The Democrats have hung their hopes for capturing the White House on the allegation that the administration was so gung-ho to go to war (for reasons that change almost daily) that it pressured the intelligence services to lie to support their conclusion.
They ignore the salient fact that it was a Clinton appointee, George Tenet, held over by the administration, who briefed both Presidents Clinton and Bush, and that both presidents cited that intelligence as sufficient cause for war. Clinton bombed the fleas out of Iraq in 1998 – the Bush administration merely finished the job in 2003.
Read the entrie article here
Posted by cwilli at January 29, 2004 07:46 PM | TrackBackAnyone who does any research will see that most of the Dems who are saying that Bushed lied were actually quoted as saying that Saddam had WMD in the past. How can anyone who has been quoted as saying that actually try to blam the president.
Oh I forgot, Partisan Politics as usual. This just shows how desperate they are.
Posted by: cwilli at January 29, 2004 07:53 PMPLEASE EXCUSE ANY TYPOS, I'VE GOTTA HIT THE SACK, SO CAN'T PROOF READ.
CWilli, please point out one place where I've glorified Democrats or even mentioned democrats. They are all part of the same machine. They are all wealthy and powerful for a reason. They all get big donations for a reason. They are just different ways of meeting similar objectives. Not everyone who was making a lot of money during Clinton's administration is making the same amount of money now.
I've said this over and over. It is not about conservative vs. liberals. It's not about the right vs. the left. It's not about republicans vs. democrats. It's about the citinzery and those who wish to keep them ignorant. It's about pollutions vs. the environment. It's about the rich vs. the poor. It's about the oppressor vs. the oppressed. It's about the slaves vs. the slave owners. It's about the powerful vs. the powerless.
Considering anything otherwise leads only to more division which is exactly what they want. Who do I mean by they? Do I mean a bunch of old white guys in a board room around an oak table? No, I mean anyone who would prefer you to die before they did, when it is primarily for their benefit. I mean anyone who makes money by others becoming impoverished.
Look at ALL the corruption. Is it just now? No. It's taken places for centuries. The names, places, and situations change, but what stays the same is that those in power prefer to stay in power. They would rather the masses fight each other than them.
I'll called into Clear Channel one day, this is the weekend before the FCC was going to vote. Michael Powel is of course the Chairman. He is Colin Powells son. This is quite possibly a significant conflict of interest. A group of protesters had picketed in front of Clear Channel, one of it's affiliates at least. This was national radio and this guy is on there saying how allowing one corporation to own up to 45% in one area vs 35% (guessing the numbers, but in this situation you get my drift). He was talking about how un-American protesting was.
So I called in. I don't remember all the details, but you'll get my drift here.
The screener asked what I wanted to say, and basically I told him. He said cool, just hold on.
When I came on the line, mind you I was listening on the phone so you hear on and off air chatter, this guy was prepped for me. I said I was going to say it's not about left vs. right, but about rich vs. poor blah blah blah. Though his entire show he was not even leading or suggesting he had any of the opinions I did, he took them and then respectively took credit for them. He is the host of course, then he apoligized for interupting me. I said, “no that's fine, it's funny because you're saying everything I was about to say.”
I went on to have my say. You see, I called in, as he invited. I was screen and waited on hold. All I had said was my basic introduction and thanked him for allowing me to be on his show. After he essentially “stole my thunder” - which gives him more credence to put his own spin on it and then discredit it because he “thougt of it.” - I started saying the following:
Me: “You asked what would bring all these people, which you mentioned as being labor union members, enviromentalists, and gay activists in a protest. I just want to make sure you were in deed asking a question, 'cause I think I have a fairly decent answer.”
Host: “Yeah, because they want to destroy America.”
Me: “Well did you ever consider, not only are they excercising their rights, but they are protesting because it's one of the few ways to get your voice heard...”
Host: “Thanks for calling...have a good one.”
Me: “Wait..wait...wait”
Remember, this was during the debate about allowing fewer institutions own more avenues of media.
"Radio and press are at our disposal. Even money is not lacking this time." -
Joseph Goebbels shortly after the 1933 election of Adolf Hitler.
It's about us...vs...them. I'm not a Nazi, but many of these people did business with them. Look up Operation Paper Clip.
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?040202crat_atlarge
It seems it was easier for Nazi's to gain the right to vote than it was for
blacks and women.
As soon as Colon, Dick and Bush speak with such detail, I will give equal
credence to their lip service.
Operation Paper Clip -
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Operation_Paperclip_file.html
German Elections (compare to 2000 US elections)
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GER1933.htm
Christianity and Nazis:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERchristianity.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERfascist.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REcatholic.htm
T.V. is mechanized politic's
remote control over the masses
co-sponsored by environmentally safe gases
watch for the PBS special
It's the perpetuation of the two party system
where image takes precedence over wisdom
Where sound bite politics are served to
the fastfood culture
Where straight teeth in your mouth
are more important than the words
that come out of it
Race baiting is the way to get selected
Willie Horton or
Will he not get elected on...
http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2004/01/12/daily39.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763206.html
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/99
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html
pay attention to where Brown Harriman fits into these tables esp the last
look who is above Brown Harriman in the heirarchy of the last table
then read this -
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=N
N_Bush_Nazi_2
Lyrics are not mine. They are from Heroes of Hiphopricy.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at January 29, 2004 09:46 PM"CWilli, please point out one place where I've glorified Democrats or even mentioned democrats."
why? that post was not directed towards you at all. Also just a hint. If you keep you posts shorter people might read them. I read the first line and seen how long it was. I quit.
Posted by: cwilli at January 29, 2004 09:54 PMlmao... I did too.. sad.
BamB00zLed, how's life treating you btw.. have not talked to you in a long while.
Posted by: muddy at January 29, 2004 10:05 PMCWilli.
You punk mo' fo. Just kidding. You know, last night I laid down to sleep, and thought, "what the hell did I get so defensive for, CWilli wasn't attacking me directly." But I was tired, and figured f... it.
Sorry about that.
But I think you should read some of those links. And if you consider them to be bias, it is not intended as such. Most of those links are just from doing a google search. The Spartacus link is awsome. I posted some info on the Indian Removal Act in the MLK thread. It contains a speech by Andrew Jackson, another great holier than thou president who declares that pushing indigenous people off their land might help their savagery, especially if they have churches built for them.
In short, I may have gotten defensive because it is personal to me. I used to see things just as you do. It's one of the reasons we are friends. But I get so invigorated by such debate because I see how thick and indoctrinated our subjucation is. My only thing is to question EVERYTHING. If someone has more power than you or more money than you, cool, because I'd sure like to take more vacations, I'd like to be able to buy all my liabilities and more assets with money produced by assets while I sleep. But when these people say "go die, while I stay home, make money and give bullshit speeches," then I think it is very prudent to ask WHY?
Why should others die? Relatively speaking I am as rich and influential as Dick Cheney compared to a hobo on the street. However, I don't think it would be the prudent thing to do to suggest this hobo is more qualified to die for a piece of real estae that I have interests in.
Our history suggests that past leaders were great leaders because they partook in the endeavors of those they commanded. This is suggested with George Washington crossing the Potomic, in stories of Alexander the Great, and even in fictional representations of real life politics such as in the Lord of the Rings. Regardless if any of these stories are actually true or not - I find it hard to believe that GW was able to balance like that, and it looks damn cold in that painting - I think it is safe to say that many of our leaders are not willing to subject themselves to the same kind of stresses that they COMMAND others to experience.
All I am saying is that people in power, regardless of the flag they wave have lied. And there is ample evidence to suggest that our gov't has lied in the past and is lying now. There is ample evidence to suggest that our Gov't is more concerned with the interests of progress and corporate success than human rights. If you read about Operation Paper Clip, ex-Nazi, possibly guilty of heinous war crimes were nationalized (I think that is the right word), given high ranking positions in the Gov't and private industry, and excused of all wrong doing just so our holy Gov't could have their secrets.
Canabilism isn't practiced much anymore, that's because it isn't practiced much anymore. It is highly unlikely that war will decrease unless serious steps are taken to decrease it's practice. That is like a tribe saying, canabalism is wrong, and we are going to kill these other tribes and canabalize them to show the world how wrong it is.
There lacks consistency. As in Manifest Destiny it was believed that the Savage Indians did not have rights to their lands because they were godless and nekked. We seem to all agree that such doctrine was seriously flawed.
I suggest the current doctrine is equally flawed for all the same reasons.
It's not about bashing republicans, it's about questioning authority, just as you Jesus Christ did.
Would Jesus develop tactical nukes?
Would Jesus defraud $11 billion dollars?
Would Jesus inflate the price of gasoline?
Would Jesus drive a H2?
Would Jesus be a fighter pilot?
Would Jesus have voted for invasion or diplomacy?
Would Jesus incriminate plants?
I said, "in short" but this is hardly short. Sorry.
Muddy, I am doing well. I think your web site provides a great service to Democracy. Be wary of those who seek to control and monitor this medium.
"Radio and press are at our disposal. Even money is not lacking this time." -
Joseph Goebbels shortly after the 1933 election of Adolf Hitler.
Babboozled, I read some of your post and had to comment. War and conflict will NEVER go away, and will always be part of the human condition. We will not know peace until after the end of times and the reign of the anti-christ. So this brave notion of humans ending war and never fighting is fools dream. [not calling you a fool, but the dream of it foolish].
Every sane soldier hates war but understands the need for it when all else fails.
Bamboozled, to be honest it offends me when you speak of religion by asking what Jesus would do, when you dont believe in him. It has offended me everytime you have said "your god" to me in the past. Well since, to the best of my knowledge, you dont believe in God, my God say's you will probably burn in hell. So maybe he would have his only son be a fighter pilot too, I am not sure. Personally I do not care what Jesus would do in your imaginary situations. I care about what he did and what is going to do.
Secondly you said
"But when these people say "go die, while I stay home, make money and give bullshit speeches," then I think it is very prudent to ask WHY?"
Let me remind you that we have an all voluntary force. Nobody in our military has been forced into serving in the last 30 years and how dare you deny them the opportunity to serve their country because you dont believe that someone else should say 'go die' and not go themselves. I have heard you say that many times. How dare you knock them for doing as they choose. If you dont feel the same way, then dont serve. Ask why all you want but dont knock the choice someone else has made to do as the commander in chief asks. Dont knock that our commander in chief can make a decision to send someone to war and not go himself. There are many former Presidents who have served in the Military who have been asked to do the exact same thing they are asking someone else to do now (including our current President and his father). So unless you have done either one of them, dont talk about things you obviously dont understand.
CWilli, it was not my intention to offend you. I do believe that Jesus is real. I am after all Baptised Roman Catholic (that's in all caps mind you). I also recognize the fact that the book that is supposed to represent the truth of his and our life, and all relevant lessons for such have been mass printed by historical institutions of power. There are several versions as well. I also know that most people during the times when the bible was mass produced and those who copied them were illiterate and wrote only what they were supposed to write, just blindly copying.
I also know that much death has resulted from past institutions of power that wielded the sword in Jesus' name. I know that many indigenous people around the world have been anhillated in the name of Jesus.
Just as there are some killing in the name of other religions.
It is not the god that I question, it is those who suggest that killing other human beings in the name of said god that I question.
No where do I attack Jesus or you, and no where did I intend for you to feel attacked. Perhaps this is a similar phenomenon that I demonstrated earlier in this thread. What I do, however, do is call question to these institutions that have done such things. I don't think that is the same as attacking your god or your faith. When I say your god, I actually mean it out of respect, because you do indeed worship a god, and that god is indeed not the same god that everyone else worships. I imagine that is how it's generally interpreted. You may however suggest that the god you believe in is the same god that everyone else believes in. Some that agree with you may also suggest that this god is in favor of the actions that seem to be done in his name in conjunction with war, fraud, racism, and hatred, etc. If this is the case, then I would suggest that we in fact do not believe in the same god. If I were to ponder the existence of a god, and man was in fact qualified to commune with said god, I guees it suggests we use the minds that nature and thought provided us, and to such a degree that we not only question it's existence but even suggest it does not exist. In such a case we no longer reliquish responsibility and authority lies only in ourselves.
So, I think with this perspective, it is safe to say, that your god will surely send me straight to hell. I thank you for the lovely Christian greeting.
You are Christian, so I think you are best qualified to answer the questions I posed of Jesus Christ.
I am having a hard time understanding why you wont answer the questions.
Would Jesus want you to answer them?
Remember that Jesus was killed. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed. Gandhi was killed. And as far as I understand it, they were proponents of peace. Who killed them? What did the perpetrators have in common? What did the victims have in common?
Cwilli, I am also lost where I attacked those who serve in the military. It is voluntary and I realize some peoples' choices in life vary in scale both broad and deep. So choice, per se, may be open to debate. I am hard pressed to find anywhere that I question their courage or willingness to make the choices that they make. Most of my family has been in the military. Some drafted and some volunteered. Questioning their commander is not the same as questioning them, but I congratulate you, because that is the kind of dedication a good soldier should have. If someone threatens his/her boss' interests, then the good soldier will of course defend his/her commander and his/her interests. However, what makes this country the best so far is that you're job is to stick up for me...OVER YOUR COMMANDER.
Just as you volunteered for service, I volunteered to remain a citizen. And it is my right to question authority. I am sorry that you are offended by my doing so, but I believe it is something you swore to protect, and I thank you for that.
However, I am not obliged to pay credence to the military, those who command it, or any other institution that controls more real estate than myself. It's just not in my nature.
Now were you serious when you said Jesus would be a fighter pilot? Maybe, after all he was born in a barn. One of his choices may have been dependant on tuition for college.
But after he became a fighter pilot, do you think he would want to bomb anyone? Or get kicks out of it?
Jesus was not American, so suggesting Jesus could potentially drop a smart bomb from an F-16 is not Anti-American. Also, the Jesus which is the principle figure in your religion is not a fighter pilot, and said Jesus is not the only human with that name, so I am not being anti-Christian because I may be speaking of the Mexican who works at McDonald's. It's up to you on how you want to pronounce it. It's up to you how you want to interpret it. It's up to you, apparently, to decide if what I say qualifies me for a one way ticket to hell.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at January 31, 2004 12:09 AMBamB00zLed, Anytime I have ever you say the words 'your God' it very much gave me the impression that you were stressing the fact that our Gods are not the same. Either way I will never answer the question what would Jesus do because I am not worthy to answer just as you are not worthy to ask. I said maybe he would be a fighter pilot. I dont know and I am not going to waste my thoughts on how he would handle things. I also dont see the point of your asking.
However I very much enjoyed your witty way of implying that since the Bible was written by humans that surely we must have altered it in some form. That is your opinion and it is not one that I share. I will also admit that I was wrong to imply that you would be going to hell. Again not for me to decide. I do get very touchy when I read some of your posts because I disagree with 99% of what you post. I dont fault you personally for it but I do get a little bent out of shape especially when you start in with the 'your God' bit.
You have said many times that Bush sends people in to die and he would not do this himself. Therefore in your mind it is wrong for him to send troops in because it is hypocritical. You cannot disagree that this is your opinion because you have made this very clear many times. Again it is not one that I share. Every service member knows when he signs the dotted lines that he will have to do what is asked of him no matter if he believes in it or not. Period. Nobody is forced to sign anymore so I take it personally when you make your comments on how the President can call someone to war and not have to go himself. I take it personally as a former service member. You are tearing apart the oath that I took and if you are doing that to me then you are doing that to every service member. Even the ones who kept you from being forced to learn German. I dont know what other way you would have it done but it is insane to think that the President would lead troops into battle.
I also would never knock your choice to not serve. I just believe that you dont have the right to question anyone's oath to do what is asked of them unless you have taken that oath yourself. When you question how President Bush could send someone to war and not go himself you are questioning the oath our service member take. Period.
CWilli
I don't mean to waste your time asking you what Jesus would do, and I apologizing for suggesting that it might be something you would be interested in thinking about since you are a Christian. It is my understanding, which stems from my past beliefs as a former Christian, that every day we are supposed to ask ourselves..."what would Jesus do?" I was under the impression that you felt the decisions being made were just, and you being a Christian, I interpreted just decisions as those which would be santioned by the god and Christ that you worship.
I am not sure where my confusion comes from. Perhaps you may want to ask your preacher what Jesus would do. He/she may consider it such a waste of time...since it is his/her job and his/her oath.
I realize you disagree with much of what I say, however, I am interested in knowing why. Oaths and books pulblished for the masses are not sufficient. I would like to know how your views on foreign policy and war compare to your beliefs in the teachings of your religion. I see some inconsistency. I ask questions to address these inconsistencies. You refuse to answer them, because you think it is a waste of time.
Would Jesus think it's a waste of time to address how his teachings compare to the decisions that are being made today?
Something that must be noticed in these debates is that I criticize institutions and their dogma. President Bush happens to be a representative of such. No where do I support or commend any previous president. These individuals are placed into these positions of power and influence for many reasons. I am interested in what those reasons are. When the majority of Americans vote for one guy, but the other guy is appointed the office, I think it is a fair question to inquire why. This was in 2000, this is before I even thought about asking "why."
You do have an oath, but that oath is to protect the American people and in doing so, the process may be facilitated by recieving commands from certain individuals. I question those commands and the motivations of those individuals and the institutions they represent. I am not questioning the dedication, loyalty, courage, or will of those who follow those orders.
Perhaps these questions may better elucidate that position.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
If they are hidden or moved, why were claims made that such weapons were KNOWN to exist, rather than possibly to exist?
Why is there no agreement for in independent probe?
Why is the 9/11 commission not having complete cooperation from the institution?
Why is there no debate about the military industrial complex?
Why is it feasible that telecom companies defraud, but suggesting that military contractors do likewise is unthinkable?
Why is this not a concern?
Why is this in the news:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/7835757.htm
What is the significance of this story?
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html
CWilli, just got to news.google.com, and tell me confidently that those brave individuals who are currently dying are dying for the right reasons. If you feel it is for all the right reasons, then why the inconsistencies between what seems to exist now and what was claimed to have existed. If you feel they are for the right reasons, then why is there so much profit being made from death.
If war was the last resort, and it was a just war for peace, then profit should not come into play.
I think historically speaking it is safe to say that decisions can be flawed by greed and those who are in power seem to be making both most of the decisions and most of the profit.
Here is suggestion...every soldier serving get's a 1% override off any profit that comes out of the middle east conflict. One percent doesn't sound like much, but one percent of the profits being made is much, and it's more than the commander in chief would like you to see.
I think it is safe to say that is a fact.
And don't forget CWilli, not only am I BamB00zLed, but I am Critical.Hypocrite so don't get so offended by what I say. It's not directed toward you, but rather toward the institutions that demand blind loyalty from you.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at January 31, 2004 09:18 AMDude the term 'what would jesus do' is meant to remind someone that they should live their life like Jesus and try to do what he would do. This does not mean you need to ask if Jesus would build tactical nukes or Would Jesus inflate the price of gasoline? Your taking it out of context and make these decisions seem so cut and dry when they are anything but. When you do that it seems to me like you are questioning both my religion and my country at the same time.
The fact is further highlighted when you say things like "No where do I support or commend any previous president" which tell me that you are more questioning the entire system than you are the current President. So you are questioning everything that this country has stood for since the begining. Which actually makes since since this country was built on Christianity and you seem to question that too.
It is good to question things. I commend you for it. But if you question every single thing, every single day than you end up bitter. This has already happened to you. What makes it worst is that you constantly question things not to find out why but to spread this bitterness to others.
This is a great example:
"When the majority of Americans vote for one guy, but the other guy is appointed the office, I think it is a fair question to inquire why."
You know why. Its called the electorial colledge. Your a colledge grad so I am sure you learned about it. Why do you ask a question that you already know that answer to? Is it to spread your bitterness because Bush is now President or are you questioning the entire American way? I guess I would have to ask if you would still be asking if Gore had won. If so then it would have to be the latter. But if it was the latter than why didnt you ask why we use the electroial college? Better yet why didnt you find out why and then try to change things?
Also my Christianity and my service to my country are not in contridiction. However I very much doubt that I could explain it to you in the context of this Blog website. Please visit this website for more understanding
http://www.geocities.com/totalresistance/war.html
I have an idea. Why dont you take 10% of the time you use questioning everything that has built this country and spend that time actually trying to fix things. This way you dont look so much like you are just bitching.
Posted by: cwilli at January 31, 2004 12:15 PMOk, guys. Forgive me for stepping in here for the moment but I just wanted to address one thing that you both had talked a bit about.
"What would Jesus do?"
Bamboozled, it is true that asking questions *can* be very healthy and I do understand your wondering about it.
Cwilli, I also understand that you feel you are not worthy to answer the question - which I do agree with to a degree.
However, *I* will simply say this: "What would Jesus do" - with all do respect Bamboozled - is a stupid question. What would He do? He would tell His followers to do different things. Because He likes playing games w/ us? No. But because those of us who choose to follow Him have our own distinct personalities (just like everyone else ). My point is that because we are all different, our relationship with Christ is going to be different from one anther. For instance...Cwilli (as well as everyone else on earth) was put here for a different reason than *I* was. Our destinies our different. Therefore the path(s) we take in our Christian walk will be different. That's why we as Christians need to rely on the convictions that the Holy Spirit gives to us as individuals to help us complete our specific destiny that God has created for us.
Instead of asking, "What would Jesus do" - because the truth is we really DON'T know that answer specifically, we should ask:
"Ok, Lord, what do you ask of me today."
...and if we're smart enough, (sometimes I am not) we will listen.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at January 31, 2004 12:18 PMMrs. Muddy, I have to say, it is always a pleasure to both hear from and respond to you. As I read this thread your words were like a big chunk of ice hitting a cup of tea, too hot to sip. Thank you for providing such a calmative influence on those you communicate with.
I would like to ask you though, if you are suggesting that the substance of Christianity rests on the interpretations of the individual, than I will agree with you, just as I would agree is the case with any religion. Thusly, if the substance of said religion lay within the bounds of the interpretation of humans then would you agree it is safe to conclude one of the two possibilities.
If the human is inherently sinful, then religion, which has it's substance in the interpretation of the individual human, can also be inherently sinful.
Or.
If humans are essentially a flaw species, and religion is the fabrication of said species, then religion is possibly inherently flawed as well.
You mention the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately the only ghosts I commune with keep moving my damn remote.
(Please Mrs. Muddy, if when you read you imagine a voice and that voice is what you think my audible voice would sound like, do not hear a voice that is filled with anything but inquisitive calmness. It is only Cwill that I get really miffed with).
I would like to suggest also, that religion has been mandated by certain affluencial individuals and institutions historically, and such mandates were according to their interpretations.
Why are there so many versions?
Is religion driven by open-market forces and these are just choices resulting from those forces?
Why not?
Cwilli, I was just kidding about the miffed part. But please don't be a Critical.Hypocrite as myself. What do you really know of me beyond these threads? Am I bitter? Sort of. You see, I feel I've been lied to. Also, I pay taxes, and like you, I am concerned where my taxes go. I am not convinced we are getting our money's worth. I am not convinced we are getting an appropriate return on our investment. While I do question the entire establishment, there are many things I do like – free speech, pseudo-clean water, garbage collection, safe neighborhoods (though this more directly influenced by my employer than by my government) – etc. I had mentioned that the election was in 2000, which is before I ever started asking why. That was my question. Bennyhill1978 told me right in front of NSM that the majority of American (as both you and I are) voted for Gore, but Bush won the election. I was floored. I didn't know how or why that would happen. So, I did indeed look up the electoral college – the rest is...well...history. The electoral college is a means of not allowing a popular vote to ever have any real influence, as thusly demonstrated. The populous is considered to be ingornant and incapable of picking a appropriate president, so means have to be put in place to make sure the interests of the populous don't interfere with the interests of the few in power. It is interesting how one can want smaller government while simultaneously defending it vigorously...against a fellow citizen.
This country was not built on Christianity. This country was build on profiteering and facilitated through racism. It just happens that the rules that were put in place were written by the guys who won. And the guys who won happened to be Christian. (Some were actually Deist – thanks Bennyhill1978 on that one). Just as the rules were written to serve the profiteering and racist agenda (this would be an inarguable fact), these rules were also written to serve the Christian agenda in some cases. Just as racism was thought to be “good” but later questioned, I am, at the present time, questioning the infallablity of similarly possibly flawed intituationalized agendas.
Now, I am not attacking your personal choice to live as Jesus lived. From what I understand, he wasn't such a bad guy, and I think more people should try to live like Jesus lived. I'd also suggest that for the 35 years of his life that is unknown, he partied like a rock star. But of course, we will never know. It was never included in the book.
I think it is safe to say that both Christianity and profiteering played equal but different roles in innhaliating the millions of original inhabitants who lived here prior.
What do the stripes mean on the flag?
What do the stars mean?
How did this come about?
Sending ships across the Atlantic was not cheap. Where would those funds come from unless there was some type of return on investment? Many small local Churches now can't get enough to feed the hungry they try to feed, because there is no positive return on investment in feeding the poor. That is of course using the currency as we do with the degree of importance placed on that currency as is.
Jesus was king of the Jews and the son of god. If he were President of the United States, would he appropriate millions toward a hefty no-bid contracts to Kellog, Brown, and
Root?
I think Gen. Boykin might feel both comfortable and worthy answering that question.
Don't you?
I think I heard somewhere that a trip across that Atlantic was as pricey as a modern day shuttle launch, relatively speaking.
If we find little green men on Mars, maybe we should Christianize and cloth them too.
Again, no where am I attacking you. In order for me to have such views, I have to attack my own beliefs. I don't know anything about you except from what you tell me. So I really have little to attack you about. I am not trying to spread bitterness. I think cluster bombs and land mines spread more bitterness than the bullshit I type. I will not deny, however, that I do seem to share some similar affects on some people.
If it wasn't something we wanted to believe and felt good believing, then it would not be as effective and efficient a tool of control.
These are all just in my humble opinion.
I qualify myself to these opinions because they are only my opinions. I have been raised to be both racist and Christian. I have come to believe many of the lessons taught to me are flawed.
But, I am still a Critical.Hypocrite.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 1, 2004 02:31 AMTwo guys walk into a bar. The third one ducks.
Why do chicken coups have only two doors?
Because if it had four, it'd be a chicken sedan.
The joke neve mentioned 3 doors, in which case it'd be a chicken hatchback.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 1, 2004 02:32 AMI am changing things by communicating and voting.
I have learned a lo from you CWilli, and I use what I learn to influence those around me.
Already I'm teaching my nephews and niece what perspective means and that not everyone who says they are telling the truth is really telling the truth.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 1, 2004 02:39 AMA florist goes to get his hair cut, and as he is about to pay, the barber says, "no, it's on me. I am doing charitable work." The florist satisfied leaves.
The next morning the barber finds a dozen roses on his front step.
Then a cop comes in for a hair cut, and when he goes to pay, the barber says, "it's free, I am doing charitable work."
The next day he finds a dozen dounuts on his front step.
A lawyer comes in for a hair cut (probably one of them American hating, Communist dirt bags that represent the ACLU and NAACP). As he goes to pay for the hair cut, the barber says, "no thanks, it's on me. I am doing this for free, for charity."
The next day, the barber returns to his shop to find...
12 lawyers at his door.
That's it folks, I'm out of here.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 1, 2004 02:43 AMMan, I just watched about 5 minutes of Fox News and my heart is racing.
I want to re-iterated that I am in no way attacking our troops. Though I criticize the institituition they represent, my concern lay not with flag they wave, but with their lives. I would suggest that none of those, who are in actual harms way, are being compensated for their voluntary efforts. And I am also confident that none, that are in harms way, would agree it is appropriate to deploy them for reasons of profiteering and under the guise of lies.
Gulf of Tonkin.
The evidence provided to go to war has been confessed as flawed.
I would not want to be in Iraq, and I am filled with utter fear when I see these images. Regardless if I were trained to be a killer, I am confident that I still would not want to be there. Compounding on this feeling is the possibility that the men who them there has probably golfed more times in the last year than most of them could probably do in their whole lives. I am confident that most of those in Bahgdad are not even allowed to golf on the same courses he has golfed on...even if they did have enough money to pay for a round.
Think about it.
Am I questioning the justification for a commander to command his/her troops?
No.
Am I questioning the courage or loyalty of anyone who follows those commands, regardless of voluntary status?
No.
But what I am questioning is if these individuals and their families who are being injured, harmed, or maimed are being compensated justifiably proportionately to those who sent them into war and those who are profiting from said war.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
Where is the eminent threat that ALL previous presidents helped build up and shelter (this includes both Bushes and Clinton).
I smell a rat.
It's all about getting elected and making sure the money flows to those who pay for that election. This seems to be a generally accepted truth.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 1, 2004 03:28 AMI feel for them too, Bamboozled. But let me ask you this. Who better to fight these terrorists, those who have voluntered to fight or those who have not?
The answer is clear. So the next question. Where should we fight the terrorists. In their backyard or our's?
Again the answer is clear. Now every terrorist who was planning a terrorist attack inside the United States has found the task much more difficult (due to the Patriot Act that you bitch so much about. BTW can you give me one ACTUAL example of where the patriot act has harmed an innocent citizen yet?), so why not now just hop over the border into Iraq and take pot shots at us there? It is cheaper, easier and possibly as effective (due to the media).
So while the WMD may have been misinformation. I dont care. We are fighting terrorism in their backyards and there will be no more mass graves for the Iraqi women and childer.
Two birds, one stone.
Posted by: cwilli at February 1, 2004 12:27 PMCWilli.
I actually logged on because I was thinking that perhaps I am being too critical and too self righteous. Perhaps we may disagree, and perhaps it is best if we at least agree to disagree.
My intention is not take pop shots at any soldiers or anyone else who is making sacrifices, I feel I have made this clear and apologize for not succeeding at doing so.
I would suggest that the Patriot Act has been used to arrest and incriminate people other than terrorists. On whether the laws which were broken in some of the cases are fair laws is debatable. But the fact that the Act which has been lauded as necessary to fight terrorism is being used against citizens for reasons other than terrorism, and that bothers me.
And that you don't care that the reasons to go to war were falsified is a greater injustice to the soldiers dying than anything I have said.
Their commander in chief lied to them and us, while he golfs and his buddy's make billions. I think that is serious and I think you should care, at least for consistency. Perhaps if either one of us jumped over the border into Iraq our views would broaden exponentially.
The US has been fighting ever since it's inception. It's inception was founded on principles of racism and profiteering, and each war had to do with either one of those.
It seems that every military event in the past of the US dealt with territory or race, which all stem from money. I don't think you can argue with this. The enemies were Indians, then blacks/yanks/Confederates...depending on which side you were on. We lived through a generation of German and Jap haters. We lived through a generation of Nigger haters. We lived through a generation of Commie haters. (Communism was unique in that we could simultaneously hate people of many different ethnic origins). We lived through a generation of Drug Cartel fears (when many fail to recognize the US is the biggest drug seller in the world - I think NASCAR Number 6 might demonstrate that). We are now in a generation of terrorist haters. I don't think this pattern will end unless life itself ends, or the behaviors end that create such hate.
Instead of having a reactive war to terrorism, which includes Big Brother, bigger gov't, fear, high profits for defrauders, lies and road side bombings, wouldn't it be more practical to address the issues that create such situations?
Why don't we have a war on illiteracy?
Why don't we have a war on weapons proliferation?
Why don't we have a war on domestic violence?
Why don't we have a war on child poverty?
Why don't we have a war on AIDS?
Why don't we have a war for equal rights?
Why are our top economic allies China and Indian?
Why are our tax dollars fixing mistakes, while jobs are fleeing to other countries?
Here are some examples from the SOTU.
And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. (Applause.)
“Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run -- so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. (Applause.)”
Come on, this looks like a lie to me. Cwilli, you even told us that we got out of the Kyoto Treaty because of the price. Not because of any questions on it's effectiveness. Who's gonna make money on the electrical upgrade? Who's going to pay for it?
"Dear George W. Bush. If there's anything you know, I, Ashley Pearson, age 10, can do to help anyone, please send me a letter and tell me what I can do to save our country." She added this P.S.: "If you can send a letter to the troops, please put, 'Ashley Pearson believes in you.'" (Applause.)
Come on...are we supposed to believe this? Listen to that letter. A ten year old wrote that? Perhaps it was just edited a little, so it'd be easier to read off the teleprompter.
Cwilli, I hope you are right.
Wow. Help me out folks. I typed the SOTU out the day I after it was given. I am at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html and cannot find the following lines. I might be nuts, because sometimes I can't find shit that's right in front of me.
“I urge you to pass both my faith-based initiative and the Citizen Service Act, to encourage acts of compassion that can transform America, one heart and one soul at a time.”
This is on my typed copy. I do a text search for faith, it's mentioned often in this speech. There is reference to money going to faith related intitutions and programs. Where does this money come from? Our taxes? Isn't this supposed to be a secular Gov't? Why are tax dollars gowing toward faith-based institutions? Also, I can comment how phony that line is. But what is really bothersome is that I can't find it.
That's trippy. But what the hell, I don't care. Why should we? We're kickin' some major sand nigger ass. Yee haw!
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 1, 2004 01:39 PMI think we should just leave it at we will agree to disagree. I believe that we should have those that volunteer to fight terrorism be in harms way instead of mine and your family (your's being everyone). I believe that the war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terrorism. I am glad we are fighting it over there and not over here. I dont understand how you can disagree that those who volunteer should be the ones who are put in danger. I am sure that if your mother was killed by a terrorist act you would be the first on the bandwagon to ask why. You would want to know how this could have been avoided. Well I am telling you before it has happened that the war in Iraq was how it was avoided. Tell her she can enjoy her life now thank to our Military.
Again I am sure you will disagree but I have come to the conclusion that we will never change each others minds about this. That is ok because I still respect you because I know what kind of person who are.
Also you still didnt provide me with one ACTUAL example of how the Patriot Act has been used against an innocent person. I would like to extend that to anyone on this board who can provide this.
Posted by: cwilli at February 1, 2004 02:55 PMBamboozled:
WOW!!! You do think ALOT :-D No, I'm not poking fun but I don't know if it's more comforting or scary to find someone who thinks like I do. I don't mean the things you question per se...but the process in which you think - constantly. I myself question other things than you do but as I've said to others before:
"My mind has a mind of it's own."
Told that to my sister once....she didn't get it.
I said it ment my mind was/is out of control and untameable. She told me "that's stupid"....I decided to let it go.
Ok, I'm rambling and I really do have a response to add. Mine refers to your response to me further at the top.
You asked:
"...if you are suggesting that the substance of Christianity rests on the interpretations of the individual, than I will agree with you"
Yes and no. I do believe that there are certain commandment in the Bible that are black and white/ cut and dry so to speak (such as the ten commandments themselves). Yes, I do agree that you can give one Bible verse to 5 different people and get 5 or 7 interpretations from it. I myself could probably give 2 diff. interpretations at any given time (again, a prime example of the workings of my neverending mind). So in that case, yes, as I stated earlier, since God has given us all individual paths in life then once we read His word, we must pray and ask how he wants us to apply it to our life. As I said, though, I think *I* personally refer to it as more of a conviction than an interpretation.
"Thusly, if the substance of said religion lay within the bounds of the interpretation of humans then would you agree it is safe to conclude one of the two possibilities.
If the human is inherently sinful, then religion, which has it's substance in the interpretation of the individual human, can also be inherently sinful.
Or.
If humans are essentially a flaw species, and religion is the fabrication of said species, then religion is possibly inherently flawed as well."
Well, religion, in my mind is ALWAYS flawed - as I can't stand it.
Allow me to clarify my 'interpretation' or view OF religion...it is (in MY thinking):
Man formed
Man made
Man run
Man controlled
Let's face it...mankind pretty much screws up everything we touch. Religion (from my experiance) has been something that I was/am NEVER good enough for. That no matter what I did it was never good enough because someone was always changing the rules. So therefore, I lost before I could even start. As long as man (mankind) controls things (especially things of a spiritual nature) then things will always be *out* of control. That's why I not only follow Jesus (for I believe He has nothing to do with religion - but that's my opinion based on experience) but also why I'm in love WITH Him. Obviously, I don't mean that in a sexual way...but in a spiritual way. I heard a song a few years back called: 'Lover of my Soul" - which is exactly how I feel. Christ IS the Lover of my Soul. He created me with such love and care that He sacrificed Himself for me, so that I would not have to die spiritually myself. Read Psalms 139 - it was shown to me quite a few years back and quickly became my favorite chapter in the Bible. Sorry, I'm not trying to preach to you or anyone else, it's just when you love someone, you tend to brag about them.
In answer to your question about the Bible itself being interpreted. Granted, there are certain words in some languages that do not translate into other languages. in some cases, some words in one language don't even exist in other languages at all (at least, that's what I've been told) and sometimes it MAY appear that some translations (even where the Bible is concerned) may have some words that have their impact taken away because of what might be our lack of the word itself. BUT that doesn't mean the Bible has be misinterpreted.
God wants us to know the truth. He wouldn't have sent his son to earth to spread the Word of His father through His ministry (which I *believe* lasted for only 3yrs. as Jesus was in His thirties when He was crucified - I'll have to look into that one again or someone else might remember? ), then to die for our sins, be raised *from* the dead, and assend into Heaven without giving us a way to recieve the truth of it all. So, I do believe that the Bible was written by people who were influenced by the Holy Spirit so that *we* (even in present day and time) could get to the truth.
I guess it all really comes down to one thing - Faith. I'm not talking faith in a certain doctrine, or denomination but faith itself...faith in God. Look, maybe it's presumptuous of me to say (not to mention none of my buisness) but, you seem like you've gone through alot of crap as far as Christianity and religion is concernd. However, DON'T let man-made BS tell you who you should believe Christ to be. I fell into that myself for a while....until I just decided that I could either question everything until Christ came back or until the cows come home ( or until Christ brings the cows home for that matter) OR I could get to know who Christ REALLY is by reading it for myself (and praying) while keeping stead fast to my faith in Christ that what I was reading was and is inspired by the Spirit of God.
"You mention the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately the only ghosts I commune with keep moving my damn remote."
Hey! I think we have the same problem over here. I say it's Casper. Who's your ghost? LOL :-)
No, actually, (and you've probably been taught this earlier on) I believe in the trinity:
God the Father
God the Son (Jesus, of course)
God The Holy Spirit/Ghost (some people refer to Him as the 'comforter' - so I've heard anyway)
You also refer to yourself as a hypocrite. Though I do not know you, I can say that your only a hypocrite if you claim to be something your not.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 1, 2004 03:31 PMExactly.
Mrs. Muddy you mention you struggle conforming to a religion mandated and established by a institution consiting primarily of men.
Do you find this significant?
Why should not woman have an equal say in the rules that govern your religion? I think that is unjust.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 1, 2004 04:39 PMActually, I said religion is controlled by man - meaning mankind - so that would include women.
"Why should not women have an equal say..."
Now there's a debate...
In the church Muddy and I attend now, it is very casual and men and women (from what I can gather) have equal say in different ways. We have a male preacher. Which is the way I like it. I have no problem with women being preachers...I just personally wouldn't want to attend a church where a woman is in the pastorial position. Again, not that I think it's wrong...I just don't want it that way at my church. Just as the man is the head of the household, I feel the church I attend should have a man leading the congregation.
That's not to say that I wouldn't come to hear a woman who is a guest speaker at my church because I would come. I would also have no problem with visiting a church where a woman is the main pastor. In our church, we have women who teach sunday school - I have NO problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with women leading a Bible study, the choir (or praise and worship team in our church - we have no choir) or playing other important roles such as a prayer counselor. I just do feel that in MY church a woman should not be the pastor. I guess I'm just an old fashion girl :-)
Aside from getting pregnant and going through labor, men and women can pretty much accomplish the same things. I just believe that God set things up in a way where women play certain roles and men play in others. That's not to say that man is more important than the woman nor is the woman more important than the man. It's just to say we are all apart of the "whole body of Christ" (as the Bible says) and with everyone playing the roles we are intended to play, (whatever role that may be that God leads you to) then if done the way the Lord wants...things will be even and equal in the end.
Good luck bamboozled ...
You know the word... Those with ears ... listen ...
ANd those deaf ... Well forgive them because they do not know what they do.
Reality is now so clear ... That it's no longer a matter of making the facts known...
The question is not what jesus would do.
That answer is fairly clear ... love yourself and others, never judge, nor hit, die in this world if it can help save others in the other world ...
The question is what would you do if Jesus was there ? What would you do if he was watching you ?
And he is :-)
I'll be around trying to build that world government we need, passing some green and anti trust legislation ...
The only way I guess to learn from muddy and cwilli and the like ... Is to do as they say ... Leave them in peace face their Lord ... He'll take care of them.
And follow our own agenda. With the people that we can convince.
Here it is no use. Fear is upon them.
DF:
"I'll be around trying to build that world government we need"
So, you believe in a one world government? One that makes everyone in the *Whole World* do what they want them to do. Even though the world is filled with sooooo many diff. culturals and beliefs. Do you really think a one world gov. is going to work?
Every country has it's own gov. right now....and it's hard enough to make all it's people happy. You think a "One world government" would cure all of that? *Your* definantely going to need some luck.
"And follow our own agenda. With the people that we can convince."
Dude, no offense because I am really NOT trying to compare you to anyone but didn't Hitler also have a similar agenda. Of course, he was also crazy,evil and power hungry and wanted to take over the world...and we ALL know what happend to him. It didn't work to say the very least.
"Here it is no use. Fear is upon them."
No, as far as what your talking about, (one world gov.) it's not fear that is upon "them", it's common sense. A one world gov. won't work. The gov. of every individual country are greedy and power hungry enough. If this Whole World were run by just *one* gov., it would be greedy and power hungry times one hundred. But hey, that's my take on it.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at February 2, 2004 08:45 AMDespite an unprecedented public relations offensive by Attorney General Ashcroft and a veto threat from the White House, Congress is moving toward revising the Patriot Act’s most dangerous provisions.
Buoyed by the groundswell of opposition -- more than 245 communities and 3 states have passed resolutions in opposition to the PATRIOT Act -- momentum is building for legislation that would correct PATRIOT Act provisions that allow for unwarranted investigations of personal records, authorize secret “sneak and peek” searches and roll back judicial oversight.
This corrective legislation -- the SAFE Act -- would not repeal commonsense provisions in the PATRIOT Act, but would instead revise those provisions that infringe on our civil liberties without making us any safer. Yet even this modest bill drew the wrath of Attorney General Ashcroft who falsely said that it would, “make it even more difficult to mount an effective anti-terror campaign than it was before the Patriot Act was passed."
Take Action! Tell your Members of Congress to cosponsor the SAFE Act so we can be both safe and free.
Click here for more information and to send a free fax to your Members of Congress:
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=13907&c=24
I post this is because I think it would be an interesting exercise to see what similarities exist between the current ricin event, and the anthrax scares when the Patriot Act was first being pushed.
Maybe they are both from domestic labs.
Maybe they will both help in getting the wanted changes pushed through.
I read this:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/ae/movies/jump/2377429
Then was reminded of this (I didn't read everything):
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/sumer-faq.html#Dumuzi
Then looked up this:
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awmob/awpagan/pag270RELAdonis.html
Muddy, can I get rights to post new topics so I don't have to post off topic?
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html
On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) into law.
It took some time, but I found a bit:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/7872700.htm
The discovery of a deadly poison in a Senate office building on Monday triggered "horrific memories" of the 2001 anthrax attack on his own office, Sen. Tom Daschle says.
This one says “fall of 2001.”
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V4676.AP-Anthrax-Investi.html
Anthrax-laced letters sent to Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were postmarked Oct. 9, 2001, at Trenton.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/7864102.htm
Wow, this is just uncanny...very, very uncanny.
I hope we at least find out why that tittie popped out. Forget weapons of mass destruction. Forget the anthrax that came for a domestic lab. Forget global warming...or at least we should, but not the Pentagon. Forget Boeing. Forget Osama. Forget the Saudis. Forget our allies the Pakistani's...Musharef is so kind and merciful. Forget bribes in Gaza. Forget censored SOTU addresses. Forget depleted uranium.
Did anyone know that the rechargable batteries that are on Spirit and Opportunity (by the way what insulting names) are manufactured by Sprectolab, a Boeing subsidiary?
http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/8018.cfm
Forget about all that though. WE GOTTA FIND OUT WHY THAT TITTIE POPPED OUT!!!
Hey, I started to read some of the posts from early 2003, you know, about weapons of mass destruction.
Peace out.
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 5, 2004 01:00 AMHence why I have not posted anything about the super bowl half time disgrace. There are far more important issues to discuss and humorous things to laugh at than that sad affair.
Posted by: muddy at February 5, 2004 03:31 PMThe electorial college:
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.html
Posted by: cwilli at February 5, 2004 10:53 PMHitler wanted one country (his own) to rule the world... sounds more like Bush's agenda if it is close to any... And Hitler was more europe centered anyhow ...
Besides one world govt ought to be democratic.
And by the way wether you want it or not this govt is on its way. See the society of nations which became UNO, and not WTO, IMF world bank ...
You can not have both globalisation and no world goverment, just as you can't have free competition within a country and no government to set the rules ...
The market is built by the state... it enforces property rights, make sure consumers and producers have rights guaranteed ...
So it's a either of situation. Either globalisation stops ... ANd indeed the ecological problem will force us sooner or later to reduce transport related pollution ... and in the end transport itself...
Or you'll have a bigger world government.
You can not have more trade and less government, it has never happened in history. It's logic...
Posted by: DF at February 6, 2004 08:04 AMhttp://www.undergroundfilm.org/films/viewer.tcl?wid=1007195&oftype=lar
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 6, 2004 11:51 PMYou guys will like this, it's about computers and hackers.
http://www.undergroundfilm.org/films/viewer.tcl?wid=1001601&oftype=lar
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 7, 2004 12:06 AMthis will be the last I post sorry.
This web site is pretty cool, tons of free videos. Very little reading required, that's why I love videos.
http://www.undergroundfilm.org/films/viewer.tcl?wid=1001601&oftype=lar
Posted by: BamB00zLed at February 7, 2004 12:23 AMIf you really believe that President BUSH lied - -THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES -- then read this.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy