Rebuttal to Dennis Miller 's Cute Simplifications : Houston Indymedia

> (1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein . Hussein is the bad guy.

The U.S. supports brutal dictators all around the world as long as they
support the financial interests of the multinational corporations that
have purchased our government. Hussein, Bin Laden, Noriega, etc. are all
formerly on the U.S. payroll. Frankly, I think the rich pig who kicks back
in his palace paying petty thugs like Hussein to do his dirty work until
they become inconvenient, is a far greater menace to peace and justice
than the petty thugs themselves.

> (2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep
> this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and
> Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
> (3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military
> Victories," don't be surprised if your computer panics at its
> inability to respond to your inquiry.

The United Nations Charter is a solemn treaty obligation legally ratified
by the United States. It is the law of *this* land. This UN bashing is
trendy and cute but U.S. unilateralism has set a dangerous precedent.
Ignoring the consensus of France, China, Russia, France and the vast
majority of nations, allowing this unelected coke-addict C-student George
W. Bush to lead us into an unprecedented "pre-emptive" war, a "war to
achieve peace," inflicts grave damage on international agreements,
institutions, and the social credibility of the United States.

> (4) If youronly anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull
> lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip
> through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any
> non-troglodyte deserves.

Any scholarly investigation of the justifications for war advanced by the
Bush administration reveals that their position is supported only by
boldfaced lies and fabrications. The complicity of the U.S. corporate
media in uncritically parroting this propaganda, in effect manufacturing
the consent of the American people, shows a degree of corruption that
should frighten and alarm any conscientious citizen who cares about
freedom of speech or the integrity of our democratic institutions.

> (5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT
> seek UN approval before they try to kill us.

CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress that an attack on Iraq
would increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the United States.

See http://www.unansweredquestions.org . There is certainly more evidence that
Bush was complicit in 9/11 than Saddam was complicit in 9/11. The "War On
Terrorism" is a protection racket, a gigantic television commercial to
sell us security "services." Trusting Bush to keep you safe after 9/11 is
no different than a German trusting Hitler after the Reichstag fire.

> (6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President.
> He only plays one on TV.

He's a better actor than Reagan. Let him run with Nader.

> (7) If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin
> Laden you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.

To bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is an infidel whom he wants dead. The
purported connections between Hussein and bin Laden are among the most
blatant lies put out by the Bush cartel, and are universally rejected by
U.S. intelligence agencies.

> (8) Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but
> not in the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to
> get is as an Ivy League college professor.

See my previous letter to you on this topic. Iraq is a defeated third
world nation whose military budget is less than 1% of the United States'.
We have been lied to and manipulated about this phoney threat by war-pigs
who are making a desperate grab for money and power in the face of a
collapse of the U.S. economy. A state of permanent war is needed in order
to dilute the civil rights of the growing number of Americans who are
waking up to the organized criminal influences corrupting our government.

> (9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that
> all cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining
> the past 500 year of Islam.

Possibly, if the Arab world were as powerful as the Western industrialized
nations, they would be just as arrogant as we have been in imposing our
political, economic, and military will on their societies. As it stands,
they just want to be left alone. They don't hate our freedoms, they envy
our freedoms and hate us for taking their freedoms away.

> (10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and
> women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these
> issues. They deserve our unreserved support.

"Support Our Troops" is the ultimate cop-out to escape from a fair and
rational examination of the arguments and evidence in favor of war. The
assertion that "patriotism" somehow involves silencing dissent, is a
negation of one of our country's most fundamental values, the freedoms
that make this country worth fighting for.

Over 30% of Gulf War veterans have applied for and received disability.
There is a massive cover-up of the health effects of depleted uranium
munitions. Our federal government needs to "support our troops" by not
exposing them toxic doses of radiation without their knowledge or consent.

Sir, I urgently wish to alert you to an imminent threat to the security,
peace, and civil liberties of the American people. "President George W.
Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed
violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of
America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and
humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people
of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial
executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the
Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States..."

See http://www.votetoimpeach.org/articles_rc.htm

The attribution to Dennis Miller turns out to be an urban myth, see
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/miller.asp

After 911, Dennis Miller lost his sense of humor faster than Trent Lott running out of the capital during a bomb scare.

Dennis makes fewer jokes about Bush than his own genital warts.

Nice to see you criticize Miller's "simplications" with gross generalizations, simplifications and unbacked accusations of your own. The war in Iraq is not about oil, you numbskulls. If we wanted Iraq's oil, the simplest and cheapest way for us to get it would be to lift the embargoes and buy it from them (like France has done). Even a rudamentory knowledge of the world oil market would refute your claim. Finance is not at the heart of our motives for our policies regarding Iraq. However, the same cannot be said for France. I don't understand why you people don't find that troubling.

The only fact that comes out of your critique of Miller's views is that you simply hate GWBush. I'm not a fan of the man myself, though I am a fan of the decisions he's made. He's risen to the occasion and has surprised me.

Jon Frederick must be an idiot, a wannabe traitor, or both. And doctorates must surely be running a dime per dozen these days.

How many times am I going to see people using insults as rebuttals? C'mon people. Calling someone an idiot who has obviously pointed out all his arguments, using facts and yes, generalizations(things you use to express a main point), is such an inadequate form of discussion you should not even take the time to post it. If anything, give some support to back up your claim that he's a "traitor".

And John, thank you for your comment:

"The assertion that "patriotism" somehow involves silencing dissent, is a negation of one of our country's most fundamental values, the freedoms that make this country worth fighting for. "

I must have missed the facts. All I saw were gross generalizations, unsopported assertions,and an absolute orgy of begging the question. I guess I need the left-wing reactionary secret decoder ring.

Dear Matt from L.A.:

Forgive my rudimentary knowledge of the world oil market, but why BUY Iraq's oil at retail prices when you can invade and recolonize Iraq, "privatize" Iraq's oil by letting US oil corporations ("foreign investors") purchase Iraq's previously nationalized assets (reminds me of the US "purchasing" California/Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada while the US Army occupied Mexico City during a 19th century US war of aggression), switch Iraqi oil transactions from the Euro back the US dollar (saving conversion fees and strengthening the drooping dollar) and then SELL the oil ourselves, KEEP the profits, and CONTROL the flow of oil to other nations (Japan, China, India, Europe)?

But why would a US administration packed with former and future oil executives think about the use of US military force in those terms?

Steve from L.A.

==========

"The war in Iraq is not about oil, you numbskulls. If we wanted Iraq's oil, the simplest and cheapest way for us to get it would be to lift the embargoes and buy it from them (like France has done). Even a rudamentory knowledge of the world oil market would refute your claim. Finance is not at the heart of our motives for our policies regarding Iraq."-- Matt from L.A.

Youse republicans are an asshole.

Folks, let's knock it off with the name calling. Grow up, please. Listen, I went to Iraq and did my job proudly. I do not think that my life was being put in danger for oil. That is not a rational conclusion. Listen, Saddam was a terrible man, responsible for more raping and killing than we will ever really know about. Why does our President get all the bad press for doing what was right? We know that no matter what he does, liberals will continue to bash him. I wasn't crazy about him at first, but I will say that I am glad he was in office instead of Gore. Any clear-headed American will admit to that. I applaud the President's efforts and think he has done a much better than expected job so far.

George Bush and his gang of right-wing fundamentalist super hawks are the worst things to happen to this country in centuries. Killing, maiming and torture should not even be in the vocabularly of modern humankind. We should be finding ways to bring peace and justice to the world, evolving beyond our barbaric past. War does not bring peace. It assures death and suffering of innocent people, and continues the cycle of hatred and revenge. Someone, at some point in human history, has to break that cycle. Saddam was an evil man, yes. Who put him in power? The U.S. Noriega, The Shah of Iran, Duvalier, Bin Laden, Somoza, Pinochet, were all evil men who imprisoned, torturned and killed any citizen who spoke out against them. Who put them in power, armed them, supported them? The U.S. Read your history, talk to people who were their victims, as I have. The U.S. has now invaded another country, Iraq, and will not leave until they are assured that another dictator replaces their previous puppet, Saddam. It will all be a pretense and done "in the name of democracy," but it will be anything but a democratic process, as usual. Wake up, America, before it is too friggin late.

Dime a dozen? Then go get one and get back to me once you have, moron.

Noriega, The Shah of Iran, Duvalier, Bin Laden, Somoza and Pinochet are what happen when the U.S. screws around and doesn't take care of the problem.

Look at Japan and Germany. We took care of business there WITH A WAR. We stuck out the years of rebuilding and the asssociated costs. Afterward, both countries and the world are better because of it.

In Iraq, we are helping them put together a constitution and a democracy. Bush is not screwing around and appointing some lacky and rushing out. He's not quickly installing some puppet and running away. He is committed to finally giving the Iraqis the power to rule themselves. They will finally have a system of truely elected officials with a system of checks and balances. The Iraqi people will finally have rights. But instead of commending this, you attack it.

Can't you see the forest through the trees?

Let me get this straight. I'm persuaded from this list that I should support the war, because
(1) Bush is less evil than Hussein.
(2) The UN sucks.
(3) The French don't win wars.
(4) People who think this is a war for oil are dumb.
(5) Saddam and Osama want to kill us all.
(6) Martin Sheen is irrelevant.
(7) Bin Laden hates you.
(8) Some people are paranoid.
(9) Islam is bad.
(10) Support our troops, no matter what they do.

Wow, well, I can't see how any of these are actually arguments to kill 10,000. I will only speak of (5) and (9), because they are all that have any bearing on a war in Iraq, as far as I can tell. On (5), I will say that maybe it is true that Hussein wants to kill us. I actually rather doubt it. I think he knows it would be his annihilation, and he is too self-interested to chance that. What has he ever done to convince you of this? Perhaps you just take Bush at his word that Hussein wants to kill us all. But I really see no evidence. Gassing Kurds, as bad as it is, isn't a evidence that he wants to kill Americans. Neither is starting a war with Iran. Nor is invading Kuwait. So where is the evidence?
On (9), I can only say that Christianity is the most dangerously psychopathic religion on the planet. In the last 500 years, no religion has killed more people than Christianity. We could talk about the English imperial program of bringing civilization to the natives, we could talk about the encomienda system set up by Catholics to brutalize the natives, we could talk about the American genocide against the Indians (which Protestants took to be fully licensed by God), we could talk about slavery in the states. We could talk about what Europeans and Russians have done to the Jews, which dwarfs Muslim persecution of the Jews.

Christians are even more dangerous psychopaths, because they don't realize that they are psychopaths.

"no religion has killed more people than Christianity"

Exactly how many people have burst into flames or have been struck dead by lightning for opening a Bible, going into a Christian church or committing their lives to Christ?

How much more ignorant can that statement be?

I'm not aware of ANY religion that kills people.

I'm aware of corrupt popes who are not really Christians who have killed thousands upon thousands for political reasons. I'm aware of greedy people who have used Christianity as an excuse to kill and enslave for profit. I'm also aware of sociopaths who in their unstable and twisted minds have murdered in the name of Christianity, even though they would also have done it if their dog had told them to.

Now, you may start pointing to the old testament and start pointing to the wars in there. However, do all Christians take the old testament literally? I don't.

"Wow, well, I can't see how any of these are actually arguments to kill 10,000. I will only speak of (5) and (9), because they are all that have any bearing on a war in Iraq, as far as I can tell."

If you're basing the war on what is said on a forum within a message titled "Rebuttal to Dennis Miller's Cute Simplifications", then you really need to get a clue.

Bravo to all the brave folks who went to fight in Iraq. However, there are still no weapons of mass destruction, George W. is begging for more money to fight, a government hasn't been implemented in Iraq yet and George W. is about to get voted out of power.

Seems Canada's Prime Minister looks like a bit of a genious now for for saying "no thanks".

Jon Frederick's rebuttal is not an over-generalization or simplification; it is, however, basically correct and verifiable. Sure, he may not go into great detail or provide many sources (just a few websites) but for those in the know, everything Jon Frederick says can be accounted for through unreported, declassified government documents, memos, leaks and under-reported or unreported (in the US) news stories. The only major problem with Jon Frederick's article is that he seems to believe that the invasion of Iraq was simply for oil. That may surely be part of it but the invasion seems to be more for power over and control of a key geo-political location (Iraq). As David Frum, Bush's former speech writer, said in a European newspaper interview (not reported in the USA), Iraq is in a key position in the Middle East and with control over Iraq comes control over the Middle East or at least the ability to "influence" it even more so than the US does now. However, so long as people depend on mainstream news for their information so they will continue to be an ignorant bunch chanting "USA USA" and proclaiming how the USA is out for peace, justice and protection then acting surprised and shocked when "terrorists" aim at American targets for death and destruction.

You're a little bit closer.

Yes, Iraq is an extremely important geo-political country. But we aren't looking to have power or take control the way you think.

The idea is to turn Iraq into a free-market democracy. If it can flourish there, it would inevitably spread to the countries surrounding it.

When people see Iraqis owning there own businesses, having REAL elections and protesting in the streets without fear of death, they will want it as well.

And as far as that old and worn out "we did it for oit" propaganda, can you tell me what the cost of oil is now? Are maybe I just misinterpretted your slogan. Maybe the whole "Blood for Oil" meant that if we spilled blood we'd get to pay a lot more for oil. Is that what the slogan meant?

"The United Nations Charter is a solemn treaty obligation legally ratified
by the United States. It is the law of *this* land. This UN bashing is
trendy and cute but U.S. unilateralism has set a dangerous precedent. "

Last time I checked, the Constitution was the law of this land and I don't ever want to see my President ask for permission when its time to protect our nation.
Like Dennis Miller, 9/11 changed my world view. Frankly, I don't care what people think is right, wrong, or hypocritical about the US or its policies. The gloves are off. Is this a dangerous precedent? Sure is. But I'll take the road of Unilateralism over putting my faith in a defunct and utterly powerless organization such as the UN.

"Last time I checked, the Constitution was the law of this land"-- great to hear, so you agree that the U.S., and other sovereign nations like Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, etc. have higher obligations to their own people than submitting to WTO, World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other such insidious organizations manipulated by soul-less multinational corporations.
"I don't ever want to see my President ask for permission when its time to protect our nation."
or to tell the truth, either! citizens need to be told just enough to keep their asses in line! What we need in this country is a corporate news media that doesn't ask too many questions.
"Like Dennis Miller, 9/11 changed my world view. " me too. see http://www.unansweredquestions.org

National sovereignty only counts for the United States according to these blowoffs who think that the US shouldn't answer to a world body like the UN.

If it were China doing it, they'd freak. If Soviets did it, we'd bomb them.

The biggest point here is that we are the big muscle and we are often flexing it to prove it, a sign of insecurity. The go it alone rhetoric is so contemptuous of the rest of the world, we deserve whatever happens to us.

If the US population is <190,000,000, then we are outnumbered by almost 6,000,000,000 people!

So they are saying that an elite selfish bunch of US citizens should determine the direction for the rest of the planet. It's unsustainable to continue with this attitude.

Doubt it? double check your history on Romans. Where's that mighty roman empire now? It over extended itself, created many enemies and was eventually destroyed...as were the Ottomans, the British, and every other empire that created that sort of geopolitical power.

Ok, hawks, now start in your highly predictable slams on who you think I vote for, side with, or what ideology you wish to project in the absence of a good argument for a selfish nationalistic racist policy like the United States is moving towards.

NO IMMIGRANTS!!!! they scream!!!!!!

as if each one of the ones who scream are thousands of generations on this land....most of which have been on this rock for less than 200 years, most of those even less than 100 years.

enjoy

"NO IMMIGRANTS!!!! they scream!!!!!!"

You are so incredibly blind that you don't even know the difference between immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants.

It's so funny reading your naive simpleton little rants.

I don't mind having cowards live in my country, but I don't want my country being a little coward.

The game of cowards and bravery is another projection of mr rancid garbage logic. for such a myopic turd, he really enjoys the vision of power and might. some shrinks would consider this a sign of the typical american fear....oh no....we're afraid...must be strong.

most big people dont really have to run around acting big...only Napolean dwarfs like Rancid have to play the games of Cowards and Braves.

"you don't even know the difference between immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants. "

Rancid is not only dull but not very psychic. what he really means is:
"I don't think you know the difference between immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants because you didn't explicitly say ILLEGAL immigrants or even LEGAL immigrants only that you mocked what you thought was my lame position on IMMIGRANTS"

truth is...Rancid, oh king dullard, it doesn't matter to me. you have confused me for someone who gives a rats ass about borders and territory. I'm sick of people like you who have decided where this invisible line that divides us is.

you think really shallow boy....go out and read a bit before you find yourself in over your pencil neck

Observer,you win the monthly prize for name calling,subject changing and all other deversionary actions.This prize is given to the most liberal poster each month who can manage to reduce all dicussions to haliburton no matter what the original subject.Past winners have gone on to parlay their win into a career.In order to advance you must now dress up as the reaper and do "street theater" in downtown Houston.The yearly grand prize for far lefties will be awarded in Jan 04 after Bush is sworn in again.Al franken and mike moore will be the presenters(try not to wet your pants if you meet them).John kerry and jane fonda will have sex on stage and then lead the crowd in "kumbaya".Alec baldwin will be waiting with his private jet to relocate you to China,where you will be joined by amy goodman for a tour of the chineese prison system(hosted by al gore).This is the dream trip for all lefties and I hope you win.GOOD LUCK!!!(contest is open to all who post here) RULES:Must be able to relate halliburton to ANY international situation:Must be willing to defend any dictator currently in power or recently disposed(last ten years):Must be willing to turn over entire budget of this country to all the wefare riding illegal immigrants in this country(this will include the deed to your home<however you will be required to keep making the payments).:Second place winner will be relocated to france,third place wins relocation to the beautiful city of san diego to live under a bridge with illegal immigrants.

"confused me for someone who gives a rats ass about borders and territory"

I bet you don't let any person who wants to come into your home and sleep there and eat your food and use take your possessions do you?

No, you don't. That is because you are a complete and total hypocrite. But, that has been established time after time.

Rancid again knows nothing about what he's talking about and Lee plays his game.

"I bet you don't let any person who wants to come into your home and sleep there and eat your food and use take your possessions do you? "

On the contrary, but that's not the argument and you are a distractor. I'm talking about National borders that are arbitrary. But even if I weren't your statement above is not factual about my own personal life, but nice try. It tells me that YOU ARE NOT LIKE THAT.

See Rancid is someone who can't live outside his own limited hateful experience, so he thinks others must abide by his limited experience.

this is fun though, cuz I'm not gonna give you more information about my personal life. It's more fun for you to simply insert your perspective in it and see you for the jackass you are.

And Lee.....I never brought up Halliburton, I responded to someone else who did, Rancid, as he tried to paint the argument in one direction he thought he could handle.

Halliburton confessed to wrong doing. No real need for a conspiracy theorist when a company admits...on national media, that it has done this.

BUT HERE"S ANOTHER ONE FOR YA TO CHEW ON.

Does the US Military spy upon conferences realted to Muslim Issues?

March 15, 2004, 12:23PM

Army finds agents erred at UT Islam conference
Associated Press

AUSTIN - U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command agents overstepped their authority when they sought information on civilian participants at a University of Texas conference, the Army reported.

Two counterintelligence agents from Fort Hood, near Killeen, went to the UT Law School on Feb. 9, seeking information on people who attended a conference titled "Islam and the Law: The Question of Sexism."

The Army is prohibited from investigating civilians unless the FBI waives its jurisdiction or requests assistance, said Deborah Parker, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, based in Fort Belvoir, Va.

"It was a lapse in judgment," Parker said. "It was not something that was done maliciously."

Read More at:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2450157

"I'm talking about National borders that are arbitrary."

LOL! There is nothing arbitrary about borders. Without people coming together to set up laws and standards for the community where they live, there would be anarchy and chaos. Not having borders is like not having a front door to your home. It will allow anyone who may have the intent to do harm to wander in.

People who are extremely naive want to eliminate our borders. They'll say let anyone come in, all are welcome. But why is it that they won't do this at their own home? (I don't believe for 1 second you leave your door open to all strangers. Although, I do believe you'll lie to try, although you fail, to make a point).

"LOL! There is nothing arbitrary about borders. "

in your view as a selfish narcissistic american, but in many areas of the world of not most (haven't seen most, but many) you can't even see a border...even up close. a manufactured selfishness that means nothing. and despite your UScentric view, most borders are actually natural borders like rivers, mountains, and other formations.

"Without people coming together to set up laws and standards for the community where they live, there would be anarchy and chaos. "

laws and standars and national borders aren't necessarily the same thing. while one can be the other the other isn't always the first. it's not logical to make this argument.
anarchy isn't the same as chaos. primarily defined as -Absence of any form of political authority.
chaos has been infused into the idea of anarchy while not holding much worth either.

chaos tends to subside after the pressure of a situation dies out....eventually people go home and get tired. many countries who faced chaos eventually calm towards a managable peace because of the reality of pressure and venting pressure.

In the case of LA riots the tension built over a long period of time and eventually a chaos ensued. but it's stupid and like you to think that it just happened one day because black people just got mad about Rodney King. that shit was coming for a long time and many other cities are facing that same venting process in the future if this doesn't change.

so what is anarchy? not being controlled by others. period. that doesn't mean that people will just go crazy and tear things up. you have no evidence in history to show this pattern. you only have turmoil that was built up over time and erupted into chaos as a revolt.
name one that isn't that way.

"Not having borders is like not having a front door to your home. "

I don't have a door to keep people out. I have a door to keep the rain from coming in and a screen to keep it flowing if I decide I don't mind a bit of rain.

YOU KEEP a door to block out evil people who are going to come get you in the middle of the night before the neighbors pitbull attacks your kids and africanized killer bees attack your wife. scared shitless

"It will allow anyone who may have the intent to do harm to wander in. "

evidence? you have had this happen? or did you just postulate that on your own.

I've left our front door wide open literally and not once has a person come in to harm us. and I don't live in a wealthy side of town. i don't lock our doors and have asked others who visit not to lock the doors.

now when we leave we do lock the doors but it's mostly because there are people who would come in and petty theft us if we weren't there and they had a chance. but not if we're there. and as americans if we treated Mexicans, Cubans, Columbians, Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Haitians, and those darned Canadians the same way they wouldn't come in to harm us. because we'd be friends.

You fail to see the connection between crime and economic selfishness. your locked door represents something to those who don't have but worked hard and you are less likely to be burgled than to have an auto accident that could kill you.

quit being afraid Rancid...you can't take it with you and it aint making you happy anyway.

"People who are extremely naive want to eliminate our borders."

Maybe, and very knowledgable people have contested many of our borders. What says we have a right to dominate Hawaii and Puerto Rico, or Guam, or those other areas we have invisible borders in like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Philipines, and don't forget the war that never ended Korea.

" They'll say let anyone come in, all are welcome. But why is it that they won't do this at their own home? "

Well Rancid, I doubt you are Miqmac, Lakota, Hopi, or the many other people who were first to be here, but in case you didn't realize this, you are one of the people who walked in someone elses door, killed them or reaped them for their goods and now want to close the doors to other who would follow your path (even if that path was through your ancestors)

You are such a hypocrit to suggest this open door policy is terrible when it got you control over this land to people who lived with no doors to prevent Europeans from coming in. Doors were to keep out the elements. the real need for warriors in history meant that those people kept watch for any real threats, not to sit there afraid of having some crack junkie stumble in to steal some whatever you have.

you are really lame at your logic. the only thing helping you is that there are arbitrary borders. doesn't make them moral, ethical, valuable, or even just. and if you knew anything about history, like you claim to, you'd know borders are.....ARBITRARY.
they have changed before and will change again.

But spend your little scrawny life trying to fortify your wealth

"(I don't believe for 1 second you leave your door open to all strangers. Although, I do believe you'll lie to try, although you fail, to make a point)."

Funny how you can't imagine that there are people who leave their doors unlocked while claiming to know what people think. you would know a lie if it swallowed you whole...that's evident by your support for Liar Bush.

and I never said I leave my door open to all strangers. I said I have let people live in my home who couldn't afford to be in a place of shelter. you know nothing of this living and are shouting that ignorance through your megaphone.

but....you enjoy the taste don't you rancid.

Using the following definition of lie, please give me the exact quotes of Bush's lies.

Lie - Knowingly presenting a false statement as being true (a falsehood) in order to deceive or give a wrong impression.

if you wish to make the criteria that he knows something first....then it would be impossible to catch him as an outright liar on many things because he probably doesn't know about:
Education of children
Defense of the US
Economic stimulous packages
Environmental devestation
Labor relations
Veterans Benefits
and a countless list of other areas where he waves a carrot over the crowd promising to 'work on it'.

What Bush does is say he is "going to" do something or going to "work for" some cause that people want and then his end policy cuts funding for most of those areas.

But here are a few:
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

FACT: No such vehicles have been found. This means Bush spoke about something he didn't know about in a tense that implies knowledge of situation not substantiated.

LIE: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

FACT: this statement was made after the IAEA already said these tubes could not have been used for nuclear weapons

LIE:"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

FACT: They already knew this claim was rejected

LIE: "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

FACT: not true at all, in fact we know that the inspectors were there frequently including all the way up until March 2003 and continued to state that they had not found any weapons.

But this isn't simply about outright lies that are easily pinned for the simplicity of a lie, but we should note the overall deception that holds a pattern.

What Bush and team do most is deceive, and that's the same as a lie.

The number one way they decieve is to treat accusations as though they were facts and then lead people to believe accusations without evidence.
Most of the attack on Iraq was done by accusation alone with little or no evidence of their original claim about Saddam being a threat to anyone but his own people.

Here's a case in point:
"a) “From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein [has not disclosed] these facilities. He [has given no evidence] that he has destroyed them.”

How can "WE KNOW" something that hasn't been substantiated? This statement is misleading because "WE" do not "KNOW" anything from defectors. we only "KNOW" what they said.

If they don't exist at all, we can see that the rest would be impossible. How can Saddam disclose something that doesn't exist? and if they didn't exist, then how can you show evidence for their destruction.
Blix and crew examined these "mobile labs" and concluded no wrong doing.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg....I'll give you more at a later date. If I give them all to you know, as a Bush loyalist you'll just have too much to spin and I'm sure you have other things to do.

rancid asked for exact quotes as a measure of the lie. this is a rather naive approach to see a governmental lie or a deliberate measure to prevent anyone from nailing down this lying administration.

the administration as a whole lies all the time by setting up the argument in their favor and then trudging along despite criticism or lack of evidence.

observer brings up some areas where there was dishonesty in the administration but those wouldn't qualify for rancid's exact quote.

what rancid misses though is that he wants a 'smoking gun' comment as his proof. and this is rather ironic considering his extremely low threshold for launching a war on a country. if there is no 'smoking gun' in Iraq, but the outer appearance of a shell game of WMD then Saddam must have been a threat. It is like saying, "good enough"

i then have to ask if 'good enough' is a reason for launching a war on Iraq, then why isn't it 'good enough' to call Bush a liar for at least acting in misleading ways and having an administration that openly contradicts the evidence already presented?

LIE: “We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

Observer's FACT: No such vehicles have been found. This means Bush spoke about something he didn't know about in a tense that implies knowledge of situation not substantiated.

REAL FACT: British troops in Basra found prohibited Al Samud missiles housed in a university building. The missiles, which UN weapons inspector Hans Blix ordered to be destroyed, were discovered in what British forces described as a university building in the south-west of the city. Troops who entered the building found 13 missiles. These missiles are capable of carrying and dispersing chemical and biological weapons.

LIE: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Observer's FACT: this statement was made after the IAEA already said these tubes could not have been used for nuclear weapons

REAL FACT: He was reporting what "our intelligence sources tell us". He stated what he was presented as facts. In order for it to be a lie, he had to know it wasn't true. And wasn't it the IAEA that was responsible for monitoring the North Korean nuclear program? And didn't they assure us that NK weren't able to produce nuclear weapons? They may have been wrong, but it wasn't a lie.

LIE:"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Observer's FACT: They already knew this claim was rejected

REAL FACT: They found two pounds of uranium oxide, AKA yellowcake in scrap steel that came from Iraq. Dr. Alan Ketering, a researcher at the nuclear research plant at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said that there is no obvious non-nuclear industrial use for yellow cake.

LIE: "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Observer's FACT: not true at all, in fact we know that the inspectors were there frequently including all the way up until March 2003 and continued to state that they had not found any weapons.

REAL FACT: BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq barred American weapons experts from entering the country Sunday, the second such refusal in a week and the latest sign that Baghdad has no intention of backing down from its threat to expel American inspectors.

Three American experts arrived on a U.N. flight from Bahrain in advance of the scheduled resumption of U.N. inspections on Monday, foreign diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Two were politely turned back at Habbaniya, the military airport used by inspectors about 40 miles west of Baghdad, the diplomats said. The third American, who was free to enter Iraq, left with them.

The two barred Americans work with the U.N. Special Commission, which is responsible for overseeing the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The third is an employee of the Vienna-headquartered International Atomic Energy Agency, which is monitoring Iraq's nuclear capability.

You may want to research these "lies" you read about from the Democratic Talking Points memo prior to blabbing about them. The only thing they prove is that your an uniformed sissy. Try again coward.

The concerted effort to "deceive" and "mislead" is among those rank and file Democratic Congresspeople, who voted for this war with Iraq, in attempting to lead us to believe they were unwitting, uneducated innocent pawns being led around on a leash by their King and Master, George W. Bush.

For example. Those Democratic Congresspeople who voted to go to war with Iraq would like us to believe their decision to approve Public Law 107-243 was exclusively motivated by what George W. Bush and those in his administration TOLD them, as opposed to being motivated by knowledge they were already aware of, gained by America's approximate 13 year history of conflict with Iraq. Does anyone actually believe this? Is there anyone who actually believes that those Democratic Congresspeople who approved this war - especially those Democrats who've been in Congress for a considerably long time and have been involved in the 13 year process of dealing with the problems posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq - exclusively based their entire decision on "what George W. Bush TOLD them?"

Another example I'd like readers to focus on, is the following. Certain Democratic Congresspeople allege, and would like us to believe, that they weren't afforded the luxury of viewing information contained in what have been termed "caveats" and "qualifiers." Question: Why didn't those Democratic members of Congress, especailly those serving on intelligence committees - which consist of Democrats as well as Republicans - request these "caveats" and "qualifiers" before approving the use of military force in Iraq?

Would we be mistaken to believe that if "caveats" and "qualifiers" are deemed important and essential pieces of the intelligence gathering process today, more than likely, they've been deemed important and essential in the past and these Democratic Congresspeople were well aware that "caveats" and "qualifiers" WERE important and essential pieces of information they SHOULD be looking at to make an informed and confident decision to commit America's Armed Forces in harm's way?

Although, it isn't necessarily explicitly clarified in the U.S. Constitution exactly what access Congress had to intelligence information - especially classified information - it is my belief it has been generally accepted that Congressional members - especially those serving on intelligence committees - have access to any information relevant to any particular given task they're charged with, since afterall, they are responsible for declaring war (or the equivalent thereof), appropriating funds for intelligence and military operations, etc. So, why did they fail to request this type of information? If "caveats" and "qualifiers" were necessary in the past, I think we can feel confident in saying Congressional members should have known this, and SHOULD have requested these items. And, if they HAVEN'T ever been considered important in the past, why the sudden importance placed on "caveats" and "qualifiers"...and, was anyone necessarily obliged to provide these "caveats" and "qualifiers?"

So, in conclusion...and, this is something the media ignores and seems to avoid like the plague...while we're trying to lay blame upon the White House, the CIA, Iraqi defectors, etc. - exactly what, and how much, blame can be placed upon Congress for approving the necessary resolution to commit our Armed Forces to military action?

Afterall, weren't...and, aren't, the reasons behind so vehemently defending the philosophy of Congress being the only entity with the authority to declare war and, Congress being a system of "checks and balances," to prevent EXACTLY what Democrats allege has happened, from happening? If, indeed, there were any failures, it looks like not only was there an intelligence failure, it also seems there was a "checks and balances" failure by the U.S. Congress, as well.

As a little side note, I would like to remind readers that, because I've had some argument over this in the past, at the time Public Law 107-243 was approved, Republicans controlled the U.S. House of Representatives and Democrats controlled the Senate. So, had there been a solid partisan effort by certain Democratic Congresspeople to refrain from allowing this resolution to pass through the doors of the Senate until a thorough and exhaustive debate had been conducted in regard to the issue of sending military forces to Iraq, this resolution would have never reached George W. Bush's desk for his signature.

So readers need to bear in mind that posters like 'observer' whose fundamental philosophy is based on a visceral hatred of those he deems enemies of 'DA PEEPUL' are essentially saying what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in Wonderland - "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean-no more,no less" . And since people like him have long since decided that their pitiful little utopian paradigm must be implemented "by any means necessary", we should not be surprised when he attempts to redefine words to suit his own purposes

As usual Rancid twists the truth to fit his theory.

UAVs and missiles are not the same thing.

I did not give you a quote about missiles, but UAVs.

YOU ASK FOR LIES and in answering you provide non-sequitor thinking.

and to be done with your chest puffing macho antics, you really should ask a therapist what your constant attack of "coward" and 'Sissy" mean.

Better yet, why not let us make an appointment to hash this out face to face you sniviling punk. You sure talk a big game about how tough you are and just about anyone who has ever been in a fight knows...he who talks like that must be shaking in his boots.

So punk, wanna take it a step further or do you feel most comfortable to type

Where would Locksley's mind be without a flipside to call on?

Locksley, know this day on as a puffed up know nothing, can't get it out of his head that some people don't vote or don't vote for either Republican or Democrat.

Instead he must force their answers into his limited mold in order to argue it. This simplification is the source of his American identity and his aristocratic stupidity. He thinks all people fall into a couple of categories and will simply be ignored from this day on.

Rancid, the rabidly xenophobic nutjob, can't seem to think outside of a military mindset and has clearly shown us he has neither served in the military and that he is a small pencil necked boy who wishes one day to be a man. He's all talk about being tough while someone elses kid dies at the end of his ideology to whipe the world clean of brown people so he can enjoy his ESPN coverage of stock car racing.

Their political biases prevent them from doing much in an argument besides saying, "um, no" and then spinning something about Democrats as a response to Republican criticisms. Criticise the Republicans for their actions today and he has to go slap around a Democrat record to make a point.....the point being he can't answer for the Republican lies. But to him they aren't lies....they are just convenient supports to his attack on brown people in the world.

Got Bombs Yet?

this is some weird logic.

rancid and his supporters wanted to go to war over the eminent threat of Saddam's WMD?

and he's calling someone else a coward?

seems logical that those who didn't want to go to war must not be afraid.

Rancid could you explain how not going to war against Saddam is motivated by fear?

Fear of what?

fear that if we bombed a country that has virtually no infrastructure left and no real military to speak of?

you don't make sense and you look like a coward.

only a coward would go launching a air bombing raid over a country it has all but crippled.

is that your idea of bravery?

you are a stinking coward

why don't you go down to the old folks home and do some shadow boxing and hopefully granpa will take it easy on you.

sheesh

tjorres is right - people who strut their bravery around are most often the people who are most scared. didn't someone here say that if you dont lock your doors people will come in and commit crimes or something? that sounds like a person who is afraid of the world on some level. thats the same person calling others cowards or sissy?

what fucking century do you live in if you are still calling anyone a sissy?

Well I don't presume to speak for others but I served 6 yrs in the USAF (honorable discharge) so I have no reason to feel like a hypocrite when I expound on defense issues How many of those on here who take opposing views served ANY time in the military?

in answer to your other statement:

How many of those on here who take opposing views served ANY time in the military?

taking opposing view and not joining are not so hard to match up.

not joining and talking shit at the same time is what I was pointing out.

army wouldn't let me in because of my flatfoot problem but my brother and dad served. its tradition in our house. my daughter was thinking about enlisting because she wants to go to college and we don't make much money

but we also don't go around calling for war either. my dad served in wwii and my brother in korea after the cease fire. they are still shaken up sometimes by what they dealt with. dad served pacific theater.

both of my family members are against this particular waring because they don't see it as a threat. they are more concerned with keeping some money coming since dads benefits have been hard to get taken care of and he gets told about cuts.

"why I got to get cuts when I served and now they tell these boys they'll be taken care of" was his response when they made cuts last spring.

I know Saddam is terrible and I am glad he's gone. and there are others who are just as terrible or worse out there. we can't gettem all. we'll be broke by the time we do.

my brother differs on the topic than my dad but he says he also didn't have much fighting to deal with. he mostly did standard security detail.

but we don't fight about it all. we are a family before anything else. mom cant stand watching war or violence and my wife is much like that too.

knowing what my dad and brother had to deal with, real fighting and then the long dragging occupation of korea's border I'm firmly against this war. but my dad and brother don't shame the rest of us for not wanting to go to war. and they would never call us cowards or sissys. he was the one who told me to be careful of people who called others cowards because it usually meant they were pretty afraid too.

Courage comes in many forms but the kind some of us refer to is noticeably absent in those who hurl invective from the safety of anonymity when they post here. I've always identified myself from my earliest days as a political activist, the time I spent as a commentator on KPFT, and here posting on HIMC.Some people have the courage to be identified with their convictions and some dont.. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

I can appreciate where you are coming from Locksley and I agree about people saying things here that they don't say to people in front of them. but that doesn't mean that they don't because you don't know any more about them than they know about you.

when i read what 'observer' writes i can appreciate his/her passion. but in dealing with him/her i have to remember something about it. i don't know that this isn't a 15 yr old child writing big stuff. it is doubtful but still.

at the same time i have to appreciate that 'observer' sounds like a typical protester stereotype. but he/she makes a good point about the wide spectrum of politics that we all come from. i'm not a democrat but my family is. i'm not a democrat because of how they play people like us with promises of change or inclusion and then commit many self serving acts that work against us.

also i've known several very good republicans and very good democrats. each of them was committed and yet had differing views. they stand out against people like Tom Delay who seem to want more and more anger and division. observer seems to want a bloody revolution and i disagree with that too. i hope we dont have a major bloodbath on american shores.

eitherway i believe the statements of 'coward' 'hypocrit' 'sissy' 'fascist' ' nazi' and all the other hateful invective only serve to hurt ourselves. each time any of us as individuals do this we increase chemical reactions in our brain that are bad for our hearts, minds and bodies on a physiological level. stress like this has been linked to heart attacks and depression.

i don't know you people so how can i be angry?

Dennis Millrer is one of those americans that makes the rest of the world hate USA.
I hope Al Quaida´s next attack on US soil will ill this idiot!