 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:16 PM 'Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway, president of the Washington-based firm The Polling Company, said: "Cindy Sheehan has tapped into a latent but fervent feeling among some in this country who would prefer that we not engage our troops in Iraq. She can tap into what has been an astonishingly silent minority since the end of last year's presidential contest. It will capture attention."' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: bobad Date: 11 Aug 05 - 08:10 PM Perhaps Cindy Sheehan's action will provide the nucleus around which a protest movement will crystalize. I've been wondering why such a movement has not already arisen especially in the universities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 05 - 09:17 PM And, hey, I'm gettin' a little tired of hearin' the neo-con PR machine program their little apologists to go out and say dumbass stuff like, "Well, this is your opinion..." Excuse my language, but this is pure bullsh*t! Let's do a little review here: During the run-up to war the Bushites said: 1. Saddam is trying to crank up nmuclear weapons. Rememeber the talk of mushroom clouds??? At the time there were credible folks oput there not being covered by the mainstream media but out there none the less sayin' "Bullsh*t"... And there were lots of us her at mudcat trying to get the brownshirt Bushites to listen but all they wanted to do was call us un-American and say that was just our opinion. Sound familar? 2. Then it was WMD's... Same game, same players, same results. It too was bullsh8t... 3. Aluminum tubes... Same 4. Links to AlQuida... Same But all along it was those who were *correct* who were constatntly being portaryed as the ones with the "opinions"... Many of us predicted an urban war that would end up in a quagmire... And what did the Bushite apologists do.. Called us unAmerican and opinionated??? Seein' a pattern yet??? So, after the "Mission Accomplished" fiesko where Bush fakes like he had landed a jet on an aircraft and congratulated all the service for a job well done we entered the post "Mission Accomplished" PR phase of the same-old-tune crapola... 5. Saddam was a bad man!!! Rememeber that one??? Oh, now that was going to get the "opinionated" opponents in line...More tax payer bought PR Bullsh*t... 6. Well, we're bringing "democrarcy" to the Iraqi people... Oh yeah, like how ya gonna do that when you don't care about it here (think the 2000 election theft)... (Oh, but that's just yer opinion, Bobert...) Bullsh*t!!! Read Greg Palast's book and come back and say that... The evidence is overwhelming... (But that's yer opinion, Bobert...) No, not really... Read the friggin' book... So here we are. Looks like those of of with the opinions have proven out to be the ones who were correct???? How do any of you Bush-heads respond to that??? And yet what do we get as the Number One defensive arguement from the neo-con puppets/parrots: We have a difference of opinion... Danged right we do and our side just happens to be skunkin' yer side... No brag, just fact!!! Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 05 - 09:23 PM The pro-Bush folks are being quieter than usual on this thread. Maybe he's losing his appeal to them. He's getting real hard to brag about isn't he? It seems that initially his victory was the issue. Yeah, Bush WON. (Democrats would have done the same.) BUT, now with Bush seeming to drop in the polls, and the after-election flush of victory paling, it's possible there are a few sober afterthoughts. One would hope so, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 05 - 09:27 PM Also, I recall someone who was very pro-Bush saying that the US would be out of Iraq by last February. He seems to be elsewhere. I haven't been awaiting an explanation, but one would be nice to read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 05 - 09:44 PM bobad, the anti-war movement is everywhere, including on college campuses. They have organized large demonstrations in DC, as well as coordinated national and international anti-war events in public, on the interet, and through the alternative media channels you may not be familiar with (like Democracy Now, Air America, NOW, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, etc). The mainstream media has blocked all access to the political dissenters in this country for years, but the problem has become much worse since 2000, when Bush was selected. As to an impending arrest. Cindy clarified that in a number of interviews today, as the person(s) posting to Daily Kos apparently didn't understand what was going on. According to Cindy, the local sheriff is currently saying no one will be arrested, as long as no one breaks the law. She said it was the Secret Service who was attempting to get them to leave by intimidating them. Hence, the story began to get circulated that she was about to be arrested for national security reasons. What she said to clarify that was she doesn't believe they are in danger of being arrested by the local sheriff at this time, and if they were forcibly removed today, during the night, etc. it would most likely be the Secret Service deciding to intervene. No one knows how local law enforcement and the Secret Service will deal with the situation as it grows. Many people are reported to be pouring int Crawford from all over to join the protest. They are allowed to come join the protest during the day, but only a small number of activists are being allowed to camp there at night. The activists fear that if they all left at night to sleep elsewhere, that they would be blocked from returning again. Ironically, it seems to be the presence of the media that has gone out of it's way to ignore the anti-war movement, the White House press corps, that has kept the protesters safe and in place. After Bush's public dissing of Cindy and the other mothers who have assembled with her today at his fundraising event, it is unclear how much more attention the protestors will be afforded by the White House press. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Azizi Date: 11 Aug 05 - 09:47 PM Click HERE for a number of editorial cartoons and blogger's comments about President Bush's response [or lack of response] to Cindy Sheehan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:00 PM Bobert, Recognize any of these? "There is a real danger when a sigment of society becomes so brainwashed that they cannot tolerate other folks view points and America is rapidly becoming just that... " "Unless you are capable and willing to look beyond *your* side then you are allready in the loser category in my book. I mean no disrespect here but life isn't about winning law suits but being able to find common ground or selling visions." "When we take upon ourselves to be as vindictive as our foes, we have lost..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:21 PM Bobert, what is it you need to know? Or is it just that you want some insight on something you obviously don't have a clue about but want to continue to impress some of the weakminded ones with your worthless diatribe. Any particular age range? And, as a minute sidebar, what is a Greg Palast? Another Michael Moore becoming wealthy by utilizing the shallow thinking of others? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:27 PM It is the job of the Secret Service to protect the President of the United States. How they do that is basically up to them. The President can give them orders. I don't think anyone else can--although I stand to be corrected on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:32 PM The Secret Service is under the Treasury Department, and the Secretary of the Treasury. They do perform other duties, beside protecting VIPs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:35 PM http://www.secretservice.gov/ MISSION STATEMENT The United States Secret Service is mandated by statute and executive order to carry out two significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; investigates threats against these protectees; protects the White House, Vice President's Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for designated National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:35 PM I loved this one from Daily Kos: "The thing about the Right Wing noise machine is that it only has one tactical mode. Full bore attack. Which against a woman who lost her son, is a bit fucked up. Just a bit." Hehehe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:36 PM Thank you. I knew they fell under Treasury, bb, and that they had other jobs. But I always thought that their 'most important' job was to take care of the President. So, the Secretary of the Treasury can give them orders, then? (Serious question.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:38 PM Yeah, bb, and I'll stick by every one of 'um... All were in response to yer sides relentless PR drumbeat to beat those on this side into submission.... Yes, I would not retract one single word, irregardless of correct spellin' or not... The "brainwashed" statement sho nuff holds true and that is the point I have been making... You brainwashed neo-con radicals had no tolerance during the run up to war... No, it was "either you are with us or you are against us" demonizin' those who were sayin, "Hey, wait a friggin' minute" into terrorists. Hmmmmmmm? Looks like yer side was wrong on that one.... What's next? Yeah, same friggin' obseravtion... Your crowd is so hell-bent on parrotin' anything that you hear from one of yer radical neo-con assh*les, who, BTW, dominate the radio, that yuo and yers refuse to look beyond the latest PR line that you are supposed to regergitate on command like Pavlov's friggin' dog... If you folks had just asked a couple of questions rather than take hook, line, sinker, fisherman, fishermans car and the road he drove to the lakke on you and yers just mighta found that in askin' just a couple easy questions that there was indeed common ground to be found... But no! You and yers struck out a slash and burn position that allowed for nuthin but pure allegence to yer hero... It was you side that wouldn't give an inch... not ours... Okay, what's next... Vindcitive, bb? Hey, it's yer crowd doing all this killin' and torturin'... Fir the life o' me I can't see why you you would pick that one out as an example of just what a bad person I am???? Bottom line, it's yer side that has 100% of the power... So, ahhh, maybe you'd like to explain to peanut gallery how it is that the powerless people are now being vindictive???? Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:38 PM As far as I know. They do all the investigations of counterfeit currency, and as far as I know are directed by the Sec of Treas. Of course, his boss is the President... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:39 PM G: Ummmm...shallow thinking? How about the thinking of someone afraid to confront a bereaved mother? Or the thinking of one so immersed in self-satisfaction that they can't even look up who Greg Palast is? Get real, chile. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Peace Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:40 PM Thanks, bb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:43 PM Bobert, Try looking in a mirror. If you do not see that you are acting as bad or worse than you claim "my" side is, you have more serious problems than I can deal with. I guess you don't really mean that YOU should act in a reasonable manner, according to the words YOU have stated- just the people you want to demonize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:02 PM I don't support killin' and torturin' folks fir political gain, bb... Maybe you need the mirror... After 4 years of folks with a differnt opinion being bullied, harrassed, demonized, it's yer side that need a good hard look in the mirror... Shame on every one of you brownshirt radicals... You folks are no conservatives... You are radicals who have killed folks for political and power gains... You folks have turned the tables on the working class so that most folks workin' today will never be able to retire... You folks have borrowed so much money from Europe and China that it will take generations to pay it back... Just today you folks voted in an "Transporation Bill" that has over 6,000 porl barrell projects that go to whom??? You folks!!! And paid for by whom??? Me and other hard workin' Americans... Yeah, you want to cleverly place the blame on the victims of what you folks have donw but I ain't buyin' it and guess what, bb, the American people are slowly but surely geetin' the real piccure... But you just go ahead and think it is the victims that are the ones with the serious problems because you are half right... We have serious problems in that you folks have somehow stole our governemnt and are killin', torturin' and exploitin folks both here and elsewhere... Ain't 'bout mirrors... 'Bout what God expects of each and every one of us to do in regards to respectin' life and our planet... Yer guys don't seem to know much about that... Sho nuff know how to steal stuff, though... (oh, BObert... That's a dredded.... ahhhhh, opinion!!!!) Yeah, but just like lots of them Ive voiced, I gotta a good fellin' that there's quite a bit of truth within it... Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:03 PM Amos, I know who Greg Palast is, I have read some of his tripe (my opinion)I am not immersed in self satisfaction - other wise I would not have researched Palast. This Cindy person was quite taken with GWB when he talked to her and kissed her on top of her head. Which any Marine will tell you is the ultimate gesture of kindness. This attack, attack, attack attitude by some is reminescent of the Japanese just before the end of the war. They were known for wildly striking at anything that moved as they must have realized that their position was hopeless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:19 PM ..........and the beat goes on - meaning that the weak retreat when directly confronted. Bobert, did you have a particular age group in mind? 20- 24, 25-30, 31-35? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:20 PM Difference is that Bush is the Jap here.... Folks are comin' 'round and, better than that, the media is not scared of Big-Fat-Liar-Karl-Rove reprisals anymore... After 4 years of being under consatnt attack by Rove, Bush's PR folk and the brownshirts there's a little freshness to the air... At least today... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:27 PM Please translate the last post. Oh, that is the first mention of Karl Rove in some time. I wonder what made that subject die? Perhaps a lack of evidence? Or is the media not mentioning him as they are "not scared" anymore. By the way, while not directly implying, you are the "Jap" here with the indiscrimanate attacking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:31 PM You are mistaken about Cindy being taken, G. You obviously have chosen to refuse her own statement about her change. She made it clear that that was long before Downing Street and the exposure of the falsification about Iraq. She made it clear that she was still in the throes of loss only nine weeks old. She mader it clear that she has thought things over considerably since then and like anyone who tries to do so, has grown and evolved. So characterizing her as a flip-flopper is shallow and crude in the best Bushite tradition. Great rhetoric completely devoid of human sensibility. And if you knew who Palast is, why so cavalier about refusing to acknowledge that fact in dialogue? Are you still posing, or have you decided to talk straight now? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:33 PM Hey, G's just another W apologist guys--why bother giving him the time of day? It isn't like you can have actual conversations with these sorts of people, because the just regurgitate what they heard on Imus this afternoon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:38 PM Based on last post, Amos, still posin'.... Problem is ... no cameras.... As fir BFL Rove, BUsh, as per usual is tryin' to run out the clock and Rove's (haha, Bush's) lawyers are doing what very well paid lawyers (more od my hard earned tax dollars down a Bush rat hole...) do best... Keep the clock runnin.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:43 PM Amos, this is turning into crap. Where did I say Ms. Cindy was a flip-flopper? Anyone can change their mind. (or have it changed) Whatever she wants to think is fine with me. I don't have to agree with her, however. And, what makes you think Palast is being truthful? Or, does truth have nothing to do with it? He is a Brit making $ from the heart of this countrys' dissent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:44 PM Just under a year ago, Ebbie posted this quote from another "Goldstar Bride": More at http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090604A.shtml "This is my reply: Mr. President, I know that you probably still "don't do body counts," so you may not know that almost one thousand U.S. troops have died doing what you told them they had to do to protect America. Ryan was Number 832. Liberty was, indeed, precious to the one I lost-- so precious that he would rather have gone to prison than back to Iraq in February. Like you, I don't know where the strength for "such pride" on the part of people "so burdened with sorrow" comes from; maybe I spent it all holding my mother as she wept. "I last saw my loved one at the Kansas City airport, staring after me as I walked away. I could see April 29 written on his sad, sand-chapped and sunburned face. I could see that he desperately wanted to believe that if he died, it would be while "doing good," as you put it. He wanted us to be able to be proud of him. Mr. President, you gave me and my mother a folded flag instead of the beautiful boy who called us "Moms" and "Brookster." But worse than that, you sold my little brother a bill of goods. Not only did you cheat him of a long meaningful life, but you cheated him of a meaningful death. You are in my prayers, Mr. President, because I think that you need them more than anyone on the face of the planet. But you will never get my vote. "So to whom it may concern: Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you." Sincerely, Brooke M. Campbell Atlanta, GA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:46 PM Read the book, G-zer??? Din't think so... How 'bout readin' the book.... And lookin' at actual copies of documents and memos... Read the book.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:48 PM Grief does take on different forms. And, Guest, that was such an enlightening post. I am not a big fan of 'W' but I am a big fan of truth without bias. Who is Imus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:54 PM G: Sorry, I guess I rushed to judgement there. It sounded like you were faulting her because she feels differently now than she did then. I withdraw my invective. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:55 PM What book? Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about? What does the word "ramble" mean to you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:58 PM "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palist... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 05 - 12:00 AM "Truth without bias". Oh please. Superficial, meaningless, hot button neo-con word games like the one you are playing here is what makes you a one trick pony. Anyone who says something like that is also cynical beyond redemption, in all likelihood. According to your "truth without bias" standard, the only truth there is in your world is what you've decided is truth, because any one else's truth is "biased" as judged by you. Sorry, but homey don't play your sick judge,jury, and executioner neo-con liberal baiting games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,G Date: 12 Aug 05 - 01:04 PM Guest @ 12 Aug 05 12:00AM Oooh, did I hit a nerve, Bunky? (and if it were intended to be "word games", you bit) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Aug 05 - 02:02 PM Bobert, As I have stated before, and you and your ilk never addressed, IMHO the reason we are at war is because countries like France and Germany, and the people who protested US taking action even before the UN resolution (but NEVER asked Saddam to comply with his obligations) led Saddam to believe that he could violate the UN resoluttion and the cease-fire accord without punishment. I hold YOU as being partially responsible for any dead in Iraq- ON EITHER SIDE. YOUR attitude is what is the cause of the torture and suffering going on today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 05 - 05:00 PM BB: Asserting the wrongness of war causes torture and suffering? I submit that what causes the prosecution of war is the leaders who elect that decision. They are the only ones who have the power to make men pick up arms and bundle into tanks and trunks with intent to kill other men. To blame such a decision on those who insist on a better way is meretricious in the extreme and disingenuous, at best. The following are the latest figures for military deaths in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, in line with the most recent information from the Pentagon: U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Aug 05 - 05:11 PM Amos, I do not dispute those figures. I do contend that, if the UN and the people protesting ANY US action had instead told Saddam that he should have complied with the UNB resolution, WHICH HE DID NOT, there would have been no invasion of Iraq, and no such casualties. "To blame such a decision on those who insist on a better way is meretricious in the extreme and disingenuous, at best." I do not see that telling Saddam he could (continue) to not comply with the UN and Iraq'a obligations under the cease-fire was a better way to get him to comply with the UN resolutions and terms of the cease-fire. To argue otherwise seems a little disingenious, at best. Criminal, at worst. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 05 - 05:28 PM Neither Bobert or the many who feel as he does were the correct sources to "say" anything to Saddam. In essence, you are advocating the curtailment of free and open communication of opinions of any ideas not held to be poltiically correct. The person who was responsible for putting the pressure on Saddam from the United States was President Bush. He gave up on using the U.N. to do its proper job. He chose how he was going to do it--Butch Cassidy style, yahoo... The notion that protest by citizens against the vilest undertaking known to man -- mass slaughter -- forced him into it in some obscure indirect way is absolutely specious and erroneous. Saddam was a psychotic, dealing with a population that is rich in psychosis, individual and cultural, as well as great promise and hope. Unfortunately, Bush proved himself no better. All he had was a hammer, because he and his colleagues had a severe lack of imagination, a severe lack of human decency, a severe lack of understanding of human affairs, and a severe case of individual and collective greed. So he used his stupid hammer. He's still hammering--or at least, getting others to do so at insane cost. Billions and billions of dollars and man-years of pain and loss and grit and hatred have turned on his single, short-sighted decision to use it. Unfortunately it is turning out that the problem was not a nail. So sad. So stupid. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 12 Aug 05 - 06:09 PM Noting my latest post to the RN thread was deleted I add this comment hasitatingly; its thursday and Cindy is definitely not arrested so the title is a bloody lie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Aug 05 - 06:45 PM Amos, " In essence, you are advocating the curtailment of free and open communication of opinions of any ideas not held to be poltiically correct." No. But you have not addressed the point that NO-ONE who was telling the US not to take action bothered to suggest that Saddam could avoid the threatened action by complying- ALL the protesters said was that the US should not do anything. THAT is where I see the blame belongs. Had Saddam complied, there would have been no invasion- Thus, to avoid the threatened invasion, why not ask him to comply? Unless the point is that he should not have to comply- in which case the UN should have never even kicked him out of Kuwait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Azizi Date: 12 Aug 05 - 06:55 PM GUEST,sorefingers, Had it not been for the blog attention and the media attention from around the world that Cindy Sheehan has received, she very well might have been arrested as she was repeatedly warned she would be. I pray that our government hasn't stooped so low that it would arrest a citizen who is trying to excercise her right of free speech, not to mention a mother who paid the ultimate sacrifice of the death of her child in Bush's war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: freda underhill Date: 12 Aug 05 - 07:09 PM "had Saddam complied, there would have been no invasion" .. there was always going to be an invasion, bb, and it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or human rights. No wonder Cindy Sheehan is so devastated. read on and deny.. Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign-policy agenda October 7 2002; Sydney Morning Herald The White House decided that diplomacy was not an option in the Middle East, writes Ritt Goldstein. As the United States prepares for war with Iraq, a report commissioned early in George Bush's presidency has surfaced, showing that the US knew it was running out of oil and foreshadowing the possible need for military intervention to secure supplies. The report forecasts an end to cheap and plentiful fuel, with the energy industry facing "the beginning of capacity limitations". Prepared by the influential Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, it urged the Bush Administration to admit "these agonising truths to the American people". Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, written early last year, was a policy document used to shape the new administration's energy policy. It applauded the creation of Vice-President Dick Cheney's energy task force to address the creation of specific energy plans, and suggested it consider including representation from the Department of Defence. Saying "there is no alternative" and "there is no time to waste", the document projects periods of exploding US energy prices, economic recession and social unrest unless answers are found. It suggests that a minimum three to five years is needed to find a solution, and says a "reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy" is called for, with access to oil repeatedly cited as a "security imperative". The involvement of the Council of Foreign Relations in the report's preparation adds weight to its findings. The council ranks as one of the most influential groups in US political circles, with members including Mr Cheney and the former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and James Baker. The report also explodes the myth that the US is insulated from Middle East oil supply problems because it receives the bulk of its oil from less volatile sources outside the Persian Gulf. It says Middle East pricing and supply trends "will affect energy costs around the globe regardless". It details an alternative basis for the US "war on terrorism", as well as the apparent basis for much of the Bush Administration's present foreign policy, its so-called oil agenda. The Administration has been actively pursuing oil issues with Venezuela, Colombia, West Africa, the Caspian and Indonesia. And amid the pressure of UN resolutions and Israeli-Palestinian tension, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, recently visited West Africa. Among the "immediate steps" it urged was an inquiry into whether US policy could be changed to speed the availability of oil from the Caspian Basin region, supporting longstanding accusations that energy issues shadowed the US agenda in Afghanistan. The French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie have argued that US oil interests had persuaded the Bush Administration to block terrorism investigations and negotiate with the Taliban, a report by the Inter Press Service (IPS) last November said. It has been said repeatedly that the US objective is the construction of trans-Afghan pipelines allowing access to Caspian oil and gas. According to the authors and an article in Le Monde Diplomatique in January, US attempts to bribe and threaten the Taliban had preceded the September 11 attacks. Notably, the IPS article quoted the French authors as saying that, faced with the Taliban's refusal to co-operate, the rationale of energy security changed into a military one, reflecting what the report advocated as a valid option. Providing a footnote to the question of US military threats, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, has sued Mr Cheney to obtain details of his energy task force meetings. Environmental groups have speculated that the suit is being fought to hide the level of involvement the collapsed US energy giant Enron had in the task force. On the looming oil crisis, the report reluctantly blames deregulation of the energy markets, a lack of a comprehensive US energy policy and the avoidance of oil conservation measures. It also suggests diplomatic alternatives - but policy since the September 11 attacks appears in keeping only with the military intervention option. Ideas such as defusing the Arab-Israeli conflict, an easing of Iraqi sanctions and "reducing the restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq" are at odds with the policies the Administration is pursuing. While the US now presses for "regime change" in Iraq, more than 18 months ago the report repeatedly emphasised its importance as an oil producer and the need to expand Iraqi production as soon as possible to meet projected oil shortages - shortages it said could be avoided only through increased production or conservation in the near-term. In essence, the report sees the nature of Persian Gulf politics as a significant threat and obstacle to increased energy supplies. Implicit in the substantive concerns - that "Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with US strategic considerations", and that "evidence suggests that investment is not being made in a timely enough manner" to meet global needs - is the seed of what has now become an almost openly adversarial position. During the northern summer, news reports began to paint Saudi Arabia as a possible adversary to the US. Rhetoric regarding Iraq has also been steadily ratcheted up, creating what amounts to an allegation du jour scenario. US military circles have watched as Iraq became "the tactical pivot", Saudi Arabia "the strategic pivot", and an agenda of "not just a new regime in Iraq" but a "new Middle East" has been increasingly discussed. ----- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 05 - 07:17 PM NO-ONE who was telling the US not to take action bothered to suggest that Saddam could avoid the threatened action by complying- ALL the protesters said was that the US should not do anything. THAT is where I see the blame belongs. Had Saddam complied, there would have been no invasion- Bruce: He was asked over and over. If he isn't going to listen to the United States or the United Nations, it seems really silly to say that those who were against the war should have sent him a damn letter or something. I also point out that, IIRC, he was allowing the inspectors back in when Bush took his decision to go to war. Bush's entire management of the relationship with Iraq has been one goddamn cockup after another. He blew the diplomacy, he blew the community-management, he blew the military planning, he blew the post-overthrow civic management, he falsified his results, he underestimated the problem, he underestimated the forces he would need, he underestimated armory, he mismanaged delegation and he completely and villanously mismanaged the American public by feeding them bullshit. He's been a cockup from the beginning and deserves to be impeached for falsification far more serious and loss of American resources FAR more serious than any President in memory. If he stood up and started lying about a blow job at this point, I would think he was coming up in awareness. He's a liar and worse, he is also a goddamn incompetent fool, riddled with delusion and pretense. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Ebbie Date: 12 Aug 05 - 07:19 PM bb, I fail to understand how it is that you - and others - on the one hand cite Saddam's non-compliance with the UN dictum and on the other hand scoff at the UN. Question: Was the UN resolution a valid one? If it was, was the fact that it/they were in no hurry to go to war over the noncompliance also valid? Conversely, if the UN refusal to go to war was NOT a valid response, then was the UN determination of noncompliance a valid opinion? If the UN's refusal to go to war over Saddam's noncompliance was valid then why did the US go to war unilaterally? Is the US not a member of the UN body? What happened to rule of law? By the way, I don't want to hear about the oil for food scandal that the UN is alleged to have been involved in UNTIL we/you are equally incensed and curious as to what happened to the billions of dollars that have not been accounted for that were given by Americans to American corporations in Iraq. Aren't you up in arms about that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: akenaton Date: 12 Aug 05 - 07:36 PM Jesus...You're not still arguing THAT point BB. The Saddam regime was complying, thats why Bush and Blair were so keen to get the weapons inspectors out. Blix said he only needed another couple of months!! The fact is, as you well know, the decision for war had been taken long before. How long are you conservatives going to try to defend the indefensible. The whole world knows the truth...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Bobert Date: 12 Aug 05 - 07:54 PM Well, well, well... bb's imagination never ceases to amaze me... Now to the litany of accusations he has placed against me I am now responsible for the Iraqi War and the torture????? Hmmmmmm????? Must be some fine drugs that boy is on.... As per usual, as I have done in the past when bb goes a tad too far out of the reality circle in accusin' me of this or that high crime or misdomeanor for which only he sees thru his special glasses, it's time to ignore him... No arguin' with the irrational, the pathological or those on serious drugs... Bye, bb... Now to my other Catters: I'm not too sure about the validity to this but maybe someone a little more pudder savy than myself (think Amos here...) could do a little follow up research but there is a British magazine, the Lancet, that paid to have some Johns Hpokins folks study the number of deaths of Iraqi civilians during the first 18 months of the war and that number came in at over 100,000, most of which were women and children!!!! (Try the Novemeber, 2004, issue, Amos...) I have heard that number over and over on Pacifica and it now seems that General Tommy Frank was right whaen he said he wasn't into body counts.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 05 - 08:25 PM 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study Sarah Boseley, health editor Friday October 29, 2004 The Guardian About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion. Last night the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". But the findings raised important questions also for the governments of the United Sates and Britain who, said Dr Horton in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians". The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards. Source: The Lancet 2004; 364:1857-1864 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17441-2 Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey Les Roberts a , Riyadh Lafta b, Richard Garfield c, Jamal Khudhairi b and Gilbert Burnham a Radical neocons have invalidated the Lancet report enthusiastically and bitterly. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Cindy Sheehan to be arrested tomorrow From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 05 - 08:30 PM Note tyhat the Economist refutes the detractors and defends the conclusions of the Lancet's study. A |
