Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Copied out of my e-mail:
Some Americans are talking about the NO-CARB Diet for 2004.
I hope all americans are thinking of going on this one!
Very clever. Did you think this up?
heh heh heh. I like it and I agree, I hope americans think about going on this diet!
A little different spelling in my email.
NO Kerry And Rubber Backbones
I'm not sure how somebody would figure Kerry has a rubber backbone; after all, he went to Viet Nam instead of dodging the draft.
I'm glad to see someone inserted an obligatory Right Wing Troll ™
I suppose I should do better at practicing self-censorship. (We on the right expect this of others)
Apologies from a confused, misguided right winger.
You mean they are going to vote for Mr. I threw my medals, I mean ribbons, I mean other people's medals, I mean I threw other people's medals after the event?
Tomeboy,I appreciate the witticism. I'm also willing to concede that Kerry has had some flip-flops. However, the President has had his share of I'm against it/I'm for it. The list of the President's flip-flops is from a VERY Democratic site, but I think the list itself is fair (except for a few entries I've knocked out):Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he willBush goes to Bob Jones University. Then says he shouldn't have.Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a voteBush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.If you dispute any of them, I'm happy to try and dig out before and after quotes for them.One could say the President is showing flexibility and possibly admitting to specific mistakes. But if one says that for the President, then logic suggests that benefit of the doubt be extended to Senator Kerry.I think that one can make a case that neither has a strong backbone. Any American president can stand up to the UN and a despicable third world country no one likes. If the body count is low enough, it makes him popular. If not, then it can be passed on to the next President.For my own reasons, I'm becoming less of a Kerry fan with each passing day. But he'll still get my vote unless he publicaly endorses preemptive war or that he will restart the draft if elected.Ironically, I think a draft push might become more likely under a President Kerry than a President Bush, since Kerry wouldn't be asking people to do anything he himself was unwilling to do.
Ah, pchuck...We don't recall seeig you in those sunny climes...perhaps you were like Mrs. Cheney's little boy, Dick...You boys lend a new gloss the word "chickenhawk".
Yeah, "chickenhawk" that's a good one. So is Dick. I really haven't heard those before. The "chickenhawk" is so devastating that it really just ends the argument. It is so airtight that there is just no meaningful response to it.
In any event, so what if Kerry threw his ribbons or medals over the fence? It was an unpopular war. Perhaps he was right to do it. If so, why does Mr. Kerry have such a hard time responding to it? Why can't he get his story straight? Why not stick with one story?
"chickenhawk" unheard of? As for Dick Cheney, you're unaware of who our fearless Vice President is? Gosh...In any event, Kerry (who is a buffoon) is of little interest, as the fix may very well be in. No, it's you...pchuck...Your neo-con trolling is tedious...Now pluck a white feather for yourself and enjoy your day.
At least pchuck has the cojones to put his name to his messages. That puts him way ahead of you in that game. Better pluck a few of those white feathers for yourself.
As far as I'm concerned, Kerry's vacillating on his part in the war in Nam is indicative of spiritual growth. He wore the medals while he was proud of having served his country, then tossed 'em when he finally figured how royally screwed he'd gotten. If he hasn't gotten them back yet he likely will once he deals with those emotional issues. If this is the case, then he's learning some things about himself as a human being.
And again: Kerry was there, Bush chickened out.
Which brings up the point that's giving Tomeboy a sore head. Tomeboy has stated that he believes the U.S. is at war against terrorism, but Bush has no experience with war, and Kerry does. Which would explain why Kerry doesn't support the former invasion and now occupation of Iraq. He's more familiar with the reality in a way Bush cannot be, and he knows in a way Bush can't that the situation called for a more measured response.
And if you'd like to know what Bush has gotten the U.S.A. into, then check out my updated Postcards From Iraq page. CAVEAT LECTOR: this is not for the faint of heart. The photographs are graphic, and the descriptions of conditions by Robert Fisk and Jo Wilding are disturbing. What's going on there is nothing short of an atrocity.
Daniel - I think, perhaps hope, you would agree that playing "flip flop tit-for-tat" would likely bore many who care to read our posts. That said, I feel confident that any list you could produce, I too could answer with the Senator. Keep in mind his years in Washington compared to Bush.
Perhaps we leave this alone?
Just a couple of notes regarding your comments.
You mention any American president could stand up to the UN. I disagree. President Clinton's foreign policy rarely failed to submit to UN consideration and approval. Even the pathetically poor country of Haiti, which has now deteriorated to its most miserable level in recent history, required UN blessings for the Clinton/Albright tandem. Too many other examples to mention here.
Back to backbone.
The context of my quip was with terrorism. You and others may disagree with Bush policies on terrorism. Fine. But any suggestion of flip flopping on national security is, IMHO, partisan sniping or ignorance. I think I know you well enough Daniel to say that neither of these are characteristic of you.
More importantly, you mention your endorsement, at least until now, of Kerry. You and I have discussed preemption before. I respect your opinion on this issue but adamantly disagree. Terrorism can't be fought reactively. Israel has learned this bitter lesson and we should heed it.
>>Which brings up the point that's giving Tomeboy a sore head. Tomeboy has stated that he believes the U.S. is at war against terrorism, but Bush has no experience with war, and Kerry does. Which would explain why Kerry doesn't support the former invasion and now occupation of Iraq.
It's not my head that's sore, but my jaw.
Do we attribute Kerry's original "go" vote for the war as nothing more than a trial balloon long since popped by the DNC?
The context of my quip was with terrorism. You and others may disagree with Bush policies on terrorism. Fine. [...] Terrorism can't be fought reactively. Israel has learned this bitter lesson and we should heed it.
The invasion of Iraq is not about terrorism in any way, shape, or form. "Terrorism" is simply the handy excuse seized upon by the bloody-handed tyrant Bush to effect the mass murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents. The ideas that Saddam Hussein was in league with Bin Laden or had NBC weapons has been so thoroughly debunked I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would believe in them so obsessively.
Israel's indiscriminate use of Air to Surface missiles filled with high explosives, and which are are fired into crowds of innocents in the streets and marketplaces, as a weapon of political assassination, are no more anti-terrorism than the invasion of Iraq. Both are an atrocity and crimes against humanity.
And lastly: If Bush is so interested in anti-terrorism, why has he diverted so many resources away from the hunt for Bin Laden and those who actually do pose a threat to the national security of the U.S.?
There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things and George Bush Jr does things the wrong way. And all the Bushites who are absolutely blind to what a screw up he is, are the same fools who spent eight years bitching about what a criminal Clinton was, and who still blame the Clinton administration for Bush administration incompetence.
"cojones"? Fang, we thought better of you. You sound like Maddy Albright having a tizzy fit. As for posting anonymously, the last time we didn't (and in response to your good and trusted friend, the pchuck), we received some very disturbing threats to our family and considered making it a police matter.However, this is YOUR journal and we'll refrain from future comments to the neo-cons in this forum. Enjoy your day.
>>Terrorism" is simply the handy excuse seized upon by the bloody-handed tyrant Bush to effect the mass murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi innocentsThe ideas that Saddam Hussein was in league with Bin Laden or had NBC weapons has been so thoroughly debunked I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would believe in them so obsessively.
Nonsense. Care to explain Abu Nidalâ€™s residence and subsequent murder in Iraq?
Here is one example of the Al Qaeda connection.
Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal. ("Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row" The Telegraph
As for WMD.
...In an interview with reporters, Dr. Kay said he believes that Saddam, supplied with enriched unranium or plutonium, could have made a nuclear bomb in less than a year. ("Saddam Could Have Built Nuke in Year", Human Events, 10/13/2003)
>>And lastly: If Bush is so interested in anti-terrorism, why has he diverted so many resources away from the hunt for Bin Laden and those who actually do pose a threat to the national security of the U.S.?
Tell me. How many terrorist attacks have we had in the US since 9/11?
Better yet Fang, why not share your plan for national security?
Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row
As to flip-flops, my point isn't to start a boring war over who had more, or who has more serious ones, but simply to point out that it is a charge that can be applied to both candidates. I regard the President's initial opposition to an independent 9/11 review and continuing opposition to how pre-Iraq intel was used as nat'l security flip-flops. I'll leave this topic alone for now.Questions:PA - I don't know. He doesn't seem to be calling for full bore renewal and he doesn't treat critics on this subject as traitors. That'll do for a start.Terror - Yes. No preemption. We're not Israel, which conceivably be destroyed in a short time if their foes would stop fighting with each other. I'm not sure if he has a plan, but I feel very strongly that the President's plan leads America to ruin, eventually. Every other nation that decided it knew best for the world has either fallen or become second-rate powers with low influence. We are not exempt from history.Abortion - I believe in the consistent pro-life ethic from cradle to grave. I also believe that actions are more important than words. Through his war in Iraq and his approval of the death penalty in Texas, the President has cost more lives than any abortions his policies may prevent. Even the partial birth abortion ban may only prevent a small handful of abortions.The President (like his republican predecesors) can't be bothered to physically attend anti-abortion rallies each year. The marchers in Washington have to be satisfied with a phone call.I personally doubt the efficacy of legally banning abortions becasue abortion as a crime is MUCH harder to detect than murder. I think there should be more research addressing why women are having abortions and aiming at those causes. I don't think many pregnant women wake up one morning and say "I think I'll kill my baby today."Finally, I don't think terrorism can be fought premptively through military force. If it could, Israel and Russia would be very peaceful places these days. I don't know what the answer to terror is, other than refusing to hide in fear.
Care to explain Abu Nidal's residence and subsequent murder in Iraq?
Bush the baby-killer has not once used Abu Nidal's name; he painted a link between Hussein and Bin Laden. Do you deny that?
And if Hussein had Abu Nidal executed, it was because he saw Abu Nidal as a competitor to the throne. Nothing else matters for people like that. He'd do the same thing to Bin Laden in a heart beat. This is a man who executed his sons-in-law for defecting and then returning to Iraq when they fell for his blandishments. He murdered a government official who disagreed with him by having a helicopter rigged so that it would fail in flight; a chopper he was supposed to be on, but he took another one on that trip. Sure didn't bother him to kill the flight crew, either, I'm sure.
Dr. Kay said he believes that Saddam, supplied with enriched unranium or plutonium, could have made a nuclear bomb in less than a year.
The invasion of Iraq was not founded on what might have been, it was founded on Bush's assertions that Hussein could launch an NBC strike against the U.S., and which assertions were supported by Blair's statement that Iraq could do it in forty-five minutes. Do you deny that?
Do you deny that the Bush Administration committed a felony by revealing the name of a covert CIA operative, and that it did so to punish her husband for daring to utter the truth that Hussein had not tried to get fissionables from Nigeria?
Tell me. How many terrorist attacks have we had in the US since 9/11?
Tell me: 1) how many can you expect from the survivors of all those shattered homes and lives in Iraq; 2) how long do you think the level of supposedly heightened security is going to remain effective (and my call is that it is already about as effective as it was on 11 Sep '01); 3) how can you not understand that a state can protect its national security and the civil liberties of free people at one and the same, and; 4) how can you rationally believe that you are winning this mythical war on terrorism when you are doing to the U.S. what the terrorists want done: to turn it into an authoritarian police state.
And tell me, how many terrorist attacks by foreign enemies did you have in the U.S. before the WTC attack? You seem to be assuming that such attacks will happen once a week and twice on Sundays. What was the average period between attacks on U.S. soil before 11 Sep, and I'll even be generous and allow you to throw in attacks on embassies (but not military properties) even though such attacks were launched from outside the U.S.
Better yet Fang, why not share your plan for national security?
All of the problems the world is having today with the entire region of the Middle East could probably be traced back to the meddling by your imperealist running dogs when they removed the popular, progressive, and legally elected president of Iran to install the Shah. As the American puppet, he installed a police state, and then Khomenie simply co-opted the whole thing when he took power. Bin Laden and Hussein were both American puppets until they cut the strings and walked away like Pinochio. Argentina, the Honduras, San Salvador.
Jesus Christ! The question isn't where do we start with American perfidy; the question is where does it end?
By the time I got to the end of my last posting, I could tell I was getting less clear, but was running out of break time. Rather than hitting the cancel button, I posted. Next time I'll wait till a time I know I can get my thoughts in better order.Now for a couple of clarifications:1) Endorsement of Kerry. - I think "endorsement" is too strong a word. At this point in time, I believe two things - a) Sen. Kerry would do less damage to the country than Pres Bush if elected and b) The damage I fear from a second Bush term is great enough that I will vote for the lesser of two evils for the first time since 1992.Kerry could do things to make me drop my support and he does have problems with his Iraq war and Patriot Act stances, having voted for both.2) Preemption - I can endorse preemption under very, narrow circumstances and only under very limited attacks. The attack by Israel in 1981 is a perfect example. The Israelis knew where the reactor was, knew that it was part of an announced nuclear program, knew that Israel could not sucessfully withstand even a single nuke due to the size of the country, and finally, used only enough force to eliminate the threat.I'm not sure the United States could ever qualify to use my view of preemption. The primary condition would require near certain knowledge that the ENTIRE country would be destroyed in the next few months. Otherwise, we are supposed to act like the god-fearing people we claim to be and trust in His mercy. We discard that trust through preemption.3) President Bush is no-more pro-life than Kerry.While it would be a lie to say that Catholic teaching does not give special emphasis on abortion in the set of pro-life issues, abortion is not the only pro-life issue.My feeling is that President Bush is using his opposition to abortion and euthanasia to obtain a free pass on all other life issues. Plus, he doesn't even do that much. He's not trying to strong arm his party into banning abortion; he's not looking into the "root causes" of abortion; he hasn't prodded his party into taking steps to promote adoptions; the list goes on. I don't see anything that President Bush has done to get a drop in abortions. I've seen no evidence that abortions would rise under Kerry and no proposals to compel abortions from him.Thus, since I sincerely believe that the number of abortions will stay the same no matter who is elected, I do not feel bound by that issue. On the other hand, while Kerry no doubt supports the death penalty in principle, George W. Bush presided over it in Texas, granting no clemancies even in cases where national Christian leaders begged for one (Karla Tucker). He continues to advocate the death penalty for more and more offenses. As I mentioned in my last post, I think his optional war in Iraq has cost more lives than his lip-service opposition to abortion will save.While you're upset about Kerry taking Eucharist, I deeply saddened and angry that the President has hijacked Christianty to justify policies that so conflict with Gospel values.
>>All of the problems the world is having today with the entire region of the Middle East could probably be traced back to the
meddling by your imperealist running dogs when they removed the popular, progressive, and legally elected president of Iran
to install the Shah.
Why stop there? Why not the partitioning of Palestine in 1947/48? Of course that was a UN job so I understand your reluctance to start here. No "imperialist running dogs" involved, as you and the Chinese like to say.
Sanguine hyberbole notwithstanding, let's consider your isolationist policy for the Middle East. You agree that your Weltbild would also require the removal of all US reins on Israel too. You'll be happy to sit on your hands and watch while Israel annexes Lebanon, Syria and Jordan after the umpteenth jihad this year? Or will you feel the need to "meddle" against Zionist hegemony?
Sorry, I was feeling pissy. I don't agree with your viewpoints, but it wasn't a troll.
I'm realizing that maybe we can't all get along. Sometimes I feel like yelling at the right, or burning their signs, etc.
My wife was called all kinds of wonderful things this weekend in DC to top it all off. If you're going to protest I guess you gotta take the lumps. At least my daughter now has her own FBI file (Of course the PA will prevent us from knowing about it!) ;)
It is so like you that you think the only way the U.S. can be a participant in the world community is by perpetrating genocide and atrocities, and that if it doesn't it means a retreat into isolationism.
Hosted By ibiblio XML Twitter!
liptonart.net oazis-cvetov.ru mebelactual.ru ladi.in articles