was disappointed. There is a definite lack of organization & cooperation between the various groups represented there & there's an extreme lack of leadership. It was all well & good to get people up there who have very moving & personal reasons for spearheading the protests but there needs to be more in the way of good, intelligent public speakers that can move a mass. We lacked real leaders. The various groups didn't seem to be able to put there egos & agendas aside for the sake of the whole so when the main speakers were delivering from the main stage they were drowned out by the loud speakers of the sub groups who were also vying for attention, so no messages/speeches were being heard, the sum of the parts were more important than the whole. There was also a jocking for positions at the head of the march. I was 1st told & was under the impression that the Gold Star Families (Iraq Vet Families & Vets were to lead the procession but it was the Hip Hop something's who Cindy Sheehan was leading got the front spot with the Gold Star group & was told that she & her group got pirority. Viet Nam Vets Against the War behind the Gol Stars & behind them every other group trying to mix it up with the non affiliated marchers working in between.

Now there was a better side to the whole event & that was the people. They came from all over & were from all ethnic groups, very well represented. Except for the supporters of the war which were made up of ALL, I really mean ALL white & mostly men of Viet Nam era age & again mostly leather jacketed & various group colors. There were many Viet Nam vets marching as well as much older vets & the more recent as well as Iraqi vets. There were many religious groups, Muslim as well. The youth was the best by far, they were there in droves, they were the core, the backbone & the will & the committed, they were there in very strong numbers, a huge percentage & they were extremely vocal & determined. It was actually a group of youthful Goths armed with black simulated riot shields that stormed the bridge in a military file style to the Pentagon that cause the few arrests that were made. The group was peaceful & respectful. The March route was changed, it originally was to pass the Viet Nam War Memorial with strict orders to turn off all loud speakers & to remain silent so as not to disturb any visitors. I imagine because of the rumors that got circulated about upsetting the "Wall" the march by the Memorial was dropped & it never happened. Where & who started that rumor can only be imagined. The protectors of the Memorial kept it off bounds to everyone even the visitors, what idiots, it was they that insulted the dead.
As far as I could tell there were no problems, aside for the bridge incident with police & marchers. Both did what they were supposed to do & without any animosity. There was a bit of over zealousness of the law enforcement's side in the closing of certain buildings but I guess that's just being careful & can't be a cause for blame.

There is a future march planned & hopefully the weather will be more cooperative & the organizers can realize their shortcomings & can work on them & capitalize of their strengths.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 05:00 PM

Ahhhh, that was supposed to be "goon", not "goob"...

And yeah, thanks to the Spainards... They really stepped to the plate...

I think more Americans would have participated if they thought that Bush administartion actaully gave a gol-danged about what anyone thinks, except their little circle of friends... This is why the Bush administartion cannot be trusted... They don not belive in democracy... The are opposed to leting tax payin' residents of the District of Columbia have a vote tho they ceratinly don't mind taking their taxes and spendin' it on dumbass wars... And they ceratinly don't care what the American people want...

Right now it biols down in the Bush screw-ups allowin' folks like the "Swiftboat Liars for Truth" have their way with the majority with thugs...

Normal, for them....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 04:47 PM

I am proud and happy that so many Americans have participated but heh - you really have to hand it to those Spaniards, I guess they still remember what its like to live under a Fascist government.

A big thank-you to Spain.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:58 PM

Yo, Dickey,

Check out Webster's definations of both "neanderthal" and "goob"... Neither definations are either bigoted or homophoblic...

Like d pointed out, you are comparing apples and oranges, not to mention coming off as a complete bigot...

Everyone else,

The printed Post had figures at 20,000 to 30,000 depending one who was doing the estimatin'... Not bad at all but I'd still like to know how many of Bush's "neahderthal goons" made up the hecklers, seein' as they got about half the ink...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:28 PM

'Last night's news said that although "The police no longer estimate crowd size but said that the anti-war demonstrators may have reached 20,000."'

The police no longer estimate crowd size. Right. My platoon is in place and we are deciding where to put the SAWs. I don't want to estimate the size of the opposing force because it might confuse where we want to polace the weapons. Right. I get it now.

Ebbie: One news article I read did say that the number of protest folks there wasn't as large as it was a few months back.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:16 PM

Last night's news said that although "The police no longer estimate crowd size but said that the anti-war demonstrators may have reached 20,000."

Does anyone have any more information? Barry?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: ard mhacha
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM

I have just witnessed massive crowds throughout the world on RTE TV News, reported 100,000 in Madrid.
Martin Sheen said the present US administration in the White House should be imprisoned as war criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM

Currently in progress.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:20 PM

Amos: Thanks for not using a perjorative term.

You can call me Dick for short.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM

You are one mean piece of work, Dickey-head.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 11:47 AM

So what ethnicity is a Fag?*

*Fag is used here for educational purposes only.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 11:42 AM

Dickey - You insist on comparing apples to oranges!

Political mudslinging is not the same as labelling someone on the basis of ethnicity.

A political affiliation is a choice, ethnicity is not.

You really do need to think it over.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 10:40 AM

Bobert: were there any Fags, Gooks, Rag Heads or Camel Jockeys there or just the normal Bushite neanderthal goons?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 10:30 AM

Just read the online Post story and seesm that nuthin' has changed... The Bushites, though being a very small minority, got about equal time...


I did learn one thing I hadn't hear but somehow the Bushittes pulled one of their patented "Swiftboat Liars For Truth" acts and had spread an internet rumor that the protesters planned on vandalizing the Vietnam War Memorial and that got the Hells Angels type there in their black lether jackets to kick some hippie's asses... You know, the usual lieing sack-of-pure-unaltered-bullcrap that the Bushites are so good at spreadin' but there were no reports, according to the Post, of an vandalism during the day by the dmonstrators...

There was a report, however, of a Marine Vet who had served in Nam, having come from over half the country away to particpate in the demonstartion and thought it would be a good opportunity to visit the Vietnam Memorial, who was prevented from seeing it by a few Bushite neanderthal goons... Noraml...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 09:31 AM

Sniff...

I hate missin' an anti-war/anti-Bush demonstartion and have made more than my share over the last secveral years but I had a serious conflict and couldn't make it up fir this one...

But my how time flies... It seems like yesterday that I was riding up from Richmond with a bunch of folks for the 1st one in, what, '67 (maybe '68)... I still have a small notebook with notes I took from that day that shows up now and then... Seems that under the current crooks and chickehhawk war-mongers things haven't changed much since then... That is depressing... But what isn't depressing is the numbers of young college aged kids who are into the movenemnt thse days... It is very heartening to see that the war-monging PR machine just can't seem to corral the pro-human/pro-Earth values that are very much alive and well...

Did anyone make it to the event??? If so, how'd it go??? One won't get the real story from the Post or Times because both under-report these demonstartions... The one I attended in DC in January during the mad-dash-to-Itaqmire was so badly under-reported that the Post even ran a story the following August admitting that they had fallen into a "culture" (whatever that means) and had failed in questioning the reasons for the invasion... I wrote them and asked what they had done to "correct" their "culture" issue but never heard back so I reckon it's business as usual with them on these events...

I will say this, I attended the Moritorium during the Vietnam War, which BTW was the first time that my father who had supported the war marched against continuing it, and the numbers of folks in that were estimated at 500,000 and the January march prior to the insane ivasion of Iraq was larger... But the post had it as "tens of thousands" and gave almost as much print to the 50 or so Bushites....

So, if anyone was there I'd like your report to balance the medias...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 05:38 PM

Why would anyone think that killing people was pro-American?

Especially people who were minding their own business? What the hell is supposed to be pro-American about that?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 05:27 PM

I can see why Guest Ci Ci was so alarmed that s/he sent us to read this:

"The WWP describes itself as a party that has, since its founding, "supported the struggles of all oppressed peoples. It has recognized the right of nations to self-determination, including the nationally oppressed peoples inside the United States. It supports affirmative action as absolutely necessary in the fight for equality. It opposes all forms of racism and religious bigotry." Initially the WWP was confined to the Buffalo, New York area, where it had constituted the Buffalo and two other smaller branches of the SWP, but expanded in the 1960s. During the Civil Rights Movement the WWP had a youth movement, "Youth Against War and Fascism", which opposed the Vietnam War. Workers World and YAWF were also notable for their consistent defense of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground along with Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the Puerto Rican Independence movement."

Ha

In from AP a few minutes ago:

"WASHINGTON - Denouncing a conflict entering its fifth year, protesters across the country raised their voices Saturday against U.S. policy in Iraq and marched by the thousands to the Pentagon in the footsteps of an epic demonstration four decades ago against another divisive war."

I have no hope that this protest will move Bush, et al, in any way but it may serve to bring people together across the country.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM

Friday, March 16, 2007

The anti-war protesters spat at a wounded Iraq war soldier; they spray-painted graffiti on the U.S. Capitol, the veterans said.

Those acts and others at a large demonstration Jan. 27 birthed a movement of counter-protesters who plan to deploy Saturday in the nation's capital during another anti-war demonstration.

What has come to be called Gathering of Eagles started — at least in large part — in a coffee shop outside Greenville, local vets said.

There, veterans gathered and pledged to make sure war memorials aren't defiled during the planned protest Saturday.

The Web site gatheringof eagles.org lists as the event's goal "to stand silent guard over our nation's memorials, in honor of our fallen, and in solidarity with our armed forces in harm's way today."

Since late January, the grass-roots movement has grown to more than 100,000, possibly as large as 150,000 people, Pitt County participants said.

"It's not an organization; it's an event," said Don McWhorter, a retired Marine captain from the Greenville area, as he sat inside To Bean or Not to Bean, the coffee shop on East 10th Street where he recalls helping to launch the gathering.

"It's pro-America. We just want to show there's another side," he said. McWhorter and other organizers are unsure how many will attend Saturday.

The veterans and other anti-anti-war demonstrators plan to take over the area between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial west of the Mall, squeezing out big-name protesters like Jane Fonda, Sean Penn and those who ally with them.

http://www.reflector.com/local/content/news/stories/2007/03/16/Gathering_of_Eagles.html

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 03:01 PM

Just be certain that you march at a pace that will be beneficial to your heart! I'm all for marches. People don't walk enought it seems to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:35 PM

All right - I'm going to miss it - but check out why: I had a court date stemming from some checks that bounced when I had my identity stolen, when someone was forging checks out of my account, causing my (theoretically good) checks to bounce. I missed the court date because of losing my job and not taking things out of my calendar since I was not allowed back on the computer. So I went in and got a new court date - at which point, even though I could prove I hadn't knowingly written any bad checks, I have been SENT TO JAIL - for missing the court date. I go in tonight and get out Sunday night.
I still don't quite believe it. I'm missing the March and my favorite niece's wedding shower... I'm sure there is a moral somewhere, but the judge hasn't figured it out.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: jeffp
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 05:27 PM

Dress warmly. There's a cold front coming through.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:19 PM

Looks like Vancouver is also have an anti-war march.

OUT OF AFGHANISTAN
INTO KYOTO

Something has to be done about the anti-war PR, communication, advertisement, etc.

More people would join in if they were aware.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

Thanks, Barry, for those of us who cannot actually make it to D.C.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:07 PM

Well it's getting close, any others joining in on this march?

I just confirmed my bus ticket & am pretty excited, it'll be my 1st march in nearly 40 years, the last time was for ending the Viet Nam War.
The buses from Boston were all filled & they added on new ones to handle the overflow & now those have been all taken.
I leave out of Porstmouth Friday nite so I go with the session still singing in my head. Portsmouth also had to book extra buses (3 in all) so I think even with a dismal weather forcast it looks like the turnout will be very large. Buses will be leaving from at least 300 cities last count that I heard, mostly from the eastern part of the counrty. Hopefully we can make a difference.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 06:12 PM

LOL, Mrrzy, you make it sound like a love-in! Seriously though, I wish you a successful day.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Mooh
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:29 PM

Too far away, no passport, I don't want to be sent "accidentally" to Syria, and I got a gig that evening, otherwise I'm interested. Give 'em hell!

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 12:23 PM

George - just because it's planned doesn't mean it isn't heartfelt. Think of a wedding - planned perhaps years in advance. Just because we want others in on our outrage doesn't make us not outraged. If we want people in from out of town to our wedding and are willing to wait for them doesn't mean we don't love each other.
How did I get into this metaphor? Somebody get me out!

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 01:48 AM

OK, Barry, power to your voices.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM

Hi George
See MarchOnPentagon.Org
ANSWER is only one of the many groups taking part in the march. Some groups are marching for impeachment some for an end to the war. The date was pick because it's close to the 40th anniversity of the historic march on Washington. If you look at ANSWER's web site it seems as if they are handling bus transportation for most of the States in the US. I don't know if they are the spearheading group or the umbrella group or not but there are many group taking part, the list is long. I want Bush & Cheney impeached (& jailed), I want an end to the wars & agression against other nations & alot of other changes but one reason is enough for me to bring my body in support. The march has been in planning for a while, if you look you'll see the scope of the march is very large. Hopefully it'll catch the eye & heart of the nation & hopefully it'll make a statement that cannot be ignored this time by both parties & in perticular Bush & company.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: GUEST,CI Ci
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:49 PM

Link to WWP

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: GUEST,Ci Ci
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:36 PM

Answer is a front for the WWPWWP. A communist, socialist, fusion of Trotsky, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.
WWP's history of orthodox and problematic political positions. In 1956, WWP supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary, claiming the Hungarian striking workers were counterrevolutionary; in response to the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, WWP charged that protesters had launched violent attacks on the soldiers, provoking the military's actions; during the Bosnian war in the 1990s, WWP portrayed reports of atrocities and mass rape by the Serb forces as imperialist lies, and now supports Slobodan Milosevic in his battle against war crimes charges at The Hague. Ramsey Clark, the visible leader of the International Action Center, is a founder of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, and has also provided legal representation for some accused of participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. He has more recently volunteered for Saddam Hussein's legal team.

Recently, Workers World has undergone a factional split, with a breakaway group apparently taking most of ANSWER with it. This has led the IAC and the faction that still calls itself Workers World to help found a new coalition, Troops Out Now! The recent split doesn't seem to have been about anything substantive, but the tactical question of whether to support WWP's presidential ticket last year or to acquiesce to the left's anybody but Bush (meaning pro-Kerry) position. Behind this question seems to be a turf war between WWP cadre in New York and San Francisco, the party's two principal power bases. The breakaway faction, based mostly in San Francisco, is calling itself the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Troops Out Now!, which endorsed the Sept. 24 march, remains based at the International Action Center's New York offices.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:01 PM

As a total (but interested) outsider, I am a little confused. On the face of it, this march will be asking for Bush's impeachment, yet the fact that it is being organised some 3 months in advance (this thread began in December) indicates not so much an urgency to right wrongs, but rather an opportunity for voicing opinions - not the same thing at all. So I wonder - is this for real, or is it a harmless venting opportunity, a complaints-fest?

It's the lack of spontaneity that foxes me. An outrage that takes 3 months to organise rightly gives rise to concerns such as Lonesome EJ's: is this simply a hate-driven event dressed up as outrage?.

Don't get me wrong - I am no friend of GWB's politics, policies, decisions or actions. But an honest outrage would have had the streets seething within hours; not planning a march in 3 months time.

Do people honestly believe that this is going to change anything? Because from this distance, I have to be honest - as a grass roots reaction it seems a poor substitute for a vote.

But I hope I have it wrong, and I am ready, even willing, to be corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: pdq
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:15 PM

A new variety of fruit has become popular is recent years. The Imbush Peach.

It appears soft and fuzzy on the outside, but the meat is mostly yellow, except

near the core, where it is surprisingly pink.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:52 PM

OK, 'catters, we gotta come up with some great sign slogans!

Impeach Bush anagrams to:
Be a chimp, suh!
Uh, basic hemp?
Peach his bum!

ooh... this might be fun...

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 06:25 PM

Bit far for me. Somebody put my name on something.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 05:01 PM

great meating place

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:31 PM

"Anybody from across the pond? Shall we get a cenral Mudcat meeting place decided? "

The local jail or detention centre would be a great meating place.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:22 PM

I have been planning on going. How I'm getting there I'm not sure, I'll be looking at the bus schedules leaving Boston when the time gets nearer. It high time this bag of bones started walking again.
I'm all for a Mud Meet if others are headed there.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:36 AM

Refresh: who all is going? Anybody from across the pond? Shall we get a cenral Mudcat meeting place decided?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 09:47 PM

Unfortuntely, impeachment can't be brought about by referendum. The Democrats have a very slim majority in Congress, and nobody thinks that a substantial number of Republicans would vote for impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: pdq
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 01:17 PM

Here is a quote from Mrrzy's site:

"We are vigorous in our demand for INCLUSION of ALL organizations resisting this administration. No matter what issue each of us is coming from. Recruit and include World Can't Wait, UFPJ, Code Pink, ANSWER, NOW, NARAL, GLBT groups, Velvet Revolution, Black Block, Save-The-USA groups, My Space posters, Impeach Bushco, 911 Truth, Iraq Vets for Peace, Gold Star Familys, Military Families Speak Out, Courage to Resist, Michael Moore, MoveOn, Media Matters, Alternet, Truthout, UAW, AFL-CIO,ALCU, NAACP, the SDS, Black Panthers, and all the rest that I may have forgotten to mention. GET THEM (and their lists) ON BOARD.

No more Ms.& Mr. Nicey Nice. We need to Shake Our Collective Fists in the face of the power elite. Many hands raised in solidarity. Fists clenched in defiance."

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 01:10 PM

I found this...

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 12:56 PM

Yay!

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 12:12 PM

I entirely concur that hate-based politics is destructive to the nation.

I believe, however, that honesty-based politics would restore a measure of our essential national sense of ethics and heal the country, which has been badly divided by a divisive anagement style based on a sort of narrow-minded solipcistic hypocrisy. A little sunshione would go a long way to disinfect things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 12:02 PM

Impeaching Bush should be far down the list of priorities for the Country, behind extricating ourselves from Iraq, and resolving major issues with illegal immigration, stemming environmental destruction, and ending out-of-control deficit spending.
I'm frankly sick of hate-driven politics, and I think it's very counter-productive for America.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Cruiser
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 11:20 AM

Barry Finn: Since you started this thread, please provide a link and your definitive source.

Here is one reference to a march:

Impeach Bush March


____________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 09:19 AM

Do you have any infomation about this march? I cannot find anything on the Moveon website, nor have I heard about this anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 08:45 AM

Cluin, GWB is the only US President to provide funding for stem cell research.

And......right on, Robomatic.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 05:26 PM

I've got nothing but faith in how that's going to turn out, and I'd rather march behind an incontinent elephant than be going anywhere in the same direction as Ramsey Clark.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 04:14 PM

SINSULL, that's not soon enough. The great damage he can cause between now & then could be to great & relying on just the voters of this country have proved to be sometimes a worthless wait & a setback.
So far neither party can be seen producing a worthy candidate & as far as I'm concerned Nancy would be a welcomed first woman.
A vote, as recently seen is the last thing an elected pres will pay attention to. The 60's showed that masses could & did bring about change.

"We will be rid of baby bush and his step father very soon."

What would the counrty do if they decided to stay(I"m not saying this would happen). Would we be able to vote them out, would we protest or revolt? I don't expect that the masses would do much of anything but squawk & moan & piss & groan & then leave it to the politcial process (remember the right to bare arms) to guide us.
That's where America is today & the people need to use their voice before they lose it.

As for a march against war I agree but I also think that we can't even start that process with the present duo in power, so they need to go before we can even start walking that road.

Barry
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 03:18 PM

Knock them both into the gutter with one fell swoop, and let Nancy clean them up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: GUEST,Cruz
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 11:10 AM

Cluin,

Man, you are off the wall!

very, very funny..

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: SINSULL
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 10:47 AM

That's funny, Cluin.

Barry,
We will be rid of baby bush and his step father very soon. My real concern is whether the voters of this country will pay attention when they cast their ballots in the next presidential election. And will the Democrats produce a candidate who has both the ability to lead and the smarts to get elected?

A republican win will be seen as an endorsement of bush's policies. SIGH - yes it will.


Bush will never be impeached. An anti-war rally would attract a larger crowd, one that would cross partisan lines. Read the Ford thread and you will understand why impeachment is simply not an option. Frankly, I don't believe he has committed an impeachable offense.

Mary

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Cluin
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 10:33 AM

Bush is against stem cell research to protect the unborn. But once they are born they're fair game.

Witness... he is trying to increase his intelligence by consuming the brains of infants after sucking them out through their tiny nostrils.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 05:38 PM

Does anyone think for a moment that Nancy would be worst than the 2 that sit there now. Buch & Cheney are both guilty along with others, who should also be tried they should go as a packaged deal. There's plenty of more damage that'll be coming from this present administration before 2008 rolls around. Look at what the country had to say during this past election & just look at how that's being interpreted & tell me it doesn't look like it's getting worst. We're on a road to hell & as long as we let those 2 stay the scars that will be left from the burning we get will show for years to come.
St Paddy's day is the 40th anniversity, the comments about drunks & questions about double impeachment & the remark about Ramsey Clark, none of this matters if we all just sit back & comment. If we all don't raise to the call & all come together to make it happen we will all fall together for our lack of typical American "go it our own way". Isn't that the way that Bush got us here in the first place. "We'll go it alone" he said & alone we all let him go.
Don't go knocking it, just step aside & let those that will, go through, please!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Cruiser
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 05:12 PM

Uh, Bill D, that would be going a bit too far. Yes, get rid of the 2 whatchamuhcallums but not THAT woman or Hillary in that office. I had a female English teacher once who.....

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 01:08 PM

yes...we could. Then we get Nancy Pelosi. Can you imagine getting enough Republicans to vote for double impeachment so that SHE would be president?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 10:44 AM

Couldn't you have a double impeachment?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:54 AM

Although removing Bush is a desireable goal, we would be going to the man behind the curtain, Cheney, who may actually be worse. As a fresh face in the oval office, he would have more power than Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Dec 06 - 11:43 PM

They're hoping to swell their numbers by roping in all the drunks looking for the next party.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM

Scheduling this for St Patrick's Day seems a bit silly. A lot of people who might have wanted to take part are likely to be otherwise engaged.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 25 Dec 06 - 01:58 AM

I just e-mailed the main organizers to notify them that they are posting the march for Jan 27 and March 17, 2006. I trust I didn't miss it and they really mean 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Dec 06 - 05:27 PM

Hey, Ramsey, knock yourself out!

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Slag
Date: 24 Dec 06 - 05:12 PM

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I'm not to wild about Bush either so don't get all in an uproar.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Slag
Date: 24 Dec 06 - 05:11 PM

Yes. Impeach Nancy Pelosi! Ruth Vader Ginsberg and their ilk!

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Cruiser
Date: 24 Dec 06 - 03:17 PM

I have never marched in any type of protest, and I have never been arrested, but if there were simultaneous marches in many cities around the country, I would participate in a local march.

I was stationed at Walter Reed Army Hospital for a while during the Viet Nam War. I visited DC several times as a kid and marveled at the sights of our Nation's Capitol. However, even though I am financially able, I would not care to go there again. My view of what the symbols stand for have been severely tarnished by the last several presidencies.

So, ask local groups to have a simultaneous march in your city to get rid of the miserable failure who has disgraced this once proud nation.

A Registered Republican who despises Mr. Bush and all he stands for.

Subject: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Dec 06 - 02:53 PM

This came to me from MoveOn.org

Sat., March 17--
March on the Pentagon!

Ramsey Clark will be leading a mass demonstration to the Pentagon on Saturday, March 17, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. This is the 40th anniversary of the March on the Pentagon, which became a turning point in registering mass opposition to the Vietnam War. The March 17 demonstration will assemble at 12 noon at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Please join us at the Pentagon and bring your impeachment signs!

I hope to be there.
I hope to see you there.
I thought I was done marching nearly 40 yrs ago, I thought I was done marching forever!

I can think of much better ways of spending ST. Paddy's day but I can't think of a more important way to spend it.

Barry