1 And ESPN joined the fun this morning by running a puff piece on an Islamic High School girl's basketball team and all the trials and tribulations they have gone through. Ugh!

2 It depends upon how many liberals they have teaching or rather brainwashing the kids

3 That whole article was great. I also read the link he gave to the bathroom policies at Yale. UNC is trying desperately to emulate Yale and other elite institutions in that respect. I'd give myself some linky love on my own thoughts about the bathroom crap (forgive the pun) at my own place but, alas, munu hates my blog.

I'll be reading more of Taylor's stuff.

4 My question is; why would anyone in their right mind send their child to a place like Yale? Or Harvard for that matter? Both are pathetic.

5 JJ

How do girls play basketball dressed in burkas????

When was the last time Harvard or Yale had a decent football team ... or basketball????

6 How about UC Berkeley?

1 The funniest part of the entire bost is that he calls Michelle Malkin a racist then goes on a hate filled rant that would make a klansman blush.

2 Besides showing vulgar bumper-sticker creativity in name-calling, what's his point?

3 I once had a “Bad Cat” who would not behave, I put him down because he was diseased and I didn’t give it a second thought.

report him to peta, include this comment thread, and his e-mail, watch the left feed on their own.

4 You have to wonder if this person can actually function in the real world. If this person is not under the care of a mental health professional, he certainly should be. But his rant does make me wonder if mental institutions allow inmates to use computers.

5 I just got through mentioning that particular person on that thread. He/she/it was particularly nasty in every post. It must be miserable to be so ... well, miserable.

6 Herrrre Kitty Kitty Kitty....I've got something for you.

7 Aren't Liberals so eloquent, this one's proficiency of grammar is most enlightening.

Perhap's he uses 'Hustler' magazine as his dictionary.

8 Let me guess, someone was just told that he needs to get a job because his allowance has been canceled.

Strange, I don't hate him or others like him. Doesn't mean that I don't think that many of these people are dangerous. Come to think of it, perhaps he's bitter because one of us just:

- Fired him.
- Successfully sued him for keying our car.
- Counciled him on his ethics.
- Treated him for BDS.
- Told him to get off his ass and start working instead of looking for handouts.
- Explained that he's not getting a raise because he does crappy work.
- Told him that she only dates real men.

Take your pick.

9
I love this leftist liberal, at least you know where you stand and when the Muslims come for him he will fight instead of giving up.

I wonder, did he eat the cat after killing it???

The Texican,

Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

10 I'm about as scared of him as I would be a piss ant. These people are oh, so bad, on the internet, but they have nothing. He keeps a cat. Now that inspires fear. What a little dopehead he is.

11 Texican,

That little bastard wouldn't fight the Muslims or anybody else, either. He's probably about 5'6" tall and weighs 135, and sits in front of a computer in his mommy's basement 24/7 waiting on his unemployment check to come in. He needs his little ass kicked.

12 There were 119 posts on DU when I followed the link to that site. Jara Sang's posts were by far th most offensiveand not at all typical. I do not thimk, that they are indicative of a widely held beliefs on the "left". Did anyone else read ALL of the 119 pos ? Most congratulated him on his new baby, I think the second most common comments were thanking him for his service.

13 The most striking thing to me about the thread, john ryan (and you're correct, there were some friendly/neutral posts) is that the moderator felt so threatened by The Sad Little Pony's words that he was compelled to lockdown the thread.

14 Well Vinnie, enough profundity has already been expounded upon the topic that I have little to say at the moment, except that I wish one of the little sacks-O-crap would try to make me pay as this waste of flesh promises. It shouldn't be long now, but dammit, it's like waiting for Christmas when you know you're gonna get the Red Rider BB gun. Maybe I'll get drunk later on and have another go at it, since I always write better when I'm buzzed.

15 Ryan, I read every word.

Right, Bluto. And they tombstoned his profile.

What this indicates to me is all these people seem to only have information they get from the NYT or network news. Only two said they knew someone in the service over there. One was married to someone in Iraq and one had a friend. They either read military blogs and dismiss them or they don't read them at all. Or they've been careful not to associate with military family members to get first hand information they won't agree with. They were all too eager to ask questions of someone on the DU board who they seemed to hope might tell them what they want to hear, not what the facts are on the ground.

Did you read Jara Sang's last post? More vitriol. Quite a vocabulary it has.

I just spent an hour read DU stuff in which Sad Little Pony had comments and it appears he's been a pillar of common sense in a sea of loonies for some time now.

16 read the whole thing too, and was surprised when i came to the end, which was the end since it'd been locked. locked? why?

my favorite bit was how pony couldn't possibly actually know the truth, since he'd only been there and experienced it. and if he did know the truth, he was lying about it anyway, since he wasn't saying a thing they wanted to so obviously hear.

17 Ya know, I think they may have left their guard down a bit. Could it be they "put him down" because it was a pain in the ass and made up the whole thing about being diseased? Freudian slips can be very telling.

18 I don't even waste words on the morons any more, but I would like to waste some bullets on them, though I'd try to get as many twofers and threefers as I could.

19 Why bother?

20 Why waste time analyzing or even posting what this schizophrenic has to say?

21 Sorry excuse for a human, I do take offense to his term "coward".....unlike him I have faced the barrel numerous times and not ONCE quivered in fear, Served my country on foreign soil, protecting this POS rights. I think that the conclusion that he's very dimunitive and hiding in basements is a accurate one, might I add one more assessment?....his vagina is showing!

White Knight

22 WK, an insult from a snivelling piece of shit such as one of the libtards at the DU is like a growl from a scrawny, mangy dog, except to be treated with less regard; they're all wind and crap.

23 But I bet this clown bends over backwards to understand the terrorist point of view though. Simply amazing how upside down their world is.

1 I CONFESS HERE PUBLICLY THAT I AM AN IDIOT WHO DOESN'T COMPREHEND HOW TO MAKE A TOPICAL POST. PITY ME!

2 Ironically enough when this off-topic troll's post is deleted, it'll kvetch about us cutting off it's right to free speech...

3 Carter is an angry, self-righteous bitter man. Its obvious the hard Left loves him as a former President more than when he was in office. The guy is in love with tyrants. Human rights go to hell. I think I despise him more than Clinton.

4 It seems that yes, liberals really are as stupid as they appear.

5 Carter has become a megalomaniac. Now he's making "personal" promises. What the ...?

6 Carter needs to shut up and go back to building houses on the weekends,

7 More from this whimpering idiot why dont this peanut just stop trying to prove he is what he,ll never be A REAL MAN

8 I used to respect Carter as a human being, even if I thought he was a terrible president. Now I just think he's a complete moron.

9 Here is a direct quote from President Peanut's Library web page, "The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved." In fact it was not until Ronald Reagan took office that the hostages were released.

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml

10 I almost cannot put into words the amount of disdain I have for this man.

11 I have words with which to clothe my disgust for President Peanut, but I won't waste them on the likes of him, though I will suffice to say that I take comfort in the fact that he will be dead soon, along with his good buddy Fidel, and upon both occasions, I shall dance.

12 Angel Elf, good find. Did you happen to notice that the page was just updated February 09, 2006? How much does anyone want to bet that the last four words of what Angel quoted was part of either that update or one at least recently?

13 Oyster! You have an eye for detail! Should be a researcher - or at least a teacher.

14 I'm normally pretty lazy, but one has to stay on one's toes around this place. ;-) Anyway, you wouldn't want me teaching. I'd rely heavily on the use of duct tape.

15 It takes a pretty incompetent president to cause a) a lot of his (former) followers to become known as 'Reagan Democrats' and b) nearly lose the bid for renomination to Ted Kennedy in 1980. Many forget that Carter was so unpopular in his own party that Kennedy was seen as the only hope of retaining the presidency. Kennedy was headed to the likely nomination had it not been for a rambling, incoherrent interview on TV (I want to say it was '60 Minutes') like he pretty much always does now. It takes a really unbelieveable amount of ineptitude on one man's part for them to try and abandon a sitting president and head of the party.

Many of today's liberals are probably too young to remember how really, really bad he was. I'll give him credit for doing his part for the Reagan Revolution by losing. To bad he didn't just go away quietly like Ford and Bush 1 did.

Absolutely incredible that his library is trying to take credit for the hostage release. Everyone knows Reagan's people effectively took office right after the election. The last thing Iran wanted to deal with was a newly-elected strongly pro-military president. The only reason the hostages were kept for over a year was because the Iranian government knew Carter would never do anything. More typical liberal revisionism.

16 Oyster that's funnier than you know. I do teach and tape has been fuckin' deployed. Key was, I didn't bring it but I did know how best to dispense it. Clearly a success too.....

17 lol, forest hunter, I can only imagine! My dad babysat my son for me one afternoon when he was about three. I came home and found him tied to a tree in the front yard and my dad happily whistling away in the garage working on a project.

I think a little duct tape could be in order for Jimmah.

18 Carter was a jerk in the whitehouse and he still is a jerk butt his time a real stupid jerk

1
This is typical of the Liberal leftist...
As an American and a veteran i am sick of these leftist treasonist bastards...

www.jimgoism.blogspot.com

2 SOP for the left. Screw them. I'm not out to change their minds, and I don't give a damn what they believe. But I do care what my nextdoor neighbor believes and others like that - so that's who I and friends talk to - and this is what really pisses off the left!

3 The Zogby poll company is run by two Arabs, and is paid by a peacenik company to conduct the poll to show Iraq is lost. The truth as the active duty Marine put it, is not what the MSM wants to hear, or print.

The MSM has treason in their hearts, and minds, and should be shot for it. Right after a fair trial.

4 Now, now...We all know they don't support the war, but they support the troops!

5 funniest article this month, without a doubt.
The best part is how many people asked about "atrocities" and "burns by WP Chemical weapons" by contractors/soldiers.

Don't you know your "Baby killer" soldiers, are just crazy emotionless killin` machines?

I guess we can put a "tombstone" on this whole "we support the troops" nonsense, right about now.

6 Maxie's right, Liberal traitors should be rounded up and deported to North Korea.

7 Thanks for posting this Rusty.

I e-mailed you the story since what I usually read on DUmmie Funnies is hysterical... This was simply tragic.

More people must read that thread.

8 We saw the same shit coming from the parents of these functionless targets throughout the VietNam War. We didn't hang'em for treason then and now they've multiplied.

9 Wow!! That was a fascinating look into the natural habitat of the moonbats. That is one brave Marine!

10 Well I advocate shooting, but deporting would suffice.

11 DIRTY ROTTEN LIBERAL LEFTIST SCUM THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A ROTTEN TOMATO HIT THEM IN THEIR FACE

12 I certainly don't think people (of any political persuasion) should be quick to flaunt their prejudices... and I think any time someone who has actually been there can offer an unvarnished picture we should pay attention.

Having said that, credibility is important.

I don't know if the Marine's credibility, judgment, or information is out of whack, but early on he was asked about the readiness of Iraqi battalions.

He said


I'd say that about half of the Iraqi Battalions are ready to operate independently.


That flat out contradicts formal testimony of senior military commanders. Here's what AP reported last week:


In a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart disclosed that the number of battalions at Level 1 had dropped from one to zero, while the number at Level 2 had grown from 36 last September to 53 now. The number at Level 3 fell from 52 to 45, in part because some were upgraded to Level 2.

Level 1 is defined as fully independent.

Level 2 is defined as battalions capable of taking the lead in combat against the insurgents, with some U.S. help.

Level 3 is defined as battalions fighting alongside U.S. forces but not ready to take the lead in planning and execution of missions.

If the Marine were more precise, then I would have more confidence in his reporting.

13 That Jara Sang person on DU is particularly vile. Lord, I hope it's not a teacher.
------------------------
background, he probably answered that question out of turn and offered an opinion he shouldn't have or he simply over-generalized. Frankly, I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less about your confidence (or that of his vile detractors at DU) in his reporting any more than I do. Since you seem to have a problem with it, why don't you hop on over there and ask him how he can offer such an opinion? Or did you glaze over the part where he then admitted his "view over there was pretty mypoic[sic]" having only been in Fallujah and elsewhere in Anbar? All his replies sounded like simple honest answers from a guy just returned. He didn't flavor it with politics and was called names and accused of outright lying. I think he stayed pretty cool in spite of it. He didn't even gently chide a single person as I'm sure he could have. And you are a little too quick to dismiss him. At the risk of getting a little snarky myself, you're beginning to live up to your name.

(Rusty: What the hell is a fruitcake error? I'll keep trying to submit until my comment appears.)

14 Sweetheart....
you will excuse me if I find it ironic that a woman with the handle "oyster" chooses to mock my nick (a sardonic reference to a Rose Garden statement).

But to your point about the commentary attributed to a recently returned Marine... I *did* see his comment about the myopic view. That sounded credible. In fact, that is exactly what I would have expected from a grunt on the ground. I don't know enough about the guy to say whether he is legit or a plant, reading from a script, opining about matters he has no knowledge of, or simply regurgitating what he read in Stars and Stripes. That is why I limited my comment to what I did. I also spelled out the different definitions for levels of preparedness because it makes sense that he may have heard the 50% number and either confused Level 1 and 2, or simply not appreciated there were levels. Again, completely reasonable and in no way qualifying him as a liar, shill, or plant. In other words, I'm not questioning his integrity, just whether he is a reliable reporter for anything beyond what he actually personally witnessed.

As near as I figure, the site you guys are talking about is a parody of some other blogosphere... and I confess I have no idea where DU is... which surprised me because I know an awful lot of places.

The problem I had following the red letter text was they clearly munged up the attributions and got carried away with extra commentary so you lose the thread of the narrative.

I would have liked to see the interaction about the 85% comment... as you know Jason over at Gen Why had an awful lot to say about the Zogby poll. Unfortunately, when I asked him about the surprising finding that *more* of the troops polled believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 than even the folks from the WaPo poll a couple years back the best he could do was cite a Hewitt interview with Zogby.

I find that polling result intriguing because, as you probably recall when President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were asked if they believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 they stood shoulder to shoulder in the same room at the same time in the same press conference and gave the same answer ... which was "No."

That Zogby poll result is concerning to me because, if true, it means one of the following:

Either
1) The majority of troops STILL believe Iraq was involved in 9/11

or
2) The majority of troops believe that retaliating against Iraq was a rational response to 9/11

or
3) Both

Let me put some real numbers to this to demonstrate why that is a problem. About 2,986 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11. So far, about 2,310 Americans have been killed in Iraq since we invaded in March 2003. At the present mortality rate, we will pass the 2,986 number shortly before Christmas (somewhere between 12/14 and 12/21). That means that our Christmas gift to ourself this year is going to be the loss of MORE men and women in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. As you know, people don't die just for one or two news cycles. That's a gift that will keep on giving.

No one who is sane questions the importance of protecting the US from international terrorists. What people like me have been saying since BEFORE we invaded is that pouring valuable resources into Iraq will NOT do that.

If people are making that sacrifice under the mistaken notion that there is some relationship between the two, we have a serious problem. It means we are going to keep making that mistake for a looooong time.

15 I apologize for the snarky remark. What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury.

At the rate Saddam was killing people, and if that trend had continued, the 2986 x 2 number you use may easily have been a drop in a bucket. The civilian count in Iraq, as well, doesn't come close nor can it even be compared to the genocidal manner in which they were killed by Saddam's regime.

Some argue whether Saddam was adverse to fighting a proxy war or whether he would have gleefully supplied support to those who could have claimed a much larger civilian count even within our own borders. Again, we don't know that, but there was every indication that it was well within the realm of possibility.

In the beginning there was a level of confusion as to exactly why certain countries with UN veto power were so opposed to the war. We found out why later. Saddam was using under-the-table Oil For Food contracts to buy support for lifting sanctions, not just to build new palaces. And there was an undeniable trend that showed this was the direction things were going. Just what might have happened once these sanctions were lifted? That's the $64,000 question. I'm not accusing individual governments, but their representatives in the UN were the problem.

As far as the Zogby poll goes; you'll never hear me quoting results of polls or putting much stock in them at all unless I see the actual questions asked and I know the specifics of the sample group. The only information they provide is the number of soldiers asked. The rest they say is classified for security purposes and contend that it was random and we'll just have to take their word for it. Locations, yes, should be classified, but what about rank? What about political persuasions? What about security level status? So in that regard I won't comment. Polls are often just a tool of convenience. Both sides use them much too freely to bolster their arguments. Sometimes they're quite scientific, sometimes agenda driven.

I will say though that the 85% number may not be problematic at all when one considers things like Salman Pak or what level of the Iraqi government welcomed al Qaeda members (whom we know were in and out of Iraq prior to 9/11) and to what degree. Did Saddam himself have explicit knowledge of and give direct support to the 9/11 plot? Another $64,000 question. If you want to narrow the argument to that fine point, and you firmly belive he didn't play a role then by all means argue away. But the whole picture isn't that simple. You can't narrow this down to a few facts when the whole picture is so complex.

And thanks for the "sweetheart". I know you didn't mean it that way, but I really am a sweetheart.

16 Ma'am,

Let me first say I appreciate and accept the apology. You raise several points, which I will address. However, for the sake of clarity let me focus on one or two now and leave the rest for later when I can give them the detailed response they deserve.

To be fair, let me start at the beginning, with your second and third points:


What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall.

If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury

I do think facts matter. I think there is merit to living in the "reality based" world. Facts, like pain, are important indicators of a problem. Ignoring facts, like ignoring pain, can turn an acute problem into a chronic problem. Sometimes it can destroy you.

I do agree with you that facts are much more than rhetorical devices to end debate. I also agree with you that cherry picking facts is intellectually dishonest and calls to mind Twain's comment about lies, damned lies and statistics. I also agree with you that a discussion is more than the facts. There are assumptions, biases, hopes, predictions, empathy, feelings,needs, requests and exploration.

So on your first point I think we are basically in agreement and recognize that facts are part of the stone soup we call discourse.

On your second point, I think we diverge. If my contention was 20/20 hindsight ... I would have more sympathy for that position in this particular case. I mean anyone can look at a trainwreck after the fact and say how it should have been handled. Lessons learned have value and that sort of commentary is important, to a point. That point being how well you apply those lessons learned to the next train ride.

However, my point here -- and I am talking not just about the invasion of Iraq, but also about the radical shift in policy it represents -- is that the critique about the facts, the policy, the assumptions, and the predictions were all stated before we invaded.

For now, I will just sum up the basic reasons why I rejected the notion of invading Iraq as a "test case" for the National Security Strategy released in 2002 (aka the "Bush Doctrine").

It discounted the economic impact of protracted war.
It disdained diplomatic alliances that are critical in a nuclear age.
It disregarded intelligence that did not support the policy.
It discarded historical lessons learned at a heavy price.
and
It disrespected the professional opinion of seasoned military professionals with command experience.

Instead, the policy was predicated solely on the fanciful notion that might alone would be sufficient to prevail. The resulting "shock and awe" would light up the darkness and change the face of the world. Those who argued otherwise were ignored, dismissed, forced out, resigned, or hunted down and intimidated into silence. We are now left with the bitter fruits of that harvest and have to nourish our future crops with the poisoned waters from that well of deceit. The damage we have done to ourselves in the process is more than anything terrorists could have hoped for.

I will stop here merely to say I do not accept, but I am willing to discuss, the position that we had to invade Iraq because "we just don't have the luxury" of waiting for a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud over New York. I realize that is twisting your quote a bit out of context, but I think it fairly reflects the spirit of your comments. I don't say it to put words in your mouth, but to crystallize a basic point of disagreement. I focus on that point because I do not think policy should ever be decided by panic or fear.

Thank you for your continued interest and attention.

17 Sure, more people will die in war by Christmas than in 9/11, but 290,000 men made the ultimate sacrifice by 1945 for the deaths of some 2,300 at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

One casualty is too many..... but avenging the deaths of those who were needlessly killed is not wrong. That whole region needs to be weeded of terrorists mercilessly, and if you have a problem with that, it's comparible to saying 'Not all Japs and Germans supported the Axis Powers and what they stood for, so lets just target Nazi and Jap leadership.'

Ignorant fools.... get with it or face someday living in what USED to be the USA

1 The irony is that next week he had a whole lesson plan lined up where he gets his students to simply accept that a cartoon of mohammed wearing a bomb turban is a celebration of free speech.

2 Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.

3 What point, Natasha? That it's oppressive for a geography teacher to be expected to teach geography instead of pitching into lunatic rants during class?

That's it's not evil for an authority figure who controls his pupils grades to indoctrinate his students?

If you got pulled over by a cop and he launched into a rant about liberals would you argue with him or agree with him, hoping to get off with a warning?

4 Fire him for incompetence and be done with it. I've been fired for far less.

5 I guess that's a no brainer, pun no, no pun intended or unintended or was that unattended?

6 I love cases like this! They strengthen the growing push and acceptance of school choice, vouchers, private education, and home schooling.

This is a very common practice in parts of the country in public schools. Its been going on for over 30 years - AND - if it was successful Hillary would be president today in an landslide. IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL so don't go crazy and lose your cool over this. It has actually been backfiring very slowly over the same time span.

This particular case involves a leftist teacher as opposed to a liberal teacher - there is a difference - yeah - I know what everyone here is gonna say - but a lib is sly about it and stradles the line, while a leftist jumps head first across ... use the leftist fuckup to get to the liberal - its easier and more effective.

This is not about free speech (though they will try), and it is not about teaching - it is classic attempted specific viewpoint political indoctrination of children in a forced mandatory environment - or as I prefer - intellectual pedophilia.

7 JC

Its not incompetence or anything like that - going that route will always fail - and it gives the libs tons of wiggle room to ease away from this.

See it for what it is - insidious politizing of children in a governmental environment requiring forced presence and participation.

8 Interesting, er, Geography they teach these days. No wonder kids can't read maps anymore.

9 I use sites like this to teach English to my students. It's great because, one it's real. Two, I don't have to think of a thing. They like the perspective of reality versus TV and MSM.

10 Natasha is a rightwing wackjob. When she's nnot donating time to the RNC, she dreams of licking the lint out of Karl Rove's fat, sweaty belly button.

But then. You already knew that.

11 I was taking some courses a the local community college a couple of years ago, and there was one adjunct law teacher -a practicing lawyer, no less- who was prone to go off on rants about various Constitutional issues, and of course, she was always wrong, in which I found great entertainment by pointing out in fine detail, before the whole class, exactly how she was wrong, and kicking her ass in every argument. I was shocked to get an A in the course, because I figured she's retaliate against me, but I think she knew it wasn't the best idea to try.

12 I listened to the whole rant in an audio file and the thing is, most of these kids didn't listen to Bush's speech nor did they listen to what Condi Rice had said, both of which Bennish was purportedly "quoting" from. The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant.

The World Trade Center was a "military" target? Tobacco fields in the Carolinas are no different than coca fields in Columbia? Whoah, Nellie!

13 Did you notice that he kept referring to "co-co" fields rather than "co-ca" fields? While listening to him, I wondered if the 10th graders in the class knew the difference. But then I thought, of course they do after all the consumer drug education they have had by that age!

14 >>>The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant.

It's pretty funny hearing stuff after it's passed through the BDS filters.

15 Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.

The fact he hired Ward Churchill's lawyer, the guy who claimed those killed on September 11th were "little eichmann's" and that the duty of Soldiers was to "Frag their Officers" pretty much proves a different point, however?

I'm guessing you do not have Children, due to the fact you are not upset about this, when a teacher states his opinion, it comes with a lot more weight, due to their normal teaching role of providing facts.
It is as much a parents responsibility to provide critical thinking about ones Government, and politics as it is to teach your child about sex and drugs. I would say the same about any teacher providing his political views on a child.

16 Such a teacher who dares be so incredibly POLITICALLY INCORRECT must be silenced! He should not be allowed to teach our children for us!

If we allow EVIL LEFTISTS to teach evolutionary "science" and speak their left wing thoughts out loud, to our children in school, who shall be left to expose them to the other side of such arguments? Well certainly not we ourselves. It is the duty of THE STATE to teach our children proper values. That is why we must make absolutely certain that our children hear only politically correct views at school.

Or we could teach our children how to use their critical intellect. We could help our children to develop the ability, to think for themselves, rather than merely accept what they are taught to believe.

Of course this would take hands on parenting. We would have to actually get involved ourselves instead of leaving our children's education solely the responsibility of state run schools.

Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right. Apparently such also believe that education and mental conditioning are one in the same. They are not.

Teach your children to 'question everything' tossed at them as fact. Teach them to weigh the evidence, considering all viewpoints, so they may then form a rational and well considered opinion. Teach your children to think for themselves!

This is something rarely done by parents, on either the left or the right these days, because both alike are terrified that their children will later not agree with them. Clearly such people, left and right, have no faith in the intelligence of their own offspring. Both alike are devoted to indoctrinating their children rather than teaching them how to think for themselves.

17 So Natasha, if an Earth Science teacher decides to tell his class that AIDS should really be called "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease*" because "...gay people brought this plague upon us by their sins..." you'd be okay with that? I mean, surely the kiddies need to be exposed to all ideologies in order to learn "how to think for themselves"?

*From The National Lampoon circa 1988.

18 Natasha:

It's not about "left" or "right" I would be equally mad at any teacher that gave his opinion, as a fact.

Nowhere during reading the transcript of this recording did I hear him encourage his students to read material that documented his allegations, or to challenge his point of view, nor did he differentiate his opinions from facts.

There is a place for encouraging children to be critical of foreign policy, and the Government: it's called "home"

You do not need to be "politically correct" if you were teaching Geography as instructed, instead of comparing the sitting U.S president to Hitler, or pushing the opinion that Israel is a terrorist state.

19 As if such is not being pounded into children's heads already bluto?

Could you actually bring yourself to read what I wrote instead of just scanning it and triggering? The answer to your leading question is already in my above post.

20 Dave do you presume that I approve of the actions of this teacher?

If so why do you?

21 Natasha,

if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is.

22 I don't know Natasha, could it be:

Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.
Posted by: Natasha at March 2, 2006 10:46 PM

Proves his point?

Did I misread your intent?

23 Dave

Yes you did Dave.

24 How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler.
perhaps you can explain what you meant?

25
jesusland carlos wrote, "if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is."


How far would you be willing to go in rooting out those who try to indoctrinate your children carlos?

Would you merely pick and choose which indoctrinators are OK?

Would you merely pick and choose where your children can be indoctrinated?

Are you sure that you are not really saying that brainwashing, conditioning, indoctrination, what ever you wish to call it, is OK as long it is the of the correct kind?

I beleive that much more than the supposed "best way" to protect our children from being indoctrinated, the only way which we really and truly can protect them from brainwasing, is to teach our children to think for themselves.

26 Natasha, no, the answer isn't in your post. But if you can document a teacher telling children that AIDS is "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease" (or something similar) email me with it at dreadpundit@hotmail.com so that I can expose the bastard(s).

Methinks your phony outrage is reserved only for ideologues who conflict with your own beliefs, i.e., your are intellectually dishonest.

And btw, belated kudos to hondo for creating the term "intellectual pedophilia" - brilliant!

27 Dave wrote, "How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler. perhaps you can explain what you meant?"

Please read my last post before this one, and think about what I may really be saying Dave. Maybe then we discus this. Or we can just argue like a couple of idiots, each presuming we already know the other's position and how wrong they must be. I can tell you right now I don't want to merely argue though.

I have work to do right now though, and so I will be away for a while. Please think about this 'with me' Dave. Maybe we can both learn something from each other. : )

28 "intellectual pedophilia"

agreed, brilliant. You better copyright that one asap.


Natasha,

yes, as a parent I reserve the right to choose what kind of indoctrination my children will receive. Moonbats will raise my children over my dead body.

29 Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines your both your position and your credibility.

30 Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines both your position and your credibility.

31 Natasha:
It's probably due to the fact this happens a lot here: People post their "true" knee-jerk reaction immediately, then follow up with a sympathizing, patronizing post with thinly veiled messages that attempt to belittle republicans. It's the kind of game you can see everyday in people's *cough* dailykos diaries, where they fake outrage and then post about their "victory" on their echo chamber @ dailykos.com

32 Yes a lot of baiting goes on, and so does a great deal of mere punditry, rather than honest communication. The tactics you describe, so very well I might add, are employed by so called liberals and so called conservatives alike though. It really is horribly wrong I agree.

Such is extremely counterproductive, being founded upon mere partisan bias, coming from both extremes. Of course we buy right into it when we presume such chicanery is the sole domain of "the others" though.

I have never posted at dailykos myself. It just does not appeal to me. I have dropped by a couple of times and read though, and so I know they practice political correctness every bit as hypocritically as do some so called conservatives right here jawa.

I am not at all pleased with such bullshit, and as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders.

I really have to get going. Oh my god now I am late!

33 "maggot-infested moonbats"

Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this.

I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true.

No doubt he and his high-powered attorney will make a fuss. With luck, maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school.

Some good may yet come from this.

34 >>>as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders.

If you're a Republican I'm an astronaut.

35 >>>maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school.

Why? Homeschooled children perform better academically at every level than children at public screwls. Fact.

36 JC

Notice the fear some have of home-schooling - include vouchers and other alternatives. To the lib/left, possession of the classroom (elementary & seconday) is as important as possession of the courts.

All this is just a very obvious example of using public schools as a mandatory captured audience to proselytize a very specific political view-point.

The left is ham-handed at it - the liberals more coy & cute - but neither are truly effective.

37 I see Natasha is at it again. Totally missing the point that this was a geography class. Geography! Not "Mao's Little Red Book 101". These were 10th graders in a public high school where pushing one-sided political viewpoints is not supposed to be going on. The schools say so themselves. Too bad they're only willing to enforce it at whim.

Nobody here even remotely implied they would prefer Bennish, or other teachers, adopt a far right-wing agenda and start preaching it through lies and distortions in their high school geography classes. But don't let that stop you, Natasha, from your thinly veiled accusations and belittling.

"Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right." Well it certainly seems to be a no brainer for liberal parents. The schools themselves have been careful to keep conservative teachers a distinct minority. What are they afraid of?

Now don't you have a conspiracy to promulgate somewhere, Natasha?

38 Looks like it takes one to know one especialy when it come to these reptiles at the ACLU and these leftists teachers

39 "Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this.

I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true."


The term ditto-head when Rush first coined it, heralded the lock step conformity of neocon political correctness, and yet no one has more unfailingly railed against political correctness than he himself.

Bush's war on terror has ignited global chaos, and his gift of freedom to Iraq comes with the added bonus of civil war. I can only hope that he is less successful in his efforts to make our homeland safe.

A mighty fortress is his skull. - The Colbert Report

40 "I am not going to rise to the bait being trolled by those who wish to divert the topic of this thread."

Oh wait ... who said that?

41 There is no such thing as neocon political correctness. Political correctness is a Leftwing invention. Harriett Myers and Portgate are pretty good evidence of that. Virtually all of Rush's callers disagreed with him on both counts. So much for dittohead "political correctness."

Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week. Been doing it for years. Which is why you hate him so much. Your hatred is the sincerest form of flattery. But it's as effective against him as the beat of a mosquito's wing is to a hurricane. All you can do in response is thrash about and gnash your teeth in frustration. Natasha is a good example. He ain't going nowhere.

42 Ha Ha ha ha

Thanks Oyster

43 "Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week."

I would suggest that those who actually believe that should watch The Colbert Report, but the idiots would probably think Steve is one of them.

1 Nah, we all just have obnoxiously bigoted attitudes, remember?

2 Rusty takes adolescent pleasure in pretzel logic and sophistry, but Vinnie just acts adolescent.

3 "Pretzel logic". Er, how so? Declarative statements don't make an argument.

4 Liberalism's greatest hypocrisy is that it demands "tolerance" for everyone and everything, but in fact it's intolerant of intolerant beliefs. Such self-contradiction compares favorably with "There are no absolutes in life," which of course is itself an absolute statement. Thus there's a real double-standard with liberalism's "tolerance," which has limits after all. But it goes even further: liberals demand tolerance, but in their actions they've shown they're intolerant of anyone who simply disagrees, no matter how peacefully.

As I've become more libertarianism than conservative, I've recognized that "the right to free speech" is best used to OFFEND people. Is your position so weak that you must use coercion (especially government force, i.e. laws and jails) to subdue your critics? One of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes is, "It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Libel and slander have remedies in courts, but otherwise, let people say what they want. Foolishness and idiocy tend to become apparent.

Like I wrote in my satire on what if Christians and Jews went on rampages (thanks for linking before, Rusty), Christ told Peter to put away his sword, because at any time he could have summoned entire legions of angels to defeat the Romans. Is Mohammed of such little power that his reputation (as shady as it is) must be defended by earthly violence? Never mind Allah, who always seems to take a back seat.

5 That was pathetic.

obstinate: perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion

So your obstinate hypothetical is completely useless as it fails to show that it meets this definition. In fact, it looks like a prejudice.

intolerant: a. unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b. unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED

You obviously have the right to say what you want, we just think you sound like an idiot. By definition then, it is not intolerance.

Thirdly, who gives a damn about whether or not "cultures produce equal hostility to liberty"? We aren't talking about picking a government to represent us, we're talking about picking a company to run large sections of our ports. I don't give a damn if it is an American company, I still want to see a 45 day commission to check the security of the company.

That isn't prejudging, that is deciding that our national security counts no matter what company it is.

6 Like the saying goes, Rusty. I don't think you're a bigot, I think you just hate everyone. :OD

7 Rusty,
You are engaging in ridiculous session of acrobatic semantics here.
No doubt you felt it profound after you blew some weed.

8 Background, you can knock off the superior intellectual seriousness anytime. Vinnie was just engaging in a little levity.

9 I don't feel like this is just a semantic argument, I feel like it is a heuristics argument and what that reveals hidden assumptions embedded in the structure of our language.

When language conflates reasonable suspicion with unreasonable suspicion, the words used in the language have to be examined. Carefully.

So, when some suggest that it is unreasonable to put Muslim companies under higher scrutiny, they are basing that on...er...what exactly? An underlying assumptiveness that "all people are the same, regardless of religious ideologies".

A common statistical inference error is called the "ecological fallacy". This fallacy results when one applies a generality to the specific. For instance, it would be an ecological fallacy to claim that because most Muslims support Palestinian terrorists, that we can know what the feelings of a specific Muslim is on Palestinian terrorism.

However, just because it is an ecological fallacy come to a condlusion, it does not make it unreasonable to put that person under heightened scrutiny. The fact remains that an individual Muslim is much more likely to support Palestinian terrorism than, say, the individual Jew.

We must operate in the real world, and in the real world there is a much higher chance that acts of terror will come from Muslims than any other religious faction. So, my fears over the UAE are not unreasonable, rather they are quite reasonable. The opposite seems much more true to me: those who claim there is no difference between a British company and a UAE company are the ones functioning under an unreasonable assumption, not me. One based on plattitudes and slogans--the ABC After School Special view of the world.

This does not mean that I would ultimately be against the Dubai ports deal--just that it will take more convincing since I have a reasonable suspicion.

I am very open to the notion that we MUST take the deal in order to secure some sort of cooperation from Dubai in a current war. But, that is just weighing one need against another.

10 I dug it Rusty. In spite of some above comments I feel I'm deeper now and that's what matters. Heh.

11 I don't have a problem with anyone who has reservations about this ports deal. I understand perfectly why some do and any reservations I have (which may not be to the same degree) are for the very same reasons. What does bother me are those who scream bloody murder over it with not only a lack of facts or information, but they're armed with misinformation as well. They're also using their ignorance to bludgeon others who are trying to gain a better understanding of it and come to their own conclusion. This is not to say that I think Rusty is one of those people. I think he has some valid points. He's also been very diplomatic about it, laying out a concise and reasoned argument with facts pertaining directly to why he is opposed. That's more than I can say for some here.

12 Whatever happen to sticks, and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me?

The ports deal will be a problem when the information of what comes in, and what is going out will be worth it's weight in gold.

13 Rusty:"And isn't it prejudging when one assumes--contrary to all statistical evidence--that cultures produce equal hostility towards liberty?"

It may be. If so, allow me to be "a bigot".

Hostility towards liberty is primarily coming from your beloved King George and his ziocon cadre of greedy goons.

Watch the money.

(Dubais, or not to buy, that is the question!)

14 Yeah, Rusty, all those radical Muslims don't want to deny you free speech and free expression, they just want to deny you the right to speak or express yourself on Islam. Heck, you have all those other religions you can slander, but we will kill you if you tell the truth about Islam. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Clearly King George is in on the plot, and all the Zioconistas and their allies in the corporate media who wish to take over the World and turn everything into a Wal-Mart parking lot.

15 INVESTORS from the United Arab Emirates helped fund the $23 million Neil Bush raised for Ignite!, the learning systems company that holds lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Florida and Texas.

http://www.watchermagazine.com/?p=3839

Watch the money, honey.

1 Did someone say enemy in the open? We gotta cure for that. Allow me to illuminate your point of view, Clark and the other enemy combatants!

2 Once again, for the less swift-minded among us; they are the enemy, and we will have to kill them, because they offer us little choice.

3 That guy is whacked.

4 He IS whacked. Wonder what eats at these guys and turns them rotten? It's really self-loathing with a little white guilt thrown in. If you notice, he's got that real solemn look that is characteristic of the "morally-superior" libtard.

5 "If you notice, he's got that real solemn look that is characteristic of the "morally-superior" libtard."

So very true :-/

6 A Liberal Democrat marching with Communists. I'm shocked, shocked!

7 And I believe a beret too - how quaint!

8 The shame of course, is that treason is no longer a capital offense, nor really enforced anymore. He may as well be jaywalking.

9 Good grief, it never ends with this guy.
Don't let him back in to our country.

10 I think its safe to question his patriotism.

11 What we need is a citizens' group to file a complaint with the Justice Dept., charging the Attorney General, et al, with dereliction of duty for failure to prosecute acts of treason and sedition.

12 Ramsey Clark and Benedict Arnold do you think their related? they sure seem to be connected some how

13 we dont say any thing but in the end time .
the place where all the muslims and u all
mother fuckers come allah willl give u
panish

14 Panish? Is that like Turkish delight?

15 poker tables Probaly you should read this. poker tables Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy poker tables now

16 golf Probaly you should read this. golf Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy golf now

17 sas shoes Probaly you should read this. sas shoes Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy sas shoes now! God bless you.

18 Free adware remover Adware adware spyware remover Spyware Free Spyware Removal adware 6? Spyware spyware adware spyware removal spyware adware 6 Free Anti Spyware adware 6 ad adware adware remover anti adware Spyware Remover adware 6 adware se spyware adware spyware removal tool adware remover adware download lavasoft adware Microsoft Anti Spyware adware spyware, adware spyware free adware remover adware remover free adware remover lavasoft adware free adware remover free adware download! Free Spyware Remover adware spyware lavasoft adware Anti Spyware
Adware Spyware Blaster Free Anti Spyware remove adware Free Anti Spyware, ad adware Free Anti Spyware Spyware Remover, adware free adware adware se! Adware removal anti adware anti adware adware 6 spyware Spyware Removal Adware free adware remover Spyware Removal Spyware Doctor Free Spyware Removal adware spyware remover no adware adware removal adware adware 6 adware adware adware download? Adware removal anti adware, Free Spyware Removal anti adware adware spyware removal Free Spyware Removal, Spyware Remover adware spyware adware se Spyware Microsoft Anti Spyware Free Spyware, free adware download! Spyware free adware remover Spyware Blaster Microsoft Anti Spyware? Remove adware! Adware remover
Free Spyware Removal adware spyware removal free adware download adware se Spyware Doctor no adware free adware removal Free Spyware Free Spyware. Lavasoft adware adware spyware removal. Adware removal Spyware Blaster! Remove adware Spyware Remover. Adware 6 anti adware no adware Free Anti Spyware remove adware. Adware spyware Spyware Removal ad adware adware se spyware Free Spyware Spyware Blaster Free Spyware Remover, Free Spyware Removal free adware removal free adware download Spyware Remover Spyware Remover Spyware Blaster adware spyware removal tool Spyware Blaster Adware adware spyware removal tool Adware adware se adware spyware removal tool adware se! Adware remover remove adware adware se Free Spyware Microsoft Anti Spyware Anti Spyware Spyware Spyware Blaster
lavasoft adware Spyware Blaster adware spyware adware se Spyware Remover Free Spyware free adware adware remover spyware adware remover ad adware. Spyware Removal adware Free Anti Spyware
Spyware Remover Spyware? Spyware Blaster free adware ad adware adware remover adware spyware removal tool Adware! Adware, adware 6 lavasoft adware anti adware adware spyware spyware Spyware Doctor adware remover free adware remover lavasoft adware Spyware Blaster Free Spyware Removal free adware download Spyware Blaster.
http://1-spyware.net/
http://1-spyware.net/spyware
http://1-spyware.net/adware
Spyware
SPYWARE
Adware

19 Great work!
My homepage | Cool site

20 Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

1 They're blowin' smoke - will never get anything like this. A diversion for J Rockafeller or just running in place with a fading story.

2 Un.F-ing.Believable.

3 Rope. Tree. Seditionists. Some assembly required.

4 Good plan, but technically, it isn't sedition, it's actual treason when one gives aid and comfort, in any form, to the enemy.

5 Hanging is too good for them, Cybrludite. I say one way tickets to Waziristan and let them report or talk their way out.

Send me the videos; I'll watch those.

6 You're right, the best way to prevent the spread of Islamofascism is to ruin the privacy of Americans and spy on dissidents. Why don't we just round up all those treasonous reporters and make them do something worthwhile, like reading our mail for the feds?

7 James,

Kindly read the history of the battle of Midway and the effect that our SIGINT program had on it. What the NYT has been doing could very well result in the deaths of American citizens.

8 James, why don't you cite something from the post that resembles what you just wrote?

9 James was trying to be clever and snarky, but rather just suggested what he would do were he king. Libtards will tell you everything you need to know about them if you listen; they fear most in others the very things they themselves would do, had they the power unrestrained.

10 The New York Time the best information that terrorists can afford lets have the NYTs head editor tried for treason

1 The beauty of the "fringe" is that it is, and will always be, the "fringe". It has absolutely no growth potential. There are those who either find themselves associated with the "fringe" or choose to embrace it momentarily for gain (love those Dems), who will invaribly be singed and burned by it.

Storm away!

2 Would love to see regular folks show up and block them. But regular folks are too busy holding down a job and providing for their families.

3 Going to be alot of dead hippys on the front lawn.

S.Service will f-ing shoot first. Don't these idiots realize they are playing a dangerous game?

4 If they were truly against genocide, torture, and occupation, then why have they waited so long? Why haven't they "stormed" the embassies of those countries which commit these things regularly? Why aren't they sending letters to Castro? Why not march in groups of thousands shouting slogans against Lybia, Syria, Iran, etc? Why don't they stand outside Saudi-run mosques with signs that say "Stop preaching hatred" and "Hate-mongers go home"?

These are, of course, rhetorical questions.

5 Oyster

ha ha ha - of course you know! Actually some of them would indeed support (and possibly participate in) genocide, torture, and occupation if the opportunity ever arose for them reference one of their own causes or goals. They would just rationalize it differently.

We are their "enemy" - and the above is just lingo in that battle.

6 Storm away, I say, but none of the assholes will be down here where I'm at. Damn, I miss all the fun!

7 On the definition of "Occupation". Don't forget that, according to the left, the US Military "Occupied" New Orleans.


Apparently America is under US occupation.

8 "Storm" = "Encounter the Secret Service and 'bravely run away, away, away, away....'"

9 And it will stay that way, celestial. If these leftists want to see some action, I would just love for them to attempt a coup. The military and patriotic civilians in this country would wipe them from the face of the earth.

10 Let them there will be quite a few of these reptiles with will REST IN PEACE right in the grave these people are the real extremists they are the equivalint to AL QUEDA

11 If you educated yourself on the true actions of the U.S. CIA and NSA, you would understand that their is no liberation going on in Iraq. The sweeping house raids and systematic murder of innocent people is all designed for one purpose - Corporate Rule and Corporate Theft of Other People's Resources. Stop pretending that your country cares about anything other than money. Stop pretending that they are on your side. They are not concerned with anyone other than their wealthy group of corporations, and the pollution, genocide, port deals and 911 were all arranged by PNAC a long time ago. If security was a real issue, then why did Bush make a deal with United Arab Emirates (pilots of 911 planes) and why did George's brother Marvin arrange the planting of controlled demolition in the WTC and arrange the "terrorist insurance" for his buddy Silverstein. Stop being conned, wake up and smell the coffee. Watch this interview with a CIA hitman and learn something http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2006/feb/audio/dn20060215.ra&proto=rtsp
The crimes of other countries does not make our crimes okay. We cannot change Syria's government, but we have the obligation to try to change ours. If you don't care about living in a dictatorship, then do nothing and keep believing the stupidity propaganda they throw at you, as if you are 10 years old.

1 Dont put the UAE fox in charge of the ports henhouse

2 Got - additional security consessions and modifications prior approval. Seems to me everybody doing their job is "doing their job".

Now this doesn't seem to be good enough for some people. Seems they believe the admin and involved govt agencies are doing a piss poor job of national security and are a failure that can't be trusted. Er, where have I heard this before?

Fine - everyone here can now happliy jump on the Hillary, Kerry, Corzine, Dean & Company Dem bandwagon - now they know how national security should be run!

A lot of people in those agencies (including myself to a degree) who have worked very hard on national security. Seems all was for naught since so many of you think we had done such a shitty piss poor incompetent job. A perfect track record after 9/11 just isn't good enough for you.

Fine - maybe Hillary & co. will build for you a time machine with assistance from the ACLU and set everything straight.

Oh - its not port operation - its terminal/berths operation. See - the actual Port of NY/NJ is hugh! And within it are about a couple of dozen port terminal facilities which is what's involved here - see the term port is interchangable - english is a funny language.

Most are operated by foreign mitli-national corporations and foreign & domestic shipping carriers. Wasn't always like that - the old days (pre-70s) was paradise for the unions!

3 Actual port security & overseeing control is in the hands of several federal and state govt agencies - I'd name them for you but some here would just take the opportunity to trash them - I've got a lot of dedicated friends there and I don't want to here it.

4 The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT.

The CFR also advocates "Corporate Powerbuilding", as a means to outstrip government in wealth, in order to then subvert it through direct economic influence.

Of course W Bush, like his father, is a member of the CFR. I believe the Iraq War, soon to be followed by the Iran War, is a device being used to simultaneously decrease government wealth, as it increases both corporate wealth and power.

"Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

5 Don't try using the old "liberal" vs "conservative" distraction ploy. This is NOT a partisan issue. It is an issue of National Security no matter how you try to spin it.

I tell you what. You CFR Globalists can just keep your Hillary and W Bush. Oh yes. They are both alike members of the CFR, as is Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, John Kerry, ... etc etc.

Stop the Globalist oligarchy now folks. The partisan divide is just one of their devices. The old divide and conquer trick.

Don't buy it people.

6 Rupert Murdoch, the owner and CEO of FOX, is also a CFR member, along with Tony 'the poodle' Blair, and yes lots of phony liberals are too.

FOX "news" is where you idiots got that CFR spin you were just using, by the way.

7 Anyone who thinks that anyone in a position of power can be trusted is a sucker anyway.

8 That is a very insightful observation Improb.

9 Even the twilight zone seems to have a fringe element.

10 John Buchanan, lamented Clinton doing the same thing, back when Bill was President.

{excerpted under fair use]

A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach
by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 13, 1997

"And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?...

Does anyone care about national security anymore?"

Read the rest @
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html

[end excerpt]

Clinton sold the Long Beech California Port to the Chinese commies?! Those damned liberals! That adulterous slimy lying bastard Clinton! Sadly, he is not alone, in the selling of America.

Here is a really incredible coincidence too. The UAE based multinational corporation, set to buy 21 Ports in the US, also gave "us" a gift also, just weeks before the UAE Ports deal was announced. Only Bush must be a better salesman than Clinton, because he got "us" 366 MILLION dollars! It supposedly went to the Katrina relief effort. Who knows.

Why would a supposed conservative, hell bent on National Security and improving our economy, sell off our infrastructure? Really, it doesn't matter what foreign outfit he sells them to, or which party is involved now obviously. The question is why? Bush does not need the money, and it didn't go to him. I guess. So what the hell is going on?

Could globalization have anything to with this, and does that have anything to with Globalism? Of course it does. What the hell is Globalism, and who are these guys anyway? Now that is THE question, and here is the answer.

George W Bush, like his father, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as are both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, and yes of course John Kerry and other phony liberals and phony conservatives also.

WHAT THE HELL! WHO ARE THESE GUYS?

The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT. That's right. the CFR is a Globalist organization. They want a world government, 'and' they want to 'be' that world government.

How could they ever hope to accomplish this?! Well, nobody is stopping them, and they can certainly afford it, because "they" are also BIG OIL, not just here in the US but everywhere on earth. Now that is some serious economic power right there.

The CFR along with the Bilderburg Group, seems to be the headship of globalization, and they have long advocated "Corporate Powerbuilding" as a means to outstrip governments in wealth, in order to then subvert governments everywhere through direct economic influence.

Oh by the way. Did I mention that Bush Jr and Sr, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carl Rove, John Kerry, and others you have heard of recently, are also members of the Bilderburg Group? SURPRISE! They are! So is the owner of FOX, and many other media owners, major newscasters, and yes even some cute and fuzzy pundits are members too. Hello, Rush? Is that why you are so well fed?

How could it even be possible, for this group of super wealthy corporate heads 'and' heads of state the world over, to ever hope to take over governments all over the world? Can they do it?

Well obviously, they have so much money now, they can both buy the infrastructure 'and' the political cooperation necessary. In effect they are buying the world as we speak. Both Clinton and Bush, and Reagan and Carter, and Ford, and others, have been selling our nation all along, like, well, like hotcakes. How does that make you feel?

Wont it be wonderful?! Imagine the same ethic displayed by EXXON, McDonalds, "The Good Guys", WAL-MART and that place you slave at, applied mercilessly on a global scale, without the government or civil restrictions now protecting you. Wont it be great?!

Do you think maybe they (repubs and dems alike), got us all so divided and blinded with partisan squabbling, thanks Rush, that we didn't notice what they were up to in secret behind our backs?

Ya think? I mean do you think at all?


"Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

1 I'll try again this again. Internal server must'a not got tipped again!

Your comment on ..."Islam" was still not a "race",...and as I understand "religion" to be defined, not that either. "Cult" seems to be a more accurate description, which can be referred to as an "Extinct Cult" if and when, the world wakes up to the fact that Islamic Ghouls are to be destroyed, not understood or mollycoddled!

2 I'll try again this again. Internal server must'a not got tipped again! Hopefully, this won't be a double whammy.

Your comment on ..."Islam" was still not a "race",...and as I understand "religion" to be defined, not that either. "Cult" seems to be a more accurate description, which can be referred to as an "Extinct Cult" if and when, the world wakes up to the fact that Islamic Ghouls are to be destroyed, not understood or mollycoddled!

3 Well, that ought'a clear it up, sayin' it twice! Can ya hear me now? Sorry 'bout that y'all.

4 Better take that one up with George...

Basically, he can't even find a veto pen since he started "working" as president and now he is ready to whip it out and use it...... for what?

For a sweetheart deal that made Secretary Snow MILLIONS of dollars (and we're supposed to believe he has no conflict of interest as Chairman of the committee that approves it)... and here's the best part....

Bush didn't even know the details of this deal until after he started having a temper tantrum!!!!

So the issue is not principle... the issue is Junior can't stand the idea of having to be accountable or having anyone tell him what to do....

Great. I love to watch the shills defend this .... giving away millions of dollars to a fat cat already worth 100 million so a country that has aided terrorists and nuclear proliferators can manage American sea ports....

What amazes me is how many people went from "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT...

What's it going to take before people walk away from this guy? LNG tankers blowing up in 5 harbors on the same day?

=
Democrats serve their country.
Republicans serve their country up on a platter.

5 Noise, just because the GOP is exposed as being rife with corruption doesn't mean the dhimmicraps get a free pass. The GOP must be purged of their crooks if they want to send anyone else to office, but the dhimmi's are all crooks, and a purge would leave no party. Take your bullshit somewhere else you idiot kid.

6 This hubbub began as a knee-jerk reaction and some have had the intelligence to refine their argument over it while others continue to screech with little basis for it as they don't know all the facts. There has been much misinformation and lack of information over this deal. I understand your argument and I agree. But I still have mixed feelings.

Dubai Ports World is taking a huge risk too. They are already in al Qaeda's sights a traitors to the Arab cause because of the huge steps they've taken to become a tactical ally to us. This will only make it worse for them because the alliance goes beyond just the tactical. You say people remain allies because they have similar goals even if they don't have similar philosophies. This is a business deal. And business partners are not always of the same political or philosophical stripe either.

What we need to understand too is that port security is still "our" game. Their role is purely operational and they are more advanced technologically than the current operators. Too, one has to understand that they will most certainly protect their financial interests with their own first-line-of-defense security measures because this ain't no small potatoes deal. They are "partly" government owned (many think they are solely government owned) and out of the eighteen ports they manage only three are Arab. They're in Australia, Germany, Romania, China, India ...

But, like you, I still have reservations due to the nature of their government. I'm just trying to be pragmatic.

7 Dennis the Peasant has done some real research on this. It might be of interest to some.

8 "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT...

noise,

Just more baseless verbal poopie from the "reality-based" community. I challenge you to show me where Bush has said anything even slightly resembling that comment (I don't expect you to take up the challenge or produce anything tangible, by the way. Just more verbal poop). If anything Bush has bent over backward to the point of snapping his spine trying to convince us islam is a "religion of peace." He's been very consistent about that, and this port deal is consistent with his rhetoric thus far. We happen to disagree with him.

But why are the Dhimmicrats suddenly doing such a 180 on this? Observer how they sell their muslim pets down the road for some short-term political points. It couldn't possibly be hyporcrisy, now could it?

9 Joe,

My comment about the 180 was for people on talk radio and blogs who are trying to put lipstick on this pig.

Bush couldn't do a 180... he didn't even know that Snow was putting this deal together until he read about it in the paper!

I thought the Washington Times' piece titled "Scotch the Port Deal" was funny.... rude given how many DUIs Cheney, Bush, and Snow have between them.... but funny nonetheless.

As for apologists..even in this space there are people trying to paint this as reasonable.

In addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World – on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. That would be like allowing Okinawans in 1942 to work as military contractors at Pearl Harbor.

And for those who think this is simply a matter of DP buying out P&0... think again. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. Who will the foreign investors be? How will we know? You think the US is the only country that uses front operations?

The reason we are looking at this mess is this is yet another example of this administration cutting corners and ignoring the laws set up to protect us.

10 Noise,

we're still waiting for you to show us who went from "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" to "We need to be fair and let terrorist sympathizers manage our ports" OVERNIGHT...".

Like I said, Bush has been consistent about working with (moderate) muslims, whilst we genuine islamophobes are consistently against the port deal. So who's flip flopped? Still waiting for you to produce something tangible.

The only flip floppers here are the Dhimmicrats. They're willing to become "racists" and "islamophobes" for some short-term political gain. They won't live this down.

11 check out blisteringcheese.com

http://blisteringcheese.com/index.php/weblog/comments/11491/

12 "That would be like allowing Okinawans in 1942 to work as military contractors at Pearl Harbor."

Not quite. We aren't at war with the UAE. But nice try.

13 Noise,

blistering cheese is making the same baseless claim you are. Conservatives are almost unamimously against the port deal-- whether it be Bush or John Kerry. So essentially you've created a strawman to knock down. And you folks call yourselves the "reality-based" community.

14 and ps., Noise, are you goind to address why you and blistering cheese and the Dhimmicrats have become such islamophobes and racists overnight? Reality-based indeed.

15 From the start, I've said I had no problem with this deal. I actually know exactly what port operations entail pretty much inside and out courtesy my fed job position in harbor operations here in NYC. I know this company and its record - and I have good knowledge of the UAE. I also have decent fair knowledge of actual port security and who does what and what it entails right here in the Port of NY/NJ (one of the biggest in the country).

To the lib/left this whole thing is just another example Bush incompetence and why this admin should fall and be replaced by them (the Cheney thing has recently run out of steam).

But to some on the right the reaction borders on blind ignorance, hatred and dare say even bigotry and racism.

Rusty seems to have been the only one who has actually addressed this openingly and intelligently - and though we disagree on the final conclusion - at least I appreciated his argument and gave it serious thought (ref - nature of alliances).

I know the biggest unseen pusher behind the Dem position is the affected unions - and I know what their position is and why. As far as the left - hell - its obvious. But some of you guys on the right - whoa!

Looks like the lib/left found its magic bullet. This really is disturbing in the long term.

16 hondo,

this "magic bullet" is just more Dem attempts to triangulate. They think they can come off as strong on security with this one lonely example, and in the process they're only confirming to anybody with any sense that they have no core. At least Dhimmi Carter has a core.

Bush, on the other hand, is being entirely consistent with his own rhetoric. He's always said islam is a "religion of peace", and he's always expressed a desire to work with moderate muslims in the war on terror. Dubai certainly fits that bill.

We conservatives too are entirely consistent in our opposition to the deal. It's only the Dems who've flipped. Because they have no core. They simply look for short-term political gain, but it costs them in the long run. It's why they lost the last election, despite the war and the economy. It should have been a gimme.

17 JC

You know how I feel about the lib/left - but some of the conservation reaction is disturbing and not consistant. I know what motivates the lib/left and they don't give a damn about security - and they have consistantly failed to get any traction.

This whole thing however is creating a crack for them and letting the right do more damage than they have been able to.

As I said - I don't have a problem with this deal - and no one has given me an adequate reason to state otherwise - and I am directly affected by this! You could come over my house - we'd drive over to NorthShore Point - and lobe tennis balls off the sides of massive container ships 100 ft away in the channel slowing moving towards the terminal berths. I'm practically sitting on the exact port terminals in question.

18 hondo,

then Bush should explain to us why the deal is ok, on the merits, instead of labeling us "isolationists" and islamophobes. I expect that from moonbats, not from the Bush camp. He did the same thing to us with Harriet Myers, labeling us sexists and elitists. It's a betrayal. He should knock it off asap.

19 JC, Bush has been very exasperating all along when it comes to communicating. So it's really nothing new that he hasn't changed in that regard. It doesn't make it right - not at all. We do get tired of hearing, "Trust me." I could only recommend doing some serious research. I've been doing a lot. Read the link I gave above to Dennis the Peasant's post and check on his claims yourself to corroborate what info he gives.

20 JC

I thought he did! The very fact that a foreign investment like this has to be investigated and get prior approval by more than a dozen federal agencies including National Security related - plus as we now know additional agreements were made above required!

Point is - nothing Bush can say will square this with you. When all the above is done and approved then this is strictly business - how much further do you want the presidency involved in national/regional business operations?

21 >>>Point is - nothing Bush can say will square this with you.

Nonsense. We've been giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for years. It's only polite that he do the same with us instead of talking to us like he's some kind of moonbat. We aren't isolationists, and we're not unreasonable in our islamophobia. Talk to us, George.

22 Oyster

The Dennis link was right on the money - thanks. This is where I've been working out of for the past 5+ years (recently left) - harbor operations/maintenance (fed agency).

Its amazing how far some will go with this without any idea whatsoever what is involved in port terminal operations - its as if the reality of said operations is irrelevant to all this.

The biggest threats I ever saw was the apparent widespread incompetence and corruption amongst my (former) agency - and we weren't involved in security.

A big force behind the scene on this is the involved unions. They hate all of the private corps and carriers running ops and calling the shots. They really miss the good ol'days of the '50s when they and their political friends ran the docks (into the ground!).

23 Hey, here's a great idea to please the Arab countries who are our 'Allies' and 'Friends' and all the Muslims, from moderates to radical IslamOfascist monkee killers that dream of destroying and taking over America:

The U.S. should outsource Homeland Security to Saudi Arabia! After all, they are one of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to the GWIFT (Global War on Islamic Fascism & Terror).

Why not? This would be a great way to "make a statement" that we trust any country with our security, even one that secretly nurtures, finances and educates many of their citizenry toward desiring the Non-Islamic world to be enslaved under Sharia Law.

They'll really start to love us after this, terrorism will start to diminish, and many IslamOfascists will start becoming more and more Hippyish and Flowerchildish.

They'll no longer kidnap innocent men and women and slice their heads off on TV.

They will stop raping young women and then stoning them for adultery after they become pregnant.

They will stop hating all Jews and wanting to "wipe Israel off the map".

Why not? This would be a very nice gift to the Islamic world. A way of saying thank you for not committing any major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11.

24 Port operations and port security are two different things - though I doubt some really give a damn.

Some refuse to make a distinction here about anything and insist upon some kneejerk reaction.

Fine. Then why are we even bothering in Iraq or Afghanistan?

25
Hondo asks: Then why are we even bothering in iraq or Afghanistan?


Good question.

Afghanistan... because the failed regime turned into a launching pad for international terrorists that attacked us. When we demanded they hand over the perpetrators, they refused. We invaded with the support of virtually every country in the world, including Iran, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. The realization of that threat to international stability was why central asian countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and others allowed us to set up military bases for operations. The opposition to that invasion was extremely muted. Congressional approval was virtually unanimous. Even Quakers went on record supporting it.

Iraq... There have been over 2 dozen reasons floated by this administration to justify the invasion. Now that the long predicted Civil War has begun, the only plausible reason left is to maintain control of oil contracts so they can be denominated in dollars not euros. In contrast to Afghanistan, opposition to this invasion was very vocal. About 1/3 of Democrats voted against it. Most of our allies refused to participate. Those who did have since cut back dramatically on their involvement. The consequence is the costs have spiraled out of control, we have damaged our standing around the world, we have stretched our military to the point that is no longer a credible deterrant. Gulliver has tied himself down and inflicted more damage on himself than anyone else could ever have done.

The worst part is the radical new doctrine of preemptive war has provided incentive for other nations to join together. The growing alliance known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization demonstrates the US will soon be confronting a political/economic/military alliance that it cannot defeat.

The pending admission of Pakistan and India to an alliance dominated by China demonstrates how the Bush Doctrine has successfully driven countries that are normally at each other's throats into each other's arms. The rise of SCO will mark the end of American hegemony as it will consist of 4 nuclear powers (with a 5th pending), 2 major oil producers, 2 major gas producers, 1/2 the world's population, and a land mass from the Baltic to the Pacific, the Arctic to the Indian Ocean.

The rise of SCO will scuttle American aspirations for a Pax Americana and mark the end of American hegemony. Unfortunately, this could have been avoided if Republicans served their country before serving their party.

==
The worst wounds are self-inflicted
- Duke Cunningham

26 Little Blue - Your far-flung and childish suggestions do not advance the discussion at all. You're just "acting out" and contributing absolutely no pertinent knowledge of the situation. Now, if you care to promote discussion in a manner removed from emotion and virtual "waving of arms", we're ready to listen.

27 noise,

your "analysis" reads like something out of a wacko Leftwing website. But instead of more feverish speculation, why not just answer the few simple easy questions put to you. Because I could challenge your latest drivel too, but what's the use. You're not here for an exchange, merely to hit and run.

28 You can discount what I say, but you cannot ignore the fact that Uzbekistan kicked out US troops last year. We are talking about a country that if it were a state, it would be getting aid from West Virginia. When was the last time the US was kicked out of a country? I mean before Uzbekistan?

You can pretend this is loonie talk... because it scares you witless to realize that the criticism of this policy was right.

BEFORE the invasion people said the NSS of 2002 was a mistake waiting to happen. The invasion of Iraq was objected to because it a) discounted the economic impact of protracted global war, b) disdained the diplomatic alliances needed in a nuclear age, c) dismissed the professional opinion of experienced military commanders, and d) disregarded the intelligence that did not support the policy.

Everyone who raised these points was labelled a traitor, terrorist sympathizer, or worse. Many were fired or forced to resign. During this entire time Republicans have controlled the Executive and the Legislative branches. The cronyism you see with Halliburton and now Snow & Co. are part and parcel of this administration's disdain for dialogue and contempt for law.

Instead of refuting any of the points raised you lob epithets and shriek like a battered spouse protecting her abuser, refusing to see how you have enabled the destruction.

The facts are clear. The arthmetic is clear. The outcome is clear. Pretending otherwise flies in the face and teeth of reality.


=
Napolean's armies were defeated in Haiti before they were defeated at Waterloo.

29 >>>"because it scares you witless "

noise,

Uzbekistan kicked and out, and we.....ACTUALLY LEFT??? The horrors! I'm scared witless.

But you left out the part that they kicked us out of Uzbekistan because we condemned their human rights record. The Uzbek dictator is a villain who boils dissidents alive, and we had the temerity to criticize him. Shame on you George Bush!

No, I don't lob epithets unless they're first lobbed at me. Then it's open season. On the contrary, I've addressed your hit and runs with reasoned responses, to no avail. You refuse to answer any challenge to your bomb throwing. Shows how weak your position is. It's bumper sticker ideology.

30 you can spin the departure anyway you like... just as you spin everything else .. DiRita tried to spin it too....

The United States was among many insisting upon an independent investigation into the Andijon events. But Uzbekistan sought shelter from international criticism and found it in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which groups Uzbekistan with Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. At the SCO summit in July, the group approved a call for the United States to name a date for its departure from bases in Central Asia.

At the time, US officials blamed China and Russia for pressuring the Central Asian states into demanding the US name a date for leaving.

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Lawrence Di Rita pointed to the importance of the Uzbek base and said it was Uzbekistan and not the SCO who should decide how long the United States could use Khanabad.

"I hadn’t seen the declaration or whatever it was that the group put out. It’s a facility that is -- that the United States government and, in fact, the coalition have found to be an important -- providing an important capability in the global war on terror. It’s one that we have operated from with the consent and the cooperation of the Uzbek government. It’s a decision the Uzbek government has to make as to whether or not we would continue to operate from that." Di Rita said.

In the following weeks, Tashkent made it clear that it wanted US forces out of the country.

US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried was in Tashkent on 27 September to formalize what was already known for two months -- the US military is leaving Uzbekistan by the end of this year.

After Fried’s meeting with Uzbek President Islam Karimov, Uzbek presidential spokesman Beruniy Olimov tried to put a good face on the results. But Fried plainly said that "we intend to leave the base without further discussion." He could have added that the state of US-Uzbek relations was the worst it has been since the Soviet Union collapsed.


http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp092905.shtml


the fact is that is the first domino to fall...


U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Kyrgyzstan -- aiming to keep the U.S. military base there open -- resulted in a stalemate. While Rumsfeld received assurances from Bishkek that the U.S. air base would not be closed any time soon, he was also told the base would not become permanent. In any event, Washington has made it clear it will not be pushed out of Central Asia easily, so now the real competition can begin.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=252486&countryId=68



of course it scares you witless....

when people said the nss 2002 was a mistake you called them appeasers and worse.

when people said invading iraq was a mistake you called them cowards and worse.

when people turned their backs and refused to help you mocked them.

when people offered to help they were shunned.

when people tell you how you were misled you ignore them.

when people demand accountability you shirk it.

when it all falls apart you blame everyone but yourself.

the carelessness of an administration run by drunks is no surprise .... what is a surprise is how many people enabled them.

unfortunately, these drunks are taking the rest of us with them as they rush to hit bottom.

But back to Central Asia...

You may think Uzbekistan doesn't matter... but you are wrong. It was a clear signal of America's waning influence and they have snatched upon it and are running with it as fast as they can. The sad part is all the sycophants are so busy parading their triumphalist nonsense they don't even realize their is a race going on... are you aware that there is a new Russian, Indian, Pakistani pipeline deal in the works? Are you aware of the military exercises held by SCO with observer nations attending? Are you aware of the pending joint Russian Indian military exercises? Are you aware of the pending China Iran oil deal pending?

When history is written, Bush will be compared to Nero -- unfavorably -- and those who blindly supported him will not be able to say "we didn't know" because the record is clear you were warned repeatedly and chose to ignore it.

31 You Lefties, as usual, side with foreign dictators, against your own country. The only thing that scares me witless is knowing that there are so many of you within our nation's borders.

"Uzbekistan formally ordered the United States to leave an air base that has been a hub for operations in Afghanistan in protest over a predawn United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan in May, senior State Department officials said Saturday.

Mr. Burns said the United States had been "profoundly concerned" about the status of the Uzbek refuges in Kyrgyzstan who fled after the Andijon incident. "We have energetically supported the efforts to bring them to safety in Romania," he said, "because we feared they would be persecuted if they were sent back to Uzbekistan."

Another State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of department ground rules, said, "Obviously we don't want to lose K-2." But he added that loss of the base was preferable to backing away from demanding that Uzbekistan start political and economic reforms and agree to an international investigation of the Andijon killings."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/international/31uzbek.html?ex=1140930000&en=6978b2e607a32a53&ei=5070

32 Regardless of the merits (if any) of placing US ports under foreign control (dubious Dubai), Junior has clearly alienated his clinging remnant of support. He enjoyed a whopping 27% margin amongst non-college-educated White males in the 2004 election, and now even what remained of that hardcore demographic is abandoning him, as even the radical evangelicals within that ilk are now throwing tantrums. The once simmering anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotry is now seething.

Politically, Junior has just blown the 'national security' dome off the GOP temple, and it was the only shelter they had left.

Confucius say: Always better to shoot friend in face than self in foot.

33 GOOD DAY DAER

SO ASK HOW CONYACT?

I NEED TELPHONE OFICE
AND IMAIL

SO THANK YOU REPLY

34 GOOD DAY DAER

SO ASK HOW CONYACT?

I NEED TELPHONE OFICE
AND IMAIL IN U.A.E

SO THANK YOU REPLY

35 GOOD DAY DAER

SO ASK HOW CONYACT?

I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E
AND IMAIL IN U.A.E

SO THANK YOU REPLY

36 GOOD DAY DAER

SO ASK HOW CONYACT?

I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E
AND IMAIL

SO THANK YOU REPLY

37 GOOD DAY DAER

SO ASK HOW CONYACT?

I NEED TELPHONE OFICE U.A.E DUBAI
AND IMAIL

SO THANK YOU REPLY

1 I LIKE IT!! Great idea for a bumper sticker too.

2 I'm sitting this one out. Actions speak a lot louder than words - and words lend themselves to semantic redefinitions quite easily.

I want to see what the Danes and other Euros will do over the next several months before I cuddle up next to them and make a fool of myself.

3 hondo, you made much the same comment on my post about this. I don't see myself aligning so much with the Danes as with our own Constitution. Standing for freedom of speech and freedom of the press isn't really subject to the whims of fashion and international politics. It just happens to be the Danes on the receiving end right now.

4 Agreed - but the islamists can be placated, even if only temporarily. The Danes and Euros know this - and they know what it takes. Even if it is just a war of words, the Danes know they can offer up US and Israel to sooth them.

Principals of free speech and press are US inventions - the Euro versions came later and they are - versions, variations on the theme. There are differences.

5 I'm with hondon on this one. I'll stand up for the Danes when they begin standing up for themselves. Until then they're just dhimmis.

6 FLEMMING ROSE THE AUTHOR OF THE PROPHET CARTOONS IS A ZIONIST JEW


Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine



Flemming Rose, a Jewish extremist supporter of Israel and close friend of Neocon Jewish extremist Daniel Pipes.



Either we in the West believe in Freedom of Speech or we don't. If we really have free speech then why is world-renowned historian David Irving sitting in a prison in Vienna right now facing up to 20 years imprisonment for having a dissenting opinion on some details of the Holocaust? Why was Germar Rudolf, a Chemist Doctoral Candidate, kept from receiving his degree and now sits in a dank prison meant for terrorists with a five year sentence for simply scientifically challenging some forensics of the Holocaust? Why has a pacifist Canadian, Ernst Zundel been in prison for 3 years and now faces trial in Mannheim, Germany for expressing his conscience on an historical period now over 50 years old! It should be obvious to all the fair-minded people that the pro-Israel, pro Clash of Civilizations, pro World War III cartel of media brazenly supports freedom only when it supports their own nefarious agenda, they cannot afford criticism or dissent.

Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine

Flemming Rose, a Jewish extremist supporter of Israel and close friend of Neocon Jewish extremist Daniel Pipes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flemming_Rose&oldid=39058031

7 So, let's look at the guy who started this whole cartoon escapade. He's Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper. In all of the Lexis-Nexis database of stories from the American media on the Mohammed cartoons, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that Rose is a close confederate of arch-Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. Indeed, there is almost no context at all about Rose's newspaper. On a brief mention in the Washington Post gave a hint at a fact desperately needed to understand the situation. The Post described the affair as “a calculated insult … by a right-wing newspaper in a country where bigotry toward the minority Muslim population is a major, if frequently unacknowledged, problem.”

How bad is Pipes? He wants the utter military obliteration of the Palestinians; indeed, from the Muslim world, his racism is about as blatant as that of the Holocaust denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Pipes’ frequent outbursts of racism -- designed to toss gasoline on the neo-cons’ lust for a wholesale conflict of cultures -- earned him a Bush nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank. Rose came to America to commune with Pipes in 2004, and it was after that meeting the cartoon gambit materialized.

It's also worth noting that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrapped himself in protestations about freedom of speech, and that's commendable. But he is one of Bush's few fans in Europe, steeped in the we-versus-them rhetoric, and having sent troops to the Iraqi Crusade.

Is Rose an equal opportunity offender? No way. As the British press reported last week, his newspaper refused in 2003 to run cartoons that ridiculed Jesus. And, of course, free expression in Europe is very relative. Many of the democracies have laws banning certain speech.

8 But Rose acknowledges that even his liberalism has its limits. He said he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as "racist."

Now why would Rose refuse to publish a cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon, a known war-criminal and genocidaire, strangling a Palestinian baby?
Why would such a cartoon, correct and accurate in its depiction, be considered "racist" by Flemming Rose? Sharon has certainly been responsible for the murder of thousands of Palestinians during his time on this planet. He is a well-known war criminal. So, why would an Israeli war criminal be protected by Mr. Rose?

Are we likely to see cartoons in Jyllands-Posten calling into question the force-fed Zionist myth of the Holocaust, which has become the new "Holy Cause" of Europe?

Why should the criminal history of a Zionist leader or outstanding questions about the the Second World War be more protected than the worshipped prophet of one of the world's major religions?

9 Jail for British Holocaust denier but nothing against flemming rose the zionist racist jew who offend muslims with his prophet cartoons


Monday 20 February 2006, 22:54


Irving termed the trial ridiculous


A British historian has been convicted in Austria of denying the Holocaust - a crime in this country once run by the Nazis - and sentenced to three years in prison.

Elmar Kresbach, the lawyer, said: "I consider the verdict a little too stringent. I would say it's a bit of a message trial."



Irving appeared shocked as the sentence was read out. Moments later, an elderly man who identified himself only as a family friend called out: "Stay strong, David - stay strong," before he was escorted from the courtroom.


Irving, 67, has been in custody since his arrest in November on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of six million Jews.



Earlier on Monday, he told journalists he considered it "ridiculous" that he was standing trial for remarks made 17 years ago.

Irving's trial was held amidst new - and fierce - debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered violent protests worldwide.

10 The Danish constitution says:

“The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion.”

And this law was used by the Danish government to condemn “anti-Semitic” activities and investigate them, as mentioned in the human rights report made by the US Department of State regarding Denmark in 2004:

“From January through June, there were five incidents of anti-Semitic vandalism, primarily graffiti, and one incident of an anti-Semitic mailing, which the government condemned and investigated.”

Why a different stand when it comes to Islam? Of course there is nothing new in this. In April last year the queen of Denmark was quoted by the Telegraph newspaper as saying that we (Denmark) “should show our opposition to Islam”.

The problem is not confined to Demark; some newspapers in some European countries used the same cartoons to say that they support the Danish newspaper's “freedom of speech”.

These countries that boast about freedom of speech and freedom of press are the same countries that make it illegal and punishable by prison for anyone to question the holocaust .

In France a university professor was sacked because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the Holocaust. In Germany one risks going to jail if one denies the Holocaust .

In fact the Italian interior minister confirmed on Thursday that legal action is being taken against 11 football fans for brandishing Nazi symbols during a Serie A game. The 11 face prison sentences of between three months and one year.

There are many examples to show that freedom of press in Europe stops when it comes to some historical facts that two can differ upon, but when it is about insulting Islam then it is freedom of speech.

No freedom is absolute; a person's freedom ends when it encroaches into another person's freedom.

11 The mainstream media coverage of the anti-Islamic cartoons ignores the fact that the publication of the images was a "calculated offense" commissioned by a Jewish "Danish" colleague of the Jewish neocon ideologue Daniel Pipes and was meant to incite violence and promote the Jewish "clash of civilizations" between Muslims and Christians. After Danish embassies in three Muslim nations were attacked and set alight by angry Muslims protesting the anti-Islamic cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, the mainstream Jewish media turned its attention (from the 58-year Jewish occupation of Palestine and the Zionist occupation of Iraq) to the "controversial" images and the violent reactions they provoked.
Invariably, however, the Jewish-controlled press overlooked the important fact that the offensive images were commissioned and published by a Jewish "Danish" colleague of the Jewish neoconservative extremist Daniel Pipes.
The anti-Muslim cartoon scandal has turned out to be a major step forward for the Zionist neocons and their long-planned for Israel "clash of civilizations", the artificially constructed conflict designed to pit the so-called Christian West against the Islamic world.
"The rioting that has erupted across the Middle East… is a predictable if overwrought reaction to what now seems like a calculated offense against Islam," the Miami Herald wrote in its lead editorial on Feb. 7, 2006. "It is not necessary to reprint the offending cartoons for U.S. readers to understand the issue," the Knight-Ridder paper said. "A religious taboo was violated, and those involved knew full well what they were doing. The incident fell all too neatly into the hands of those who would exacerbate tensions between Europe and the Muslim world."
The Zionist Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten (JP), is the person who commissioned and published the offensive cartoons knowing that the images would exacerbate tensions between Europe and the Islamic nations.
Rose is a colleague of the Jewish neocon Pipes who visited the Philadelphia office of Pipes' Zionist web site, called Middle East Forum, in 2004.
Rose then penned a sympathetic article about Pipes entitled "The Threat from Islamism", which promoted his extreme anti-Islamic views without mentioning the fact that Pipes is a rabid Zionist Jewish extremist. Pipes, the son of the Polish-born Jewish Zionist neocon professor Richard E. Pipes, is a Zionist of the most extreme sort, who says that the Palestinian people need to have a "change of heart" that should be brought about after being utterly defeated by the Israeli military. "How is a change of heart achieved? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat," Pipes said in 2003. "The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them." After three Danish embassies were attacked by angry Muslims, CNN turned to Pipes, its carefully chosen Middle East analyst, to explain the cause of the widespread anger in the Muslim world. Rather than discuss the origin of the anti-Muslim images, which had provoked the protests, Pipes blamed radical clerics for having circulated the offensive images! CNN failed to mention that Pipes and Rose are Zionist Jewish neocon colleagues while Pipes blamed Muslims for the violent protests, saying that "extremists" had used the offensive cartoons published by Rose "to rally their people and become more agitatedly anti-Western." While there have been massive protests throughout the Muslim world against Denmark for the offense against Islam, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni by her side, blamed Syria and Iran for the violent protests in Damascus and Tehran. "Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes," Rice said. "And the world ought to call them on it."
In an article entitled "Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism", written as the Danish embassies smoldered, Jewish Pipes framed the "key issue at stake in the battle over the 12 "Danish" cartoons. "Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise," Pipes wrote! "Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not."
Repeated questions to Rose, Pipes, and the editors of JP about whether Europeans should also have the right to "insult and blaspheme" the Zionist Jewish version of the "Holocaust" went unanswered.
During the last decade, there have been several thousand people fined and hundreds put in European prisons for having written or spoken about the "Holocaust" or Jewish related affairs in a manner deemed illegal.
Framing the cartoon scandal in this way and forcing a false choice between defending the "free press" or the Muslim protesters, Pipes reveals his hidden hand behind the publication of the cartoons, which now appears to be a well-laid trap into which a number of newspapers and populist parties have fallen.
There is also a clear connection between the publication of the anti-Muslim cartoons and the secretive Jewish power.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the "Danish" prime minister and frequent Jewish power attendee, for example, has refused to issue a formal apology, which would cost Denmark nothing but could save the nation from further losses to its exporting business and national prestige.
Denmark has lost significant market share in Muslim nations due to a consumer boycott of Danish products.
The damage caused to Denmark's image, prestige and economy is likely to be severe and long-lasting. Danish lives are also clearly endangered.
Rasmussen's refusal to apologize, however, suggests that the "calculated offense", which has led to increased tension between Europeans and the Muslim world, was intentional.
One would think that the Jew Rose, as the person directly responsible for the "calculated offense" to millions of Muslims, would be charged under Europe's anti-racism laws, not to speak of the severe damage his offensive cartoons caused to Denmark and the Danish people.
Merete Eldrup, the managing director of IP/Politikens Hus, the parent company that owns Jyllands-Posten, is married to Anders Eldrup of Denmark, a Jewish group attendee for the last five years. Eldrup is chairman of Danish Oil and Natural Gas.

12 The banner, above, has the most attractive background I've seen so far in the "Support Denmark" campaign.

I like bumper stickers. They may not develop points of view very well, but they can be great at expressing them. Kind of like cartoons ...

Here's one I'd like to see:

Join the Muslim Diaspora!
Move to Sunny Scandinavia!
Rape Western Women!

13 The problem with believing in free speech and toleration is that it means you have to give free speech and tolerance to fascist scum like Hansrussen. But that doesn't mean you have to let him have space on your website!

1 Why does't Bush just tell everyone why this is such a good deal?

2 Even Dhimmi Carter agrees with the port deal. What's Bush's fucking problem.

3 When Carter of Arabia is in agreement with your middle east policy, you know you are 1-wrong, and 2-not lokin them Jew people too much

4 This is political correctness gone amuck. One wonders what it will take for people from bottom to top to come to their senses. An atomic bomb blast might do it.

5 Proof that the A rab money DO-BUY American policy

6 Steve nailed it. I wonder what Bush is getting out of the deal? I always wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I see now that he is either as stupid or corrupt as the libtards have always said. God I feel sick.

7 I don't see what the problem is other than it is state-owned (UAE - primary shareholder) with extensive additional arab, British and German corporate investors. It already has a track record of port ops in the US going back several decades.

Carter will give his 2 cent opinion to anyone if they ask - or don't. He's irrelevant. now Hillary is another thing ... a lot of people here seem eager to jump into bed with her and cuddle up. Why is that?

8 Bush has never used his Veto power. If he chooses this time to do it, I think there is enough bipartisan opposition to overturn it. Several democrats have already opposed it, as well as some republicans, like Bill Frist.

9 It is odd. However right now Bush looks like the Supporter of UAE good for his perception abroad. If shot down it will be by popular dissent. Thus absolving W of the blame for the block abroad(UAE). Also it shows that the American people are involved and are mistrusting the Arab world because of terror. Thus providing UAE, who has stated oil is finite and they want to diversify, motivation to fight terror in order to accomplish the stated goal of entering the new investor economy and moving away from oil as the lone source of their economy. Other than that ???

More to this than meets the eye methinks(hopes) otherwise it's just stupid.

10
This whole deal scares the crap out of me. Love the Bush-man
but he has lost his mind on this one!

11 In the words of the immortal P.J. O'Rourke: "WTF??? I mean, WTF'n F???"

12 If Bush does veto the legislation blocking the port deal, it's going to overturned by congress. That will result in Bush' political incineration. He's going to torpedo every republican running for office in '06 and probably '08.

You know what's funny. I don't think there are too many companies worldwide that can run an operation like this and Halliburton is one of them.. LOL. Can you just imagine?

13 Watched Baltimores Mayor Martin O'Malley tear into the Bush Admin, and watched the republican Gov of MD weasel yesterday. Today, both are on the same page..polls rule?
You know.. Michael Moore was right about the Saudi connection. I thought it was just blah blah, but you know... he's right. ( and I thought Farenheit 9-11 was only entertainment..who knew? )

14 Hondo.. the problem is that the UAE has a very checkered past and has been involved in financing islamfascist terror infrastructure. The idea of giving these guys management control of our ports is ludicrous.

15 Individuals in country - yes - UAE Govt - no. This is a state-owned multi-national partnership corporation that has been operating ports around the world (and several already here in USA) for several decades. UAE and corporation have got a clean slate and record - so what's the beef?

I work in and around port facilities - many are foreign operated. I hope no one here is dumb enough to think they are going to replace hundreds if not thousands of American port workers with Pakis with green cards! The workforce remains the same with the addition of possibly a few middle and upper level execs.

16 correction - no current port terminal ops here - confused Corp with Dubai Shipping which is a major world freight carrier and I believe a seperate part of the corporation. Bulk of their ops are in Asia (far east) and big competitor with Chinese & S. Koreans. Corporate board and Co Ops Global heavy with ... Brits.

17 Having thought about it, maybe he does have a plan. He used Harriet Myers as a stalking horse to galvanize his base into demanding a real qualified conservative justice, and we got one, more or less. Now, he won't be running for re-election, and neither will anyone in his administration be running, with the possible exception of Condi, so maybe he's using himself as a stalking horse by committing this outrageous act to get us all wound up. He is so unpopular with so many swing voters, and conservatives, that he may be giving strong Republicans a chance to come out and stand up for us. The dhimmicraps certainly aren't missing the opportunity to expose this lunacy for what it is, so maybe they will be forced to start acting like our compatriots again, instead of our enemies. But then, if they do that, we will have a harder time purging them when the war comes to our streets. Damn.

18 I still can't believe it. People are allowing their attention to be diverted from the most important issue regarding this deal.

Yes, there are obvious irregularities and "conflicts of interest" involved, in this little deal really, which are of concern surely. These are sides issues of less importance though, in comparison to the fact that ownership or control, when not both, of our entire infrastructure has already been sold to foreign corporations.

It is not just our seaports which have been sold off over the last four Presidential administrations. If only that were all there is to it. No, also our airports, railways system, trucking companies, highways and toll roads, bridges, hospitals, national retail chains, shipping companies, and even most of what little domestic industrial capacity left here to us in the US, have already been sold off.

For whatever reason, whether by design or by accident, the public has become aware of some of this because of the DPW of the UAR Ports deal. The electronic media however has not told even half the story. For example DPW is not buying control of a mere 6 ports, but 21 ports in fact.

Thus far media coverage has focused on the sensationalist possibilities, which I am certain the Bush admin, both can and will put to rest as they proceed with the deal.

Media coverage is also making this a very sensationalized partisan issue. Clearly however both US Parties have been fully complicit all along, in selling control and ownership of our entire infrastructure, to the multinational corporate alliance.

This same global confederation of Big Corps, doing all the buying, has no loyalty to any nation state. In fact this multinational corporate alliance, is becoming more powerful in wealth (the one true power) than all national governments put together, and they are doing it through the buying of the infrastructure within all nations, everywhere, not just here in the US.

Well what can we expect of the media? It too is owned and controlled by, the very same multinational corporate alliance.

19 John Buchanan, lamented Clinton doing the same thing, back when Bill was President.

{excerpted under fair use]

A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach
by Patrick J. Buchanan
March 13, 1997

"And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?...

Does anyone care about national security anymore?"

Read the rest @
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html

[end excerpt]

As you can see the selling off of America is not a partisan issue. Bush too is selling off our infrastructure. But why would a supposed conservative, hell bent on National Security and improving our economy, sell off our essential infrastructure? Really, it doesn't matter what foreign outfit he sells them to, or which party is involved in this sort of thing now, obviously.

The question really is why. Bush does not need the money, and it didn't go to him. I guess. So what the hell is going on? We shall hear the official story, endlessly ad nauseam, whether we wish to or not. So lets take a look at it from another perspective also.

Could globalization have anything to do with this, and does that have anything to with Globalism? Of course it does. What the hell is Globalism, and who are these guys anyway? Now that is THE question, and here is the answer.

George W Bush, like his father, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as are both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, and yes of course John Kerry and other phony liberals and phony conservatives.

WHAT THE HELL!? WHO ARE THESE GUYS?

The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT. That's right. the CFR is a Globalist organization. They want a world government, 'and' they want to 'be' that world government.

How could they ever hope to accomplish this?! Well, nobody is stopping them, and they can certainly afford it, because "they" are also BIG OIL not just here in the US but everywhere on earth. Now that is some serious economic power right there.

The CFR along with the Bilderburg Group seems to be the headship of globalization, and they have long advocated "Corporate Powerbuilding" as a means to outstrip governments in wealth, in order to then subvert governments everywhere, through direct economic influence. It sure seems to be working doesn't it?

Oh by the way. Did I mention that Bush Jr and Sr, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carl Rove, John Kerry, and others you have heard of recently, are also members of the Bilderburg Group? SURPRISE! They are! So is the owner of FOX and many other media owners, major newscasters, and yes even some cute and fuzzy pundits are members too. Hello, Rush? Is that why you are so well fed?

How could it even be possible, for this group of super wealthy corporate heads 'and' heads of state the world over, to ever hope to take over governments all over the world? Can they do it?

Well obviously, they have so much money now, they can both buy the infrastructure 'and' the political cooperation necessary to that possible. In effect they are buying the world as we speak. Both Clinton and Bush, and Reagan and Carter, and Ford, and others, have been selling our nation all along, like, well, like hotcakes. How does that make you feel?

Wont it be wonderful?! Imagine the same ethic displayed by EXXON, McDonalds, "The Good Guys", WAL-MART and that place you slave at, applied mercilessly on a global scale without the government or civil restrictions now protecting you. Wont it be great?!

Do you think maybe they (repubs and dems alike), got us all so divided and blinded with partisan squabbling, thanks Rush, that we didn't notice what they were up to in secret behind our backs?

Ya think? I mean do you think at all? Does anybody think anymore?


"Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

1 Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than I, can explain to me why the US would want arabs managing our most important seaports?? And apparently Jimmy Carter is backing Bush on this. And Hillary is fighting against it. I know I'm missing something here. What is it? Somebody please give me a clue.

2 Oh, and this story has been out on Drudge for at least a week now and I would have expected to see more postings about it here. This is a major national security issue. Why is everybody so mum on this?

3 Putting the arabs in charge of our ports is like trusting the fox to guard the hen house

4 Richard, here's the deal. Nobody in their right mind wants any Arab in charge of our ports. The problem is that, due to our reliance on their oil, and our subjection of ourselves to political correctness, we don't have the balls to say no. Is that clear?

5 JL.. I was hoping for a different answer than that.. LOL. That's too depressing. Look what Hillary is doing. She's going to garb this ball and run with it all the way to the White House in '08. I think a lot of people are pissed off about this and Bush is blowing it big time. And my other question is, why is the US incapable of managing its own ports???

6 Put the Muslims in charge of the Miss America Pagaent. All the contestants must wear burkas, meaning that even the ugliest girls can now win.

7 I will never vote Republican again, no matter who's running on what platform; the sumbitches have shit their nest with me. But I sure as Hell won't vote dhimmicrap. Ever.

8 What's next? Sub-contracting out the southern border to Mexican drug lords?

it's bad enough that the southern and the northern borders are as open as they are... now the eastern border is as good as open if the UAE get ahold of it.

9 The real shame of this is that, just when people on the right AND left were becoming somewhat united on the cartoon stuff, Bush has to pull this stupid little trick out of his dunce hat. I've supported this guy but did you hear his arrogant reply to the concerns we have over this thing? He basically said, "Stick it up yer ass, I'm doing it." I don't think he's aware yet how many people in his base that he's alientating with this crap.

1 Someone give me one good reason why liberals shouldn't be all rounded up and shot. Just one.

2 They're entertaining?

3 So, who was the hot drunk chick Dick Cheney was nailing before he drowned her?

4 Their derangement is getting worse by the day.

5 It's a mental illness, Carlos.

6 So I'm guessing in 2030 the impeachment of Bill Clinton will be referred to by the Left as the "Presidential fellatio, affair"

7 Yeah, it'll be that unfortunate incident where Bill tripped and fell and an expensive cigar got ruined.

1 Makes perfect sense. U Ill has a large muslim minority student population, and there are significant numbers of muslims through-out the area and state. They would be upset and get angry.

It would be relatively easy for some to simply aquire firearms, go on campus, and execute (selectively or indiscriminately) fellow students and teaching staff.

Also, security at campuses is relatively weak - a dedicated (an offended) muslim student (or otherwise) could easily assemble explosive materials and deliver a bomb to say the Admin building, or Library or Student Cafeteria etc. killing dozens if not hundreds of young (and potentially important) people.

Makes perfect sense to me. ALLAH AKBAR!

2 I love the "Stop...Stop...We ran out of virgins" cartoon

Doesn't this make sense to everyone? Afterall it's fine to dump the bible in a jar of piss and call it art. But let's kill everyone who draws Mohamed the pedaphile!!!

3 All the cartoons are rather tame compared to the filth that MUSLIM PUBLICATIONS in the Middle East routinely run on Jews and Christians. This entire controversy has nothing to do with respect for Islam, but everything to do with the power of Islam to silence its critics.

Wake up, America, before it is too late. The more you give in to these people, the more you reward their threats of violence. Rewarding threats of violence breeds violence.

4 JJ

Look closely at who are the ones giving in. Notice anything?

5 Muslims and liberals need to be killed off.

6 Liberals at their usial dirty work making is so only liberals can be heard

7 Yeah sandpiper, but it ain't gonna work no more, because of this newfangled intarweb thang. Heh.

8 I thought the rules were pretty harsh, so just to get em up here where we can see what policies may be in the future. Not good. They may have been suggested before but I saw this link had em spelled out.

9 One would think that the self-appointed champions of a free press would not run and hide so easily.

What militant Islam wants, militant Islam gets.

1 only because they fear no attacks, or intolerant rage from Christians, of course, then they'll deny it was Muhammed when the other side takes the field.

2 It will be interesting indeed to see how Islamists respond to this cartoon. Even without Mohammed's face being shown, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who the other guy with the turban is supposed to be.

One more stray thought: Doesn't this particular image at least symbolically equate Mohammed with Judas? It's not as though this cartoon is the first place where Jesus has been kissed, ya know.

3 Uh, didn't I hear the Muslims say that they would defend the good name of ALL the prophets? Don't these Muslims claim Jesus to be a prophet? The prophet Jesus has been insulted, Muslims, so do your duty. Slay the creators of this cartoon.

4 "Doesn't this particular image at least symbolically equate Mohammed with Judas?"

Whoa. Deep thoughts.

5 The typical Canadian response:

Insulting just a group or community isn't ok. You should rather insult everybody you can.

One more reason why it's Canadian is the "promotion" (lack of a better word, sorry) of homosexuality. University papers seems to seek every opportunity to give gay exposure.

I got to move away from this country...

- Max

6 Max,

Just be sure to end up in a red state. You won't find much difference between Ottawa and Connecticut.

7 One comment from this side:

I rahter would have seen Mohammed kissing Jezus!..

To get a sertain nuance right!

But, ...anything for the right politics, so to speak!

8 I hear you Rusty.

I think the kind of person I am, and, from what I read here, the kind of most persons here are less and less present. That's sad, because in my opinion it's not a question of beleives or religion, it's a question of COMMON SENSE. But in the world we are living, if you yell, burn or kill, you most likely win everything.

Here in Canada, and especially in Québec, you can't joke on the following subjects:

- Gay;
- Ethnicity;
- Religion (exeption made of Christianity); and
- Women's rights.

The only people left laughing at are Catholic heterosexual white men aged between 18 to 60.

Why? Because no one complain.

I'm tired of all that sh.t

- Max

9 Max,

I recommend Texas if you like lots of different kinds of people, or Northwest Arkansas if you want to live in a WASP region. Conservative Catholics are seen as WASPs in Arkansas, as they basically think alike. I am currently working in the Conway, Arkansas, area and it is pretty nice with proximity to Little Rock. I am from West Texas(Abilene), but have to follow the oil and gas business, as that is what I work in. There is a huge new natural gas discovery in the Conway area, and the economy is booming here and all over NW Arkansas. Texas is down a little economically, at least for us oil patch guys.

I'm sure Tennessee is nice, and many of the Midwest and western states are great, too, but I'm just telling you about what I know. So come on to the US, Max, we need good guys like you.

10 I'm trying to muster up the urge to burn an embassy or two over this, but it's just not happenin'.

11 Hey Max, don't let the gate at the toll booth hit your ass on the way out.

12 I think that we may be a little disappointed in the "democracy in the mid-east". So far in free elections all we have seen are radical muslims surprising us with their popularity. In Palestine Hamas wins, in Iraq the parties allied with Iran win. In Egypt the muslim brotherhood scores higher than anyone thought they would. Iran would probably welcome an air attack by the USA, it would unify a deeply divided population and their leaders would be able to blame all their problems on the USA as Castro does now. In Afghanistan democracy has resulted in a government where their "president" must be defended by American bodyguards and it is unsafe for him to leave the capital, and where 50% GNP is heroin derived.

13 in Iraq the parties allied with Iran win
Yes, I was surprised that the majority of Muslims in Iraq, the Shiites won, I was expecting the Christians to win, or at least the Freemasons.

14 Maybe it proposes the analogy,

Judas : Jesus :: Jesus : Mohammad

?

15 Democracy is such a crappy system. All we can hope for is that they realize it's better than what they had so they'd better stop voting themselves back into oppression.

16 How many of these liberal rags in this country will print this cartoon they are probibly waiting in line

17 There's a point where it's so obvious they're trying soooooo hard to offend that it fails to offend anymore. At that point the blasphemous depiction says far more about the nitwit who painted it than about the religions he's mocking.

18 Push comes to shove - paper will deny that the character in the turban is Mohammed - push harder and they will backtrack and claim he isn't even muslim.

They want to appear tough on the "issue" which is why they singled out JESUS. This passes for courage among liberals and leftists.

Fine with me - but hey islamists! They are just being coy and jerking your chain! This not only is a cartoon portrayal of Mohammed - he is being presented as homosexual and submissive to Chistianity. So if you want to drive a truck bomb thru their front door - knock yourself out - they are no kin of mine.

19 The students at the University of Toronto offer us political satire framed as a religious cartoon. Very nicely done. If Jesus and Muhammed had been wearing cowboy hats this could just as easily have been targeting an Academy Award nominated film. Love is a force of nature people, infinitely greater than any religion. Beautiful message.

20 Dear Bro. Max,
If'n y'all dee-cide to move to the USofA, pleese consider Freehold, Iowa (I know it's a yankee state, or blue state, but we true Christians are a'takin' over!!! GLOWry!!!! Pleese visit my church: Landover Baptist Church..."where the worthwhile worship"! http://www.landoverbaptist.org

21 CW,

You're stupid.

22 And if you were a real man you would do the exact same thing with the Muslim faith. Haha, but you don't have the balls for that, do you. Go ahead, please prove me wrong.

23 Dear Bro. JL Joe,

I may be stoopid, but at least I'm saved and GLOWRY-bound! Love the Muslim, Hate the Muslim-isms!

24 oh no the American taliban jokes, that's a new angle. no really.

eat a dick, moron.

25 Dave,
By yer language, I'm thinkin' yer an unsaved, potty-mouthed, LIE-brahl, secular-humanist! Please leave our Godly, true-Christian message board. Canada might be a good place fer yer kind. SHOOO!!!!!

26 What are muslim terrorists wearing this spring that is savvy, smart, but not too western-decadent? Find out in Vogue Saudi Arabia: http://www.bettybowers.com/vogue.html

27 Thanks JJ, I'm considering the offer.

I already tought about moving to the States. Much better weather than here, and when I was thinking of joining the army 9 years ago, I knew that I would have more opportunity to go oversea.

Rusty: I think your server was attacked by those e-jihads fuc.ers yesterday, around 1400 and 1600 eastern time...
Did you got any problems with it?

28 That cartoon is disgusting!!!
When i see 2 religious Icons together they better have swords in their hands!
How about Muhammad and Jesus beheading Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?

29 Mohammed is the bitch.

30 I think slappy and Kevin would make a cute couple.

31 First of all, the University of Toronto's stufent newspaper is The Varsity, not the Strand. The Strand is Victoria College's student newspaper. Not a major error since Vic is one of the federated college's of U of T. However, The Strand and The Varsity are two different newspapers.

Second, in first century Palestine kissing persons of the same sex was a common form of greeting and not associated with homosexuality.

Third, cowboy hats would have been an amusing touch but would have interfered with the elegant ambiguity of the cartoon as it stands.

Fourth, I am not offended. I expect everyone is relieved to hear that.

32 Thomas,

I hear you, but may I point you that they (in the cartoon) are in a swan going trough the "tunnel of tolerance"?

It's not just the kissing, it's the context.

I'm not offended by a cartoon. I'm offended by the context of things. (Sorry for the bad English).

- Max

33 I personally don't see what is wrong with Jesus and Muhammed expressing love and tolerance - see my own personal Jesus and Muhammed cartoon at the below website:

http://www.drawmohammed.com/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=4

1 It's just about time boys. Stock up on ammo now, because when it starts, the government will ban the sale of ammo and weapons within a week. Remember, they are not on our side.

2 Maxie - relax

Here in NYC we have all kinds of people from all over the world - and seldom noted or reported - NO ONE TRUSTS OR LIKES THE MUSLIMS! Its really amazing at how successful muslims have been in alienating and creeping out EVERYBODY!

Better yet - white liberals, leftists, gays etc ... are frightened by them! - and it so obviously shows!

3 look at the 'raisin head' lifting up his "Islam will dominate" poster, I bet he has a heart grosser than a Donkey's.

4 Yeah, you're right hondo, I get it; nothing to see here, go back to sleep. Sure thing.

5 Oh man. I had almost forgotten why they require their women to wear burqas. Obviously, the burqa isn't a religious or cultural thing. It's our equivalent of a two-bagger.

6 I wish I was in New York. I would buy as many little pigs I could find, and let them go real close to these moon god worshippers. I bet I could trip one of those ragheads as they ran buy.

Buy Danish!

7 slug is correct. The girl with the glasses looks like a pitbull licking piss off a thistle.

8 These shitheads think they are immune from punishment. But they would do well to ask the Japanese what happens when you get Americans pissed. And I'm pissed at these Muslim scum. If they try anything, then open season on the bastards. Hell, I wish they would try something. I'm tired of their rhetoric.

9 Are there any thinkers in the religion of fascism and homicidal mania? Doesn't suicide bombing and murdering over cartoons effectively negate rational discourse? Morons.

The Oracle
www.redskybrothers.blogspot.com

10 TITS short for The Islamic (forgive the abuse of the next word-don't burn my house) Thinkers Society. Haa! Who helped the thinkers come up with the name?

As to the Japanese comment, jj. Good point, but after we wipe this Islamic plague out, will we have the same rebuilding responsibilities as we did with Japan with the surviving facists?

11
The last thing I want to see is allah's rash

piss on 'em

Roll your bullets in bacon grease - be sure when you kill them you kill them eternally. Send them back to hell, they ran out of virgins years ago anyway.

(speaking of hell.... those woman are the scariest sack of nazi's I've ever seen) No wonder islamic "men" would rather walk a mile for their camel - before having to come home to one of these vacuous, stupid, third class, burka'd beasts.

Fight islam Now

12 This is truly disturbing sh1t. Damn, I don't own a gun but I do need to get one.. or two. We have all read about civil wars in our history books and it's all so abstract and distant. I think we're going to find out that it's on our doorstep and not abstract at all. Trouble is, we'll be fighting our own US government as well. They'll come in to quell the shooting and arrest those of us defending the US. What kind of sick shit is that??

13 Pretty damn sick, Richard, but that is where we find ourselves in the first decade of the 21st Century, right back in the fricking 8th Century. It took Christians 400 years to get enough of these Muslims the first time around, I just hope we get enough real quick this time. I know I've had all of this shit I can stand. I'm pissed.

14 See more pictures from today at http://tinyurl.com/92akm

15 you fucking jerks. Look more into islam before you start spilling shit from your ass.

16 You better get some respect livin4dawun, or your prophet will catch some more hell. Your ass is likely to be in a crack if you are in the US, so laugh it up asshole, while you can!

17 Laugh it up? I can laugh in all your faces, yeah that I definately could do. Inshallah han shoofak wallahi. Tell me since when freedom of speech meant freedom to oppress and mock other religions? Just because you have the right to do it, doesn't mean its right, and we only peacefully wanted to bring that point across from you. I did my job. Now if your heads are too fucking thick to process it, then I am fine with that, because I am done here.

18 People making the excuses for these bastards should be the first ones dispatched from planet earth as they'll be the first to condem anyone for defending themselves against these stoneage level savages.

BTW, Mohammed pleasures satans(allahs) love pump orally everyday in hell.

19 only "responsible editors" get punished?! what about irresponsible editors? no fair!

20 Livin4dawun:
I'll tell you when I have the Freedom to oppress and mock other religions: When your religion tries to tell me how to live, attempts to force it's moral code upon me and threatens my freedoms by holding up signs saying you will "dominate."
That isn't religion, that is ideology, you've overstepped the bounds of religion and as such it should be dealt with accordingly.

21 livin4dawun , Islam is at best a cult, religion it is not, nor ever has been. "Peaceful" or maybe you meant, full of pieces. You believe you can hijack the Muslim faith and have a leg to stand on. What peaceful things are you doing now, you deranged maniacs? You are morons, with a death wish for all. That's a good idea! Let's start with you!

The only thing you said that was right was, "...I am done...". More done than asshole, terrorist, islamic pukes like you, can ever know. You have kicked the wrong dog and soon you'll be buried in bacon bits you incoherent fucks.

If jerks like you had been responsible at all, you wouldn't find your dumb asses being ridiculed. You're a heartless bunch of whiners, hiding behind women and children too weak to resist your inbred twisted perversions!

22 Oh, now the pinheads are saying we're thick-headed. Okay, Einstein, I'm going to give you a chance to tell us where in the US Constitution it says our Freedom of Speech is limited so as not to offend you or your knob-sucking 'prophet' . I'll save you the time and tell you that our 1st amendment right is absolute. There is no place that says we can't mock your 'religion of peace' even though there is certainly a lot to be mocked. Our Supreme Court will see to that if you can even get one of the liberal district courts to side with you. Where you and your pig-fornicating friends made your miscalculation is that most in this country aren't afraid of you like they are in Europe and we won't turn in our many weapons and surrender like the French.

So, you 'peacefully wanted to bring that point across from you' did you? And I guess you did that by burning embassies, calling for yet another murder of human beings, and generally just looking foolish in front of the world. Great job getting your point across - assuming looking like a bunch of pricks was your point.

Go ahead, al-Sparky, bring it on. As long as you and the other illerate cave dwellers live in the 8th century worshipping your pedophile, you're still just an uneducated pile of pork feces.

Now process this: get back to your cave and finish up that batch of Nikes or we won't give you your 7 cents. Be a good boy and I'll pray to the true Lord God and ask him to forgive your soul. Actually, I'll pray for you anyway since we are taught to pray for those who are on the road to be condemed to hell in hopes that He will show you some mercy. Does your God teach the same thing or did you just bastardize his words on you own?

God bless you.

23 remember this, when some smarmy starbucks liberal elite mocks the president and tells you "they don't hate our freedoms"
It becomes obvious everytime you hear the Muslim voices, even in our own country that they hate freedom of religion ("Islam will dominate") they hate freedom of speech (cartoons) these things are offensive to Islam, because as we know Islam is incompatible with democratic values.


I know we make fun of the so called 'moderate' Muslim, however they are here, and most of them have fled some shithole sandtrap where the above values are law and probably had one or more family member be a victim of the above type of theocracy, they most likely value the freedom of the United States, they don't have to be a Muslim, they do it by choice, they can eat pork or drink Alcohol, but choose not to.

The only Muslims that are not a threat to the United States, are those that do not believe in the Caliphate agenda, believe others may practice their own religion and renounce violence done in the name of Islam.

I hope they speak up soon.

24 yes dave we r a terrorist yes u right, hatred + racism, you kill out of the hundred of muslim innocent children, women everyday in afganistan, irak, palestine.
you have exterminate the Indian people, launch a bomb atomic in hirochima, nagazaki you've kill a million Vietnamese an combodjian, you've terrorize the black people at last the torture in abu graib and in guantanamo.
since century you colonialisez, you declancher the 2 world war, hitler burn the Jew and after all that you leave the Jews establish a nation (israel) palestine.

25 I advise you to read our history to learn our language + if you want the truth do not listen to ur media, and thank you

26 Islamway,

You would like us to learn your language? You are very lucky that we do not, for to listen to the garbage that you project over the airways the American people would have no doubt how much you hate us and what your intentions truly are. What you teach your young and old alike.

I have always said, if the left started to listen to what is being said in Farsi and Urdu, instead of the apologetics published for Western consumption, they would get very uncomfortable indeed, and we would not have this problem of endlessly trying to convince them.

As for Islam dominating the world. Just watch my middle finger Islamway, and be grateful that you have for the moment the moderates to protect you. When their bubble bursts, you will see an entirely different America, then I would advise you to simply leave.

27 Ahum, let me seee….I wonder what All Bundy would think of this.

28 The RoP never seems all that peaceful to me. GW and Condi were talking about Islam right?
Check out the movie "Mars Attacks" It's starting to look like a prophetic documetary about the Islamic takeover of the US.

29
To Islamway:

Mohammed was a pedophile who should have been killed on sight. Your pedo prophet has caused terrorism on a grand scale and your toilet tissue koran is the cause. I WIPE MY ASS WITH YOUR KORAN! And don't get on the black people issue or anything about massacring, your prophet who you idolize has done much worse and as far as that goes, Sudia Arabia didn't formally ban slavery until 1964 you backwards donkey licker.

30 You call these people civilized? their still living in the stone age

31 http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/020106danishcartoons/im:/060217/481/xkc10802170951;_ylt=Ai54EwBZs5JmmkWrk0i0YUFgWscF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3dmhrOGVvBHNlYwNzc20- my favorite pic, it has a communists face on the shirt. Gee, what would the communist love of his life think of Islam? Not much since it would be banned.

32 Islamic Thinkers Society? What are they thinking about, killing someone?

33 I think living4dawun has it all backward. We don't need to look deeper into islam. I've seen enough. Muslims need to look deeper into US culture and try find a way to fit in. They seem to expect that US culture will bend itself to fit THEIR vision. With everything else that's been said here, I'd also say the islamics are just a little narcissistic.. kinda like their libtarded brethren here in the US.

34 I advise you to read our history to learn our language + if you want the truth do not listen to ur media, and thank you

LOL! funniest comment ever.
How about you learn the U.S History then come back, you probably believe the Jews are poisoning the wells.
moron.

35 Why is it that the only people who ever even attempt to make a convincing argument as to why muslims should not be rounded up and gassed like rats are the dreaded, evil White Christian "neocons"? Every 'slamotard comment only supports and reinforces my argument that we must kill them all if we ever want peace.
This is war people, and if you don't have the guts to fight, you'd better get ready to sell your daughter to a goatherder. Jesus H. Christ, I'm ashamed of what my countrymen have become.

36 If theey tramp on or burn our flag then we do the same to their own national flags we tramp on them and burn them

37 I'm not quite ready to sell my daughter to a goatherder, IM. I just got back from the gun store where I picked up 1000 rounds of ammo for my Socom, so let's just say I'm getting ready for what I see coming up. I do need a little more time, as all these guns and ammo are getting quite expensive. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know.

38 JJ, I'm afraid that you and I are about the only ones on this blog that are ready to fight, the rest just seem ready to let the goatfuckers take over. Nothing to see here, move along...

39 ya'll catholics and christians r ignorant and dont know anything. Get ur facts straight!!!!
go to www.islamway.com

40 Hey, dumb ass Hajer, Catholics are Christians, so who needs to get whose facts straight? And I'm getting pissed at you goatherders, so STFU while you can!

41 Hajer: allow me to fulfill your death wish! Your extinction is in the breech! BTW that whole virgins waiting thing-pay attention you inbred fuck-was more pigshit from the pedopuke's mouth. I got your history and your future layin' right here. Smell that! Fresh scent of gun oil and bacon grease in the morning air, can only be better if it were napalm......

42 Thanx but plz check out that website at
www.islamway.com
or
www.haqaonline.com

43 Haj, no thanks.

44 Mmmmm, gun oil and bacon grease...

I'm going to start buying hollow points and cramming the tips full of lard. Heh.

45 y am i not surpised?? another site with ignorant ppl discussing issues as if they understand...hehehe
well look ppl no1 is asking u to like us nno is telling u to bcome muslim no1 just one thing... before u tlk know wat ur saying and indicate proof... ok so u see alot of bad muslims on tv... do u seriously believe everything on the media? dont u noe wat propaganda is?
some of these muslim ppl u see on tv are extremists and understand islam wrong...
so they think its jihad...
but they are wrong? do even noe wat jihad is ? ull prob say its to kill every american in the world lool
thats not wat it is jihad is anything that u do for the sake of god ANYTHING!

46 ok so did u even look into wat in gods world our religon preaches?? did u even look into wat the prophet mohammed asked us to do? of course not u see a bunch of extremists doign stupid thngs and ur like oh thats islam..
did u even noe that as muslims we beleive in jesus and moses? that we love and respect them,as much as mohammed (s.a.w)did u noe that? of course not!
all that our prophet mohammed asked from us to help the poor, b good to our parents regardless, he asked us not to backbite not to steal or instegate... he asked us to belive in one god he asked us to respect all religions and b peaceful with all.. he asked us to be patient...

did u noe that as muslims we are not allowed to harm , burn or bring down any place of worship even during a war?be it a church or sanagogge or any other place? thats how much respect he taught us to have...
i urge u guys to have a broader view and to know that not all muslims are those on Tv because in reality they are a small portions who like u do not understand the tru islam and the true message of our prophet...
peace to u all
and if u wnat to learn more:
www.islamicboard.com
www.islam.com

47 That was a joke right? even countries which are considered moderate "models" of Islam like Indonesia, Jordan et. al are on fire over CARTOONS.
I assume by the use of your lingo, you are British, I saw a group of about forty Muslim people with signs in London promising/promoting violence.
I am not sure why I did not see you, or any other moderates on the other side of the street denouncing the deeds of the so called 'few' extremists.

See, the problem is, we hear from you so called moderates every week or so: except for us, your actions speak lounder than words, no one is denouncing the violence officially as un-islamic but ever so more telling there are no counter-protests, marches by moderates decrying violence done in the Prophets/Allah's name, and until that time we'll continue to believe you do not protest because you silently agree with the message, even if not the means.

48 i've got to agree with peace 2 all, just take one second out of your life and read something on islam that is not biased. i am an american muslim and love the US. i believe in freedom of speech. just like anything in life, tho, there are limits. i was there at the protest and we saw those people with hateful signs. like the guys with poster of "allah's wrath is on its way"... we KICKED HIM OUT of the protest because it was a peaceful protest and we were trying to show what Islam is really about...

49 Did you kick out the guy with the "Islam will Dominate" fatima, or do you agree with the Caliphate?

50 These bozos can take their Sharia, turn it sideways and shove it straight up their camel-f_cked @$$e$!!!!!!

51 The muslims who posted here do not even know their own religion whil they ask us to learn more.You ladies and men do noknow your own history .I do believe there are peaceful muslims but it has nothing to do with mohammeds religion,the reason you are a nice person is exactly because you don't really follow the tradtyion of your fals prophet.You believe that religion should be peace and love but that is because of the way the true God made us and the Good Lord commanded us even to love our enemies as much as possible(thats my little addition).You all need to open your eyes and shake off your sleep and recognize that the religion of mo began with him fighting and raiding caravans read the hadiths and see how they loved killing and war.Stop covering yourself and trying to make your false religion sound like the true religion of peace Christianiyt,which is easily proved by all of Jesus teaching without the need to twist it .unlike your own.Your religion is not one that emphasizes love and peace but blind acceptance and submission.One cannot leave islam without being cursed and killed,is that loving and peaceful and tolerant?that is just one thing and a small one compared to the rest.

52 Michael:
mo began with him fighting and raiding caravans read the hadiths and see how they loved killing and war.
Mohammad loved children however.

53 Your prophet mo was a deceiver and probably deceived himself,a proven liar and unfaithful.He copied and borrowed everything from the jews and Christians but mixed it all up with his own opinions .the teaching is not even worthy to be called a teaching.Everyone knows that the koran is a book that just repeats the same thing again and again with nothing new only threats and threats.You must realize why you follow what you do does it come from freedom or your parent tradtion.If you just follow because you were taught it without examining it in detail then you are just like any idolater who worships a lizard because his parents did so,Abraham behaved not so,he left the worship of his parents to follow the true God.YOu must com e to the faith that is pleasing to GOd ,not as a slave but as sons and daughters,freely choosing.od already gave you the tools in your heart to come to him when your heart tells you religion should be peaceful and merciful since we want mercy ourselves and this is the religion of your heart which is christianity,so stop pretending and fooling yourself that this is what your false prophet said.Now this doesn ;t mean there are some wholesome aspects practiced in mulim families but the good parts do not come from islam but from simple family love, do not confuse them.Jesu is your only way and hope you will not enter paradise if you follow the killing false ptrophet mo.the jihadists are only imitating thier first example because they admire him,notice when a christian imitates his Lord Jesus Christ he becomes humble peaceful and a blessing to all men not violent.

54 Dave .you got that right.got to go to work hopefully talk with you guys soon

55
Hey JJ and Maximus - I'm with ya and I'm ready to fight and I want to fight NOW and not save the fight like cowards for our children.

The first thing we can do, every day, is CALL A nazi A nazi. Talk to our friends and try to explain what we are facing and that it is 1938 again NOW and that islam is the nazi's.

Educate everyone you can on the reasons why islam is incompatible with the peace and safety of your children and grandchildren's future peace and security. Show the pictures, show what they say. They hang themselves with their own words (as you know) if people will just break through the denial or the MSM programming.

Explain that you do not want and you will not tolerate your daughter in a burka, your son forced to kneel to this islamonazi facism crap EVER.

Remember Patrick Henry said "As for me - Give me liberty or give me death" and I would ad to preserve the liberty, safety and security of my family, and yours Fight islam in every way possible NOW before it is too late!

NEXT: DO NOT ALLOW THE TRAITORS IN OUR GOVERNMENT TO SELL OFF OUR PORTS TO AN ARAB COMPANY. (note that our government at all levels, both parties, seems to be giving the enemy the rope to hang us with)

AT THE SAME TIME; DEMAND AN END TO moslem IMMIGRATION

EXPELL moslems. This is not a relegion it is a nazi, totalitarian ideolgy and it should not be allowed to spawn in our country and use our freedoms to ambush us in the night.

WE NEED TO DEMAND THAT NON CITIZEN moslems leave the country immediately or be deported for the security of the country.

Close all mosques. These are enemy forward combat bases and should be closed, the nazi's deported.

Build a wall on the Mexican border to prevent the current invasion of our country.

The fight is comming and I'm with you. These things we can do now. Lets do them in every way. Lets confront and provoke these bastard retards.

And dip your bullets in bacon grease. When it comes time, Deny them the reward they seek.

FIGHT islam NOW

56 To islamway,

Have you looked at your religion. It is full of hate, and death. I have. History shows Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl. Hey, let us say that was a wrong print. It appears Mohammed enjoyed cutting off heads, and making slaves of women. Have you come across that information?

Look, anyone with half a brain can see Islam is a false religion. It appears Mohammed was delusional. To me, Satan talked to Mohammed as god, and now their are a billion false moon god worshipping Muslims. Some are killing folks over cartoons.

I bet you do not agree islamway, so I will keep going to the gym, keeping my ammo dry, and pray to Jesus who was raised from the dead, and sits at the right hand of G-d to help you see the light of truth.

Over, and out.

Buy Danish!

57 To islamway,

Have you looked at your religion? It is full of hate, and death. I have. History shows Mohammed had sex with a nine year old girl. Hey, let us say that was a wrong print. It appears Mohammed enjoyed cutting off heads, and making slaves of women. Have you come across that information?

Look, anyone with half a brain can see Islam is a false religion. It appears Mohammed was delusional. To me, Satan talked to Mohammed as god, and now there are a billion false moon god worshipping Muslims. Some are killing folks over cartoons.

I bet you do not agree islamway, so I will keep going to the gym, keeping my ammo dry, and pray to Jesus who was raised from the dead, and sits at the right hand of G-d to help you see the light of truth.

Over, and out.

Buy Danish!

58 Plz understand!!!
We are not protesting over cartoons!! We are protesting because the Danish cartoonists mocked our religion!! How would you (non-muslims)feel if us "muslims" mocked your religion? And yes i agree with freedom of speech, but the Danish cartoonists and Denmark itself went beyond the limit!! Plz think about! It's common sense!!! What if all this happened to you (non-muslims)!
I would love an answer. PLZ
AND BY THE WAY I AM AMERICAN JUST LIKE YOU ALL, ACTUALLY AMERICAN-MUSLIM!!

59 Hey hajer, how much more will you protest when you find yourself being tossed into a pen of ravenous wild boars at about 400 pounds each? Yeah, I'm going to raise a herd, and feed them on muslims. Heh.

60 The Quran from the perspective of a non-Muslim:


Robin Peters is a 44 years old lady who read the Quran and then she liked to comment on what she've read .. so let's see what did she say ..



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


The Koran is the Bible of Islam. Revealed to the world by Muhammad approximately 1,400 years ago, it is regarded by Muslims, universally, as the word of God to Muhammad and from him to all Islam. No devout Muslim disputes this; in this respect, there is more agreement among Muslims about the divine origin of the Koran (seen as having been literally dictated to Muhammad by the mouth of Allah Himself) than there is about the origins of the Bible among Christians.

Even those of us forced to rely on translations of the Koran (considered interpretations of same because only the Arabic Koran is the literal Word of God) can see the literary value of this work. There is tremendous spiritual and psychological value in reading this book, as well, for Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

For me, the psychological value of this book comes in its emphasis on right and wrong belief and standing up for what you believe in, even if it costs you dearly in terms of human relationships. Certainly, no one has accused Muslims of being wishy-washy about their faith! In fact, the differences in the various branches of Islam come from the ways in which they practice their faith. A Sunni Muslim will differ from a Shi'ite or Twelver Muslim in the way in which they practice their faith, but they will not disagree about the divine origin of the Koran or the fact that there are correct and incorrect beliefs. I think that Catholics and Protestants can learn an important lesson from Muslims in this regard; we have become so concerned with whether or not the Bible is inspired or dictated directly from the mouth of the Lord, or whether certain beliefs are correct or incorrect, or whether certain actions or practices are moral or immoral, that we are no longer truly Christian or loving of one another.

The Koran basically mandates certain behavior from the rank-and-file believer. In this respect, Islam is less a religion than a way of life and pattern of behavior with Allah (God) at its very center. By way of contrast, Christians leave Christianity at the door of church on Sunday, still practicing that civil religion so popular during the 1950s and so offensive to those of us who take the Bible and Christ seriously. Muslims are expected to pray five times daily; Christians who pray once daily are seen as "out of the loop" and are thus discouraged from contacting God regularly unless it's to be polite during a worship service. Muslims fast at least one month a year; Christians generally ignore the need to undergo cycles of feasting and fasting, unless they belong to a denomination which takes Lent seriously. Muslims consider charitable donations a tax of sorts, due and payable once a year during the feast of Eid, one of the five pillars of the faith without which one is not a Muslim; Christians generally donate to charity with such highhandedness and snobbery that they might as well not donate one penny.

I would strongly recommend that people of all religious persuasions read the Koran, if only to learn more about what Islam really is all about.

61 American muslem - translation - nazi in America

FIGHT islam NOW

62 American moslem - Translation - nazi in America

FIGHT islam NOW

63 SALAAM WA ALAIKUM HAJER, YOU CAN SEE BY THE WAY THESE FILTHY INFIDELS SPEAK TO YOU THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO YOU. THEIR HEARTS ARE SEALED. THEY WISH TO FOLLOW THEIR WHIMS AND DESIRES. SO FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH, STOP BENDING BACKWARDS FOR THEM. THEY WON'T LISTEN. DON'T SUGARCOAT ISLAM FOR THEM. PRESENT ISLAM AS IT IS. NO NEED TO TWIST AND TURN AND HIDE THINGS. IF THEY DON'T ACCEPT THEN BE IT. DON'T WASTE YOUR SWEAT OVER THEM. THESE ARROGANT INFIDELS WILL HAVE THEIR DAY...

64 I saw the crickets chirp, after the "Caliphate" question.
Always the same "I'm a good, American Muslim" however cannot even answer a simple question of if they agree with the Caliphate, Sharia etc.

As for you "burka boy" HWYD, keep proving you hate the freedoms! I hope your backward cave isn't on the "next" list, for a install of Democracy 2.0.

65 Hajer ,please stop the bologna you may fool yourself but not me who has studied and learned to excercise thier reason to discern evil.Only a weakminded person will accept your statements as meaning anything.You have no hope of eternal life with your vain confidence in mo and his statements.The koran is not the word of God, you do not know the truth,and you are condemned so long as you follow error.Christ and Mohammed are incompatible and you do not respect JESUS CHRIST THE ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WORLD CROWNED KING BY GOD ABOVE ANGELS,HOW MUCH MORE ALL MEN AND PROPHETS.YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN CHRIST OR THE TESTIMONY GIVEN OF HIM BECAUSE THE KORAN HAS VERY CHILDISH AND FOOLISH THINGS TO REPORT OF HIM.sO WHY DON'T YOU SPEAK CLEARLY AND HONESTLY,YOU ONLY RESPECT THE kORAN NOTHING ELSE,AND YOUR VERSION OF CHRIST THAT IS IN IT AND THE BIBLE.BUT YOU DONT SAY THAT DO YOU? NO, YOU SAY IT AS THOUGH YOU ARE SPEAKING OF OUR CHRIST AND OUR BIBLE SO YOU CAN DISARM AND BEGUILE SIMPLE SOULS.THIS IS NOT UPRIGHT AND YOU HAVE ALREADY PROVEN YOURSELF TO BE A UNTRUSTWORTHY SOUL

66 HAJER WHY DONT YOU VISIT (THE RELIGION OF PEACE.ORG)AND (FAITHFREEDOM.ORG)

67 The so-called "holy" koran say's :005.073
YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."
So watch out when a muslim wants to punish blasphemists. Islam is the religion of fear and war for the infidels.

68 Before I may begin, I would like to provide a few observations that I made. From reading the above posts, I can tell that many of these people are relatively uninvolved with politics, as well as the world in general. I would make an assumption that most of you are located in the central America, rural areas, because in those places it is highly understood that there is lack of an adequate variety of opinion and information; in other words are given no choice but to digest what they are fed, which in many cases may turn out to be the wrong food. Therefore, I do not blame you.

However, what I do blame you for is how you allow closed-mindedness to captivate your thinking ability and you force yourselves to one option and one option only—ignorance and dependence.

ANYWAY, I am from a very urban area, New York City, and I love it very much, and it has granted me the opportunity to obtain information and a myriad of thoughts and to hear both truth and lies, as well as establish my own thoughts, as opposed to being spoon-fed by “intimidating authority”. Well, if any of you need a little enlightening, feel free to ask me about my views and opinions, because I feel many of you are benighted and I don’t believe that it is fair to see my fellow humans, most probably American citizens, in that kind of a disposition, for I am a liberal and I feel I must educate you on the set-backs of society, esp. media and what everyone WANTS you to think and believe. By the way, while any of you may be at it, grab a couple of books and begin reading more liberal views. All you need is at least a 30% open mind and you will learn a lot, if proper books are even sold around your neighborhoods…such as what is censored from you everyday by the media.

OK so we shall speak again… and one more thing: if anyone is going to spill any garbage facts, they should be totally disregarded. Any post that should be presented should have documented facts or direct proof (I.E. QURAN AND HADITH, many of you really don’t realize that people don’t always eat random dung). I mean, "Islam is the religion of fear and war for the infidels." Where do you support that, or did I happen to miss something?

Come on, don’t be so ignorant.

69 Liberal,

Eat shit Liberal. Tell your B.S. to the several thousand that died 09/11/2001. What was it? Oh, I remember now, Allah Akbar right before the planes hit.

Do you remember the U.S.S. Cole, Kobar Towers, Twin Towers 1993, Mr. Klinghoffer in a wheelchair, and those are but a few examples.

Religion of peace my butt!

BZO or die, and do not forget to by Danish.

70 Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition


FIGHT islam NOW

71 Mhmmm…very vulgar language I see. Anywho leatherneck, face some facts and read “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin. It is all documented specs of 9/11…which was a very dear day to me, but don’t be so ignorant please…and I also see that my friend ‘leatherneck’ was on the plane to hear Allah Akbar being recited. Ok genius? I don’t think you were on that plane so stop believing your own lies you mentally challenged person. And where did anyone mention religion of peace? Well, now that it is mentioned…go ahead and try to defy that statement. Prove to me that Islam isn’t a religion of peace…NOT by bigotry but by clear proof…and I don’t want to see a person being used as an example either because people don’t always portray the correct thing, do they? Let me not even touch up on the sick people we have on earth…so don’t be so vague as to use people to convey the meaning of Islam.

72 What can be more meaningful than the prophet of Islam. Would you agree with that? Mohammed killed, raped, made slaves of people, and had sex with a nine year old girl. Is history wrong? That is what is written about the religion of Islam. Perhaps, it is time to rewrite history.

Buy the way, it was printed the last recording on the black boxes, ( really red ), was? You guessed it, Allah Akbar!

Buy Danish!

73 Liberal, You have exhibited the very things you denounce in others.Many have made statements that are obviously contrary to you and so what?But you have not stated your position except to to step in with the arrogance of a fool.How typical of closed minded individuals to say what you said of all the participants up here.Do you have something to say or not,for so far you have made no meaningful point.You have not disproved anything up here.You only criticised and made all sorts of extreme unsound generalizations.Excuse me but is all that drivel
and empty multiplication of words supposed to be wisdom.You sound sarcastic not intelligent.You only tried to say something to make yourself sound great and others bad.Who cares where you are from? Only a simpleminded person would try to wear that as a badge of honor unless it were in jest.Everything about what you said sound like you are projecting your own psyche on others,like it is a description of yourself,like you are originally from a small town and now think because your in NYC that you are sophisticated.Sorry you don't understand what is going on here, if you were wise you would and would have refrained from displaying such undignified pride.

74 I may or may not agree with everything said here or the way it is said,but I certainly understand what is going on and what is the cause of it.It doesn't matter where a person is from,if he or she is right then they are right.In a work entitled "Thus Spake Zarathustra" I remember that when the main character was called upon to give a reason for his position he answered,I thought it through so long ago, all that remains now is the result.So liberal friend why do you assume that these bloggers and patriots have not thought it through.You want somenone to explain themselves to you? Think it through yourself!We are living post enlightenment we don't have to get it from a book or "authority" the only authority here is our own reason excercised to discern truth all by itself,without any help.You should try it some time you might like it instead of spewing out typical,corny like Iowa lines about rural people.If you truly desire to know about Islam and its leader Mo then visit prophet of doom.com or faithfreedom.org,or the religion of peace.com. You behave like a decent muslim man I know who acts as though you could not have thought something through if you come to a conclusion other than the one he would like you to believe or that is against him.See we are all for compassion and tolerance but rational compassion and rational tolerance not the liberal brand of irrational compassion which is suicidal.

75 I mean, "Islam is the religion of fear and war for the infidels." Where do you support that, or did I happen to miss something?

Ironic.
Listen, just because you sit in a Coffee bar in New York sipping an espresso while listening to new agers talk about basket weaving from Hemp, or the evils of Capitalism doesn't make you a deep thinker.
Don't think you can come here and "educate" the "hayseeds" when you evidently do not even have a passing clue about the goals of Islam re: the Khalifah, Sharia, Taqiyya and kitman, the Mahdi etc.

I suggest you come back here when you've read up on the above subjects and try your whole "deep thinking liberal" routine again.

76 All of you good americans should check out al jazeera.com then english magazine. Us brits and americans cannot believe the rubbish these ragheads come out with.I agree with you guys if they don't like the western way they should leave. I am from scotland and we have the same undesirables here.

77 I hope everyone here can see that each of us is human and if our labels were taken away, we would see how your problems are the same problems a muslim person faces, they have the same questions about this life on earth, about how to handle problems in life, the way to raise your kids, how to stay healthy, how to keep away from poverty, how to give something to the world before you leave it. All of you need to understand Islam, how much longer will we avoid looking into Islam through a muslims eyes, how much longer will we be frightened of just simply going to a muslim website to learn of their religion. In my limited experience Ive noticed that muslims behave and act 90% according to their faith, so if you want to have peace on earth without killing off all the muslims, you have to take advantage of reading about thier faith. It will help you help them. After talking and reading, im sure you will see how your screaming and shouting is no better than that of their fanatics - so how are we any better.

78 You didn't have to explain "In my limited experience" because your "give peace a chance" spiel gave it away instantly.
You of course followed that message to a crescendo ending in moral equivalence between fanatics and the people who see Islam as a threat.

No one is "frightened of Islam" except liberals like yourself who hide under the blankets at the very thought of insulting them. Most people that post here spend more time looking up facts, and statistics to do with Islam, and obviously have a greater understanding of it, excuse them if they do not subscribe to your philosophy of "All we need is love".

1 what bush is waiting for to use the nuclear
on these bastards.
he should use them before due date runs out!!!!!

2 Guss,

Whaaaaaa???

3 Maybe he ment the nut cracker?

4 re: MSM Hypocrisy

thanks for pointing it out again. It can't be repeated often enough.

5 Yeah, but the Abu Gharaib prisoners were in their underwear! And they were frightened by dogs!! That's really humiliating, don't you get it?? How dare you draw moral equivalence between these two episodes.

6 More Abu Ghraib abuse photos. Two teens forced to wear panties on head by sadistic vixen.

7 I think the world should know...

I'm a mild mannered,Phd Molecular biologist

by day..

A devious, raving Aye-rhab hating infidel

by night...

I already have the virus ready!

There is a key component in the

brain chemistry of the beaten and cowed

followers of Islam.

Same said component makes this slightly modified

Rhino virus...very deadly.

They will sneeze themselves to death!

Tsk!!!!!!

8 I think I just read that book.

9 Change of topic:

Whats up [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] with MSM? [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] They'll show pics of humilated [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] Arab terrorists with panties on their heads,
[Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] But the panzy ass fuckwits [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] refuse to broadcast videos and pics which reveal how evil and deadly our Muslime enemys are.

10 You dignify them by calling them "insurgent soldiers." They are terrorists, and nothing more.

11 As many have aptly pointed out, not only has this Jihad by Islam been thrust upon us and the West by the events of 9/11 as we sat literally “sucking our thumbs,” complaisant in our “Secular Progressive, Multi-Cultural, Politically Correct, Fairy Tales and Fantasies” of our own creation, that subsequent events have dismally proven exceedingly naive and wrong, such as the continuing riots, death, and destruction over the Mohammed caricatures, or the “Democratic Election” of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, and other events which are being fueled exponentially by an ever more blatant and open “Culture War” on the part of Islam to overthrow Western Democratic Values, and have them replaced with a worldwide Caliphate; but we are also presently beset by those within our own society, who still immersed in the Leftist, Socialistic opiate of the aforementioned “Fairy Tales,” openly fight against the War on Terror, undermine it in every way they can every step of the way, wish to dismantle our Military as San Francisco Board of Supervisors Gerardo Sandoval told the Nation on an interview with Shaun Hannity the other night, that wish that we would loose in Iraq irregardless of the young men and women of our military who have sacrificed their lives in this endeavor to free Iraqis and the rest of the world from Saddam, and call for our defeat and to cut and run, like Howard Dean and Congressman John Murtha, those who proudly hail their having “Filibustered” the extension of the Patriot Act a “victory” like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, those who consistently oppose and relentlessly undermine every action of the Administration like Nancy Pelosi, or who wish to tie the governments hands in fighting terrorism while “championing” the rights of the terrorists to the point of being their most ardent allies such as Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin and all the rest of their above demagogue ilk, who form a veritable “Fifth Column” in our midst, with the help of the Left leaning, biased, Mainstream Media, which of course will not publish the pictures of the horrors that took place in Saddam’s prisons, much less publish such pictures as those appearing in Jawa about any of the executions, tortures, and all the barbarity that is proudly carried by the Islamist terrorists in front of cameras and then swiftly disseminated through the airwaves by Aljazeera all over the Muslim world, lest, as with the Mohammed cartoons, they offend “Muslim sensitivities”! We are waging a War on Terror, and “Cultural Wars” on two fronts, and one of our enemies lives amongst us!


The irony about how “selectively” our Mainstream Media chooses which pictures to air, and make a whole lot of hooplah about, is that while for days now CNN, along with most other major American news outlets, has literally cowered, and failed to show solidarity with their brethren news outlets and publications in Europe (who have had the courage to do so), and to stand up for "Freedom of Speech, and of Expression," repeatedly refusing to show the controversial Mohammed Danish cartoons, claiming that they did not want to “add more fuel to the fire” in a plethora of Wolf Blitzer “apologia,” no sooner had new pictures of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal been made public by some “sleazy” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, than Paula Zahn had it on her show within hours, complete with “dissident ex-serviceman” bashing our Military et al, without the least apparent qualm about any consequences: the lives it would cost, as happened with the first round of Abu Ghraib pictures with Nicholas Berg, or how many more of our Servicemen will be exposed to greater danger, and be killed as a result! That, even in the face of the fact that it is not breaking news, that the case has been exhaustively investigated by the Pentagon and the Military, and all those that were involved in the scandal have been courtmarshalled, disciplined, reprimanded, or demoted!


I must say, that for CNN, Paula Zahn, and her fellow pundits, who were so overly "concerned" with accommodating Muslim sensitivities: “barbarity” and “intolerance,” when it came to showing innocuous Danish cartoons of Mohammed, to propagate these new Abu Ghraib pictures, which at any rate just basically show more of the same as those already published, is nothing but an abhorrent exercise in “ journalistic pornography,” and is totally unconscionable!!!


Perhaps the real reason that CNN, Blitzer, and Zahn did not wish to risk showing the pictures of the Mohammed cartoons was that they did not want to run the risk of being “personally” targeted, and their lives endangered by irate Islamists, for doing so, and so they hid under their desks.


But now, they scrambled to show the Abu Ghraib pictures, which they believe boosts their Liberal biased “political perspective” against the Administration and its policies, while generally not placing “THEIR” lives in danger (after all, how can it, since with it they aid the “Islamist Propaganda machinery, and Al Qaida?”), yet places the lives of our soldiers, and others working in Iraq, at greater risk. After all, if as a result of these pictures there are more American casualties, wouldn’t that also bolster their position of blaming it on what CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour openly calls the “failed policies of the Administration in Iraq” ?!?!


The blood of every US casualty, every civilian death, and every beheading that results from Paula Zahn and CNN enthusiastically, needlessly, helping to disseminate these new Abu Ghraib pictures is on their hands!!!


How can we be expected to win the War on Terror with such amongst us?!?!

It is appalling!!!

Althor

12 Hey Wonderduck,

you the same duck from RW sparkle?

13 The leftist whiners consider them to be soldiers, so the whiners should also expect those soldiers to follow the same rules they expect our soldiers to follow. But they don't. Because they are on their side.

14 Apparently, MSM doesn't want the public to see evidence of the vicious terrorist IslamOfascist Monkees brutally torturing, killing and beheading their fellow Muslims. Men, women and children.

On practically a daily basis.

You see, if more of the masses saw these disgusting photos, more of the masses would start to realize how uncompromising and purely evil these murderous IslaMO Monkee scum truely are.

They would start to see the wisdom in working to annihalate ALL of them. Destroy them all without prejudice. They are scourge, they are a disease, these viscious killer monkees, they must all burn on Earth before Hell gets a shot at them.

Anybody who feels these monkees have any legitimacy at all is either a total fool, just plain ignorant, or one of the terrorists themselves, or their enthusiastic supporters.

If only we could lead these Jihadist Head-Chopping Monkees, and only them, all to one big isolated area...let them call it their own country.

It would probably take less than 24 hours before they committed and act of war, then the country could 'simply' be nuked.

It is us or them! GOT IT?

COMPRENDE???

15 In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.

16 Yeah, these photos and acts are all terrible. The people perpetrating the murders you show, and those yet unshown, should be brought to justice swiftly.
That said, I'm one of those sillys who think America's soldiers should hold themselves to a higher standard. These photos have nothing to do with the well documented allegations of torture perpetrated by poorly supervised soldiers at Abu-Ghraib, gitmo, and Bagram. Pointing out another horror doesn't detract from the one already before you. Except to make those of us with the ability to reason wish that our soldiers were using effective means of info-extraction rather than torture to gain the information necessary to bring the people you point out here to account.

17 Can't some cable media be convinced to show these photos?? There must be a way to show these!!!
R.Taylor

18 The media sympathizes with the enemy, so they make excuses for all their many and barbaric atrocities. But they don't cut US any slack at all. I have sweet dreams at night of terrorists kidnapping embedded reporters and slicing their fucking heads off. I always wake up happy after those dreams.

And I'm a girl.

19 The media doesn't show the savage acts of our enemy for 1 reasons: they want us to lose the war. So they show photos that will incite our enemy, but they won't show photos that will incite Americans because that might steel our resolve and we might fight the war to win it.

20 By comparing the brutal acts of terrorist savages with our soldiers, we set the bar at the level of the terrorists. This is unwise, to say the least, when we are engaged in a war in which winning hearts and minds is literally everything. We must assume a profoundly moral high ground. Nearly all the Abu Ghraib victims were later released from prison, having been rounded up en masse. Most committed no crimes. And even if they had committed crimes, does it make us look god to inflict such wanton cruelty on them? Of course on a Cruelty Scale of 1 to 10, it may score only a 6, compared with the terrorists' 10. But that's still way too high a score. When we need the world to be with us and not against us, this is counterproductive in the extreme. We are there to liberate these people, not harm them in any way. These were not Al Qaeda terrorists, they were mainly innocent men and women, many teenagers. If you think it's okay to rape rape and wound them, you are entitled. but this is not what America stands for, and to simplistically say that the terrorists do worse things is hardly a reasonable argument. We are supposed to be better.

21 Richard,

The problem with your "High and Haughty" road of "American Higher Morality" is that when we capture these people that have committed these heinous barbarities as shoiwn in the above pictures we do not do the world a favor and eradicate them from the face of the earth, but on the contrary, we take them prisoners, and keep, them in Guantanamo in climate controlled conditions, with amenities, and Chicken Terriyaki dinners, which to the likes of Senators Kennedy, Durbin and their ilk, or United Nations' "Secretary General of Pilferage and Corruption" Kofi Anam and his anti-American brethren, is nothing but "sheer, inhuman, torture,"

We can't fight these monsters with our hands tied behind our back as we are, second guessing every move, just parading our soldiers down the "Death Alleys" of Iraqi cities as if they were "target ducks" in a carnival, for the amusement, and target practice of these animals. We should be waging the war more "agressively," retaliating to their barbarity with appropriate military harshness, not "pussy-footing" around the way we are!

We have to stop being, such "idealist" fools, and "bleeding hearts," and realize that this is a brutal enemy which despises, and does not value in the least human life, not even that of their own, or of themselves, and that therefore we have to deal with them accordingly, lest we all perish, or are overrun!

You and others of your persuation, especially in Washington, should stop "whining" from your "High Moral Ground" of self-congratulatory "conceit," and face reality in a more pragmatic way... before it is too late for us all!!!

Althor

22 Well, as a poster upthread makes abundantly clear, American troops DO hold themselves to a higher standard, and American troops turned in the original Abu Ghraib deviants!

And they'll STILL hold themselves to a higher moral and actual standard than the Isalamizoids! America's soldiers aren't all Baha'is, but they certainly act as rationally and as morally acceptably as the Followers of the Glory of God!

23 get out of iraq everything will be fine us uk armys rape little girls andkill them

24 get out of iraq everything will be fine us uk armys rape little girls andkill them kill kill kill and be killed

25 Again Althor, I'm all for tratoing monsters and barbarians with the forces that's necessary. But as I said, most of those in Abu Ghraib were there by accident and were release by the US army, which acknnowledged they had done no wrong. We can't terrorize all brown people. Remember, we are there to liberate them. If they are not worth helping and not deserving of our compassion, what are we doing there? What are we dying for?

26 Yeah, these photos and acts are all terrible. The people perpetrating the murders you show, and those yet unshown, should be brought to justice swiftly.

Ok, so Libs want a "higher" standard of morality for our troops. Big woop dee doo. So do we all.

But that still doesn't explain why the MSM avoids printing these pictures. The reason is simple:

"The media doesn't show the savage acts of our enemy for 1 reason: they want us to lose the war. So they show photos that will incite our enemy, but they won't show photos that will incite Americans because that might steel our resolve and we might fight the war to win it."

--Rachel

27 I agree with Althor. "Freedom," "justice" and "decency" are pussy-ass ideals that make America weak. Truth is, we need to become even MORE ruthless and savage than our enemies, in order to prove our righteousness and worthiness to survive.

And to hell with nuking a "Muslim" nation. Let's vaporize a totally innocent country -- like Lichtenstein -- just to show the Islamist scum we're even CRAZIER than they are...and we mean business.

Screw this "beacon of liberty" crap. Our so-called "ideals" are for old women and bedwetters. Frankly, I'd rather be "alive" than be an "American."

28 kuniyat,

how bout screw your clumsy attempts at irony and humour.

29 These are obvious Zionist provocations and falsities. All the world knows that the Jihadists are humane strugglers against the Imperialism of the Jews and Bush. These are lies, all lies. Place more photos of the evil Americans torturing the poor innocent Iraqi people at Abu Ghraib. Show us photos of the President of Iraq, Mr. Saddam Hussein, being tried in a kangaroo court run by Jews and Americans.

30 What irony?

31 RE:
The Geneva Conventions include Protocol 1, added in 1977 but not ratified by the U.S., Iraq or Afghanistan. It mentions that all parties in a conflict must respect victims' remains, though doesn't mention the photographing of dead bodies.

a true incident:
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050920glaser/

relating articles:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051026/NEWS/510260382

32 I look at what is happening in Kurdistan, and the future that the leaders there have in mind for their people, and I am enheartened.

Then I look at the rest of the Middle East, and there is nothing but hate, violence, and radicalism. What is the real shame in all this is that the Middle East could be a paradise on Earth, if the people there would just quit hating and get a vision of what they COULD accomplish without radical Islam.

Look to Kurdistan Arabs and see what you could become if you really wanted to. You are the only thing holding yourself back.

33 Dear moron:

The reason the UN is not demanding an investigation into murders by Islamofascists is because Islamofascists do not hold seats in the UN.

You are unbelievably, almost impossibly, ignorant. Your ignorance is all-emcompassing. It is simply awesome in its scope.

Say that there were an Islamofascist seat at the UN. What possible bearing would THEIR behavior have on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of ours?

Further, since when did we look to Islamist fascists for guidance on questions of ethical wartime behavior?

This isn't a difference of opinion. This is basic moral reasoning and you're apparently incapable of exercising it. You are a fool.

34 SP,

It takes one to know one.

35 Dr. Rusty Shackleford decides that extremist killers are no longer either terrorists or insurgents but soldiers! If a lefty did that the wingnuts would have conniptions but he's bending the usual rhetoric all out of shape so he can try to counterspin the recent Abu Graib photos, so that's OK, right?

Hey Rusty, does that mean the detainees have Geneva Convention rights or is it OK if America descends to the lowest pit of it's enemies' vileness too?

The argument that "others do it so it is OK if I (or we)do it too" as forwarded by many of your commenters is a typical argument from moral paucity exhibited by sociopaths. It can be used to "justify" everything from driving while drunk to serial rape and murder. It only works if you don't understand the difference between right and wrong, though.

-C

36 These photos would, if widely shown, only ADD to the anti-Americanism currently sweeping the planet, because they would be perceived as yet more evidence that we have - either contrary to naive intentions, or deliberately, depending on your ideological predisposition - unleashed hell in Iraq.

The PR battle is lost.

37 Did I miss the part of the post were Rusty said:

"Terrorists are beheading civilians in Iraq, so we should do the same"

"Terrorists create false trials, and execute, we should do the same if they're captured."

It isn't about moral equivalency, or "What we did isn't so bad, look what the real bad guys do" the entry simply compares how the media does not publish any photographs of victims of terrorists/insurgents, does not talk about "two Iraqi's civilians were beheaded by terrorists" or "civilians kidnapped and shot" but spends weeks talking about how Soldiers abused prisoners, Soldiers who were turned in by their own, have since been tried and sentenced for their crimes, the media runs photograph after photograph of the explicit violence metered out by rogue Soldiers and then claims that pictures of the aftermath of Nick Burg, et al. are to explicit to air.

38 Hey guys, let's remember, Muslims are not the enemy here, just the murderous religious psychopaths and the brutal wannabe dictators.

The Kurds, who are Sunni Muslims, LOVE America. As Michael Totten put it, the Kurdish areas of Iraq are mor pro-American than America.

39 SP,

that's great. Now tell us why the MSM refuses to print pictures and run video of enemy atrocities.

40 its very simple. Gentlemen 'discuss' issues, animals fight. When animals fight, there are no rules.

I think the biggest mistake the coalition forces made was not dis-arming EVERYBODY. If they want to get a handle on this insurgent fighter problem, they should announce a new type of curfew: If you have a weapon of any kind, you are open season. that goes for weapons found in homes, garages or burried in the yard. Peaceful Iraqi's don't need guns at this point in time. They can re-aquire them after the country is at peace. In the meantime, weapon=corpse. No exceptions.

Also, I'm kinda curious about the roadside bombs too. Are they remotely detonated, or proximity triggered? If its the latter, a well-armoured vehicle in the front of each convoy with explosive-detecting equipment should help. If they are remotely detonated, why can't jamming equipment be used? a massive high-powered jamming signal could interrupt the remote detonation of the bombs. Just a thought.

41 JC

Because it would present a broader truer picture of the reality of all this. We can't have that now, can we?

42 Jesusland Carlos:
I'm sure the reasoning is that the pictures and videos of the enemy atrocities are much more graphic. For all of the horrible, war-losing, credibility-destroying, anti-American acts being depicted in the Abu-Ghraib footage and pictures, none of it involves anything as bad as a beheading. Which is commendable in a "well you punched a nine year old girl in the face, but at least you didn't stab her" sort of way.

43 jamming equipment was deployed.

44 "seriously?"
more graphic? no one is asking publishing someone as their head is being sawed off, however Rusty has posted things that do not contain graphic violence until the very end.
Examples that come to mind would be the downed pilot who was made to get on to his feet before being executed.
The two Iraqi men you see here in their video before being beheaded for being apostates.
Several mass executions of Iraqi national guardsmen who were made to kneel after watching one of them being beheaded while the others were shot in the head one at a time (same with the Nepalese)
This somehow is less graphic than for example naked iraqi pyramids, mock fellatio, blooded prisoners, dead Iraqi's in a bodybag on ice or punches being thrown on naked prisoners on the ground etc?

please.

45 I'm curious. If news outlets publish those photos of hostages, are they guilty of broadcasting 'the bad news?' I understand the frustration about ongoing publication of US abuse photos, obviously. Still, we're a democracy holding ourselves up as an inspiration to the rest of the world; is comparing ourselves to these guys and saying, 'Hey! They do worse stuff!' the proper response?

46 I'm curious. If news outlets publish those photos of hostages, are they guilty of broadcasting 'the bad news?'
Do you watch the news? these are the same people that gave you the "Grim milestone" run ups, waiting for the quota to be filled.
Still, we're a democracy holding ourselves up as an inspiration to the rest of the world
How do old pictures, that people have been tried and sentenced for inspire the world? did I miss something?

47 Slippery Pete,

The question you refuse to ask yourself is just what are you prepared to do to protect your country and your way of life. Apparently you are not prepared to do much.

This is not a Kumbaya choral group we are facing in the Al Qaeda and the Islamofascists. These are people who are prepared to do anything to kill you and the rest of us. If you are not willing to look at the photos of what they are doing right now and compare that to the photos of what went on at Abu Ghraib and see that there is a fundamental difference, then you do not deserve to have the kind of life you are now leading. These people have told us over and over and shown us over and over what they will do and you still stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them. Pitiful!!

48 JC -

The reason the "MSM" runs (some) US atrocity pictures but not videos of Islamofascists beheading people is that the latter is far more graphic. They never show videotape that graphic, no matter who's committing atrocities against whom.

Obviously you've already signed onto some kind of weird, paranoid conspiracy theory wherein the US media secretly wish for the downfall of American because they hate it and love Islamic fascists. I can see what you're getting at.

There's another reason the "MSM" (what a stupid term) focuses on American abuses. It's because everybody expects Islamic fascists to act like fascists. Until recently, nobody expected US personnel to act that way. It's a classic man-bites-dog story. I find it telling that certain elements of the right don't see it that way, if you know what I mean (and - let's be frank - you probably don't).

(PS: the most recent photos were published in Australian newspapers, if I'm not mistaken. Plus Salon, which is hardly "MSM")

49 dave:
Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with any media outlets publishing any of these photos or videos. I can see their reasons for not doing so, but it wouldn't bother me a bit if they did. The more info the better. Though I'm a liberal, I agree that the mainstream media generally does a piss poor job of laying out all of the facts relevant to forming a coherent opninion on a variety of issues. Although, even with perfect information at everyone's disposal, I'm not sure a lot of folks have the reasoning ability for it to do any good. Witness the tendency of people to start screaming about kidnappings and beheadings when some western news agency has the gall to publish photos of American soldiers torturing the prisoners under their watch. Yes, these beheadings, kidnappings, and generally brutal acts are horrifying, but, they are a separate issue.

50 dick:

Yup, they are brutal and ruthless and want you and me and everyone we know and love dead. I want them stopped. I just don't think torturing prisoners gets that done. In fact, I think it swells the terrorists' ranks and provides crap information that our military and intelligence personnel have to waste time and money on.
Beyond that, there is a moral highground that this country (and to a lesser extent western civilization) has always aspired to. Which is precisely the reason I want those that wish it harmed stopped in as effective a way as possible. We abandon our highest aspirations when we excuse the torture of prisoners.

51 The "too graphic" excuse is too lame. That problem could be solved by simply pixelating the pictures, JUST LIKE THE COWARDLY MSM PIXELATED PICTURES OF MOHAMMED.

52 >>>It's because everybody expects Islamic fascists to act like fascists.

SP,

Really? If that's the case, why does Michael Moore call them "minutemen" and "the revolution"?

In fact, the further Left of the political spectrum you go, the more they tell us America is to blame for the world's misery and these islamic fascists are just "victims" of "colonialism."

No, the MSM doesn't go that far, granted. They merely refrain from telling the whole story. Why? I think it's for the reasons we've already stated. They don't want to inflame American passions in favor of the war. It doesn't suit their agenda.

53 Jesusland Carlos:
I think you're on to something here...So the reason Donald Rumsfeld refused to send enough troops in to secure the weapons caches and keep the peace after the initial invasion was because he didn't want to inflame American passions in favor of the war...he's a leftist plant!
Please. The abysmal conduct of this war is what's been reducing support of it.

54 Of course, anyone with any knowledge of the origins of the Iraq War knows that it was cooked up by Neocons who are almost all Jewish extremist supporters of Israel. The four leading promoters of America going to war against Iraq were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. All four are Jewish supporters of the radical Likud party in Israel. Perle, Feith, and Wurmser wrote a strategic paper for the foreign government of Israel and Benjiman Netanyahu in 1996 called A “Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although these men became the framers of the American Iraq War policy, the paper they wrote was about securing Israel's realm by fostering war against Iraq and ultimately Syria and Iran. The paper suggests that Israel's way to destroy Damascus (Syria) is through Baghdad.

The problem they faced was that it would be hard to get Americans to pay the tremendous price of the Iraq war for Israel. Would Americans be willing to have thousands killed, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars expense and the spawning of worldwide hatred of America for Israel's ability to dominate the Mideast? Of course not, so they produced the lie about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and the lie that Baghdad was an imminent threat to America. Hardly a mention was made of Israel.

The whole process was supported by key Jewish supremacists in different parts of the American intelligence establishment. For instance the man who was in charge of the Iraq Intelligence section of the CIA was Stuart Cohen, a radical Jewish Israeli advocate. Here is quote from ABC when Cohen was defending his intelligence reports on the Iraq “weapons of mass destruction.”

Sunday, November 30, 2003. 12:46pm (AEDT)
CIA admits lack of specifics on Iraqi weapons before invasion


The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has acknowledged it “lacked specific information” about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled an intelligence estimate last year that served to justify the US-led invasion of Iraq.

However, an explanation issued over the weekend by veteran CIA analyst Stuart Cohen, who was in charge of putting together the 2002 intelligence estimate and currently serves as vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, …

We now even know from an Associated Press Article (thanks to an Israeli intelligence chief) that Israel itself provided a lot of the bogus data on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Associated Press December 4, 2003
Israeli General Derides Findings on Iraq
by Peter Enav - Associated Press Writer

“JERUSALEM – A former Israeli intelligence officer charged Thursday that Israeli agencies produced a flawed picture of Iraqi weapons capabilities and substantially contributed to mistakes made in U.S. and British pre-war assessments on Iraq.

The comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom represented an unusual criticism of the Israeli intelligence community, long regarded as one of the world's best. Prior to his retirement in 1998, Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as the deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army…

Is it anti-Semitic to point out these facts? Is it anti-Semitic to point out that the most powerful lobby in the United States Congress (AIPAC) is actually for a foreign country: Israel! It is right now in the midst a huge scandal because of its espionage against the United States of America. Is it anti-Semitic to state that the most powerful lobby in America worked tirelessly for the war against Iraq.

Not only were the fingerprints of Israel all over the intelligence and government agencies, they are all over America's free press. The two most powerful newspapers in the United States (and both supported the war wholeheartedly) are the NY Times and the Washington Post. Of course, being the main newspaper read by almost every member of the U.S. Government in Washington, DC, the Post has huge influence on politics.

Both papers are thoroughly controlled by Jewish supremacists. In fact, in replying to the article that attacked Representative Conyers, Mr. Conyers had to complain to the Chief Editor Mr. Abramowitz and chief Ombudsman, Mr. Getler. It is this same paper that suggests telling the truth about Israel is “anti-Semitism.” It is this same paper that drove Howard Dean to attack those who told the truth about Israel and the Iraq War.

And its not just the Post or the Times. Thousands of other newspapers and most of the media conglomerates are dominated by Jewish radicals. Here's a quote from one of the leading Jewish newspapers in America on the subject, the Los Angeles Jewish Times:

Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch's News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout – however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.” (Los Angeles Jewish Times Oct. 29. 1999) [other sources claim Murdoch's mother, Elisabeth J. Greene, is Jewish]

Is it anti-Semitic to state these obvious facts showing the relation of Jewish-dominated media to this disastrous war.

Finally, Dean criticized the fact that some leaflets distributed at the DNC claimed that Israel was behind the 911 attack. Very few claim that Israel arranged for the attacks themselves, but there can be little doubt that the attacks took place in direct relation to our Israel-hijacked Mideast policy. Even Osama bin Laden himself said clearly that his anger toward America was primarily because of America's support for Israel's criminal actions. He said this in numerous media interviews before the trade center attacks.

But, in the wake of the attacks, these facts were ignored. The pro-Israel media and forces in government, including Bush's main speech writer at the time, David Frum, went out of their way to proclaim that America was attacked because they hated our democracy, our freedom! Well, they didn't attack the longest standing democracies in the world, Switzerland or Iceland!

If Americans realized we faced such an atrocious tragedy because of Israel's nefarious control of our foreign policy too many Americans might ask a very good question – Is supporting the criminal activities of Israel really worth it?

The Jewish supremacists cannot afford that question to be asked, because the answer is just too obvious.

Is it anti-Semitic to tell the truth about why so much of the world hates America?

55 Wow. It's raining bullshit from all sides...

56 Cleanup on Isle 1:
Jewish conspiracy feces dropped everywhere, please bring mop.

57 The war on Iraq:
Conceived in Israel

By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI

© 2003 WTM Enterprises
All rights reserved.



In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote,


It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state. [1]
Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to get the United States to fight for their interests?

To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel.

Although the term neoconservative is in common usage, a brief description of the group might be helpful. Many of the first-generation neocons originally were liberal Democrats, or even socialists and Marxists, often Trotskyites. They drifted to the right in the 1960s and 1970s as the Democratic Party moved to the antiwar McGovernite left. And concern for Israel loomed large in that rightward drift. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg puts it:


One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel's security. [2]
For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext. The idea that neocons are the motivating force behind the U.S. movement for war has been broached by a number of commentators. For instance, Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington Monthly titled: "Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy." And in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote:


The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him. But the style is the same." [3]
In the following essay I attempt to flesh out that thesis and show the link between the war position of the neoconservatives and the long-time strategy of the Israeli Right, if not of the Israeli mainstream itself. In brief, the idea of a Middle East war has been bandied about in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security, which revolves around an ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem.



War and expulsion

To understand why Israeli leaders would want a Middle East war, it is first necessary to take a brief look at the history of the Zionist movement and its goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the idea of expelling (or, in the accepted euphemism, "transferring") the indigenous Palestinian population was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. Historian Tom Segev writes:


The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary. In practice, the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants.... "Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer — or its morality.
However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]

The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out — a whole world is lost." [5] The "revolutionary times" would come with the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists were able to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the indigenous population), and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish state, though its area did not include the entirety of Palestine, or the "Land of Israel," which Zionist leaders thought necessary for a viable state.

The opportunity to grab additional land occurred as a result of the 1967 war; however, that occupation brought with it the problem of a large Palestinian population. By that time world opinion was totally opposed to forced population transfers, equating such a policy with the unspeakable horror of Nazism. The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, had "unequivocally prohibited deportation" of civilians under occupation. [6] Since the 1967 war, the major question in Israeli politics has been: What to do with that territory and its Palestinian population?

It was during the 1980s, with the coming to power of the right-wing Likud government, that the idea of expulsion resurfaced publicly. And this time it was directly tied to a larger war, with destabilization of the Middle East seen as a precondition for Palestinian expulsion. Such a proposal, including removal of the Palestinian population, was outlined in an article by Oded Yinon, titled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," appearing in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982. Yinon had been attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The article called for Israel to bring about the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings. Thinking along those lines, Ariel Sharon stated on March 24, 1988, that if the Palestinian uprising continued, Israel would have to make war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide "the circumstances" for the removal of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside Israel proper. [7]

Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi critiqued the war/expulsion scenario — referring to "Israeli intentions to impose a Pax Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat them harshly" — in his very significant work, Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal, given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the weakest Arab state — Lebanon — will disabuse people of similar ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to achieve the overall goal.



U.S. Realpolitik

In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to befriend Israel — in fact they could openly oppose the Jewish state. The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate the demands of the Muslim nations — most crucially their demands involving the Palestinians.

Pursuing its policy of ensuring the security of Middle East oil supplies, by the mid 1980s Washington was heavily supporting Iraq in her war against Iran, although for a while the United States had also provided some aid to Iran (viz. the Iran-contra scandal). Ironically, Donald Rumsfeld was the U.S. envoy who in 1983 paved the way for the restoration of relations with Iraq, relations which had been severed in 1967. The United States along with other Western nations looked upon Iraq as a bulwark against the radical Islamism of the Ayatollah's Iran, which threatened Western oil interests. U.S. support for Iraq included intelligence information, military equipment, and agricultural credits. And the United States deployed the largest naval force since the Vietnam War in the Persian Gulf. Ostensibly sent for the purpose of protecting oil tankers, it ended up engaging in serious attacks on Iran's navy.

It was during this period of U.S. support that Iraq used poison gas against the Iranians and the Kurds, a tactic that the U.S. government and its media supporters now describe as so horrendous. In fact, U.S. intelligence facilitated the Iraqi use of gas against the Iranians. In addition, Washington eased up on its own technology export restrictions to Iraq, which allowed the Iraqis to import supercomputers, machine tools, poisonous chemicals, and even strains of anthrax and bubonic plague. In short, the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weaponry of horror that administration officials are now trumpeting as justification for forcibly removing Saddam from power. [9]

When the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988, the United States continued its support for Iraq, showering her with military hardware, advanced technology, and agricultural credits. The United States apparently looked to Saddam to maintain stability in the Gulf. But American policy swiftly changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Neoconservatives were hawkish in generating support for a U.S. war against Iraq. The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, headed by Richard Perle, was set up to promote the war. [10] And neoconservative war hawks such as Perle, Frank Gaffney, Jr., A.M. Rosenthal, William Safire, and The Wall Street Journal held that America's war objective should be not simply to drive Iraq out of Kuwait but also to destroy Iraq's military potential, especially her capacity to develop nuclear weapons. The first Bush administration embraced that position. [11]

But beyond that, the neocons hoped that the war would lead to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the American occupation of Iraq. However, despite the urgings of then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the full conquest of Iraq was never accomplished because of the opposition of General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, the field commander. [12] Moreover, the United States had a UN mandate only to liberate Kuwait, not to remove Saddam. To attempt the latter would have caused the U.S.-led coalition to fall apart. America's coalition partners in the region, especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia, feared that the elimination of Saddam's government would cause Iraq to fragment into warring ethnic and religious groups. That could have involved a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq that would have spread to Turkey's own restive Kurdish population. Furthermore, Iraq's Shiites might have fallen under the influence of Iran, increasing the threat of Islamic radicalism in the region.


Not only did the Bush administration dash neoconservative hopes by leaving Saddam in place, but its proposed "New World Order," as implemented by Secretary of State James Baker, conflicted with neoconservative/Israeli goals, being oriented toward placating the Arab coalition that supported the war. That entailed an effort to curb Israeli control of her occupied territories. The Bush administration demanded that Israel halt the construction of new settlements in the occupied territories as a condition for receiving $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel's resettlement of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Although Bush would cave in to American pro-Zionist pressure just prior to the November 1992 election, his resistance disaffected many neocons, causing some, such as Safire, to back Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. [13]
The network

During the Clinton administration, neoconservatives promoted their views from a strong interlocking network of think tanks — the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Center for Security Policy (CSP) — which have had great influence in the media and which have helped to staff Republican administrations. Some of the organizations were originally set up by mainline conservatives and only later taken over by neoconservatives; [14] others were established by neocons, with some of the groups having a direct Israeli connection. For example, Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, was a co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri). And the various organizations have been closely interconnected. For example, the other co-founder of Memri, Meyrav Wurmser, was a member of the Hudson Institute, while her husband, David Wurmser, headed the Middle East studies department of AEI. And Perle was both a "resident fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a trustee of the Hudson Institute. [15]

In a recent article in the The Nation, Jason Vest discusses the immense influence in the current Bush administration of people from two major neocon research organizations, JINSA and CSP. Vest details the close links among the two organizations, right-wing politicians, arms merchants, military men, Jewish billionaires, and Republican administrations. [16]

Regarding JINSA, Vest writes:


Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush administration, JINSA's board of advisors included such heavy hitters as Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas J. Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow, and [Michael] Ledeen — Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis. [17]
Vest notes that "dozens" of JINSA and CSP "members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general — into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core." And Vest continues: "On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but 'total war,' as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, 'regime change' by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative." [18]

Let's recapitulate Vest's major points. The JINSA/CSP network has "support for the Israeli right at its core." In line with the views of the Israeli right, it has advocated a Middle Eastern war to eliminate the enemies of Israel. And members of the JINSA/CSP network have gained influential foreign policy positions in Republican administrations, most especially in the current administration of George W. Bush.



"Securing the realm"

A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking on war on Iraq is a 1996 paper developed by Perle, Feith, David Wurmser, and others published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, titled "A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm." It was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper stated that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan whereby Israel would "shape its strategic environment," beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. [19]

Note that these Americans — Perle, Feith, and Wurmser — were advising a foreign government and that they currently are connected to the George W. Bush administration: Perle is head of the Defense Policy Board; Feith is Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Wurmser is special assistant to State Department chief arms control negotiator John Bolton. It is also remarkable that while in 1996 Israel was to "shape its strategic environment" by removing her enemies, the same individuals are now proposing that the United States shape the Middle East environment by removing Israel's enemies. That is to say, the United States is to serve as Israel's proxy to advance Israeli interests.

On February 19, 1998, in an "Open Letter to the President," the neoconservative Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf proposed "a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime." The letter continued: "It will not be easy — and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to [adopt such a strategy]." Among the letter's signers were the following current Bush administration officials: Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State Department), Bolton (State Department), Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David Wurmser (State Department), Dov Zakheim (Defense Department), Perle (Defense Policy Board), and Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense). [20] In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld was part of the neocon network and already demanding war with Iraq. [21]

Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist and neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney (Director, Center for Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (editor-in-chief, The New Republic), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic), and former Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.). [22] President Clinton would only go so far as to support the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated $97 million dollars for training and military equipment for the Iraqi opposition. [23]

In September 2000, the neocon think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) [24] issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," that envisioned an expanded global posture for the United States. In regard to the Middle East, the report called for an increased American military presence in the Gulf, whether Saddam was in power or not., maintaining that "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." [25] The project's participants included individuals who would play leading roles in the second Bush administration: Cheney (Vice President), Rumsfeld (secretary of defense), Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense), and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). Weekly Standard editor William Kristol was also a co-author.

In order to directly influence White House policy, Wolfowitz and Perle managed to obtain leading roles on the Bush foreign policy/national security advisory team for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet specialist Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as "the Vulcans." Having no direct experience in foreign policy and little knowledge of the world, as illustrated by his notorious gaffes — confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring to Greeks as "Grecians," and failing a pop quiz on the names of four foreign leaders — George W. Bush would have to rely heavily on his advisors.

"His foreign policy team," Kagan observed, "will be critically important to determining what his policies are." And columnist Robert Novak noted: "Since Rice lacks a clear track record on Middle East matters, Wolfowitz and Perle will probably weigh in most on Middle East policy." [26] In short, Wolfowitz and Perle would provide the know-nothing Bush with a ready-made foreign policy for the Middle East. And certainly such right-wing Zionist views would be reinforced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the multitude of other neocons who would inundate Bush's administration.

Neocons would fill the key positions involving defense and foreign policy. On Rumsfeld's staff are Wolfowitz and Feith. On Cheney's staff, the principal neoconservatives include Libby, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah. And Cheney himself, with his long-time neocon connections and views, has played a significant role in shaping "Bush" foreign policy. [27]



A Perle among men

Perle is often described as the most influential foreign-policy neoconservative, their eminence grise.[28] He gained notice in the 1970s as a top aide to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.), who was one of the Senate's most anti-Communist and pro-Israeli members. During the 1980s, Perle served as deputy secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, where his hard-line anti-Soviet positions, especially his opposition to any form of arms control, earned him the moniker "Prince of Darkness" from his enemies. However, his friends considered him, as one put it, "one of the most wonderful people in Washington." That Perle is known as a man of great intellect, a gracious and generous host, a witty companion, and a loyal ally helps to explain his prestige in neoconservative circles. [29]

Perle isn't just an exponent of pro-Zionist views; he has also had close connections with Israel, being a personal friend of Sharon's, a board member of the Jerusalem Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam. According to author Seymour M. Hersh, while Perle was a congressional aide for Jackson, FBI wiretaps picked up Perle providing classified information from the National Security Council to the Israeli embassy. [30]

Although not technically part of the Bush administration, Perle holds the unpaid chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board. In that position, Perle has access to classified documents and close contacts with the administration leadership. As an article in Salon puts it: "Formerly an obscure civilian board designed to provide the secretary of defense with non-binding advice on a whole range of military issues, the Defense Policy Board, now stacked with unabashed Iraq hawks, has become a quasi-lobbying organization whose primary objective appears to be waging war with Iraq." [31]



"Actions inconceivable at present"

As Bush and his people came into office in January 2001, press reports in Israel quoted government officials and politicians speaking openly of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel in February 2001; noted for his ruthlessness, he had said in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian state where Palestinians removed from Israeli territory would be relocated. [32] Public concern was mounting in Israel over demographic changes that threatened the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. Haifa University professor Arnon Sofer released the study, "Demography of Eretz Israel," which predicted that by 2020 non-Jews would be a majority of 58 percent in Israel and the occupied territories. [33] Moreover, it was recognized that the overall increase in population would exceed what the land, with its limited supply of water, could support. [34]

It appeared to some that Sharon intended to achieve expulsion through militant means. As one left-wing analyst put it at the time: "One big war with transfer at its end — this is the plan of the hawks who indeed almost reached the moment of its implementation." [35] In the summer of 2001, the authoritative Jane's Information Group reported that Israel had completed the planning for a massive and bloody invasion of the Occupied Territories, involving "air strikes by F-15 and F-16 fighter bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment, and then an attack by a combined force of 30,000 men ... tank brigades and infantry." Such bold strikes would aim at far more than simply removing Arafat and the PLO leadership. But the United States vetoed the plan, and Europe made its opposition to Sharon's plans equally plain. [36]

As one close observer of the Israeli-Palestinian scene presciently wrote in August 2001, "It is only in the current political climate that such expulsion plans cannot be put into operation. As hot as the political climate is at the moment, clearly the time is not yet ripe for drastic action. However, if the temperature were raised even higher, actions inconceivable at present might be possible." [37] Once again, "revolutionary times" were necessary for Israel to achieve its policy goals. And then came the September 11 attacks.



Revolutionary September

The September 11 atrocities provided the "revolutionary times" in which Israel could undertake radical measures unacceptable during normal conditions. When asked what the attack would do for U.S.-Israeli relations, former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded: "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." Netanyahu correctly predicted that the attack would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror." Sharon placed Israel in the same position as the United States, referring to the attack as an assault on "our common values" and declaring, "I believe together we can defeat these forces of evil." [38]

In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the September 11 attacks had joined the United States and Israeli together against a common enemy. And that enemy was not in far-off Afghanistan but was geographically close to Israel. Israel's traditional enemies would now become America's as well. And Israel would have a better chance of dealing with the Palestinians under the cover of a "war on terrorism."

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the neoconservatives began to publicly push for a wider war on terrorism that would immediately deal with Israel's enemies. For example, Safire held that the real terrorists that America should focus on were not groups of religious fanatics "but Iraqi scientists today working feverishly in hidden biological laboratories and underground nuclear facilities [who] would, if undisturbed, enable the hate-driven, power-crazed Saddam to kill millions. That capability would transform him from a boxed-in bully into a rampant world power." [39]

Within the administration, Wolfowitz clearly implied a broader war against existing governments when he said: "I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign. It's not going to stop if a few criminals are taken care of." [40]


On September 20, 2001, neocons of the Project for the New American Century sent a letter to President Bush endorsing the war on terrorism and stressing that the removal of Saddam was an essential part of that war. They maintained that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." Furthermore, the letter-writers opined, if Syria and Iran failed to stop all support for Hezbollah, the United States should "consider appropriate measures against these known sponsors of terrorism." Among the letter's signatories were such neoconservative luminaries as William Kristol, Midge Decter, Eliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Gaffney, Kagan, Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, Perle, Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Solarz, and Wieseltier.
World War IV

In the October 29, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard, Kagan and Kristol predict a wider Middle Eastern war:


When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared with what looms over the horizon — a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States — Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.... But this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. [42]
Kagan and Kristol seem to be looking forward to this gigantic conflagration.

In a November 20, 2002, article in The Wall Street Journal, Eliot Cohen dubs the conflict "World War IV," a term picked up by other neocons. Cohen proclaims that "The enemy in this war is not 'terrorism' ... but militant Islam.... Afghanistan constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign." Cohen calls not only for a U.S. attack on Iraq but also for the elimination of the Islamic regime in Iran, which "would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [43]

Critics of a wider war in the Middle East quickly recognized the neoconservative war-propaganda effort. Analyzing the situation in September 2002, paleoconservative [44] Scott McConnell wrote: "For the neoconservatives ... bin Laden is but a sideshow.... They hope to use September 11 as pretext for opening a wider war in the Middle East. Their prime, but not only, target is Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even if Iraq has nothing to do with the World Trade Center assault." [45]

However, McConnell mistakenly considered the neocon stance to be only a minority view within the Bush administration:


The neocon wish list is a recipe for igniting a huge conflagration between the United States and countries throughout the Arab world, with consequences no one could reasonably pretend to calculate. Support for such a war — which could turn quite easily into a global war — is a minority position within the Bush administration (assistant secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz is its main advocate) and the country. But it presently dominates the main organs of conservative journalistic opinion, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Times, as well as Marty Peretz's neoliberal New Republic. In a volatile situation, such organs of opinion could matter. [46]
Expressing a similar view, veteran columnist Georgie Anne Geyer observed:


The "Get Iraq" campaign ... started within days of the September bombings.... It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and advisor Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some journalists and congressmen.
Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the "Israeli-firsters," meaning that they would always put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it, above anything else.

Geyer believed that this line of thinking was "being contained by cool heads in the administration, but that could change at any time." [47]



Lighting up the recesses of Bush

Neoconservatives have presented the September 11 atrocities as a lightning bolt to make President Bush aware of his destiny: destroying the evil of world terrorism. Ironically enough, Podhoretz adopted Christian terminology to describe a changed Bush:


A transformed — or, more precisely, a transfigured — George W. Bush appeared before us. In an earlier article ... I suggested, perhaps presumptuously, that out of the blackness of smoke and fiery death let loose by September 11, a kind of revelation, blazing with a very different fire of its own, lit up the recesses of Bush's mind and heart and soul. Which is to say that, having previously been unsure as to why he should have been chosen to become President of the United States, George W. Bush now knew that the God to whom, as a born-again Christian, he had earlier committed himself had put him in the Oval Office for a purpose. He had put him there to lead a war against the evil of terrorism. [48]
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, administration heavyweights debated the scope of the "war on terrorism." According to Bob Woodward's Bush at War, as early as September 12 Rumsfeld "raised the question of attacking Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? he asked. Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal target of the first round in the war on terrorism." [49]

Woodward adds, "The terrorist attacks of September 11 gave the United States a new window to go after Hussein." On September 15, Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan. Wolfowitz expressed the view that "attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain," voicing the fear that American troops would be "bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable." [50]

However, the neoconservatives were not able to achieve their goal of a wider war at the outset, in part because of the opposition of Secretary of State Powell, who held that the war should focus on the actual perpetrators of September 11. (That was how most Americans actually envisioned the war.) Perhaps Powell's most telling argument was his declaration that an American attack on Iraq would lack international support. He claimed that a U.S. victory in Afghanistan would enhance the United States's ability to deal militarily with Iraq at a later time, "if we can prove that Iraq had a role" in September 11. [51]

Powell diverged from the neocon hawks in his emphasis on the need for international support, as opposed to American unilateralism, but an even greater difference lay in his contention that the "war on terror" had to be directly linked to the perpetrators of September 11 — Osama bin Laden's network. Powell publicly repudiated Wolfowitz's call for "ending states" with the response that "we're after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations, that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing that. But I think 'ending terrorism' is where I would leave it and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself." [52]

Very significantly, however, while the "war on terrorism" would not begin with an attack on Iraq, military plans were being made for just such an endeavor. A Top Secret document outlining the war plan for Afghanistan, which Bush signed on September 17, 2001, included, as a minor point, instructions to the Pentagon to also start making plans for an attack on Iraq. [53]

Bush's public pronouncements evolved rapidly in the direction of expanding the war to Iraq. On November 21, 2001, in a speech at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, he proclaimed that "Afghanistan is just the beginning of the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all these threats are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win." [54]

On November 26, in response to a question whether Iraq was one of the terrorist nations that he had in mind, Bush said: "Well, my message is, is that if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable." Note that Bush included possession of weapons of mass destruction as an indicator of "terrorism." And none of that terrorist activity necessarily related to the September 11 attacks. [55]



Transformation complete

The transformation to support of a wider war was complete with Bush's January 29, 2002, State of the Union speech, in which he officially decoupled the "war on terrorism'' from the specific events of 9/11. Bush did not even mention bin Laden or al Qaeda. The danger now was said to come primarily from three countries — Iran, Iraq, and North Korea — which he dubbed "an axis of evil" that allegedly threatened the world with their weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush:


States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. [56]
The phrase "axis of evil" was coined by Bush's neoconservative speechwriter, David Frum. [57]

By April 2002, Bush was publicly declaring that American policy was to secure "regime change" in Iraq. And in June, he stated that the United States would launch preemptive strikes on those countries that threatened the United States. [58] According to what passes as the conventional wisdom, Iraq now posed such a threat. Moreover, by the spring of 2002, General Tommy R. Franks, chief of U.S. Central Command, began giving Bush private briefings every three or four weeks on the planning for a new Iraq war. [59]

Neoconservatives both within and without the administration sought a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq that would not be encumbered by the conflicting goals of any coalition partners. That push was countered by Powell's efforts to persuade Bush that UN sanction would be necessary to justify a U.S. attack, which the President ultimately found persuasive. That slowed the rush to war, but it also represented a move by Powell away from his original position that Washington should make war on Iraq only if Baghdad were proven to have been involved in the September 11 terrorism.


The UN Security Council decided that UN inspectors, with sweeping inspection powers, would determine whether Iraq was violating her pledge to destroy all of her weapons of mass destruction. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002) places the burden of proof on Iraq to show that she no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. The resolution states that any false statements or omissions in the Iraqi weapons declaration would constitute a further material breach by Iraq of her obligations. That could set in motion discussions by the Security Council on considering the use of military force against Iraq.

While some have claimed that this might mean that war would be put off, [60] it also allows the United States to use the new UN resolution as a legal justification for war. In fact, the United States could choose to enforce the resolution through war without additional UN authorization. As British journalist Robert Fisk writes: "The United Nations can debate any Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspectors, but the United States will decide whether Iraq has breached UN resolutions. In other words, America can declare war without UN permission." [61]

Armchair strategists

Neoconservatives not only have determined the foreign policy leading to war against Iraq but have played a role in molding military strategy as well. Top military figures, including members of the Joint Chiefs, initially expressed opposition to the whole idea of such a war. [62] But Perle and other neoconservatives have for some time insisted that toppling Saddam would require little military effort or risk. They pushed for a war strategy dubbed "inside-out" that would involve attacking Baghdad and a couple of other key cities with a very small number of airborne troops, as few as 5,000 in some estimates. According to the plan's supporters, such strikes would cause Saddam's regime to collapse. American military leaders adamantly opposed that approach as too risky, offering in its stead a plan to use a much larger number of troops — about 250,000 — who would invade Iraq in a more conventional manner, marching from the soil of her neighbors, as was done during the Gulf War of 1991.

Perle and the neoconservatives, for their part, feared that no neighboring country would provide the necessary bases, so that this approach would likely mean that no war would be initiated or that, during the lengthy time needed to assemble this large force, opposition to war would so burgeon as to render the operation politically impossible. Perle angrily responded to the military's demurral by saying that the decision to attack Iraq was "a political judgment that these guys aren't competent to make." [63] Cheney and Rumsfeld went even further, referring to the generals as "cowards" for being insufficiently gung-ho about an Iraq invasion. [64]

Now, one might be tempted to attribute Perle and the other neocons' rejection of the military's caution to insane hubris — how could amateurs pretend to know more about military strategy than professional military men? However, Richard Perle may be many things, but insane is not one of them. Nor is he stupid. Undoubtedly he has thought through the implications of his plan. And it is apparent that the "inside-out" option would be a win-win proposition from Perle's perspective.

Let's assume that it works — that a few American troops can capture some strategic areas and the Iraqi army quickly folds. Perle and the neocons appear as military geniuses and are rewarded with free rein to prepare a series of additional low-cost wars in the Middle East.

On the other hand, let's assume that the mini-invasion is a complete fiasco. The American troops are defeated in the cities. Many are captured and paraded around for all the world to see. Saddam makes bombastic speeches about defeating the American aggressor. All the Arab and Islamic world celebrates the American defeat. American flags are burned in massive anti-American celebrations throughout the Middle East. America is totally humiliated, depicted as a paper tiger, and ordinary Americans watch it all on TV. How do they react?

Such a catastrophe would be another Pearl Harbor in terms of engendering hatred of the enemy. The public would demand that American honor and prestige be avenged. They would accept the idea fed to them by the neoconservative propagandists that the war was one between America and Islam. Washington would unleash total war, which would involve heavy bombing of cities. And the air attacks could easily spread from Iraq to the other neighboring Islamic states. A war of conquest and extermination is the neocons' fondest dream since it would destroy all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East. (It appears that the Pentagon has augmented the magnitude of the Iraq strike force to reduce the risk of the aforementioned scenario.) [65]



"Our Enemies, the Saudis"

Indications are plentiful that the war will not be limited to Iraq alone. On July 10, 2002, Laurent Murawiec, at Perle's behest, briefed the Defense Policy Board about Saudi Arabia, whose friendly relationship with the United States has been the linchpin of American security strategy in the Middle East for more than 50 years. Murawiec described the kingdom as the principal supporter of anti-American terrorism — "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent." It was necessary, he claimed, for the United States to regard Saudi Arabia as an enemy. Murawiec said Washington should demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around the world, prohibit all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli propaganda in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services." If the Saudis refused to comply with the ultimatum, Murawiec contended that the United States should invade and occupy the country, including the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, seize her oil fields, and confiscate her financial assets. [66]

Murawiec concluded the briefing with the astounding summary of what he called a "Grand Strategy for the Middle East:" "Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize." In short, the goal of the war on Iraq was the destruction of the United States' closest allies. It would be hard to envision a policy better designed to inflame the entire Middle East against the United States. But that is exactly the result sought by neoconservatives. [67]

Predictably, the day after the briefing, the Bush administration disavowed Murawiec's scenario as having nothing to do with actual American foreign policy and pronounced Saudi Arabia a loyal ally. [68] However, the White House did nothing to remove or even discipline Perle for holding a discussion of a plan for attacking a close ally — and individuals have frequently been removed from administrations for much smaller faux pas. We may be certain that the Bush administration's inaction failed to assure the Saudis that Murawiec's war plan was beyond the realm of possibility.

Murawiec's anti-Saudi scenario simultaneously emerged in the neocon press. The July 15, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard featured an article titled "The Coming Saudi Showdown," by Simon Henderson of the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And the July/August issue of Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee, contained an article titled, "Our Enemies, the Saudis." [69]

The leading neoconservative expert on Saudi Arabia, Stephen Schwartz, made his views known, too, though he did pay a price for it. Schwartz has written numerous articles as well as a recent book, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror, in which he posits a Saudi/Wahhabist conspiracy to take over all of Islam and spread terror throughout the world. As a result of his anti-Saudi comments, Schwartz was dismissed from his brief tenure as an editorial writer with the Voice of America at the beginning of July 2002, thus becoming a martyr in neoconservative circles. [70]

As Thomas F. Ricks points out in the Washington Post, the anti-Saudi bellicosity expressed by Murawiec "represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration — especially on the staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon's civilian leadership — and among neoconservative writers and thinkers closely allied with administration policymakers." [71]

By November 2002, the anti-Saudi theme had reached the mainstream — with an article in Newsweek alleging financial support for the 9/11 terrorists from the Saudi royal family, and commentary on the subject by such leading figures in the Senate as Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Charles Schumer (D-New York), and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). [72]

Bush administration policy has come a long way but has still not reached what neocons seek: a war by the United States against all of Islam. According to Podhoretz, doyen of the neoconservatives: "Militant Islam today represents a revival of the expansionism by the sword" of Islam's early years. [73] In Podhoretz's view, to survive resurgent Islam the United States must not simply stand on the defensive but must stamp out militant Islam at its very source in the Middle East:


The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, this axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as "friends" of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.
After the great conquest, the United States would remake the entire region, which would entail forcibly re-educating its people to fall into line with the thinking of America's leaders. Podhoretz acknowledges that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick anti-American and anti-Israeli leaders and policies. But he proclaims that "there is a policy that can head it off" provided "that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II." [74]



Expulsion redux

Within Israel herself, however, the Arabs would not be expected to adopt a "new political culture"; they would be expected to vanish.

Expulsion of the Palestinians is inextricably intertwined with a Middle Eastern war — or, in Ben-Gurion's phrase, "revolutionary times." As the post-September 11 "war on terror" has heated up, the talk of forcibly "transferring" the Palestinians has once again moved to the center of Israeli politics. According to Illan Pappe, a Jewish Israeli revisionist historian, "You can see this new assertion talked about in Israel: the discourse of transfer and expulsion which had been employed by the extreme Right, is now the bon ton of the center." [75]

Even the dean of Israel's revisionist historians, Benny Morris, explicitly endorsed the expulsion of the Palestinians in the event of war. "This land is so small," Morris exclaimed, "that there isn't room for two peoples. In fifty or a hundred years, there will only be one state between the sea and the Jordan. That state must be Israel."

According to a recent poll conducted by Israel's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion of Israeli Arabs. Three-fifths support "encouraging" Israeli Arabs to leave. [76]

In April 2002, leading Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld held that a U.S. attack on Iraq would provide the cover for Prime Minister Sharon to forcibly remove the Palestinians from the West Bank. In Creveld's view, "The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades," which would rely on "heavy artillery." Creveld continued: "Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed.... Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973." [77]

Although Creveld did not express any opposition to this impending expulsion, in September 2002, a group of Israeli academics did issue a declaration of opposition, stating, "We are deeply worried by indications that the 'fog of war' could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing." [78]

The declaration continued:


The Israeli ruling coalition includes parties that promote "transfer" of the Palestinian population as a solution to what they call "the demographic problem." Politicians are regularly quoted in the media as suggesting forcible expulsion, most recently [Knesset members] Michael Kleiner and Benny Elon, as reported on Yediot Ahronot website on September 19, 2002. In a recent interview in Ha'aretz, Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon described the Palestinians as a "cancerous manifestation" and equated the military actions in the Occupied Territories with "chemotherapy," suggesting that more radical "treatment" may be necessary. Prime Minister Sharon has backed this "assessment of reality." Escalating racist demagoguery concerning the Palestinian citizens of Israel may indicate the scope of the crimes that are possibly being contemplated. [79]

In the fall of 2002, the Jordanian government, fearing that Israel might push the Palestinian population into Jordan during the anticipated U.S. attack on Iraq, asked for public assurances from the Israeli government that it would not make such a move. The Sharon regime, however, has refused to publicly renounce an expulsion policy. [80]


Simply a pretext

As is now apparent, the "war on terrorism" was never intended to be a war to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities. September 11 simply provided a pretext for government leaders to implement long-term policy plans. As has been pointed out elsewhere, including in my own writing, oil interests and American imperialists looked upon the war as a way to incorporate oil-rich Central Asia within the American imperial orbit. [81] While that has been achieved, the American-sponsored government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan is in a perilous situation. Karzai's power seems to be limited to his immediate vicinity, and he must be protected by American bodyguards. The rest of Afghanistan is being fought over by various war lords and even the resurgent Taliban. [82] Instead of putting forth the effort to help consolidate its position in Central Asia, Washington has shifted its focus to gaining control of the Middle East.

It now appears that the primary policymakers in the Bush administration have been the Likudnik neoconservatives all along. Control of Central Asia is secondary to control of the Middle East. In fact, for the leading neocons, the war on Afghanistan may simply have been an opening gambit, necessary for reaching their ultimate and crucial goal: U.S. control of the Middle East in the interests of Israel. That is analogous to what revisionist historians have presented as Franklin D. Roosevelt's "back door to war" approach to World War II. Roosevelt sought war with Japan in order to be able to fight Germany, and he provoked Japan into attacking U.S. colonial possessions in the Far East. Once the United States got into war through the back door, Roosevelt focused the American military effort on Germany. [83]



The oil motive

But what about the American desire for controlling Iraqi oil? Iraq possesses the world's second-largest proven oil reserves, next to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, many experts believe that Iraq possesses vast undiscovered oil reserves, making her the near-equal of Saudi Arabia. Most critics of war allege that American oil companies' desire to gain control of Iraqi oil is what motivates U.S. war policy. Some, mostly proponents of war, have also argued that, once in control of Iraqi oil, the United States could inundate the world with cheap oil, thus boosting the American and world economies out of recession. [84]

Although the arguments have a prima facie plausibility, the oil motive for war has a couple of serious flaws. First, oil industry representatives or big economic moguls do not seem to be clamoring for war. According to oil analyst Anthony Sampson, "oil companies have had little influence on U.S. policy-making. Most big American companies, including oil companies, do not see a war as good for business, as falling share prices indicate." [85]

Further, it is not apparent that war would be good for the oil industry or the world economy. Why would Big Oil want to risk a war that could ignite a regional conflagration threatening their existing investments in the Gulf? Iraq does indeed have significant oil reserves, but there is no reason to believe that they would have an immediate impact on the oil market. Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, points out:


In terms of production capacity, Iraq represents just 3 percent of the world's total. Its oil exports are on the same level as Nigeria's. Even if Iraq doubled its capacity, that could take more than a decade. In the meantime, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to perhaps 5 percent, significant but still in the second tier of oil nations. [86]
A war would pose a great risk to the oil industry in the entire Gulf region. As William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale and a member of the President Carter's Council of Economic Advisers, writes:


War in the Persian Gulf might produce a major upheaval in petroleum markets, either because of physical damage or because political events lead oil producers to restrict production after the war.
A particularly worrisome outcome would be a wholesale destruction of oil facilities in Iraq, and possibly in Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq destroyed much of Kuwait's oil wells and other petroleum infrastructure as it withdrew. The sabotage shut down Kuwaiti oil production for close to a year, and prewar levels of oil production were not reached until 1993 — nearly two years after the end of the war in February 1991.

Unless the Iraqi leadership is caught completely off-guard in a new war, Iraq's forces would probably be able to destroy Iraq's oil production facilities. The strategic rationale for such destruction is unclear in peacetime, but such an act of self-immolation cannot be ruled out in wartime. Contamination of oil facilities in the Gulf region by biological or chemical means would pose even greater threats to oil markets. [87]

Nordhaus's forecasts may be excessively bleak. However, the point is that the experts simply cannot gauge what will happen. War poses tremendous risk. In his evaluation of the possible economic impact of a war on Iraq, economic analyst Robert J. Samuelson concludes: "If it's peace and prosperity, then war makes no sense. But if fighting now prevents a costlier war later, it makes much sense." [88]

None of this to deny that certain oil companies might benefit from a Middle East war, just as some businesses profit from any war. Particular oil companies could stand to benefit from American control of Iraq, since under a postwar U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government, American companies could be expected to be favored and gain the most lucrative oil deals. However, that particular oil companies could derive some benefits does not undercut the overall argument that war is a great risk for the American oil industry and the American economy as a whole.

An American-imperialist strategic motive might be more plausible than the economic interests of the oil industry and the economy in general. Instead of the current informal influence over the oil producing areas of the Middle East, the United States would move into direct control, either with a puppet government in Iraq providing enough leverage for Washington to dictate to the rest of the Middle East, or actual direct U.S. control of other parts of the Middle East as well as Iraq. Presumably that state of affairs would provide greater security for the oil flow than exists under the current situation, where the client states enjoy some autonomy and face the possibility of being overthrown by anti-American forces. Neoconservative Robert Kagan maintains, "When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies." [89]

Neoconservatives often try to gloss over this projected American colonialism by claiming that the United States would be simply spreading democracy. They imply that "democratic" Middle East governments would support American policies, including support of Israel and an oil policy oriented toward the welfare of the United States. However, given popular anti-Zionist and anti-American opinion in the region, it seems highly unlikely that governments representative of the popular will would ever pursue such policies. Only a non-representative dictatorship could be pro-American and pro-Israeli. Zionist U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) put it candidly in calming the worries of an Israeli member of the Knesset: "You won't have any problem with Saddam. We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." [90]



A truly foreign imperialism

Control of the Middle East oil supply would certainly augment U.S. domination of the world. However, American imperialists who are in no way linked to the Likudnik position on Israel — e.g., Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft — are cool to such a Middle East war. [91] If such a war policy would be an obvious boon to American imperialism, why isn't it avidly sought by leading American imperialists?

Direct colonial control of a country's internal affairs would be a significant break with American policy of the past half-century. America might have client states and an informal empire, but the direct imperialism entailed by an occupation of the Middle East would be, as Mark Danner put it in the New York Times, "wholly foreign to the modesty of containment, the ideology of a status-quo power that lay at the heart of American strategy for half a century." [92]

Moreover, a fundamental concern of American global policy has been to maintain peace and stability in the world. Washington preaches probity and restraint to other countries regarding the use of force. Hence, for the United States to launch a preemptive strike on a country would undoubtedly weaken her ability to restrain other countries, which would also see a need to preemptively strike at their foes. In short, the launching of preemptive war would destabilize the very world order that the United States allegedly seeks to preserve in her "war on terrorism." In fact, world stability is often seen as central to the global economic interdependence that is the key to American prosperity. [93]

Since America already exercises considerable power in the oil-producing Persian Gulf region through her client states — Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates — it is difficult to understand why American imperialists would make a radical change from their status-quo policy. Would the benefits to be gained from direct control of the region outweigh the risks involved? War could unleash virulent anti-American forces that could destabilize America's Middle East client states and incite terrorist attacks on

58 http://www.nowarforisrael.com/

59 stop polluting the comments with your tinfoil rants asshole, wipe the foam flecks from the corner of your mouth and go take a sip from a good mug of STFU.

No one wants to read 250 lines of idiotic rambling bullshit, especially when anyone so inclined could click on a link.

60 not to mention other Middle Eastern countries, would place a heavy burden on the U.S. government and people. [94]

Would such a burden be acceptable to the American people? Would they support the brutal policies needed to suppress any opposition? In the 1950s the people of France would not support the brutality necessary to retain the colonial empire in Algeria. Even in the totalitarian Soviet Union, popular opinion forced the abandonment of the imperialistic venture in Afghanistan, which contributed to the break-up of the entire Soviet empire. In short, the move from indirect to direct control of the Middle East would strike men who were simply concerned about enhancing American imperial power as the gravest sort of risk-taking, because it could undermine America's entire imperial project.

Direct American control of the Middle East would not only prove burdensome to the American people but would also undoubtedly provoke a backlash from other countries. That almost seems to be a law of international relations — operating since the time of the balance-of-power politics practiced during the Peloponnesian War. As Christopher Layne points out:


The historical record shows that in the real world, hegemony never has been a winning grand strategy. The reason is simple: The primary aim of states in international politics is to survive and maintain their sovereignty. And when one state becomes too powerful — becomes a hegemon — the imbalance of power in its favor is a menace to the security of all other states. So throughout modern international political history, the rise of a would-be hegemon always has triggered the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other states. [95]
The British Empire, which might seem an exception to the rule of the inevitable failure of hegemons, achieved its success because of its caution. Owen Harries, editor of the National Interest, has pointed out that England's imperial successes stemmed from her rather cautious approach. "England," observed Harries in the Spring 2001 issue, "was the only hegemon that did not attract a hostile coalition against itself. It avoided that fate by showing great restraint, prudence and discrimination in the use of its power in the main political arena by generally standing aloof and restricting itself to the role of balancer of last resort. In doing so it was heeding the warning given it by Edmund Burke, just as its era of supremacy was beginning: 'I dread our own power and our own ambition. I dread being too much dreaded.'" Notes Harries, "I believe the United States is now in dire need of such a warning." [96]

Obviously, the American takeover of the major oil-producing area of the world would be anything but a cautious move. It would characterize a classic example of what historian Paul Kennedy refers to as "imperial over-stretch." Tied down in the Middle East, the United States would find it more difficult to counter threats to its power in the rest of the world. Even now it is questionable whether the U.S. military has the capability to fight two wars at once, a problem (from the standpoint of the U.S. regime) that has now come to the fore with the bellicosity of North Korea. [97] In essence, it is not apparent that intelligent American imperialists concerned solely about the power status of the United States, which holds preeminence in the world right now, would want to take the risk of a Middle East war and occupation.



No American motive

The previous analysis leads to the conclusion not only that the neoconservatives are obviously in the forefront of the pro-war bandwagon but also that pro-Israeli Likudnik motives are the most logical, probably the only logical, motives for war. As I have noted, Likudniks have always sought to deal in a radical fashion with the Palestinian problem in the occupied territories — a problem that has gotten worse, from their standpoint, as a result of demographic changes. A U.S. war in the Middle East at the present time provides a window of opportunity to permanently solve that problem and augment Israel's dominance in the region. The existing perilous situation, as Likud thinkers see it, would justify the taking of substantial risks. And a look at history shows that countries whose leaders believed they were faced with grave problems pursued risky policies, such as Japan did in 1941. [98]

In contrast, no such dire threats face the United States. American imperialists should be relatively satisfied with the status quo and averse to taking any risks that might jeopardize it.

***

The deductions drawn in this essay seem obvious but are rarely broached in public because Jewish power is a taboo subject. As the intrepid Joseph Sobran puts it: "It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits." [99]

So in a check for "hate" or "anti-Semitism," let's recapitulate the major points made in this essay. First, the initiation of a Middle East war to solve Israeli security problems has been a long-standing idea among Israeli rightist Likudniks. Next, Likudnik-oriented neoconservatives argued for American involvement in such a war prior to the atrocities of September 11, 2001. Since September 11, neocons have taken the lead in advocating such a war; and they hold influential foreign policy and national security positions in the Bush administration.

If Israel and Jews were not involved, there would be nothing extraordinary about my thesis. In the history of foreign policy, it has frequently been maintained that various leading figures were motivated by ties to business, an ideology, or a foreign country. In his Farewell Address, George Washington expressed the view that the greatest danger to American foreign relations would be the "passionate attachment" of influential Americans to a foreign power, which would orient U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of that power to the detriment of the United States. It is just such a situation that currently exists.

We can only look with trepidation to the near future, for in the ominous words of Robert Fisk, "There is a firestorm coming." [100]

61 and ps, John, nobody's reading your useless spam.

62 Hey Rusty, please delete the spam. Thanks.

63 The attack on September 11 was certainly not about people hating our freedoms. It was purely in response to America's foreign policy; and it was primarily about our monetary and military support of Israel.





many others say that they must fight America for its support of 50 years of Israel's terrorism against the Palestinian and other Mideastern people. He says this in precisely the same way that some say we must bomb Afghanistan into further oblivion for supporting the terrorism of Bin Laden.

America is seen as a terrorist nation for having supported the Israeli ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians from their land and homes and the stripping them of their most basic human rights, even depriving them of the right to live where they were born!

America is accused of supporting terrorism for backing Israel, even America is aware that Israel tortures 500 to 600 Palestinians in its jails each month.

America is called terrorist for supporting Israel even as it killed 40,000 Lebanese in its invasion of that country. They ask the world how America could support Israel even as it bombed civilian Red Cross shelters and killed women and children by the score.

Millions of people ask how the President of the United States could dine in the White House with Israel Sharon, a man with a proven history of massacring civilians, and who even Israel held responsible for the cold-blooded murder of 2000 people at the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon.

America is also called a terrorist state for causing the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children.

It is difficult for us to act morally superior to our enemies when our own U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, told Leslie Stahl of CBS that America's causing the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it." What would you say, of someone who thinks it is worth killing 500,000 children in order to punish one man?

We must cut off the source of terrorism. That source is not Muslim fundamentalism, it is American support for Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. The American government has been supporting the Jewish Supremacist State of Israeli with economic and military funding, though Israel denies the basic human rights of Palestinians. We believe that our economic and military aid to Israel has caused tremendous hatred toward America and that unlimitedly, it is the American people who suffers the consequences.

Any nation that bombs another naturally creates millions of angry enemies against it. America has repeatedly done that in recent times. We have taken sides in foreign conflicts, offered military assistance and weapons, and even bombed other nations. Our actions have caused the loss of many thousands of lives, including the lives of thousands of civilians. Many of the nations we bombed had never harmed a single American or acted in any way against the interests the United States.

For instance, we now partially blame Afghanistan for what happened on September 11. Have we conveniently forgotten that we bombed Afghanistan (and killed many innocent civilians) three years ago when we tried to kill Osama Bin Laden. Afghanistan is led by the same people we previously helped against the Soviets. At that time, we actually supported the terroristic activities of Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets and their collaborators. When Bin Laden later turned against us, we attempted to kill him by bombing Afghanistan.

We have seen the intense reaction of Americans to the attack on the Trade Centers. What would be the reaction of Americans to any nation who fired Cruise missiles and dropped thousands of bombs on America? After Clinton's bombing of Afghanistan, the Taliban promised revenge against America. September 11 may be that revenge.

We bombed Iraq after it invaded Kuwait, yet we supported Saddam Hussein with money and arms when he warred with Iran. In contrast, we continued to monetarily and militarily support Israel even after it invaded Lebanon and killed tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians. We support the Zionist state even though it tortures thousands of political prisoners in its jails. American support enabled Israel to ethnically cleanse itself of 700,000 Palestinians.

Bush says we must strike down terrorists wherever they are in the whole world, but he has shared tea and crumpets with Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, one of the world's leading most brutal and bloodthirsty terrorists. Sharon committed a number of crimes against humanity, among them the massacre of 2,000 men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Mr. Bush did not strike Mr. Sharon, instead he toasted him.
But why must the media and government create this huge, absurd lie about why we were attacked on September 11.

This Big Lie is, of course, meant to hide an obvious truth. Its purpose is to keep Americans from associating this attack with our Israeli policy.

If that happens people might begin to wonder if it is in our true interest to having given Israel countless billions of our dollars.

They might begin to wonder if it is good for America to serve as the Israeli's shock troops and techno killers in attacks on Israel's enemies such as Iraq.

So, the unvarnished truth is that we suffered the terror of September 11 because of our support of the criminal policies of Israel. We have let our country be controlled by a foreign lobby that has worked against the best interests of the American people.

Israel has time and again proven it is not really our friend. It has conducted covert terrorist activities against America such as the Lavon affair in Egypt. It has deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during the war of 1967. It has spied on us and stolen our greatest secrets, such as in the Jonathan Pollard affair. It has sold secret American technologies to the Communist Chinese. It has stolen nucleur materials from the United States. It has tricked America into bombing other nations such as in the attack on Libya in 1986. I could go on and on about Israel's treachery against the America.

And now, under guidance of the Israel Lobby and the Jewish controlled media, the Zionists are preparing America to strike a massive blow against all of Israel's mortal enemies in a global war. They are already talking about not only bombing, but invading and occupying whole nations such as Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Such would spawn a huge wave of hatred and retribution against America from all over the planet. The costs of such a war would cost the American people untold billions of dollars and could well cause the deaths of thousands of Americans. Finally, such a war would not end terrorism, but only spawn more acts of terror against us.

64 >the most recent photos were published
>in Australian newspapers, if I'm not
>mistaken. Plus Salon, which is hardly "MSM"

SP,

The pictures originally ran on Australia's SBS network, but were soon picked up by CNN and Reuters. Which, last time I checked, were part of the so-called "mainstream media."

65 America is also called a terrorist state for causing the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children.

...While Saddam Hussein spent 9 BILLION dollars building his new palaces after the war.

Get a clue moron.

66 "Donald Rumsfeld"

seriously,

That's great. But again, you still haven't explained why the MSM won't report/publish islamic atrocities. You simply keep throwing out the red herrings. The last one was something about expecting "higher standards" from our troops, which completely avoids having to address the MSM's failure to tell the truth. Keep spinning and avoiding the issue, and I'll keep dragging you right back to it.

67 You asked why the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, despite the fact that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty. You apparently learned only recently of how the Israelis got away with that attack. You seem completely unaware of how Israel and its American Zionists control America.

You should know that Zionists control the US government and the media. If you have a significant position in the government or are a significant voice in public, the Zionists will destroy you! If you object to blind support of Israel, they will label you anti-Semitic and threaten you and cost you your job.

Do you know that if you complain about Zionist influence, you will receive hate mail and threats of violence? If you object to the billions of dollars of your taxpayer money going to Israel, the Zionists will label you a Jew-hating Aryan, and they will pretend that you don't care that "6 million Jews were exterminated in the holocaust".

They will use that "history" to play on yours and everyone else's collective guilt. They will also use it to distract attention from slaughterers like Sharon who kill and maim and destroy everything Palestinian.

Zionist Israel and its American supporters will continue the blatant murders of Palestinians - old men, women, children and cripples - until the Zionist genocide of Palestinians is complete. They truly learned much from the Nazis!

And, yes, America and Americans' billions supports it all - the killing, the maiming, the destruction of property, the deprivation, the imposed poverty, the theft of water rights, the Bantustans, the Apartheid Wall and the suicide bombers.

Do you wonder how America supports the suicide bombers? When an entire people are overpowered, tortured, repressed, subjugated and subdued beyond hope, with America standing on the sidelines applauding and paying for it while Europe turns its head away, what do you expect the people to do?

They can't cry. They have no tears left. They can't fight tanks and Apache helicopters and F-16s with stones! If they fire a rocket that hits no one, the source of the rocket will be destroyed anyway. Firing rockets against Israelis with the latest American military detection equipment amounts to suicide with no results.

The suicide bombers who sacrifice themselves in a weak attempt at resistance are actually creations of Israel and America. Thanks again to the billions of dollars Americans cough up each year for their endowment.

Don't ever again ask why. Ask fellow Americans when you're going to put a stop to the long distance support for a Mafioso of Zionist hit men.

When are you going to insist that the president and his men - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Cohen - all closer to Israel than they are to America - get prosecuted as members of an organized crime syndicate? Make no mistake: Zionism in America is organized crime!

When will you stop electing Senators and Representatives to Congress who can't resist the lure of Zionist support? They're nothing more than legislators who embrace the same organized crime syndicate.

When will you stop reading the crap written and published by the New York Times, the Washington Post and US News? When will you stop being influenced by the broadcasts of the Murdoch empire and Fox News?

When will you stop supporting organized Zionist crime and take America back from Israel for Americans?

68 Tinfoil, spam, and bullshit all over the place. Yuck.

We're gonna need a hell of a lot of that sawdust-vomit-pickup-stuff.

69 here is an answer for all zionists here

These phrases, "hate speech" and "anti-Semite", are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms. Indeed they have been used so much that they have become red warning flags that the person using those phrases has something to hide and needs to shut down the discussion by any means possible. By screaming "hate speech" or "anti-Semite", Israel's supporters hope to shut down the debate without actually examining the issues involved.

It is not "hate" to point out facts the American people should be paying attention to, especially on the threshold to what might turn out to be a world war started by deception.

It is not hate to ask what really happened to the USS Liberty in 1967 when Israel attacked and killed US sailors.

It is not hate to ask if the Lavon Affair can be repeated to sway public opinion in the US.

it is not hate to denounce isreali crimes,massacres,ethnic cleansing,mass killings,genocide,assassinations,murders,deportati on,extermination,and holocaust against palestinians.

it is not hate to hate this criminal fascist racist nazi zionist ideology which were condemned by the general assembly in 10 th november 1975,resolution number 3379 "as a form of racism,fascism and nazism"

70 It is not hate to call you a gibbering conspiracy nutball either.

71 dave we all know you are a zionist fascist traitor to america read this please

we have the pro-Israelis, the perpetual zionists, who,
no matter in which country they live, or are citizens of, are only
loyal to the state of Israel and no other, who work for the
advancement of Israel's benefit at the expense of whatever
nation in which they live. They will act as espionage agents,
attempting to learn and divulge sensitive and critical secrets
from the military and industrial sectors of governments in the
nations in which they live, and pass them on to Israel for use or
for sale to others. Their infamous work in America is a good
example of this.

72 and read this pure truth

Traitors to the United States have allowed a terrorist foreign nation (israel) to control the United States government. that a foreign nation controls America's foreign policy. William Fulbright asserted on ABC's Face the Nation television program that “Israel Controls the United States Senate.

It is true that they control the most influential newspapers in America, including the top three: The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. They also own the top three newsmagazines: Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. But, even more importantly, they thoroughly dominate the television and broadcast media, the two largest media conglomerates being Time-Warner and Disney; and their domination includes the network news executives of the main three networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. The extreme pro-Israeli partisanship of the media is why most Americans are woefully ignorant of Israel's terrorist record. All this article needs to do is apply just a tiny pinprick into the balloon of Israeli propaganda, for it will take only a few good jabs to burst the balloon of lies surrounding Israel.

during the last 58 years Israel has engaged in more murderous terrorism than any other nation in the world; and that by supporting its criminal behavior, America is now reaping the fanatical hatred of hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Support for Israel's terrorism has directly led to the terrorism now going on against the United States. Most Americans don't even realize the magnitude and scope of Israeli terrorism because of the Jewish media control mentioned by General Brown.

73 U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America's best friend.”

Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.

Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush's requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel's sale of our AWACS system.

Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero.

Israel has time and again proven it is not really our friend. It has conducted covert terrorist activities against America such as the Lavon affair in Egypt. It has deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during the war of 1967. It has spied on us and stolen our greatest secrets, such as in the Jonathan Pollard affair. It has sold secret American technologies to the Communist Chinese. It has stolen nucleur materials from the United States. It has tricked America into bombing other nations such as in the attack on Libya in 1986. I could go on and on about Israel's treachery against the America.

and this

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our nation.

Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end.

and read this

Palestinians won't get their independence until Americans get theirs! -
Ariel Sharon:
"We control America"
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
- Israeli Prime Minister,Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.



"Israel controls the United States Senate."
- Sen.William Fulbright

and this

We must continue to educate our people on this vital point. The most important issue of our time is the Jewish supremacy over our media, our government, our economy, our culture, our future. They are leading us to utter ruin. It is not just Palestine that is occupied by Jewish supremacists; it is New York and Washington D.C. It is not just the West Bank of the river Jordan they occupy; it is the East Bank of the Potomac! I told you that the main difference between the West Bank Palestinians and the Average American, is that the average American does know that his nation is occupied.

and this

we have to thank the Palestinians for making such terrible sacrifices to help the world see what the Israelis and the Jewish zionists are criminal nazis. Let us hope that the sacrifices made by the Palestinian people will wake up many more around the world and fill them with disgust at America's continuing support for a criminal state of Israel.
and this

World Zionism, today, constitutes the last racist ideology still surviving and the Zionist's state of Israel, the last outpost of "Apartheid" in the World.

Israel constitutes by its mere existence a complete defiance to all international laws, rules and principles, and the open racism manifested in the Jewish State is a violation of all ethics and morals known to Man.

and this

Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)
truth must be known by all americans

and this

We must cut off the source of terrorism. That source is not Muslim fundamentalism, it is American support for Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. The American government has been supporting the Jewish Supremacist State of Israeli with economic and military funding, though Israel denies the basic human rights of Palestinians. We believe that our economic and military aid to Israel has caused tremendous hatred toward America and that unlimitedly, it is the American people who suffers the consequences.

and this

Israel has a very powerful lobby in Washington and no one dares speak of big brother unless in praise or on bended knees. American taxpayers have been forced to hand over more than 120 billion dollars in foreign aid since 1960 and there is no end in sight, even while our domestic problems continue to mount. Our deficit and our national debt is at an all time high, our social security funds are about defunct, and now we need to close military installations to save money. Yet, you will never hear any person up on the hill suggest a reduction of aid to Israel. They know, that such a suggestion would disbar them from the cliques of political power.

74 dave we all know you are a zionist fascist traitor to america read this please

Yes, you have me. I am praying to Yahweh right now that you don't die in a fiery carwreck which pushes your spinal column out of your mouth.

75
Sweet mohammed, Johnf..

Get your own Blog..

oh, my allah. It's like you get paid by
the word.

76 Jesusland Carlos:
Actually, upthread I indicated that I think the media should publish the photos, pixelated or not. That last bit was me indicating that I think your thesis about them refusing to do so because they don't want to inflame american passions in support of the war is weak at best. What the mainstream media wants more than anything else is advertising dollars. Clearly they think publishing the photos would put some of those dollars in jeopardy-for whatever reason. As I said, I assume the reason is that they are "too graphic". You can think that's right or not, but I'd bet a hell of a lot of money it's what the producers or editors say when someone proposes publishing them.
Maybe airiing the photos would make support levels for the war increase, or maybe not. There are a whole lot of reasons to criticize the running of this war that more graphic demonstrations of the enemy's barbarity will not erase.

77 I know a johnf type. Hates USA & anything to do with it, yet is a most intelligent person when discussing anything not related to USA. johnf go get a life, read a book of consequence, that is not leftist shit propaganda. Stop wanking off to Michael Moore while your at it, we know you do!

78 Here is the problem I have with many who take the "higher moral ground" position ...

You strain at every gnat that looks like American abuse ... but swallow the camel of Islamofascist abuse with only a little throat-clearing in the process.

If you were consistent, your criticism of America would be drowned out by your demands that the President act even more forcefully to put a stop to what was shown in the above pictures.

What I am talking about here is not wanton slaughter -- it is called precision-guided ruthlessness, embodying the ideal that America is "no greater friend ... no worse enemy".

Establish that ideal, and we will win the hearts and minds of the peaceful, while putting an end to those who view peaceful interaction as a weakness to be leathally exploited.

Yet, those of you who seem to be so concerned about "morality" stop short of such a call ... and in some cases, compound the inconsitency by demanding that we leave these thugs in place ... or when we do catch them, demanding that we read them their Miranda rights and treat them like ordinary scofflaws instead of the enemy they are.

You seem to think that American abuse is the only problem worth resolving ... and not only leave others as victims, but ignore the tendency of such abuse to spread and gain strength when left unchecked.

Maybe even grow enough, if left alone, to leave us with two choices in the future ... submission to those who perpetrate such abuse, or a nuclear World War to keep it away from our shores.

We can put a stop to this now ... and we could have done so, at a far smaller cost, years ago.

We did not, because a significant proportion of our society came to support a "moral standard" that was based upon overextended idealism and not human reality ... in particular, the reality that sometimes, a timely, violent, and decisive response to such abuses of humanity's inalienable rights is necessary and proper.

In short, that war IS the answer, sometimes.

We must be sure that today's "higher moral ground" is based upon human reality, and not that same flawed idealism that stayed our hand for so long ... or even more will lose their lives and freedom.

I'll leave you with the last lines of a song heard on the front lawn of Halliburton in 2004:

Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace
Right through to your core of disdain
For the principles that have made America great
And the freedom you say you proclaim
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ...
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind

79

Smooth, johnf. Blame Israel and the Jews for all the problems in the world and then try to discredit anybody who would suspect you're a jew-hater. That's like saying blacks aren't as highly evolved as whites and that maybe for the betterment of the human race we should sterilize anybody who is more than 5% negro, but you can't call me a bigot or I'll ignore you.

If it looks like an anti-semtite, if it talks like an anti-semite and smells like an anti-semite; chances are...

Seriiously, the only way you wouldn't get called a Jew-hater is if we were in an alternate reality where apples are called oranges.

80 It is utterly appalling, and unbelievable, that an otherwise reputable blog like this, would be filled with such off-the-wall, non-sensical, anti-semitic, apologist-for-Islamist-violence comments, full of lunacy, and hatred, many of of them literally "justifying" the death of three thousand innocent people on 9/11, as a collateral of "Zionism," as if the Mexican janitor who came to America seeking a better life, the negro lady working as a Maid in the Hotel, the Muslim tourist visitor to the Towers, the many children, or all the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers, of every imaginable Nationality who died pulverized on that fateful day by this heinous, diabolical act, worthy only of the religion of the "Satanic verses," were all but "conspiring Zionists"!!!

Not only are we facing the constant threat of violence descending upon us all, unexpectedly, ravenous, and uncalled, for in our Cities, our schools, and our homes, even as we go on with the daily struggles of our lives, from these people who will fling "Allah's Gift of Life" in His very face, gratuitously killing themselves and others, even their own, in total disregard of "His" precious "Gift," just to kill or injure one of their brothers in Abraham, the Jews, or an American, for the "heinous crime" of America supporting a people that have been persecuted and massacred in total disregard for two thousand years, culminating with the Holocaust, which, of course, never happened, and is only a "Zionist" invention, the numbers tattoed on the forearms of the remaining aged survivors, and the horrifying memories they carry within them not withstanding, who DESERVE A HOMELAND as every other people in the world; but the erosion of our "Freedom of Speech," and "Freedom of Expression," as more European governments, as well as the American Media, cower before Islamist violence over those ridiculous cartoons, backing off and capitulating, by sacrificing our "Freedoms" in order "not to offend" Islam, in fact giving it a "Privileged" status above all other Religious beliefs, that do not threat to burn and kill when offended, in a supposedly "Pluralistic" society; a 'Privileged" status which many even want to legislate into Law!!!

Some Muslims have even had the gall to compare this Mohammed "Looney Toons" cartoon insanity to the "Muslim 9/11" !!! Were it only that they had limited themselves to burning mocking drawings and pictures of the Twin Towers, instead of MURDERING three thousand innocent people, for which the Palestinians celebrated dancing in the streets of Gaza and passing out sweets!!!

It is amazing that we allow these people, shielded by the very "Freedoms" they so hate, as witnessed by some of the signs wielded by Muslim protesters of the cartoon fiasco in London recently:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/british_urging_1.php

to utilize the rights, and freedoms we grant them, to try to kill us, or to ram their islamist ideology of intransigence and hatred down our collective throats!!!

Wouldn't it be ironic to see all those "American Feminist" women (and "girlie men" who feel like women, as Arnold would say), who so cherish their right to irresponsible promiscuity over the right to life of the children of their own conception, or their right to impose upon the rest of us their "Alternate Lifestyles," who in the majority are devout "Leftist Democrats" who have undermined President Bush's War on Terror every step of the way through the Democrat demagogues that through their votes they have empowered in Washington, be forced to were "burkhas," be "subject" to their husbands, fathers, brothers or other males in their family, and summarily
"executed" for the least act of promiscuity, or stoned to death in public for their homosexuality?!?!

However, perhaps the opponents of the Iraqi war do have one meritorious point after all, about how we should not have gotten involved in the conflict. These "Islamist terrorists" and "insurgents" deserve no better than such a "viper" as Saddam to decimate them, and keep them in check... the way he used to!

It is saddly reminiscent of that old Greek tale of the Benevolent Log who was King of some frogs in a pond, and the frogs complained to Zeus about how "ineffectual," and "powerless" the log was as a King, since no matter what they, the frogs, did, he just sat there; and then were answered in their request by Zeus, who sent them a snake as King in its stead, which not only kept the frogs in check, but ultimaly ate them all!

As proven by the recent elections in the Palestinian Territories, perhaps "Democracy," and Islam, are just simply incompatible, just as apparently it is also incompatible with
"Peace," "non-violence," and "tolerance"!!!

Althor

81 I work here at Camp bucca in Iraq and Ive been on the convoys north of here for 10 months. Ive been shot at and had friends killed. As far as Im concened allah and everyone of these shit house rat bastards of islam and muslim faith can suck my nutsack and eat my western shit.

82 Why doesnt the U.S. Government take a few lessons from Israel? Quit fucking around with these bastards, the hell with the snivelling sadsacks and candy-ass liberals and world opinion...these islamic/muslim psychotic murderers started this war, lets finish it. This aint a game, its WAR. So lets get it over with and go home.

83
to sum up Althors thoughts into 3 points..

1. it's not the muslims fault,
2. it's Israel's fault but if not, then...
3. it's the West's fault.

84 Dear The Other Dave,

Have you read my posts all the way through?!?!
You must be confusing me with that "anti-semite" Johnf!!!

I support the Administration, the President, and his Policies, and believe the War in Iraq to be not a "luxury," but a "necessity" in the War on Terror!

Perhaps you misunderstood my being "ironic," and "sarcastic" about how perhaps these Iraqi people willing to blow themselves up and their fellow Muslims, in order to harm or kill an American soldier, do not deserve "Democracy," but a ruthless Dictator like Saddam who kept them in check by populating mass graves, and "really" torturing them at Abu Ghraib, not just by
"humiliating" them as some of our misguided soldiers did, who since then have been tried and convicted for their crimes.

I state in the above posts that after having been maligned, ostracized, and persecuted for two thousand years, culminating in their near extermination in Nazi Concentration Camps, the Jewish people DESERVE a Homeland, and to return to their Historical roots! I support Israel's Right to Exist as a Nation, and their heroic struggle amidst a sea of enemies, and have openly condemned all the barbarity, the intolerance and the montrous violence in which most Muslims seem willing to engage on the slightest pretext!

Contrary to your assertions, I have not blamed the West and Israel for the escalation of Islamic violence, but rather called for us in the West to open our eyes to see the looming threat Islam poses to Western Civilization, and our values of "Freedom of Speech," "Freedom of Expression,
"Freedom of Religion," and "tolerance"!!!

You really must have me confused with someone else!!!

Regards,

Althor

85 Anti- Saudi bellicosity by the Administration indeed Johnf! Pfff!!!

The Bush Admonistration has so much "bellicosity" against Muslims and Arabs, that they want to give the UAE control of our ports!!!

It's like the farmer hiring the "fox" to guard the "chicken coop"!

This world is going nuts!!!

Althor

86 I cant believe the pure bullshit Ive been reading on this blog...has everyone forgotten WW1, WW2? If we dont stop this bullshit here in this fucked up, shithole part of the world, its gonna be in our own backyards. The muslim assholes have already attacked the U.S., Spain, France (but who gives a shit about those chickenshit frogs anyway) etc... Anyone remember 9/11? These assholes are EVIL, PERIOD. Didnt somebody once say something to the effect of "in order for evil to succeed, good men need do nothing?" C'mon people, it dont matter who you are, if you arent a muslim, then your a target. So lets turn the tables on these bastards and quit pussy-footin' around and just shoot em all.

87 sorry Althor..

I skimmed through the posts and new that someone was doing the long winded replies.. and saw yours.. my fault for being too lazy to look up and see that it was the other guy taking up all the space..

1 Ya gotta love a lib/left story that has absolutely positively no legs whats-so-ever!

I'm shocked! I'm shocked I tell ya! The Govt actually complies lists of suspected foreign national terrorists in foreign countries! Oh the horror!

2 325,000-The number of Americans killed when one of these terrorist groups pops off a nuclear device in a major city. That is the number I'm worried about, not how many terrorists the NSA has on a list. It's much better to err or the side of too many rather than not enough.

3 wow that is a whole lot of names. I didn't even realize that there that many different names. Do you think that you get placed on this list for advocating killing Americans? like hanging them ?

4 Only if you want to hang them for, you know, blasphemy as opposed to convicting some one of murder and then hanging them.

5 OK, now the FISA Court should get to work and issue those easily-obtainable warrents so that the NSA can listen in on their phone calls.

Should have them all issued by...2010, maybe.

6 I hope the next terror bomb hits the ACLU's headquarters. Highly unlikely since the terrorists and the ACLU are the same people, but a nice thought!

7 325,000 out of a world population of some 6.5 billion people...

How dare we!!!

8 That would be about 1% of the US population or about 5/1000 ths of 1% of the world population of the world. Not bad. Lets "zero-in" on the bad guys and leave us law abiding citizens alone.

9 Actually it is 00.01% or America's population. Or 99.99& or us are not on it.

But the real point is that the America hating MSM/DNC would fault the # no matter what it was; 35,000,000 or 150.

10 Rod

Whats up Marine! Ya got that right! whatever figure - they will bitch.

Hell, call their hand! Don't think there should be a list - or one with just a couple of names .... THEN FUCKIN' SAY SO! As we have all learned - they don't actually have the balls to take a definitve positioned specific stand .. not until they get the results from about 300+ polls and focus groups.

1 The smug moron doesn't know the difference between disagreeing with his country's internal policies versus shitting on his country overseas and siding with our enemies. It must hurt to be that stupid.

2 No you have to have a brain to feel pain. Think earth worm all nervous system no brain no pain!

3 George Clooney is a lying sack of shit and I question his patriotism

4 ..yeah...I'm putting him in the self-centered lying sack of shit category too...

5 This whole Iraq Gate is something like; "Shoot first then ask questions"

I am very sorry to say this, but the whole handling of Iraq after saddam must be something in the catagory of "I have shit in my brain"

If you have handled it with any common sence, US soldiers were already sitting at home! sipping beer!

Hey dude what's up? ..huuu, I duno!

What a bunch of Fuckups!

6 Heh. No matter how profound or provocative or even outrageous liberal idiots try to sound, and no matter whether they're kids or college perfessers, they always come across as if they were woken suddenly, still babbling from a dream.

7 I question his story, patriotism and mental stability.

This post is why I like coming over here. Good job Bluto.

8 George Clooney speaks of simple ways becuase he is a simpelton with his walnut sized brain he is your typical holywood idiot and his movies stink

9 Hey Dan, second guessing isn't a plan, and hindsight isn't wisdom. The only thing Dems have offered so far is cutting and running.

10 I don't think "hard-core Republicans" get invited to those parties, do they??

11 Hi Carlos,

Maybe so, can't really judge that, I am not from America but I don't understand why people are called non patriotic if they don't agree on Iraq or see it all a bit different. My guess is that Cloony will talk differently about Afghanistan!

12 ---"I don't think "hard-core Republicans" get invited to those parties, do they??"---

Yes, evidently it's very popular for celebrities to invite a dozen or so hard-core Republicans to their parties now. It's "like" some sort of tax dodge where the invitation clearly states BYOB. I guess "like" they are supposed to pick up a few duty free bottles when they fly in to his Italian villa.

13 Lads and Lasses, love y'all but let's throw the spell check into gear before the other button. It's very important to be, look and sound right, if you're gonna lead. And that concludes todays lesson in .....

14 IM:
You sir, are an exception , if for no other reason than you are exceptional! Apart from the fact, that yours was intentional.

15 Dan,

People don't get called un-patriotic if they simply disagree with the Iraq situation. Many Iraq critics who get counter-criticized often start to scream that their patriotism is being questioned. Even when the counter critics go out of their way to say no one's patriotism is being dissed.

Now, there are certains groups of people who deserve their patriotism questioned. A professor who wishes for a million Mogadishus (ala Blackhawk Down) deserves his patriotism questioned. Code Pink who it is said has given money to the Iraqi terrorists deserve the questioning of their patriotism.

Will Clooney talk differently about Afghanistan? Perhaps, but it wouldn't shock me if he dissed Afghanistan too. After all, MoveOn was 100% against going into Afghanistan (despite their weaselly words today about the topic).

I doubt very much Clooney's story. It all sounds like standard leftist caricture.

16 When people believe the claims of foreigners, particularly our enemies, that our military has engaged in "war crimes" without a shred of proof or without even hesitating a nanosecond to 2nd guess that maybe our troops deserve a presumption of innocense, it's proper to question their patriotism.

When someone treats Abu Gharib as if it were widespread and all soldiers participated in this action, when people believe Seymour Hersh unquestioningly and refuse to believe any part of a Pentagon Press release (including today's date), their patriotism warrants questioning.

If you thought we should've given the inspections more time, your patriotism wasn't questioned. If you wanted economic sanctions lifted over the last 10 years but turn around and said this war was wrong because "sanctions worked", your patriotism warrants questioning.

17 Marcus and h0mi,

Thanks for the inside. For a moment I had the impression that America has become a bit of short-sided. good to see there is an nuance!

18 "short-sighted"

19 Thanks forest, and may the blessed nose hairs of the prohpet, (BBQ sauce upon him), embrace you like a cashmere bathrobe with matching shearling slippers.

20 Anyone here watch the movie "Jarhead", i have'nt but heard some leftwing elites waffling on about it on the radio, apparently it about some American soldiers that were trained and sent to iraq in the first gulf war but never saw combat. Was it like that?

As usual, the left wing elitist armchair war generals thought it a massive waste of money and resources, much like the current war in Iraq.

These hollywood types, criticise when soldiers are not used (hence few of them die), but also reserve the right to criticise when soldiers are used (and some die).

21 So much hate for such small minds. Does it hurt?

1 If and her peace pansies are so damn intrested in stopping this war why dont they all go to IRAQ and meet with the insurgents and have a little love in smoke their hookas and hold their own WOODSTOCK CONCERT

2 I lost my child when she was 21. It hurts like hell. You're madder than hell. You want to blame someone. The sooner you accept and move on the better every one is. The shame is that she is being used by people with an agenda. If she was smarter she would know that. The pitful part is she is not accepting what should be a natural grieving and recovery process. I guess her supporters would push her to suicide and the she would be a martyar. Cindy get help not anger.

3 BREAKING NEWS__THIS JUST IN

LATEST IN CINDY SHEEHAN ABDUCTION

URGENT AND PASSIONATE PLEA RECEIVED

"It was a mistake. Take her back, PLEASE! We'll Pay YOU!"

THAT IS ALL FOR NOW.
Elmer Phub, Reporting, for MSM NEWS

WHERE WE KEEP YOU DISINFORMED AS WE SEE FIT.

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMERCIALS.

4 WE LIVE IN AMERICA PEOPLE IF SHE WANTS TO TALK SHIT THAT IS HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT REMEMBER WE HAVE FREEDOMS OTHER PEOPLE WISH THEY HAD LET HER SPEAK HER PEACE I DONT AGREE WITH HER BUT SHE HAS THE RIGHT
ONLY IN AMERICA

5 I just Buggered Cindy

1 Cindy Sheman's brain? So they are basically selling a bucket of shit?

2 Proceeds go to nonprofit, eh? Did you read who the nonprofit is? I guess the hungry children these people care so much for take a backseat to partisan activities. Better to fund politician's and their supporters who seek to force more taxes out of us which the bulk of will go to "administrative costs".

Funny I didn't see any pictures there of her smooching Chavez.

3 So she finally figured out the left was using her for all they could, no intention of supporting her or voting for her.

The fiery end is getting closer.

4 "E-Bay Auctions Cindy Sheehan's Brain"
This is not true. E-Bay won't try to sell something that has never existed.

Bill

5 So whats her problem anyway looks like her ambitions are as big as a walnut and her rediclous whinnings why dont she just go home

6 I thought it was the democrats that are the party of hate (sarcasism). Seems like some people that blog on this site hate this woman. If any of you would like to sign up for this war and are under the age of 42, please email me, I have some recruiter friends that would love to get you over there. If your too old or you have an injury, how about a family member?

1 I want credit and a cheezeburger for calling this some time back. The game is afoot starting now for '06 and '08.

2 How did we ever win WW1 and WW2? News took weeks, months and in some cases years to get stateside. Of course there were lots of people worrying about their loved ones, but practically EVERYONE was busy, WINNING the war. None of this wimpy whiny ass hand wringin' and especially about enemies (now TERRORIST PUKES) being tracked. Following the last French bailout, the media has learned how to destroy us, if I had to sum up what passes for concern and a "right to know" in the name of news. AP says RINO, but it's the AP so.....

3 And tomorrow they're sharing highly classified information with the Senate intelligence committee! Oh, the horror! How dare anyone in Congress ask for intelligence oversight?

4 IO ERROR

They have always been given information of on the overall program - some tend to forget.

What they will get now (which is extremely unusual) is detailed specifics on specific cases (their successes I grant you) - which will in turn somehow manage to be leaked to the MSM & general public.

5 IO ERROR - hondo is essentially correct, except for where hondo says "detailed specifics" read: "rope to hang themselves with".

forest hunter: "RINO" was my word.

6 IO ERROR, before you get your panties in a wad, read up a little on WWII. Particularly do a google on "enigma" and "purple". Ponder what effects the leaking of that information would have had on the war effort. Perhaps then you will understand why some (ie: anyone with half a brain) are livid that these details are being provided to a group that leaks like a collander which has been used for shotgun target practice...

7 Yep, Hondo's right. There HAS been Congressional oversight. There was a committee selected for this, as in every other aspect of government there are oversight committees. And these committees are comprised of those on both sides of the aisle out of fairness. However, this is a little more sensitive to national security that picking a judge or haggling over which taxes to raise. Revealing sensitive details of this program to them is akin to mapping out troop positions in the Middle East. Pelosi had better tread very carefully. I trust her less than anyone on the committee.

8 The Dread Pundit Bluto
Sorry bout that! I promise to you use both eyes in the future. This is me walking out on a diseased limb with a sack of spuds attached to a safety line in the hand of my Ex-wife and in her other, a saw. Love you baby ! Thanx for the triiiiiiiiiip!

RINO means?

9 You guys are forgetting to spit your tobacco juice. Do you think terrorists are so stupid that they don't know they are being listened to? Of course not. The secrecy was to keep the American people from knowing our dear elected officials are illegally spying on us!

10 There's a lawful way to compel the Congress to investigate, even if they don't want to, or are convinced "they don't need to": [ Click ]

1 I had the same suspicion. Local islamoterrorists don't wish to be left out of the protest. Just human nature.

2 It probably wasn't a buddhist. Well probably not a good buddhist, it could have been a bad buddhist. In the Christian Science Monitor article Buddhists were not mentioned as suspects http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0208/p02s01-ussc.html Since my coreligionists were responsible for the deaths of more Americans in the last 50 years than any other religion I feel it necessary to speak up for them in the matter of church burnings.

3 Occam's razor! Historically, there has been serious rivalry between Christian denominations, especially in the south. It has been confined to bake sales and door-to-door recruiting in the past. But I think it has been ratcheted up lately. I think we need to take a long hard look at the Methodists.

4 Lew, you may have a point, but I blame the Mormons, who are the most aggravating, doorbell-ringing sons-o'-bitches you ever met since the Adventists and Witnesses ran out of steam when the Millenium came and went without Jesus putting in an appearance.

5 There is a university with a Muslim association in close proximity to the area the church burnings are occuring. They should check that out. And, if we find out that it is Muslims doing this, I am sure there will be a huge backlash from all the American citizens who are tired of the Bush Administration "noble religion of peace" lying mantra.

6 Kids - dope-smokin', maggot invested, wannbes out to make their "Beau Gueste". Probably no SUVs to vadalize in town.

John - we all know your a self-proclaimed budhist (you tell us often enough). You one of those tri-chic converts? Kind of a socio-fashion assessory thing? In about 5 years, what are you going to be - any ideas?

7 No hondo I lived in a monastery for about a year in Thailand about 30 years ago. Probably will still a buddist in another 5 years, it is a comfort for me. The article, Feb 8th LA Times, quotes the senior special agent of ATFE as saying that local residents reported seeing "two white males deiving a dark SUV possibly a pathfinder" near 2 of the fires. So I guess it still leaves open the possibility that they were buddists, they were driving an asian vehicle.

8 Actually, out of curiosity, I took one of those religion tests to see what I would be if I was a religious person and apparently, I'm Mahayana Buddhist.

Who'da thunk it?

9 Mahayana is the way to go !!! Easy for all to use and enjoy. No being walled up into a cave or prolonged staring at one's navel. And more chicks too

10 I read the story about the SUV. So if they were driving a SUV, we know they're environment hating Republicans. All we need now is religious affiliation. Anyone know if they were able to get any bumper sticker info from the vehicle.

11 >>>"The Left and their allies in the MSM are free to speculate as to who the likely suspects are whenever an alleged hate crime is committed. We, on the other hand, are not for fear of being called an Islamaphobe."

Holy crap, Rusty. You are a sage. Preach it.

12 From a law enforcement point of view it is best to not try to focus on any group or faction until there is actual evidence.

Focusing too early has the potential to lead to missed clues.

13 I'll be shocked if it isn't muslims or liberals.

14 John

If so, then I apologize. I would not have made that statement if I had known you were serious serious. It was in reference to converts of fashionability - there is a lot of that going around.

15 As often as not, church burners just like to see the pretty flames. They choose churches because they expect them to be empty six nights a week, and don't want to risk hurting anyone.
A few years back, there was a big flap over a "hate crime" when a black church burned down south. Then the arsonist turned out to be a black girl who attended that church.

16 Who knows who is doing this but its a ctime nonetheless so why dont they keep a eye out for suspcous persons

17 The first cluster of burnings was done on a Friday - that should be prima facie evidence that this was the work of the followers of the religion of peace. Legendary they are for getting whipped up into a frenzy from their Friday gatherings, so a little such action on their sabbath is likely viewed as noble service indeed...

18 You're all wrong...IT's ZIONIST thugs. Bad Baptists, taking your money away from the building of the Zionist state of terror/israel.