posted on April 5, 2003 02:55:12 PM new
"your (sic) clueless..."
My goodness, name calling from the very start..
junquemama, I wonder if there is any verification for some of the statements in that widow's remarks, particularly the stock market thing..I haven't time to look right now, maybe later...interesting links, thanks.
posted on April 5, 2003 04:22:31 PM new
profe51,Do you mean the stock bought before
9/11 on the airlines? Yes,It has been proven.
It came out on the TV news first and then the story died.The newsmen thought it would lead back to Al queda.
posted on April 5, 2003 06:49:34 PM new
What happened to the 9/11 investigation?
It was put on the back burner in order to whip up war fervor against Saddam Hussein. How swiftly blame was shifted from Osama to Saddam!
Lot's of people bought it. In spite of the cost - billions of dollars for an undetermined length of time, thousands of Iraqis killed, America imperiled by retaliating terrorists, and so many Iraqi troops and American troops wounded and dead.
For people to support such horror, they must feel some kind of justification.
Some day, if the world survives without nuclear disaster, maybe the 9/11 tragedy will be investigated.
posted on April 5, 2003 09:57:20 PM new
junquemama: I did mean the stock puts that occurred before 9/11. I'll look for some verification tonight. Grotesque if it really happened. That 6.4 trillion dollar national debt ceiling we're about to bust is obscene.
12poll: there's something wrong with my browser settings...for some reason your posts are showing up again...here, let me reset that , *ignore*..that's better...
posted on April 5, 2003 11:14:23 PM new
I like ignore... means that you really had nothing to add to the conversation eh Profe... except of course to apply some more of your inane BS...
posted on April 6, 2003 11:30:02 AM new
Chances are these are the same people that were teaching Saddam's people to use the directional jamming equipment or the night vision equipment used to try and kill our military.
posted on April 6, 2003 11:57:36 AM newWe seem to be doing pretty damn good for not having enough troops in Iraq.
Don't you think???
I sure do!!! A fantastic job, as a matter of fact.
This line always cracks me up....criticism that we didn't send in enough troops. So-in-so was doing this war 'on the cheap'. Especially when one reads that Clinton reduced funding to our military in 7 out of his 8 years in office. Reduced it by 40%. So...sure we have less troops ....older equipment...etc. but our guys are dealing with it the best they can. And it's looks to me like they're dealing very well thank you.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!!
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 6, 2003 12:01 PM ]
posted on April 6, 2003 02:58:03 PM new
CHB Investigates. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Role reversal: Bush wants war, Pentagon urges caution
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jan 22, 2003, 01:18
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration’s course of action represents too much of a shift of America’s longstanding “no first strike” policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.
“We have a dangerous role reversal here,” one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. “The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution.”
Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East.
“This is not Desert Storm,” one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. “We don’t have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don’t have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we’re advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies.”
Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."
An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be “extremely angry” at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.
“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”
But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.
Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to “find and document” links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
“The implication is clear,” grumbles one longtime FBI agent. “Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq.”
While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden’s al Qaeda forces.
“There may be one,” says another FBI source. “There should be one. All logic says there has to be one, but we haven’t established it as a fact. Not yet.”
Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a “Bush league war,” something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.
“During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation,” says one Pentagon officer. “We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the support. We don’t have it now.”
Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend’s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.
“This wasn’t just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching,” says Arnold Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. “Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war.”
Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the 30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as veterans.
“I served in Vietnam,” said Robert Brighton of Detroit, who marched in Washington. “I supported Desert Storm. I don’t support this. It’s madness.”
In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have “increasing” numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war.
“Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he’s wrong,” says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, “but we don’t have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time.”
Public support for a war with Iraq is also slipping. In November of 2001, just two months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, 78 percent of Americans favored military action against Iraq. That support has slipped to as low as 52 percent in January polls. A Washington Post-ABC news poll taken last week shows Americans evenly split over Bush's handling of the crisis with Iraq.
Spokesmen for the White House, Pentagon and Congressional leadership offices would not comment on the record for this report.
Justice Department lied about terrorism arrests
Israelis warned U.S. of al Qaida "misinformation" campaign
Computer worm may be terrorist test
"We have the proof" on Iraq, intelligence pros tell Bush
For sale: Two Super Bowl tickets along with the House Republican leadership
America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States
posted on April 7, 2003 03:23:13 PM new
What happened to the 9/11 investigation?
Probably the same as happened to the Apollo.I. investigation.
Lip Service.
Soon to be Dead and buried.
posted on April 7, 2003 04:28:17 PM new
She just hates the military and anything to do with being an American... she just likes to take advantage of what others have done to allow her to make these inane posts...God Bless President Bush and those that allow her to keep making those posts...
Damn sometimes I wish this was Starship Troopers... had to have served to be a citizen...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 7, 2003 04:31 PM ]
posted on April 7, 2003 04:35:26 PM new
ROFL, twelvepole!
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 7, 2003 07:39:48 PM new
NEWS YOU CAN DISTRUST
COMMENTARY YOU CAN BELIEVE
By: SARTRE
That old prudent man standard, once implied that one should be a skeptic towards all news reporting. As events proved that measure wanting, the evolution to outright cynicism became the most valid gauge. Today, developments in reporting surpass even that criterion. For now, the only sensible rule, is total disbelief in ALL reported news. We have entered an age of designer reality, based upon a message that best fits the emotional needs of the viewer and the desired objectives of the journalist. The role of the editor is to protect the agenda of the publisher, as the publisher serves the interests of his benefactors.
The day of news believability has ended. Many proficient viewers and readers can detect raw propaganda. However, most observers of world affairs are no longer founded in the practice of requiring facts to correspond with actual events. Facts have become relative to the desired conclusion. The same report, appears quite different to people of varied or opposing viewpoints. Maybe, it was inevitable, and surely it isn’t surprising. The era of pluralism in shared values and basis in facts, has been supplanted with perception and image.
The need to cite examples of news reporting that conflicts with authenticity of What Really Happened, would be so redundant that they are unnecessary to list. Boring is the kiss of death, and truth is the enemy of the entertainer. Montage is the popular substitute for reason. Avoiding unpleasant questions that may conflict with your instructed world view is the mission of the news channels. Reinforcement in the correct attitude for proper acceptance in the emerging and highly fluid ‘correct think’, now labeled as “clear think”, IS the underlying purpose in all the media consolidation and homogenization. Fitting the circumstance to the favored conclusion, wins an Emmy, Peabody or a Pulitzer Prize.
BREAKING ALL THE RULES writes on current events, but consciously avoids any news reporting. Why? The candid answer, is that we won’t trust our own ability to report accurately on happenings that are fed off the news wire, sources that may be suspect, images that are often faked (see LA Times photographer Brian Walski), planted disinformation or personal objectivity. The role of commentary is quite different from the function of reporting. Analysis, when done well; brings and highlights valid conclusions into focus. The honest pundit, never apologies for their own bias; but has a responsibility to express what those bents are and any agenda that drives the critique. Commentary doesn’t present itself as objective factual reporting, but always needs to conform to the principles of logic and sound reasoning. What is the meaning of events, the consequences of ideology and policy, the nature of institutions, and the moral dimensions of particular actions and outcomes; are the major themes for conscientious commentary.
In the present journalist environment the who, what, when, where, why, and how have become proportionate to suit the situation. Embedded reporting is inherently agenda driven. The distortions coming out of the Hussein regime are often matched with the newspeak, twisting and spinning from the mainstream tightly knit ownership empires that presents our own daily news, as a fair and true reflection of factual reality. The foreign press see the very same events in ways that most Americans would judge to be inaccurate if not, out right hostile. Who is right? What should one believe?
The reliable answer is to accept none of the reporting as truth or even plausible, without serious reflection upon the long view of its historical context. Since most citizens are sorely lacking in a basic knowledge of history and have a wholly inadequate understanding in domestic politics, much less in world affairs; the influence of the sound bite shapes perceptions that appeals to emotional conditioning. Ask yourself the most rudimentary question. Are you basing your political decisions upon information that is a total lie?
If personal interest is intrinsic to our universal human nature, why is it necessary to be told what is best for us, from talking heads or editors posing as journalists? They claim to be reporting events accurately; but are they? Subsequently, most people believe the propaganda because their indoctrination has become embedded, implanted and comfortable. Critical thinking is seen as far too hard or unpleasant to make the effort, let alone mastering its performance.
The reason that intelligent discourse is virtually impossible within this post-modern society, is that former common bonds have become so fragmented and now, have all but disappeared. Most will defend the version of reality that they believe is the correct, based upon the current popular cultural view, defined by the media. The commentator serves the useful function of poking holes in the satisfied complacency of the useful idiot. When done well, commentary will not only force you to think, but will make you uncomfortable with your plight, and the desperate circumstance of our society. Sheeple hate this assault upon their apathy. They resent anyone who dares upset their blind obedience to causes that have official ‘PC’ approval.
So, you have “nothing to lose but your chains” - and that is the main reason that genuine conservative commentary is so feared. Most folks are in dire fear of being free and accept the personal responsibility to achieve Liberty, for themselves and for their own communities. Reporters of the news, are peddlers of designed distraction, masked in the happy face of brain dead presenters. Why do you believe or accept any of the intellectual dishonesty that passes for factual events?
Read those columnists who offer and present perspective, based upon a sound and sincere interruption of the historic heritage and tradition on our unique experience - called America. The valid approach is the context of the long view. The lessons of numerous years and scores of decades provide the scale for relevance and meaning. Insight is found within your own ability to ask the correct questions and avoid the pitfalls of diversion that often deviates from the long and winding road, called authentic knowledge. Wisdom is achieved when current events are judged within the accompaniment of ethics, morality and virtue. News is simply reports about events. Analysis asks what do those events really mean? Sometimes, commentary may reach the level that bares the human condition and offers hope of the spirit. For in the end, it all comes down to what you believe to be true. Reject propaganda of all kinds, and commit yourselves to the more difficult path - look for the truth - fulfill your rational nature and your moral purpose. Start thinking for yourselves . . .
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
SARTRE is the pen name of a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. He is the content liaison for Ether Zone.
- Harry Thompson