And how is this little war going in Iraq?

[Virtugal]

Seems the news today is that the US has managed to get itself into another
*Vietnam* Can't spell Guerilla but you know what I mean doncha? Now more
American soldiers have died since Bush declared the war over than died in the
entire Gulf war and have died in Iraq as well. The body bags keep streaming in
in ones and twos and so forth and a second woman has died but not from hostile
action so we are told. They are finally admitting that there is no end in
sight and the morale of the soldiers creeps lower down the scale with every day
as the day they were supposed to leave has been extended some for 6 more
months. They are being shot at from every direction and the Iraqis are no
longer friendly. There are no WMD and they have no body or person of SH. The
people are saying it is more dangerous now than before the war to venture out
and blame the US.
Tony Blair and Colin Powell are trying to put positive spins on things but
both know that in the one case his polital career is over and in the second
that he was hoodwinked and behind the scenes I imagine there is a lot of anger.
Now we have moved forward, We have no SH and we have no OBL. The popularity
of the president is finally dopping drastically. And the economy while
appearing to be coming out of recession is still as sluggish as ever. This is
a man in crisis and he did it to himself. Hubris is an interesting concept.
To all the troops still in the line of fire, I salute you and hope you get to
go home soon. 'Even in Vietnam, the tour of duty was no longer than 2 years.
We do still think of you all every day and hope and pray for your safety. Now
can we agree that this war was ill thought out and a subtrefuge to cover up an
economy going into the dumps? It is just a fact of life that some countries do
not deal with democracy very well and have no experience with this concept.
Some peoples need the kind of structure that autocracies and dictatorships
provide, although we would like it if they were more benevolent.

[creck]

What a mess. Chaos still reins there, Americans are the object of increasing
hatred, and those weapons of mass destruction.......George W is still
looking for those. Now there's Liberia to worry about, and North Korea is
just waiting for us to turn our heads for just a second. Open your wallets,
folks, war isn't cheap. So much for a rebounding economy.

Colleen

Post by Virtugal
Seems the news today is that the US has managed to get itself into another
*Vietnam* Can't spell Guerilla but you know what I mean doncha? Now more
American soldiers have died since Bush declared the war over than died in the
entire Gulf war and have died in Iraq as well. The body bags keep streaming in
in ones and twos and so forth and a second woman has died but not from hostile
action so we are told. They are finally admitting that there is no end in
sight and the morale of the soldiers creeps lower down the scale with every day
as the day they were supposed to leave has been extended some for 6 more
months. They are being shot at from every direction and the Iraqis are no
longer friendly. There are no WMD and they have no body or person of SH.

The

Post by Virtugal
people are saying it is more dangerous now than before the war to venture out
and blame the US.
Tony Blair and Colin Powell are trying to put positive spins on things but
both know that in the one case his polital career is over and in the second
that he was hoodwinked and behind the scenes I imagine there is a lot of anger.
Now we have moved forward, We have no SH and we have no OBL. The popularity
of the president is finally dopping drastically. And the economy while
appearing to be coming out of recession is still as sluggish as ever.

This is

Post by Virtugal
a man in crisis and he did it to himself. Hubris is an interesting concept.
To all the troops still in the line of fire, I salute you and hope you get to
go home soon. 'Even in Vietnam, the tour of duty was no longer than 2 years.
We do still think of you all every day and hope and pray for your safety.

Now

Post by Virtugal
can we agree that this war was ill thought out and a subtrefuge to cover up an
economy going into the dumps? It is just a fact of life that some countries do
not deal with democracy very well and have no experience with this concept.
Some peoples need the kind of structure that autocracies and dictatorships
provide, although we would like it if they were more benevolent.

[Diamondsnstones]

We are now sending sailors and marines to Liberia as our embassy was attacked
yesterday. The fighting is getting worse there and off we go to reinvent
Liberia. What is next? Lowering the world's population is hard work and
expensive.

[Pamela Beasley]

Post by creck
What a mess. Chaos still reins there, Americans are the object of increasing
hatred, and those weapons of mass destruction.......George W is still
looking for those.

And looking and looking.....I saw a recent interview with a person
identified as one who was searching Iraqi records, etc. for evidence of
WMDs. I found it most interest that said that he just knew they would
find something........give them another 6 months! Gee, how much
evidence can you manufacture in 6 months?

Pam















Now there's Liberia to worry about, and North Korea is

Post by creck
just waiting for us to turn our heads for just a second. Open your wallets,
folks, war isn't cheap. So much for a rebounding economy.
Colleen

Post by Virtugal
Seems the news today is that the US has managed to get itself into another
*Vietnam* Can't spell Guerilla but you know what I mean doncha? Now more
American soldiers have died since Bush declared the war over than died in

the

Post by Virtugal
entire Gulf war and have died in Iraq as well. The body bags keep

streaming in

Post by Virtugal
in ones and twos and so forth and a second woman has died but not from

hostile

Post by Virtugal
action so we are told. They are finally admitting that there is no end in
sight and the morale of the soldiers creeps lower down the scale with

every day

Post by Virtugal
as the day they were supposed to leave has been extended some for 6 more
months. They are being shot at from every direction and the Iraqis are no
longer friendly. There are no WMD and they have no body or person of SH.

The

Post by Virtugal
people are saying it is more dangerous now than before the war to venture

out

Post by Virtugal
and blame the US.
Tony Blair and Colin Powell are trying to put positive spins on things

but

Post by Virtugal
both know that in the one case his polital career is over and in the

second

Post by Virtugal
that he was hoodwinked and behind the scenes I imagine there is a lot of

anger.

Post by Virtugal
Now we have moved forward, We have no SH and we have no OBL. The

popularity

Post by Virtugal
of the president is finally dopping drastically. And the economy while
appearing to be coming out of recession is still as sluggish as ever.

This is

Post by Virtugal
a man in crisis and he did it to himself. Hubris is an interesting

concept.

Post by Virtugal
To all the troops still in the line of fire, I salute you and hope you

get to

Post by Virtugal
go home soon. 'Even in Vietnam, the tour of duty was no longer than 2

years.

Post by Virtugal
We do still think of you all every day and hope and pray for your safety.

Now

Post by Virtugal
can we agree that this war was ill thought out and a subtrefuge to cover

up an

Post by Virtugal
economy going into the dumps? It is just a fact of life that some

countries do

Post by Virtugal
not deal with democracy very well and have no experience with this

concept.

Post by Virtugal
Some peoples need the kind of structure that autocracies and dictatorships
provide, although we would like it if they were more benevolent.

[Pamela Beasley]

Post by Virtugal
Tony Blair and Colin Powell are trying to put positive spins on things but
both know that in the one case his polital career is over and in the second
that he was hoodwinked and behind the scenes I imagine there is a lot of anger.

you know...I like Tony Blair. I know the British are up his arse about now, but
I like him. I heard his speech to the British people on the day the war
started. I wish GW had made such a speech. There's just something about him,
that he seems to be doing this based on his conscience and not motivated by
oil. maybe I'm wrong...but it's what I feel about him.

Post by Virtugal
The popularity
of the president is finally dopping drastically.

what was it Lincoln is attributed as having said? "You can fool some of the
people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't
fool all of the people all of the time."
I think the nation just woke up!
peace,

I hope so..........Back during the 2000 campaign I kept telling folks
that the only thing worse than having GW in our state house was having
him in the White House. I guess a lot of folks figured he was okay
being gov of such a large state as Texas. However, what many folks
(even many Texans) don't realized is that the gov. office in Texas is
mostly a figurehead. The most powerful elected office in Texas is the
Speaker of the House.

Pam

[Christine Moon]

Sue - great minds think alike. "Vietnam" was the first word to spring to my
mind when I saw and heard about this guerrilla warfare. British soldiers
are also coming home dead. And I think you're right about Blair - the media
are really gunning for him since the suicide of the "mole" who talked to the
press about the case for war being "emphasised" shall we say.
--
Peace,
Christine
***@fojd.org.uk
www.fojd.org.uk

Post by Virtugal
Seems the news today is that the US has managed to get itself into another
*Vietnam* Can't spell Guerilla but you know what I mean doncha? Now more
American soldiers have died since Bush declared the war over than died in the
entire Gulf war and have died in Iraq as well. The body bags keep streaming in
in ones and twos and so forth and a second woman has died but not from hostile
action so we are told. They are finally admitting that there is no end in
sight and the morale of the soldiers creeps lower down the scale with every day
as the day they were supposed to leave has been extended some for 6 more
months. They are being shot at from every direction and the Iraqis are no
longer friendly. There are no WMD and they have no body or person of SH.

The

Post by Virtugal
people are saying it is more dangerous now than before the war to venture out
and blame the US.
Tony Blair and Colin Powell are trying to put positive spins on things but
both know that in the one case his polital career is over and in the second
that he was hoodwinked and behind the scenes I imagine there is a lot of anger.
Now we have moved forward, We have no SH and we have no OBL. The popularity
of the president is finally dopping drastically. And the economy while
appearing to be coming out of recession is still as sluggish as ever.

This is

Post by Virtugal
a man in crisis and he did it to himself. Hubris is an interesting concept.
To all the troops still in the line of fire, I salute you and hope you get to
go home soon. 'Even in Vietnam, the tour of duty was no longer than 2 years.
We do still think of you all every day and hope and pray for your safety.

Now

Post by Virtugal
can we agree that this war was ill thought out and a subtrefuge to cover up an
economy going into the dumps? It is just a fact of life that some countries do
not deal with democracy very well and have no experience with this concept.
Some peoples need the kind of structure that autocracies and dictatorships
provide, although we would like it if they were more benevolent.

[EmmaLdy]

SH's sons are dead.
A list of guerrilla warefare individuals was located in the house, along with
50 million dollars or so. The brothers were hiring these men on the list, to
ambush our soldiers.
The numbers of attacks should be lower now.

Our troops are saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis and doing good work.

President Bush is not a liar.
President Bush said at the onset of this war, that we would be in Iraq for a
long time, and that we sould be prepared for that.
I still stand 100% behind my President and all of the troops.
God Bless America.
emma

[MNPearl]

Post by EmmaLdy
SH's sons are dead.
A list of guerrilla warefare individuals was located in the house, along with
50 million dollars or so. The brothers were hiring these men on the list, to
ambush our soldiers.
The numbers of attacks should be lower now.
Our troops are saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis and doing good work.
President Bush is not a liar.
President Bush said at the onset of this war, that we would be in Iraq for a
long time, and that we sould be prepared for that.
I still stand 100% behind my President and all of the troops.
God Bless America.
emma

Exactly. Me too!

Jean

[Virtugal]

It is good that you are standing behind the troops and YOUR President. But I
have a real problem with where you get your information. The TV has been on all
day and there has been no mention of 50 million dollars nor of any list. We
killed four people, a body guard, a teenager, and SHs two brothers. The troops
are doing good work and needed this to improve morale. But President Bush has
practically admitted that he is a liar and he was told time and again that the
information he was getting was suspect. He went ahead and gave the information
in his speech. God Bless America and hope that Bush stubs his toe so badly
that no one can play denial any longer. This man did not tell the troops that
they were going int guerilla warfare nor did he tell them that their tours of
duty would be extended by at least 6 months. Seen the interviews with the
troops lately?

Post by EmmaLdy
SH's sons are dead.
A list of guerrilla warefare individuals was located in the house, along with
50 million dollars or so. The brothers were hiring these men on the list, to
ambush our soldiers.
The numbers of attacks should be lower now.
Our troops are saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis and doing good work.
President Bush is not a liar.
President Bush said at the onset of this war, that we would be in Iraq for a
long time, and that we sould be prepared for that.
I still stand 100% behind my President and all of the troops.
God Bless America.
emma

[EmmaLdy]

Post by Virtugal
It is good that you are standing behind the troops and YOUR President. But I
have a real problem with where you get your information. The TV has been on all
day and there has been no mention of 50 million dollars nor of any list. We
killed four people, a body guard, a teenager, and SHs two brothers. The troops
are doing good work and needed this to improve morale. But President Bush has
practically admitted that he is a liar and he was told time and again that the
information he was getting was suspect. He went ahead and gave the information
in his speech. God Bless America and hope that Bush stubs his toe so badly
that no one can play denial any longer. This man did not tell the troops that
they were going int guerilla warfare nor did he tell them that their tours of
duty would be extended by at least 6 months. Seen the interviews with the
troops lately?

Post by EmmaLdy
SH's sons are dead.
A list of guerrilla warefare individuals was located in the house, along

with

Post by EmmaLdy
50 million dollars or so. The brothers were hiring these men on the list, to
ambush our soldiers.
The numbers of attacks should be lower now.
Our troops are saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis and doing good work.
President Bush is not a liar.
President Bush said at the onset of this war, that we would be in Iraq for a
long time, and that we sould be prepared for that.
I still stand 100% behind my President and all of the troops.
God Bless America.
emma

I don't get all my facts from TV.
I use numerous sources and supply myself with a balanced array of sources to
compare facts and have a good feel for the accuracy of information that I trust
as reliable.

I also talk to family members of soldiers serving there and exchanged emails to
some in country and city.

The 14 yr old teenager was one of SH's son's sons according to Col David Hunt.

No one can predict when and where ambushes are going to happen before they are
planned, so the President could not supply our troops with this information.
However, he did tell our troops and America to prepare for a long time in Iraq.

Below is a release from today out of Central Command, reflecting some of the
good work our troops are doing.
emma


NEWS RELEASE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101
Phone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; DSN 651-5894

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

July 22, 2003
Release Number: 03-07-67


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


NUMEROUS POTENTIAL SUBVERSIVE ATTACKS DETERRED

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition forces prevented several potential subversive
attacks bringing the country of Iraq closer to a safe and secure environment.

A 1st Armored Division unit identified an improvised explosive device outside
of their detention cell. The device consisted of three pounds of plastic
explosives with an electronic timer in a black bag. An explosive ordnance
detonation team disabled the device without incident.

Also at the 1st AD detention center, an unidentified Iraqi man dropped off a
black bag containing a bomb with a timing device on it. An EOD team neutralized
the bomb and removed it for further investigation.

A 1st AD unit conducted a raid at a house in a Baghdad neighborhood and
confiscated one AK-47, one rocket-propelled grenade, one G3 assault rifle and
two 69 mm tubes. Two individuals were detained. Additional raids on three other
houses yielded two AK-47s, and one 9 mm pistol.

Military police from the 1st AD responded to small arms fire at the new Baghdad
police station detaining one Iraqi in a vehicle with an AK-47. There was
several brass cartridges found on the front and rear seats of the vehicle. The
Iraqi was taken to the local brigade support area detention area for
questioning.

A 1st AD infantry sniper team on patrol spotted two Iraqis with AK-47s in a
library. The patrol searched the library and found 6-60 mm mortar rounds, one
82 mortar round, three rocket-propelled grenade-7 warheads, one 14.5
anti-aircraft gun and two AK-47s. The Iraqis escaped prior to the arrival of
the search patrol team.

Another 1st AD patrol in Baghdad identified and neutralized an improvised
explosive device. The device was a fragmentation grenade placed in a plastic
container that was filled with gasoline.

An EOD team in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force area reported finding four
125 mm high explosive tank rounds evenly spaced and camouflaged by foliage. The
devices were set for command detonation approximately 100 meters from the road
using a small tractor battery. Only one of the four rounds detonated.

The 1st MEF responded to a reported looting at an agricultural factory in
Iskandariayah. Six individuals were detained and three AK-47s, one 9 mm pistol
and four grenades were confiscated. Additionally, 50 rocket-propelled grenades
and one large bag of 7.62 mm link rounds were found in a closet at the factory.


Finally, in the 1st MEF area of operation, the Iraqi police along with military
police conducted a joint raid in Ash Shafiiyah and confiscated 140 grenade
fuses, 654 7.62 rounds, 43 hand grenades and four AK-47s. One individual was
arrested.

First AD soldiers confiscated three million Iraqi dinars, counterfeiting
equipment for fake license plates along with numerous fake license plates a
typewriter, two printers and a key board. One individual was detained for
questioning.

Elsewhere, Coalition forces continued aggressive patrols throughout the country
over the last 24 hours conducting 23 raids, 1,126-day patrols and 928-night
patrols. They also jointly patrolled with the Iraqi Police conducting 145-day
patrols and 162-night patrols. Independently, the Iraqi Police conducted 11-day
patrols and 10-night patrols.

The total raids and patrols resulted in 154 arrests for various criminal
activities including two for murder, seven for car jacking, four for aggravated
assault, eight for burglary and one for looting.

[EmmaLdy]

and another report out of Central Command:

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101
Phone: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; DSN 651-5894

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

July 22, 2003
Release Number: 03-07-66


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


COALITION AND IRAQIS TEAM UP FOR HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition forces and Iraqis have teamed up on a variety of
initiatives in areas from higher education to security to improve the quality
of life for the people of Iraq.

More than 80 percent of Iraq’s university students have returned to class
thanks to the efforts of Coalition commanders who have been working with
university administrators to let students know the schools are open and ready
to accept enrollments.

Also, during the last 48 hours Coalition and Iraqi doctors in Baghdad teamed up
to save a young girl’s foot. Doctors from the 2nd Armored Cavalry
Regiment’s Forward Surgical Team worked with two Iraqi doctors at Al Wasity
hospital to repair the foot of an eight-year-old girl who severely injured her
foot in a motor vehicle accident.

The team effort came about because the Coalition forward surgical team had the
staff, location and equipment necessary to assist in performing the surgery to
save the girl’s foot. Although the team’s primary mission is to treat U.S.
soldiers injured in the line of duty, they also give medical care to Iraqi
civilians when the needs are beyond the ability of local hospitals.

In Sulaymaniah, soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) completed
the training of 327 Iraqi border guards. The training took place at a Kurdish
Peshmerga compound.

During the four-day program volunteers from the area received training in
conducting customs and security duties at border crossings with Iran. Now that
classroom training is complete the border guards will begin on-the-job training
under the supervision of soldiers in the 101st AAD.

In Mosul, the 101st AAD has hired nearly 4,000 Iraqis to help with key security
and reconstruction programs in northern Iraq. The recent hiring helps restore
order and repair infrastructure and also provides jobs for former government
employees and former military personnel.

In addition, the injection of money into the local economies helps stimulate
commerce and improves the overall quality of life in the region. The money used
to pay the workers came from seized Iraqi funds and discretionary funds
provided by the Coalition’s unit commanders.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by EmmaLdy
Our troops are saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis and doing good work.

by being targets? how is that saving their lives?

Post by EmmaLdy
President Bush is not a liar.
President Bush said at the onset of this war, that we would be in Iraq for a
long time,

and that makes him not a liar? he gives a speech based on faulty intelligence
that was known to be faulty at the time and that's not a lie? he builds a case
for God being on our side, and that's not turning this into a holy crusade? he
made a MAJOR deal about how Saddam had WMD. said we were going in there because
of it. now, they can't find them, and it doesn't matter? said he had 'em...now
he says, no, we went in there because he defied the UN. excuse me? he defied a
group that WE DEFIED to go to war? and he's not a liar?

ok...but I want his sorry ass out of there. I neither trust nor believe him and
he's proven he can't be trusted or believed. and this man bitched about
Clinton? I think not.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Claudia Levesque]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by EmmaLdy
Our troops are saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis and doing good work.

by being targets? how is that saving their lives?

Post by EmmaLdy
President Bush is not a liar.
President Bush said at the onset of this war, that we would be in Iraq for a
long time,

and that makes him not a liar? he gives a speech based on faulty intelligence
that was known to be faulty at the time and that's not a lie? he builds a case
for God being on our side, and that's not turning this into a holy crusade? he
made a MAJOR deal about how Saddam had WMD. said we were going in there because
of it. now, they can't find them, and it doesn't matter? said he had 'em...now
he says, no, we went in there because he defied the UN. excuse me? he defied a
group that WE DEFIED to go to war? and he's not a liar?
ok...but I want his sorry ass out of there. I neither trust nor believe him and
he's proven he can't be trusted or believed. and this man bitched about
Clinton? I think not.
peace,
jesse

RIGHT ON, Jesse!!!!!!


Best to you,


Claudia

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey
A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!
Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[MNPearl]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by EmmaLdy
Our troops are saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis and doing good work.

by being targets? how is that saving their lives?

Because many now will not die at the hands of SH or his regime. Children will
not go to prisons. People will not be slaughtered and put in mass graves.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by EmmaLdy
President Bush is not a liar.
President Bush said at the onset of this war, that we would be in Iraq for a
long time,

and that makes him not a liar? he gives a speech based on faulty intelligence
that was known to be faulty at the time and that's not a lie? >>

Listen to Tony Blair. The man said there was more intelligence than the forged
documents and he stand behind that intelligence to this day. It was not a lie.


he builds a

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
case
for God being on our side, and that's not turning this into a holy crusade?>>
he
made a MAJOR deal about how Saddam had WMD. said we were going in there because
of it. now, they can't find them, and it doesn't matter?>>

Again, Jesse.....it was the UN that for 12 years said that SH had WMD. Why the
focus on Bush? He didn't lie. He was using the same mandate the UN had used
to enact sanctions. Were they wrong too? And if so, where were your charges
of lies over the sanctions?

said he had

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
'em...now
he says, no, we went in there because he defied the UN. excuse me? he defied a
group that WE DEFIED to go to war? and he's not a liar?

Exactly. How does that make him a liar?

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
ok...but I want his sorry ass out of there. I neither trust nor believe him and
he's proven he can't be trusted or believed. and this man bitched about
Clinton? I think not.

Clinton lied under oath. That's a crime, is it not? And even Clinton has
recently said that we didn't know what SH had left of his arsenal. Remember,
it was Clinton who made it US policy to have a regime change in Iraq. I would
think Bush would have had a tough sell for the war if that wasn't the case.

[Virtugal]

Bush didn't care what the American people thought and he still doesn't. He was
hell bent on finishing his daddy's war and that is all he thought about. If
you do not believe that then you must believe he is so dumb that he cannot tell
his Arabs apart. SH is NOT ObL.

Post by MNPearl
Because many now will not die at the hands of SH or his regime. Children will

No we are killing them for him and putting them in graves and instead of
sending children to prisons we just kill them.

Post by MNPearl
Children will
not go to prisons. People will not be slaughtered and put in mass graves.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by MNPearl
Because many now will not die at the hands of SH or his regime. Children will
not go to prisons. People will not be slaughtered and put in mass graves.

oh? funny, we must be watching different news programs, because they want us
gone. and they are shooting our soldiers and their own children. not be
slaughtered? I'm seeing a slaughter every day.

Post by MNPearl
It was not a lie.

then we define the word differently. you tell me a falsehood, that's a lie. you
tell me something based on an incorrect report and tell me it's the
truth...that's a lie. you withhold that truth from me, that's a lie of
omission. bottom line, the man lied through his pearly whites.

Post by MNPearl
Again, Jesse.....it was the UN that for 12 years said that SH had WMD.

and for 12 years, no one else took it all that seriously, why Bush?

Post by MNPearl
He was using the same mandate the UN had used
to enact sanctions. Were they wrong too?

excuse me, they said he didn't have any. the weapons inspectors said they
weren't none there. Bush tried to bully the UN into letting us go in
there...NOW he wants to listen to them? NOW he wants to quote the UN and say,
"Saddam violated UN agreements." and we didn't?

Post by MNPearl
Remember,
it was Clinton who made it US policy to have a regime change in Iraq.

like I said...Clinton had the same damned intelligence and found it to be
severely lacking in credibility. it's the same intelligence. if no one else
took it seriously, why did Georgie?


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[MNPearl]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
oh? funny, we must be watching different news programs, because they want us
gone. and they are shooting our soldiers and their own children. not be
slaughtered? I'm seeing a slaughter every day.

Sure, the supporters of SH want us gone. They are not the majority in Iraq.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by MNPearl
It was not a lie.

then we define the word differently. you tell me a falsehood, that's a lie. you
tell me something based on an incorrect report and tell me it's the
truth...that's a lie. you withhold that truth from me, that's a lie of
omission. bottom line, the man lied through his pearly whites.

I'm not going to continue to argue the point with you, as you have a great
disdain for Bush and no one could ever convince you that he isn't a complete
dirtbag. I don't agree with your assessment of Bush as a liar.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by MNPearl
Again, Jesse.....it was the UN that for 12 years said that SH had WMD.

and for 12 years, no one else took it all that seriously, why Bush?

No one took it that seriously? You are kidding, right? So the sanctions were
for.....just to give the Iraqi people a good time?

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by MNPearl
He was using the same mandate the UN had used
to enact sanctions. Were they wrong too?

excuse me, they said he didn't have any. the weapons inspectors said they
weren't none there. Bush tried to bully the UN into letting us go in
there...NOW he wants to listen to them? NOW he wants to quote the UN and say,
"Saddam violated UN agreements." and we didn't?

The weapons inspectors did not say there were no weapons. How could they know
that when SH wasn't giving them free access????

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by MNPearl
Remember,
it was Clinton who made it US policy to have a regime change in Iraq.

like I said...Clinton had the same damned intelligence and found it to be
severely lacking in credibility. it's the same intelligence. if no one else
took it seriously, why did Georgie?

He had the same intelligence? About the uranium from Africa? Where did you
get this information? Didn't the forgery take place after Clinton left office?
And, wasn't it Clinton who dropped bombs on Iraq to destroy WMD? If they were
imaginary, why did Billy do that?

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
peace,
jesse
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey
A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!
Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by MNPearl
Sure, the supporters of SH want us gone. They are not the majority in Iraq.

No, the Iraqi people screaming for us to leave are not Saddam supporters. They
are the ones who think that the American Government should not tell them who's
in charge of their own country, should not tell them what to do with their own
oil. They are the everyday citizen in the street who wants their own governing
party and not an occupation by the new bully on the block, namely George Bush
and, by proxy, the American people.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[David Ladewig]

There are a small number of Islam crazies that KNOW when prosperity gets to
Iraq, Islam gets the well deserved boot and the power of the religion
becomes irrelevant. The protesters are the same bunch of dummies you see in
every country that allows Islam to exist. Ann Coulter is right. Kill them
all and make them learn Christianity. LOL

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by MNPearl
Sure, the supporters of SH want us gone. They are not the majority in Iraq.

No, the Iraqi people screaming for us to leave are not Saddam supporters.

[Virtugal]

The people David sau that the streets are more dangerous now than they were
under SH and they can't let their children out to play at this time. ( a woman
being interviewed by CNN)

Post by David Ladewig
There are a small number of Islam crazies that KNOW when prosperity gets to
Iraq, Islam gets the well deserved boot and the power of the religion
becomes irrelevant. The protesters are the same bunch of dummies you see in
every country that allows Islam to exist. Ann Coulter is right. Kill them
all and make them learn Christianity. LOL

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by MNPearl
Sure, the supporters of SH want us gone. They are not the majority in

Iraq.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
No, the Iraqi people screaming for us to leave are not Saddam supporters.

There are more than a few so called crazies.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by David Ladewig
Kill them
all and make them learn Christianity. LOL

LOL, oh David, we can dress you up and can't keep you dressed.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Diamondsnstones]

Hi Jean, it is absolutely imperative for the Leader of the Free World to have
his facts straight and to prove for himself that what he is told is correct and
without flaw. He didn't. He wanted it to be true. He checks nothing and he
appologized today for getting it so wrong. He lied about the WMD and now he is
saying that is not why we went to war. He squarms out of everything when he
has ranted and raved about how deadly Iraq was. Sadaam was doing nothing
outside of his country and with every problem that does not exist he takes a
right turn and goes down another path. Tony Blair is fighting for his
political life and of course he is going to continue to say his intelligence
sources were correct when we know they were not. There is the sin of
commission and the sin of omission and Bush has committed both. IMHO
How many Acts of Contrition do you think are needed to atone for 161 American
lives and a large number of British lives? Bush seems not to think he needs to
do anything.

Hi Sue,
Emma is correct when she said that the Pres didn't lie. Here is an article
that explains it better than I can. The Brits stand behind their
intelligence
to this day, so how could what he said have been a lie?
A Case of Stacking the Deck
Commentary by John Leo for usnews.com
The media's handling of the uraniun-from-Africa story was too much for Bob
Somerby, one of the better-known Internet commentators of the left. Somerby
usually spends a lot of time and energy criticizing George W. Bush. But last
week at his Daily Howler Web site, a headline said: "There they go again! The
press corps has made up its mind on Iraq. Result? Basic facts will be
mangled."
Somerby argued that if you are going to accuse the Bushies of perpetrating a
"hoax," as columnist Nicholas Kristof did in the New York Times, you can't
refuse to publish the administration's explanation. And you can't bury the
explanation way down in paragraph 15, as the Washington Post did in a long,
front-page news article.
The Howler also had some harsh words for Chris Matthews, who gummed up the
controversy on Hardball. According to Matthews, President Bush's script for
the
State of the Union message said "that Iraq had attempted or had, in fact,
bought nuclear materials from the governor of Niger . . . . How do we know
this; why do we know this?"
Earth to Chris: "bought," "Niger," and "governor" were never mentioned in the
State of the Union speech, which simply said, "The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium
from Africa."
Matthews's outburst came after Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld spent a
lot
of time explaining that the "16 words" of Bush's speech were not the reason
the
United States went to war. The administration did a bit of unimpressive
verbal
dancing about valid information that fails to rise to a level of certainty.
But
its explanation was clear: The British said--and still say--that Saddam had
sought uranium in Africa. And though the British report can't be confirmed,
the
administration believes British intelligence is generally reliable. Last week
Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted as saying that he was aware of forged
documents alleging that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa but that his
government had other good sources indicating that the charge was accurate.
Nobody seems to know for sure whether the Brits were right in the first
place,
or why they are still so sure now. But the press corps basically brushed
aside
such concerns and framed the issue as one of manipulation and lying. "When
the
press corps reaches an overall judgment," Somerby wrote, "they often start
looking for easy-to-tell stories to illustrate that global belief."

[MNPearl]

Hi Sue,

Bush trusted and trusts British intelligence. He didn't lie. Maybe he
shouldn't have had such faith in it, but that doesn't make him a liar. People
are not infallible. I haven't heard him apologize for 'getting it so wrong.'
I also have never heard him say that it wasn't the reason we went to war. If
Bush was wrong about WMD, then so was the UN and all those years of sanctions
were for what? Are you saying that SH never had such weapons? Most people
believe he did. How come no evidence of their existence OR destruction? And
we do not "know" that Blair's intelligence sources were wrong. They have never
shared that intelligence, so how would we know one way or the other? I don't
think that Bush is an immaculate never-make-a-mistake president, but I do
believe that the man is doing the very best he can in light of what happened on
9-11. And I still believe getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.

Post by Diamondsnstones
Hi Jean, it is absolutely imperative for the Leader of the Free World to have
his facts straight and to prove for himself that what he is told is correct and
without flaw. He didn't. He wanted it to be true. He checks nothing and he
appologized today for getting it so wrong. He lied about the WMD and now he is
saying that is not why we went to war. He squarms out of everything when he
has ranted and raved about how deadly Iraq was. Sadaam was doing nothing
outside of his country and with every problem that does not exist he takes a
right turn and goes down another path. Tony Blair is fighting for his
political life and of course he is going to continue to say his intelligence
sources were correct when we know they were not. There is the sin of
commission and the sin of omission and Bush has committed both. IMHO
How many Acts of Contrition do you think are needed to atone for 161 American
lives and a large number of British lives? Bush seems not to think he needs to
do anything.

Hi Sue,
Emma is correct when she said that the Pres didn't lie. Here is an article
that explains it better than I can. The Brits stand behind their
intelligence
to this day, so how could what he said have been a lie?
A Case of Stacking the Deck
Commentary by John Leo for usnews.com
The media's handling of the uraniun-from-Africa story was too much for Bob
Somerby, one of the better-known Internet commentators of the left. Somerby
usually spends a lot of time and energy criticizing George W. Bush. But last
week at his Daily Howler Web site, a headline said: "There they go again!

The

press corps has made up its mind on Iraq. Result? Basic facts will be
mangled."
Somerby argued that if you are going to accuse the Bushies of perpetrating a
"hoax," as columnist Nicholas Kristof did in the New York Times, you can't
refuse to publish the administration's explanation. And you can't bury the
explanation way down in paragraph 15, as the Washington Post did in a long,
front-page news article.
The Howler also had some harsh words for Chris Matthews, who gummed up the
controversy on Hardball. According to Matthews, President Bush's script for
the
State of the Union message said "that Iraq had attempted or had, in fact,
bought nuclear materials from the governor of Niger . . . . How do we know
this; why do we know this?"
Earth to Chris: "bought," "Niger," and "governor" were never mentioned in

the

State of the Union speech, which simply said, "The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of

uranium

from Africa."
Matthews's outburst came after Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld spent a
lot
of time explaining that the "16 words" of Bush's speech were not the reason
the
United States went to war. The administration did a bit of unimpressive
verbal
dancing about valid information that fails to rise to a level of certainty.
But

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Idezomarch]

Post by Diamondsnstones
Sadaam was doing nothing
outside of his country

How do you know this?? Did Dan Rather tell you this?? I don't remember seeing
you in any White House photos in the Oval Office. I guess its just your
"opinion" and thankfully you live in a country that won't torture you for
having it. Thank a military service member for that. (and for the extra time
over there.... so what?? How long do you think the men of WWII were over
there? and they saved this country!... so middle-aged woman from all over can
travel to Aspen, Colorado on an evil fuel-sucking jet to watch people sing
someone esles songs! ..(and that includes me!)

[Diamondsnstones]

Actually I was floating above Iraq for the last 10 years observing what was
going on there so I would be able to recognize one Arab from another. It is a
problem our president seems to have. I found that Osama binLaden was around 6'
4" tall and SH was quite a bit shorter and I found that
he also didn't have a long whitish beard. He also was not in a cave in
Afganistan nor was he building WMD simply for the fun of it and not to use when
he was invaded. I also learned by reading, a skill that is sorely lacking
around here. It seems that the Saudis were funding ObL and sending money to
various cells around the world such as the one that orchestrated the 9/11
disaster. We invaded the wrong country because we had a treaty with the right
country. Other than that I guess you will have to deal with it yourself
whoever you are.

Post by Idezomarch
How do you know this?? Did Dan Rather tell you this?? I don't remember seeing
you in any White House photos in the Oval Office. I guess its just your
"opinion" and thankfully you live in a country that won't torture you for
having it. Thank a military service member for that. (and for the extra time
over there.... so what?? How long do you think the men of WWII were over
there? and they saved this country!... so middle-aged woman from all over can
travel to Aspen, Colorado on an evil fuel-sucking jet to watch people sing
someone esles songs! ..(and that includes me!)

Do enjoy Aspen as it is extremely important for world peace. You forgot to
say middle aged fat women. I know it was an oversight on your part. Not true
but an oversight nevetheless.

[EmmaLdy]

I support the troops and I support their removal from Iraq. And as far
as reducing the ambushes and attacks........I will wait and see......the
deaths of these may make their supporters more determined to kill our
boys.
Pam

I respect that Pam.
And you might be right about their supporters, but they did lose one little 50
million dollar piggy bank.
One of the sons withdrew 1 billion from his bank last March, so there's more
somewhere.
Plus, we have a list of their names.
:-)
emma

[Virtugal]

Emma, I called, on the phone, you know that instrument that connects you to
another person. I called the top two news bureaus in this country as well as
our top news station and ALL of them said that this information is bogus and
has never been a part of their news reports because they have no concrete
evidence of any of it. Now where do you get your information?

Post by EmmaLdy
I respect that Pam.
And you might be right about their supporters, but they did lose one little
50
million dollar piggy bank.
One of the sons withdrew 1 billion from his bank last March, so there's more
somewhere.
Plus, we have a list of their names.
:-)
emma

And this list? Where is this list?

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

"There they go again! The
press corps has made up its mind on Iraq. Result? Basic facts will be
mangled."

uh, excuse me...basic facts mangled? ok...CIA Director says, it's my fault. He
doesn't see the speech, how can he ok or give ok? Condoleeza Rice says NO ONE
IN THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW. but now her Aide says, yes I knew...and she says, yes
I knew. so...if no one in the white house knew, how is it the director of the
CIA, the NSA Director and her Aide knew and didn't say anything? before we
bitch at the media, maybe we better get our stories straight.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Virtugal]

That requires reading and memorizing and all those good things learned in
school. It can't be done in this White House.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
uh, excuse me...basic facts mangled? ok...CIA Director says, it's my fault. He
doesn't see the speech, how can he ok or give ok? Condoleeza Rice says NO ONE
IN THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW. but now her Aide says, yes I knew...and she says, yes
I knew. so...if no one in the white house knew, how is it the director of the
CIA, the NSA Director and her Aide knew and didn't say anything? before we
bitch at the media, maybe we better get our stories straight.
peace,
jesse

he journalists I know all are just shaking their heads with a blank page in
front of them.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Gee, how many weapons can you hide or ship out of the country in 12 years?
Jean

where's the proof? and Bush didn't take us in there with that. it was that SH
had the weapons and was planning on using them. and then, that changed to he
was THINKING about planning to use them. and Colin Powell went to the UN with
pictures, documents, and spy satellite footage that showed these weapons. and
yet, when we get there, there are none.

how many weapons can you hide if there were none to begin with?


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Virtugal]

You are correct Jesse and if we are to believe that these men were as ruthless
and evil as they have been portrayed and I have no reason to doubt that, then
these very men would have USED these weapons on our trooos to hell with their
own people. Aren't we to believe that they had already done that?

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
where's the proof? and Bush didn't take us in there with that. it was that SH
had the weapons and was planning on using them. and then, that changed to he
was THINKING about planning to use them. and Colin Powell went to the UN with
pictures, documents, and spy satellite footage that showed these weapons. and
yet, when we get there, there are none.
how many weapons can you hide if there were none to begin with?
peace,

Would not these so called dead brothers have used them to save their rears when
cornered?

[MNPearl]

The fact still remains that the entire UN body believed that SH had weapons.
Bush didn't make it up.

Post by Virtugal
You are correct Jesse and if we are to believe that these men were as ruthless
and evil as they have been portrayed and I have no reason to doubt that, then
these very men would have USED these weapons on our trooos to hell with their
own people. Aren't we to believe that they had already done that?

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
where's the proof? and Bush didn't take us in there with that. it was that

SH

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
had the weapons and was planning on using them. and then, that changed to he
was THINKING about planning to use them. and Colin Powell went to the UN

with

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
pictures, documents, and spy satellite footage that showed these weapons.

and

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
yet, when we get there, there are none.
how many weapons can you hide if there were none to begin with?
peace,

Would not these so called dead brothers have used them to save their rears when
cornered?

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by MNPearl
The fact still remains that the entire UN body believed that SH had weapons.
Bush didn't make it up.

The fact still remains that the entire UN body made a very strong case for us
NOT to go. The fact still remains that the weapons inspectors could not find
one nuclear device, one container of nerve gas. The fact still remains that the
UN did NOT sanction this war and George W Bush bullied his way into it. The
fact is he based all of this on alleged spy photographs that showed mythical
weapons. If they existed, where are they?

Bush may not have made it up, but he knew. He knew and stated it as bold fact
that it was so. He lied!


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Idezomarch]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
Bush may not have made it up, but he knew. He knew and stated it as bold fact
that it was so

WOW..... I need my palms read !
You seem to have the power to just know whats going on in someones head....and
what they do know and what they don't!
Why aren't you in Washington?? Or on the psychic hotline??? What a talent!

[David Ladewig]

And you would be?

HE is in awe of the POWER!

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by Idezomarch
Or on the psychic hotline??? What a talent!

LOL, I don't do palms. I do tarot cards, astrology, fire and water scrying, and
I will, on occasion, do a bit of clairvoyance/clairaudient work. but I do NOT
do palms.

and to answer the question? I'm literate, I know how to read. and I'd like to
thing those psych classes I took taught me something about body language and
how to read a human being.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[MNPearl]

What proof did the UN have to enact sanctions against Iraq? Bush was enforcing
the UN mandate that SH disarm. It was believed that SH had weapons. He could
not or would not show proof that he had destroyed them. If there were no
weapons, why did the UN insist that SH get rid of them???????

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
where's the proof? and Bush didn't take us in there with that. it was that SH
had the weapons and was planning on using them. and then, that changed to he
was THINKING about planning to use them. and Colin Powell went to the UN with
pictures, documents, and spy satellite footage that showed these weapons. and
yet, when we get there, there are none.
how many weapons can you hide if there were none to begin with?
peace,
jesse
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey
A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!
Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Virtugal]

One thing that has always bothered me is how to prove that you don't have
something you don't have. Do you show an empty space on a shelf and say *see,
there, we have no WMD, or do you show an empty desert or what? It confounds
me.
Sue
*For hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on Earth Good Will toward
men.*
Christmas Hymn

Post by MNPearl
What proof did the UN have to enact sanctions against Iraq? Bush was enforcing
the UN mandate that SH disarm. It was believed that SH had weapons. He could
not or would not show proof that he had destroyed them. If there were no
weapons, why did the UN insist that SH get rid of them???????

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
where's the proof? and Bush didn't take us in there with that. it was that

SH

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
had the weapons and was planning on using them. and then, that changed to he
was THINKING about planning to use them. and Colin Powell went to the UN

with

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
pictures, documents, and spy satellite footage that showed these weapons.

and

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
yet, when we get there, there are none.
how many weapons can you hide if there were none to begin with?
peace,
jesse

[MNPearl]

If I remember correctly, the inspectors stated that the place where the weapons
were destroyed would provide the evidence they needed. SH never produced this
evidence.

Post by Virtugal
One thing that has always bothered me is how to prove that you don't have
something you don't have. Do you show an empty space on a shelf and say *see,
there, we have no WMD, or do you show an empty desert or what? It confounds
me.
Sue
*For hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on Earth Good Will toward
men.*
Christmas Hymn

Post by MNPearl
What proof did the UN have to enact sanctions against Iraq? Bush was enforcing
the UN mandate that SH disarm. It was believed that SH had weapons. He

could

Post by MNPearl
not or would not show proof that he had destroyed them. If there were no
weapons, why did the UN insist that SH get rid of them???????

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
where's the proof? and Bush didn't take us in there with that. it was that

SH

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
had the weapons and was planning on using them. and then, that changed to

he

Post by MNPearl

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
was THINKING about planning to use them. and Colin Powell went to the UN

with

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
pictures, documents, and spy satellite footage that showed these weapons.

and

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
yet, when we get there, there are none.
how many weapons can you hide if there were none to begin with?
peace,
jesse

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Virtugal]

And Jean the man said just today that all presidents make mistakes so he made
one too, What if it ended up killing almost 200 young American men and women
and maining many more.
And then there is the mess that led to the 9/11 disaster---------

he lied. according to mr president, that intelligence came from the CIA, not
the British Intelligence. he didn't start blaming them until AFTER the fit
hit
the shan.

[Diamondsnstones]

Clinton didn't ignore all the intelligence reports that said that something bad
was going to happen , nor did he ignore the fact that Arabs were in flights
schools just to learn to aim planes not to take off or land. There were many
reports of the violence that was to happen and Clinton had nothing to do with
that. Of course Bush didn't listen to these reports and now you want us to
believe that he listened to someone else's intellignece instead of ours? If
so, the man is very very strange.
People have offered to fall on their swords for him and he says no he has
complete faith in our intelligence network. What is it here that I don't
understand? That Clinton should have killed SH while taking out ObL even
though we have a LAW preventing the assination of leaders of regimes? Or maybe
if he had killed ObL then SH would have dropped dead? We do not seem to
remember that the Saudis fund ObL and not SH but we are sure able to mix up our
Arabs. Killing ObL would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks as these cells
operate independent of the ultimate leader. They are funded by Saudis and they
were Saudis. One last thing before I shake my head and leave this subject. ObL
is a religious nut er fanatic and SH is a secular Muslum and was a secular
leader. Now what will we have? Clinton seems to be the bad guy in all of this
to some people even though he has not been in power for two years or more.
When does Bush have to be the one that *the buck stops here*
When recession turns to full blown depression? When we find ourselves in
WWIII? When our troops are on full time duty without relief in war zones
around the world, keeping the peace? Right? Or when we finally realize that
the Iraqi people are not as grateful as we would like them to be and the North
Koreans take advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq to lob nuclear weapons at
our allies and thus us? Oh well living is not the only thing I suppose.

Well, I blame Clinton for the 9-11 disaster. He was being handed OBL and he
didn't do a darn thing. And I still do not believe it was a mistake to take
out SH.

[MNPearl]

Post by Diamondsnstones
Clinton didn't ignore all the intelligence reports that said that something bad
was going to happen , nor did he ignore the fact that Arabs were in flights
schools just to learn to aim planes not to take off or land. There were many
reports of the violence that was to happen and Clinton had nothing to do with
that. Of course Bush didn't listen to these reports and now you want us to
believe that he listened to someone else's intellignece instead of ours? >>

When did Bush receive these reports, Sue? It is my belief that these reports
never got to the proper people. They were never shared among the different
agencies and now you're saying they were given to Bush. When?

Post by Diamondsnstones
so, the man is very very strange.
People have offered to fall on their swords for him and he says no he has
complete faith in our intelligence network. What is it here that I don't
understand? That Clinton should have killed SH while taking out ObL even
though we have a LAW preventing the assination of leaders of regimes?>>

No way. He could have taken him into custody. There was plenty of evidence
against OBL for terrorist attacks on Americans in other countries at the time.

Or

Post by Diamondsnstones
maybe
if he had killed ObL then SH would have dropped dead? We do not seem to
remember that the Saudis fund ObL and not SH but we are sure able to mix up our
Arabs. Killing ObL would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks as these cells
operate independent of the ultimate leader. >>

And you know this because?

They are funded by Saudis and

Post by Diamondsnstones
they
were Saudis. One last thing before I shake my head and leave this subject. ObL
is a religious nut er fanatic and SH is a secular Muslum and was a secular
leader. Now what will we have? >>

Hopefully, something better than SH.

Clinton seems to be the bad guy in all of

Post by Diamondsnstones
this
to some people even though he has not been in power for two years or more. >

No, Sue. I just am not going to blame Bush for everything that is wrong in the
US right now.

Post by Diamondsnstones
When does Bush have to be the one that *the buck stops here*
When recession turns to full blown depression? >>

The American people are to blame for the state of the economy. After 9-11,
everyone was scared to fly. The demise of the airline industry has taken its
toll right down the line. What would you do to get the economy going?

When we find ourselves in

Post by Diamondsnstones
WWIII? When our troops are on full time duty without relief in war zones
around the world, keeping the peace? >>

So, you are saying that the US should isolate itself from the rest of the world
and just turn a deaf ear to the problems in other countries?


Right? Or when we finally realize that

Post by Diamondsnstones
the Iraqi people are not as grateful as we would like them to be>

Those who supported SH will never be grateful. Why would anyone think that
they would be?

and the

Post by Diamondsnstones
North
Koreans take advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq to lob nuclear weapons at
our allies and thus us? Oh well living is not the only thing I suppose.

Well, I blame Clinton for the 9-11 disaster. He was being handed OBL and he
didn't do a darn thing. And I still do not believe it was a mistake to take
out SH.

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Diamondsnstones]

There seems to be a lot of dissention on the subject of who knew what and when
did they know it. Condelessa Rice says she never knew but her assistant says
she knew and on and on it seems to go. I would not touch any of that with a
ten foot pole as no one in government is on the same page. We have a problem
in this country with sharing our intelligence reports among agencies. No one
seems to want the other guy to know what they have found out. That has to stop
and Bush as our leader needs to make it stop. Apparently, and I am not sure
about this at all, money given to an agency and salaries seem to depend on
performance and sharing seems to affect this or so the heads of these agencies
believe. I can think of no other reason but then I am not in government and
have little idea how government thinks or even if they do think. I believe
they are responsible for the creation of the elephant when they were going for
a horse.
I do not think that the people in general are responsible for the economy as
tax rates and interest rates are set by government and really have nothing to
do with most of the people here who just get by on their respective salaries if
they still have one. I do agree that an economy's stability depends on the
peoples' faith in their country. The policies that fuel that faith come from
the central government however and faith in the leadership of that country.
Airplane companies were in trouble long before 9/11. Some had even failed and
disappeared from sight. such as Eastern.
The trouble with the media is that they are so predictable. But this time
our government has gone further than even I would have said they would have
done. Today I turned on my TV and saw not faces of dead men that I was treated
to all day yesterday but whole bodies (cleaned up) puttied up and filled in,
with shaven faces and the obvious Y incision of the formal autopsy. We have
never done that in this country before and I find it demoralizing and
condesending. that this government under the leadership of this president would
stoop so low. No matter how decadent these men were if they were SH's sons,
they are entitled to dignity in death. This President knows so little about
the Arab sensibilities that he does not know that this is an anathma to all
that they believe and they are getting angrier by the day. How do I know this?
I listened to them as the anger spewed forth on the subject. I know this
because it angers me. I was angered by the treatment of our men in Somolia
(sp) and I am angered for the people who are Sunni Muslems. The government fed
the media and they went for it.
As for the Al Queda having independent cells, there are many articles that
came out on this at the time of 9/11. They simply presented their ideas to the
money people or Osama whoever and were given a yea or nea and off they went.
No I am not saying that we should be isolationists but we should not be nosy
parkers either. Surely there is a happy medium. Declaring war and invading a
country does not come under that happy medium. Helping Liberians? Well the
jury is still out on that one. And no Bush is not responsible for everything
that goes on in this country. I washed my hair today and failed to ask his
permission..>

Post by MNPearl

Post by Diamondsnstones
Clinton didn't ignore all the intelligence reports that said that something bad
was going to happen , nor did he ignore the fact that Arabs were in flights
schools just to learn to aim planes not to take off or land. There were

many

Post by Diamondsnstones
reports of the violence that was to happen and Clinton had nothing to do

with

Post by Diamondsnstones
that. Of course Bush didn't listen to these reports and now you want us to
believe that he listened to someone else's intellignece instead of ours? >>

When did Bush receive these reports, Sue? It is my belief that these reports
never got to the proper people. They were never shared among the different
agencies and now you're saying they were given to Bush. When?

Post by Diamondsnstones
so, the man is very very strange.
People have offered to fall on their swords for him and he says no he has
complete faith in our intelligence network. What is it here that I don't
understand? That Clinton should have killed SH while taking out ObL even
though we have a LAW preventing the assination of leaders of regimes?>>

No way. He could have taken him into custody. There was plenty of evidence
against OBL for terrorist attacks on Americans in other countries at the time.
Or

Post by Diamondsnstones
maybe
if he had killed ObL then SH would have dropped dead? We do not seem to
remember that the Saudis fund ObL and not SH but we are sure able to mix up our
Arabs. Killing ObL would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks as these cells
operate independent of the ultimate leader. >>

And you know this because?
They are funded by Saudis and

Post by Diamondsnstones
they
were Saudis. One last thing before I shake my head and leave this subject. ObL
is a religious nut er fanatic and SH is a secular Muslum and was a secular
leader. Now what will we have? >>

Hopefully, something better than SH.
Clinton seems to be the bad guy in all of

Post by Diamondsnstones
this
to some people even though he has not been in power for two years or more. >

No, Sue. I just am not going to blame Bush for everything that is wrong in the
US right now.

Post by Diamondsnstones
When does Bush have to be the one that *the buck stops here*
When recession turns to full blown depression? >>

The American people are to blame for the state of the economy. After 9-11,
everyone was scared to fly. The demise of the airline industry has taken its
toll right down the line. What would you do to get the economy going?
When we find ourselves in

Post by Diamondsnstones
WWIII? When our troops are on full time duty without relief in war zones
around the world, keeping the peace? >>

So, you are saying that the US should isolate itself from the rest of the world
and just turn a deaf ear to the problems in other countries?
Right? Or when we finally realize that

Post by Diamondsnstones
the Iraqi people are not as grateful as we would like them to be>

Those who supported SH will never be grateful. Why would anyone think that
they would be?
and the

Post by Diamondsnstones
North
Koreans take advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq to lob nuclear weapons at
our allies and thus us? Oh well living is not the only thing I suppose.

Well, I blame Clinton for the 9-11 disaster. He was being handed OBL and

he

Post by Diamondsnstones

didn't do a darn thing. And I still do not believe it was a mistake to

take

Post by Diamondsnstones

out SH.

[MNPearl]

Post by Diamondsnstones
There seems to be a lot of dissention on the subject of who knew what and when
did they know it. Condelessa Rice says she never knew but her assistant says
she knew and on and on it seems to go. I would not touch any of that with a
ten foot pole as no one in government is on the same page. We have a problem
in this country with sharing our intelligence reports among agencies. No one
seems to want the other guy to know what they have found out. That has to stop
and Bush as our leader needs to make it stop.>>

You are absolutely right, Sue. I agree. Clinton should have done it before
Bush and Bush Sr. should have done it before Clinton and on down the line.
It's called politics and isn't that what JD hated the most? Me too. It's hard
to learn the truth when everyone has got their own version.

Apparently, and I am not sure

Post by Diamondsnstones
about this at all, money given to an agency and salaries seem to depend on
performance and sharing seems to affect this or so the heads of these agencies
believe. I can think of no other reason but then I am not in government and
have little idea how government thinks or even if they do think. I believe
they are responsible for the creation of the elephant when they were going for
a horse.

I don't know the answer either. But I do believe that before 9-11, most
everyone thought that it could never happen here. When you believe something
strongly, I believe it can cloud your judgment.

Post by Diamondsnstones
I do not think that the people in general are responsible for the economy as
tax rates and interest rates are set by government and really have nothing to
do with most of the people here who just get by on their respective salaries if
they still have one. I do agree that an economy's stability depends on the
peoples' faith in their country. The policies that fuel that faith come from
the central government however and faith in the leadership of that country.
Airplane companies were in trouble long before 9/11. Some had even failed and
disappeared from sight. such as Eastern.

I think that after 9-11 people lost faith in their safety. The US was no
longer a place free of foreign terrorism. It used to be just something they
saw on the news. Now they have to deal with the possibility every day. It can
be a difficult thing to have to live in fear like that.

Post by Diamondsnstones
The trouble with the media is that they are so predictable. But this time
our government has gone further than even I would have said they would have
done. Today I turned on my TV and saw not faces of dead men that I was treated
to all day yesterday but whole bodies (cleaned up) puttied up and filled in,
with shaven faces and the obvious Y incision of the formal autopsy. We have
never done that in this country before and I find it demoralizing and
condesending. that this government under the leadership of this president would
stoop so low. No matter how decadent these men were if they were SH's sons,
they are entitled to dignity in death. This President knows so little about
the Arab sensibilities that he does not know that this is an anathma to all
that they believe and they are getting angrier by the day. How do I know this?
I listened to them as the anger spewed forth on the subject. I know this
because it angers me. I was angered by the treatment of our men in Somolia
(sp) and I am angered for the people who are Sunni Muslems. The government fed
the media and they went for it.

I am so glad that I did not see this. The pictures I saw here on AOL were
enough for me....too much really. I do wonder how they could convince the
Iraqi people of their death any other way though. I'm sure most would not have
just taken our word. Would Bush have been able to stop the press from showing
the pictures though? I mean we have freedom of the press in this country.
Just wondering about that.

Post by Diamondsnstones
As for the Al Queda having independent cells, there are many articles that
came out on this at the time of 9/11. They simply presented their ideas to the
money people or Osama whoever and were given a yea or nea and off they went.>

I read an ariticle yesterday about OBL and it stated that he took over the
training camps in Afghanistan in 1996. I believe that Clinton was given the
opportunity to nab him in 1997. We'll never know what might have changed if he
had done so.

Post by Diamondsnstones
No I am not saying that we should be isolationists but we should not be nosy
parkers either. Surely there is a happy medium. Declaring war and invading a
country does not come under that happy medium. Helping Liberians? Well the
jury is still out on that one. And no Bush is not responsible for everything
that goes on in this country. I washed my hair today and failed to ask his
permission..>

LOL Good one, Sue. I do think you might want to check in with him next time
though. <g>

Post by Diamondsnstones

Post by MNPearl

Post by Diamondsnstones
Clinton didn't ignore all the intelligence reports that said that something bad
was going to happen , nor did he ignore the fact that Arabs were in flights
schools just to learn to aim planes not to take off or land. There were

many

Post by Diamondsnstones
reports of the violence that was to happen and Clinton had nothing to do

with

Post by Diamondsnstones
that. Of course Bush didn't listen to these reports and now you want us to
believe that he listened to someone else's intellignece instead of ours? >>

When did Bush receive these reports, Sue? It is my belief that these

reports

Post by MNPearl
never got to the proper people. They were never shared among the different
agencies and now you're saying they were given to Bush. When?

Post by Diamondsnstones
so, the man is very very strange.
People have offered to fall on their swords for him and he says no he has
complete faith in our intelligence network. What is it here that I don't
understand? That Clinton should have killed SH while taking out ObL even
though we have a LAW preventing the assination of leaders of regimes?>>

No way. He could have taken him into custody. There was plenty of evidence
against OBL for terrorist attacks on Americans in other countries at the time.
Or

Post by Diamondsnstones
maybe
if he had killed ObL then SH would have dropped dead? We do not seem to
remember that the Saudis fund ObL and not SH but we are sure able to mix up our
Arabs. Killing ObL would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks as these

cells

Post by MNPearl

Post by Diamondsnstones
operate independent of the ultimate leader. >>

And you know this because?
They are funded by Saudis and

Post by Diamondsnstones
they
were Saudis. One last thing before I shake my head and leave this subject. ObL
is a religious nut er fanatic and SH is a secular Muslum and was a secular
leader. Now what will we have? >>

Hopefully, something better than SH.
Clinton seems to be the bad guy in all of

Post by Diamondsnstones
this
to some people even though he has not been in power for two years or more.

No, Sue. I just am not going to blame Bush for everything that is wrong in the
US right now.

Post by Diamondsnstones
When does Bush have to be the one that *the buck stops here*
When recession turns to full blown depression? >>

The American people are to blame for the state of the economy. After 9-11,
everyone was scared to fly. The demise of the airline industry has taken

its

Post by MNPearl
toll right down the line. What would you do to get the economy going?
When we find ourselves in

Post by Diamondsnstones
WWIII? When our troops are on full time duty without relief in war zones
around the world, keeping the peace? >>

So, you are saying that the US should isolate itself from the rest of the world
and just turn a deaf ear to the problems in other countries?
Right? Or when we finally realize that

Post by Diamondsnstones
the Iraqi people are not as grateful as we would like them to be>

Those who supported SH will never be grateful. Why would anyone think that
they would be?

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by Diamondsnstones
Condelessa Rice says she never knew but her assistant says
she knew and on and on it seems to go.

you know, I admire loyalty, but not when it comes to covering up. everyone
suddenly is so willing to be the fall guy in this. so, either Bush lied--in
which case, I don't want his ass in the White House--or he has no idea what his
own handpicked people are doing--which makes him an idiot and I still don't
want him in the White House.

<sigh> basically, I want him gone. nice to see that I am not in the minority
anymore.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Virtugal]

You never were.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
you know, I admire loyalty, but not when it comes to covering up. everyone
suddenly is so willing to be the fall guy in this. so, either Bush lied--in
which case, I don't want his ass in the White House--or he has no idea what his
own handpicked people are doing--which makes him an idiot and I still don't
want him in the White House.
<sigh> basically, I want him gone. nice to see that I am not in the minority
anymore.
peace,
jesse
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey
A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!
Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by Virtugal
You never were.

around here I seem to be. but then, I live in RedneckLand. <sigh>

thanks, m' lady.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

According to Tony Blair this is not a lie.

but it is one...and Tony Blair is not my PM.




peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[MNPearl]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

According to Tony Blair this is not a lie.

but it is one...and Tony Blair is not my PM.

Absolutely not. You need to stop reading the left-wing press and stick to the
facts. When were you given access to British intelligence?

Jean

[Virtugal]

She was given access to British Intelligence at the same time that you gave
Tony Blair and Bush lie detector tests. As for the slam about reading left
wing press releases , would you consider the New York Post and the Denver Post
and the Washington Post left wing? Sticking to the facts seems to be a problem
you have Jean and sticking your head in the sand is another.

[CAPNTEDY]

And you would be?

According to the constant and smooth gun line in his palm. He is a republican
who is a NRA member, and he thinks it's only us that want to disarm him to stop
the revolution that is to be. But, don't democrat him or he will argue all
night. Got Powdered sugar?

[Diamondsnstones]

OK I will take your word for it and I will leave him alone but notice that he
may have read some Shakespeare by the screen name he has chosen. He thinks we
are stupid which would indeed make him a Republican and he is unusual as I
didn't know that Republicans could read Shakespeare. I guess we don't know if
he understood it. LOL

Post by CAPNTEDY
According to the constant and smooth gun line in his palm. He is a republican
who is a NRA member, and he thinks it's only us that want to disarm him to stop
the revolution that is to be. But, don't democrat him or he will argue all
night. Got Powdered sugar?

[MNPearl]

I get my news from several different sources and I am sticking to the facts.
look in the mirror, darlin'

Post by MNPearl
When were you given access to British intelligence?

I can read. I can also hear a line of bs when it comes across the air waves.
that story changes with every telling. a lie!

Well, I got the story directly from Tony Blair. He never changed his story.

Jean

peace,
jesse

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Jesse spouts what the left-wing reporter did. I don't find a bit of truth in
it.

no, I spout what I truly believe in my heart. I listen to the man's speachs,
Jean. do you? have you heard them at all? how the story's changed so many
times, the whole can of rhetoric now resembles what passes from a baby's
bottom? or are you just spouting what Rush Limbaugh says?

You're taking everything posting out of the White House at face value as much
as you say I am. No, I don't like George W. Bush. I wouldn't believe or trust
the man if he said grass was green. He talks out of both sides of his mouth and
can't get one thing consistent.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Claudia Levesque]

Hi Jean,

Of course you do. But that doesn't make me wrong and you right. And no, I
don't watch RL and I do listen to speeches the president gives and don't see
how the story has changed much at all.

no, I spout what I truly believe in my heart. I listen to the man's speeches,
Jean. do you? have you heard them at all? how the story's changed so many
times, the whole can of rhetoric now resembles what passes from a baby's
bottom? or are you just spouting what Rush Limbaugh says?

I don't know what you mean by everything posted out of the WH. I listen to the
people themselves not some biased reporter. I draw my own conclusions. What
has been happening in the US press is very political in nature and not really a
search for truth. And it was evident that you did not like Bush from the very
beginning....even before he became president, as you are a die-hard, left-wing
democrat....or so you appear by the venom and hatred you spue about Bush and
most Republicans. I don't love or hate Bush. I am neither a Democrat or a
Republican. Politics do not influence my judgments.
Jean

On the other hand, to be fair, it works both ways. If you speak from
your heart, that doesn't necessarily make you right and Jesse (plus
several million others) wrong. I think the history books may be on
their side when all is said and done.


I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.


It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq
invasion in the UK. An example from the BBC follows below:


Iraq war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.

In fact, the MPs say, the terror organization continues to pose "a
substantial threat to British citizens" and it still has a "dangerously
large number of foot soldiers" and the resources to finance terror attacks.

"Al-Qaeda's stance on Iraq, may encourage some misguided individuals to
try to commit terrorist acts," the report says.

The committee - chaired by Labour's Donald Anderson - also says that it
would have been desirable to get a further UN resolution on Iraq before
resorting to military action.

'Regrettable'

And the MPs argue that the breakdown of law and order after Saddam
Hussein was ousted was "highly probable" and that "the failure of the
coalition to restore order more quickly was deeply regrettable".

The report will add further pressure on the government which is still
facing criticism for its part in the invasion of Iraq.

The MPs also urge ministers to press the US to ensure the forthcoming
trials of two UK citizens held at Guantanamo Bay are conducted
"according to international recognized judicial standards and that, if
sanctioned by the Crown Prosecution Service, those trials should take
place in the United Kingdom".


Al-Qaeda's stance on Iraq, may encourage some misguided individuals to
try to commit terrorist acts
Foreign affairs committee
Splits within the European Union over the decision to go to war have
also cast into doubt the probability of a successful common foreign
policy, according to the report.
And within Nato relationships between different member states had been
"severely strained".

The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3113121.stm

Published: 2003/07/31 11:17:15 GMT

© BBC MMIII


The views and fears being expressed by Blair's own party echo my own,
and that of so many others. (I confess that I am not familiar with the
case of the two UK citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay, but I didn't
want to edit the brief news report). There are a lot of questions that
need to be answered, and I'm certain that they will be in time. I also
have a gut feeling that the answers - in the immediate future - may be
more forthcoming from Britain than the U.S.....


Best to you,


Claudia

[MNPearl]

Post by Claudia Levesque
On the other hand, to be fair, it works both ways. If you speak from
your heart, that doesn't necessarily make you right and Jesse (plus
several million others) wrong. I think the history books may be on
their side when all is said and done.

Hi Claudia,

I guess I don't look at what I am saying as speaking from the heart per se, but
rather looking at the cold, hard facts and not someone's spin on them. Time
will tell on the history books.

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon as I
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully anything
they had to say.

Post by Claudia Levesque
Iraq war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.

Well, I don't know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course not.
OBL was training some 12,000 or more since 1996.

It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it all
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?

Jean

Post by Claudia Levesque
In fact, the MPs say, the terror organization continues to pose "a
substantial threat to British citizens" and it still has a "dangerously
large number of foot soldiers" and the resources to finance terror attacks.
"Al-Qaeda's stance on Iraq, may encourage some misguided individuals to
try to commit terrorist acts," the report says.
The committee - chaired by Labour's Donald Anderson - also says that it
would have been desirable to get a further UN resolution on Iraq before
resorting to military action.
'Regrettable'
And the MPs argue that the breakdown of law and order after Saddam
Hussein was ousted was "highly probable" and that "the failure of the
coalition to restore order more quickly was deeply regrettable".
The report will add further pressure on the government which is still
facing criticism for its part in the invasion of Iraq.
The MPs also urge ministers to press the US to ensure the forthcoming
trials of two UK citizens held at Guantanamo Bay are conducted
"according to international recognized judicial standards and that, if
sanctioned by the Crown Prosecution Service, those trials should take
place in the United Kingdom".
Al-Qaeda's stance on Iraq, may encourage some misguided individuals to
try to commit terrorist acts
Foreign affairs committee
Splits within the European Union over the decision to go to war have
also cast into doubt the probability of a successful common foreign
policy, according to the report.
And within Nato relationships between different member states had been
"severely strained".
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3113121.stm
Published: 2003/07/31 11:17:15 GMT
© BBC MMIII
The views and fears being expressed by Blair's own party echo my own,
and that of so many others. (I confess that I am not familiar with the
case of the two UK citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay, but I didn't
want to edit the brief news report). There are a lot of questions that
need to be answered, and I'm certain that they will be in time. I also
have a gut feeling that the answers - in the immediate future - may be
more forthcoming from Britain than the U.S.....
Best to you,
Claudia
--------------000200010809000302060202
Content-Type: text/h

[Claudia Levesque]

Hi Jean!

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
On the other hand, to be fair, it works both ways. If you speak from
your heart, that doesn't necessarily make you right and Jesse (plus
several million others) wrong. I think the history books may be on
their side when all is said and done.

Hi Claudia,
I guess I don't look at what I am saying as speaking from the heart per se, but
rather looking at the cold, hard facts and not someone's spin on them. Time
will tell on the history books.

I haven't read all the posts pertaining to this subject, as time has not
allowed me that luxury recently. However, from the recent posts that I
have been able to peruse in depth, it would appear that you take the
word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors quite literally. I never
take any politician's spin doctors literally; their purpose is usually
solely for damage control.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon as I
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully anything
they had to say.

Ummm.... I don't really need to be reminded of that. Read what I wrote
above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.



This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise. As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
Iraq war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.

Well, I don't know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course not.
OBL was training some 12,000 or more since 1996.
It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it all
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?
Jean

You don't understand what these prominent Members of Parliament are
saying?! Or the House of Commons foreign affairs committee?! [ The list
of the MP's names was published, by the way, but as this is a post on a
JD ng, I didn't go to the trouble of copying and pasting them here....
that sort of thing can get annoying to readers.]

I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected. Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.


Repeating what was quoted below:

The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."


....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.


Best to you,


Claudia

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
In fact, the MPs say, the terror organization continues to pose "a
substantial threat to British citizens" and it still has a "dangerously
large number of foot soldiers" and the resources to finance terror attacks.
"Al-Qaeda's stance on Iraq, may encourage some misguided individuals to
try to commit terrorist acts," the report says.
The committee - chaired by Labour's Donald Anderson - also says that it
would have been desirable to get a further UN resolution on Iraq before
resorting to military action.
'Regrettable'
And the MPs argue that the breakdown of law and order after Saddam
Hussein was ousted was "highly probable" and that "the failure of the
coalition to restore order more quickly was deeply regrettable".
The report will add further pressure on the government which is still
facing criticism for its part in the invasion of Iraq.
The MPs also urge ministers to press the US to ensure the forthcoming
trials of two UK citizens held at Guantanamo Bay are conducted
"according to international recognized judicial standards and that, if
sanctioned by the Crown Prosecution Service, those trials should take
place in the United Kingdom".
Al-Qaeda's stance on Iraq, may encourage some misguided individuals to
try to commit terrorist acts
Foreign affairs committee
Splits within the European Union over the decision to go to war have
also cast into doubt the probability of a successful common foreign
policy, according to the report.
And within Nato relationships between different member states had been
"severely strained".
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3113121.stm
Published: 2003/07/31 11:17:15 GMT
© BBC MMIII
The views and fears being expressed by Blair's own party echo my own,
and that of so many others. (I confess that I am not familiar with the
case of the two UK citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay, but I didn't
want to edit the brief news report). There are a lot of questions that
need to be answered, and I'm certain that they will be in time. I also
have a gut feeling that the answers - in the immediate future - may be
more forthcoming from Britain than the U.S.....
Best to you,
Claudia
--------------000200010809000302060202
Content-Type: text/h

[MNPearl]

Post by Claudia Levesque
I haven't read all the posts pertaining to this subject, as time has not
allowed me that luxury recently. However, from the recent posts that I
have been able to peruse in depth, it would appear that you take the
word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors quite literally. I never
take any politician's spin doctors literally; their purpose is usually
solely for damage control.

Hi Claudia,

Well, I'm not quite sure who you are referring to. Who do you believe is a
spin doctor? I try to find the 'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon as

I

Post by MNPearl
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.

Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both sides....
and try to pick out just the facts. Much of the press was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about it.

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully

anything

Post by MNPearl
they had to say.

above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise. As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
Iraq war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.

Well, I don't know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course

not.

Post by MNPearl
OBL was training some 12,000 or more since 1996.
It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it all
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?
Jean

You don't understand what these prominent Members of Parliament are
saying?! Or the House of Commons foreign affairs committee?! [ The list
of the MP's names was published, by the way, but as this is a post on a
JD ng, I didn't go to the trouble of copying and pasting them here....
that sort of thing can get annoying to readers.]

Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets better?

Post by Claudia Levesque
I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected. Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia

Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism? If it can't
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands? And, yes.....for
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean exactly?


Jean

[Claudia Levesque]

Hi there, Jean.....

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I haven't read all the posts pertaining to this subject, as time has not
allowed me that luxury recently. However, from the recent posts that I
have been able to peruse in depth, it would appear that you take the
word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors quite literally. I never
take any politician's spin doctors literally; their purpose is usually
solely for damage control.

Hi Claudia,
Well, I'm not quite sure who you are referring to. Who do you believe is a
spin doctor?

When it comes to presidential administrations, the press secretary is a
'spin doctor'- - that's part of his/her job. This person is advised on
what to say, and how to handle a situation, by those behind the scenes
whose names we rarely know -- those who quickly research the best
methods for instant damage control -- which often means attempts to
deflect the interest of the press in other directions. These are the
true spin doctors; it must be an interesting job.

Post by MNPearl
I try to find the 'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.

You've got to remember your sources, Jean..... as I've said before, you
seem to take what comes out of the White House press room far too literally.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon as

I

Post by MNPearl
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.

Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both sides....
and try to pick out just the facts.

This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well. I don't think political coverage was meant
to be your forte in journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn't have
made it in the big league. Everything is fine in theory; it's putting
it into practice that involves skill.

Post by MNPearl
Much of the press was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about it.

You've mentioned that there is a "general bias" of the press on "both
sides." In some parts of the press, yes, but certainly not all. When
the BBC aired their information regarding the opinions of a group of
"influential" MPs, as did other papers and networks, they were stating
the facts *as told to them* by those MPs. This should not come as a
surprise, keeping in mind that a very large segment of Parliament was
against the invasion of Iraq.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully

anything

Post by MNPearl
they had to say.

above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise. As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
Iraq war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.

Well, I don't know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course

not.

Post by MNPearl
OBL was training some 12,000 or more since 1996.
It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it all
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?
Jean

You don't understand what these prominent Members of Parliament are
saying?! Or the House of Commons foreign affairs committee?! [ The list
of the MP's names was published, by the way, but as this is a post on a
JD ng, I didn't go to the trouble of copying and pasting them here....
that sort of thing can get annoying to readers.]

Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets better?

You are not listening to what they are saying, Jean. They are talking
about deliberately escalating the risks.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected. Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia

Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism?

In case you haven't noticed, Jean, there is a (very) serious attempt to
try and minimize the ability of terrorist cells to function.



Washington, itself, has stated that *new* strategies are needed - as
well as a *new* definition of "victory" - to combat this very *new* and
different kind of war.



The development of this strategy in ongoing, as this new form of 21st
century 'war' is still in its infancy.

Post by MNPearl
If it can't
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands?

Jean, I'm afraid that question is just far too absurd. I, personally,
do not think that terrorism will ever be beaten, as it has existed (in
one form or another) since the beginning of mankind. Now, with modern
technology, it is a global concern, rather than fear of the tribe down
the river from your little settlement.



As soon as one cell is stamped out, another will likely arise to avenge
it. I believe that the so-called War on Terrorism will be an ongoing
thing, and we'd better not fall asleep at the helm. The idea is to at
least have some kind of control.

Post by MNPearl
And, yes.....for
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean exactly?
Jean

Excuse me? What on earth do you *think* it means?! Good grief!



I'll give you a hint: Canadian troops have just arrived in Afghanistan
to replace the very exhausted German troops. This is part of the
Canadian contribution to the War on Terrorism. They were immediately
told to try as hard as possible to not look like the Americans, as the
people of Afghanistan does not trust the U.S., and therefore will not be
helpful when it comes to giving information or warnings. (It appears
that the heavy mass bombing of there country somewhat annoyed them).
One thing that was done to help achieve this - is that the Canadian
uniform is a deep military green, and the Canadian flag is as
predominant as possible.



Hang in there Jean.... I may be able to get you a spot with House &
Garden <hg>.


Take care,


Claudia

[EmmaLdy]

Subject: Re: And how is this little war going in Iraq?
Date: 8/9/2003 9:21 AM Mountain Standard Time
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040606010501060306020503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi there, Jean.....

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I haven't read all the posts pertaining to this subject, as time has not
allowed me that luxury recently. However, from the recent posts that I
have been able to peruse in depth, it would appear that you take the
word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors quite literally. I never
take any politician's spin doctors literally; their purpose is usually
solely for damage control.

Hi Claudia,
Well, I'm not quite sure who you are referring to. Who do you believe is a
spin doctor?

When it comes to presidential administrations, the press secretary is a
'spin doctor'- - that's part of his/her job. This person is advised on
what to say, and how to handle a situation, by those behind the scenes
whose names we rarely know -- those who quickly research the best
methods for instant damage control -- which often means attempts to
deflect the interest of the press in other directions. These are the
true spin doctors; it must be an interesting job.

Post by MNPearl
I try to find the 'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.

You've got to remember your sources, Jean..... as I've said before, you
seem to take what comes out of the White House press room far too literally.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon

as

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I

Post by MNPearl
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.

Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both

sides....

Post by MNPearl
and try to pick out just the facts.

This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well.

I strongly disagree.

I don't think political coverage was meant
to be your forte in journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn't have
made it in the big league.

Source please?

Everything is fine in theory; it's putting
it into practice that involves skill.

Post by MNPearl
Much of the press was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about it.

You've mentioned that there is a "general bias" of the press on "both
sides." In some parts of the press, yes, but certainly not all. When
the BBC aired their information regarding the opinions of a group of
"influential" MPs, as did other papers and networks, they were stating
the facts *as told to them* by those MPs. This should not come as a
surprise, keeping in mind that a very large segment of Parliament was
against the invasion of Iraq.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully

anything

Post by MNPearl
they had to say.

above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise.

Yes, British accuracy is well established.
(lol)

Just ribbing my British friends.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
Iraq war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.

Well, I don't know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course

not.

Post by MNPearl
OBL was training some 12,000 or more since 1996.
It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it

all

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?
Jean

You don't understand what these prominent Members of Parliament are
saying?! Or the House of Commons foreign affairs committee?! [ The list
of the MP's names was published, by the way, but as this is a post on a
JD ng, I didn't go to the trouble of copying and pasting them here....
that sort of thing can get annoying to readers.]

Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets better?

You are not listening to what they are saying, Jean. They are talking
about deliberately escalating the risks.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected. Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia

Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism?

In case you haven't noticed, Jean, there is a (very) serious attempt to
try and minimize the ability of terrorist cells to function.
Washington, itself, has stated that *new* strategies are needed - as
well as a *new* definition of "victory" - to combat this very *new* and
different kind of war.
The development of this strategy in ongoing, as this new form of 21st
century 'war' is still in its infancy.

Post by MNPearl
If it can't
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands?

Jean, I'm afraid that question is just far too absurd. I, personally,
do not think that terrorism will ever be beaten, as it has existed (in
one form or another) since the beginning of mankind.

I think it's a great question.
And just because it's always existed doesn't mean you can't plan for it's
demise.

Now, with modern
technology, it is a global concern, rather than fear of the tribe down
the river from your little settlement.
As soon as one cell is stamped out, another will likely arise to avenge
it. I believe that the so-called War on Terrorism will be an ongoing
thing, and we'd better not fall asleep at the helm. The idea is to at
least have some kind of control.

Post by MNPearl
And, yes.....for
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean

exactly?

Post by MNPearl
Jean

Good question Jean.
You'd think the world would easily unite on this matter...the political
bickering on this is amazing to me.

Excuse me? What on earth do you *think* it means?! Good grief!
I'll give you a hint: Canadian troops have just arrived in Afghanistan
to replace the very exhausted German troops. This is part of the
Canadian contribution to the War on Terrorism. They were immediately
told to try as hard as possible to not look like the Americans, as the
people of Afghanistan does not trust the U.S., and therefore will not be
helpful when it comes to giving information or warnings. (It appears
that the heavy mass bombing of there

their

country somewhat annoyed them).
One thing that was done to help achieve this - is that the Canadian
uniform is a deep military green, and the Canadian flag is as
predominant as possible.

Seperate, seperate seperate.
One will never proceed on a united front with that attitude.

Hang in there Jean.... I may be able to get you a spot with House &
Garden <hg>.
Take care,
Claudia
--------------040606010501060306020503
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<head> <title></title></head>Hi there, Jean.....
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> I haven't read all the posts pertaining to this subject, as
time has not
allowed me that luxury recently. However, from the recent posts that I
have been able to peruse in depth, it would appear that you take the
word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors quite literally. I never
take any politician's spin doctors literally; their purpose is usually
solely for damage control.
</blockquote> <!---->
Hi Claudia,
Well, I'm not quite sure who you are referring to. Who do you believe is a
spin doctor? </blockquote>
When it comes to presidential administrations, the press secretary is a'spin
doctor'- - that's part of his/her job. This person is advised onwhat to say,
and how to handle a situation, by those behind the sceneswhose names we
rarely know -- those who quickly research the bestmethods for instant damage
control -- which often means attempts todeflect the interest of the press in
other directions. These are thetrue spin doctors; it must be an interesting
job.
<blockquote type="cite"
'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.</blockquote>
You've got to remember your sources, Jean..... as I've said before,you seem
to take what comes out of the White House press room far tooliterally.
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.
</blockquote> I read as many reports as I can too,
Claudia, but I stop reading as soon as
</blockquote> I
<blockquote type="cite"> spot a bias one way or the other. I
studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.
</blockquote>
I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.
</blockquote> <!---->
Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both sides....
and try to pick out just the facts. </blockquote>
This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the Britishpress
showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you ratherfrequently ask
others to do your research for you in order to answeryour own questions, as
well. I don't think political coverage wasmeant to be your forte in
journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn'thave made it in the big league.
Everything is fine in theory; it'sputting it into practice that involves
skill.
<blockquote type="cite"
was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about
it.</blockquote>
You've mentioned that there is a "general bias" of the press on "bothsides."
In some parts of the press, yes, but certainly not all. Whenthe BBC aired
their information regarding the opinions of a group of"influential" MPs, as
did other papers and networks, they were statingthe facts *as told to them*
by those MPs. This should not come as asurprise, keeping in mind that a very
large segment of Parliament wasagainst the invasion of Iraq.
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq
</blockquote> The British press was against the war, so I
would read very carefully
</blockquote> anything
<blockquote type="cite"> they had to say.
</blockquote> Ummm.... I don't really need to be reminded of
above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise. As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.
<blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> Iraq
war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.
</blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <!---->
<blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> Well, I don't
know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course
</blockquote> not.
<blockquote type="cite"> OBL was training some 12,000 or more
since 1996.
It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it all
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?
Jean
</blockquote> You don't understand what these prominent Members
of Parliament are
saying?! Or the House of Commons foreign affairs committee?! [ The list
of the MP's names was published, by the way, but as this is a post on a
JD ng, I didn't go to the trouble of copying and pasting them here....
that sort of thing can get annoying to readers.]
</blockquote> <!---->
Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets
better?</blockquote>
You are not listening to what they are saying, Jean. They are talkingabout
deliberately escalating the risks.
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda
possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected. Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
</blockquote> <!---->
<blockquote type="cite"> The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war,
we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia
</blockquote> <!---->
Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism?
</blockquote>
In case you haven't noticed, Jean, there is a (very) serious attempt totry
and minimize the ability of terrorist cells to function.
Washington, itself, has stated that *new* strategies are needed - aswell as a
*new* definition of "victory" - to combat this very *new* anddifferent kind
of war.
The development of this strategy in ongoing, as this new form of 21stcentury
'war' is still in its infancy.
<blockquote type="cite"
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands?</blockquote>
Jean, I'm afraid that question is just far too absurd. I, personally,do not
think that terrorism will ever be beaten, as it has existed (inone form or
another) since the beginning of mankind. Now, with moderntechnology, it is a
global concern, rather than fear of the tribe downthe river from your little
settlement.
As soon as one cell is stamped out, another will likely arise to avengeit. I
believe that the so-called War on Terrorism will be an ongoingthing, and we'd
better not fall asleep at the helm. The idea is to atleast have some kind of
control.
<blockquote type="cite"
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean exactly?
Jean</blockquote>
Excuse me? What on earth do you *think* it means?! Good grief!
I'll give you a hint: Canadian troops have just arrived in Afghanistanto
replace the very exhausted German troops. This is part of theCanadian
contribution to the War on Terrorism. They were immediatelytold to try as
hard as possible to not look like the Americans, as thepeople of Afghanistan
does not trust the U.S., and therefore will notbe helpful when it comes to
giving information or warnings. (Itappears that the heavy mass bombing of
there country somewhat annoyedthem). One thing that was done to help achieve
this - is that theCanadian uniform is a deep military green, and the Canadian
flag is aspredominant as possible.
Hang in there Jean.... I may be able to get you a spot with House &Garden
<hg>.
Take care,
Claudia
--------------040606010501060306020503--

I think there are others in this thread who rely too heavily on the boob tube
for their "facts".


I think Jean would make a good writer and reporter.
I personally find most of her comments to be well researched and presented
fairly, abiding by fact as opposed to personal opinion or individual criticism.

emma

[Claudia Levesque]

Post by EmmaLdy

Subject: Re: And how is this little war going in Iraq?
Date: 8/9/2003 9:21 AM Mountain Standard Time
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040606010501060306020503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi there, Jean.....

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I haven't read all the posts pertaining to this subject, as time has not
allowed me that luxury recently. However, from the recent posts that I
have been able to peruse in depth, it would appear that you take the
word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors quite literally. I never
take any politician's spin doctors literally; their purpose is usually
solely for damage control.

Hi Claudia,
Well, I'm not quite sure who you are referring to. Who do you believe is a
spin doctor?

When it comes to presidential administrations, the press secretary is a
'spin doctor'- - that's part of his/her job. This person is advised on
what to say, and how to handle a situation, by those behind the scenes
whose names we rarely know -- those who quickly research the best
methods for instant damage control -- which often means attempts to
deflect the interest of the press in other directions. These are the
true spin doctors; it must be an interesting job.

Post by MNPearl
I try to find the 'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.

You've got to remember your sources, Jean..... as I've said before, you
seem to take what comes out of the White House press room far too literally.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon

as

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I

Post by MNPearl
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.

Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both

sides....

Post by MNPearl
and try to pick out just the facts.

This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well.

I strongly disagree.

That is absolutely fine, Emma.

Post by EmmaLdy

I don't think political coverage was meant
to be your forte in journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn't have
made it in the big league.

Source please?

Me.

Post by EmmaLdy

Everything is fine in theory; it's putting
it into practice that involves skill.

Post by MNPearl
Much of the press was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about it.

You've mentioned that there is a "general bias" of the press on "both
sides." In some parts of the press, yes, but certainly not all. When
the BBC aired their information regarding the opinions of a group of
"influential" MPs, as did other papers and networks, they were stating
the facts *as told to them* by those MPs. This should not come as a
surprise, keeping in mind that a very large segment of Parliament was
against the invasion of Iraq.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully

anything

Post by MNPearl
they had to say.

above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise.

Yes, British accuracy is well established.
(lol)
Just ribbing my British friends.

I'm sure it's appreciated. A flip remark on your part, as this was in
reference to something that was not connected to alleged enriched
uranium sales.

Post by EmmaLdy

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
Iraq war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.

Well, I don't know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course

not.

Post by MNPearl
OBL was training some 12,000 or more since 1996.
It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it

all

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?
Jean

You don't understand what these prominent Members of Parliament are
saying?! Or the House of Commons foreign affairs committee?! [ The list
of the MP's names was published, by the way, but as this is a post on a
JD ng, I didn't go to the trouble of copying and pasting them here....
that sort of thing can get annoying to readers.]

Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets better?

You are not listening to what they are saying, Jean. They are talking
about deliberately escalating the risks.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected. Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia

Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism?

In case you haven't noticed, Jean, there is a (very) serious attempt to
try and minimize the ability of terrorist cells to function.
Washington, itself, has stated that *new* strategies are needed - as
well as a *new* definition of "victory" - to combat this very *new* and
different kind of war.
The development of this strategy in ongoing, as this new form of 21st
century 'war' is still in its infancy.

Post by MNPearl
If it can't
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands?

Jean, I'm afraid that question is just far too absurd. I, personally,
do not think that terrorism will ever be beaten, as it has existed (in
one form or another) since the beginning of mankind.

I think it's a great question.

That means that you don't know the answer? Good grief.

Post by EmmaLdy
And just because it's always existed doesn't mean you can't plan for it's
demise.

Plan for it? Yes, as a way of being proactive. Expect it's demise?
Completely unrealistic.

Post by EmmaLdy

Now, with modern
technology, it is a global concern, rather than fear of the tribe down
the river from your little settlement.
As soon as one cell is stamped out, another will likely arise to avenge
it. I believe that the so-called War on Terrorism will be an ongoing
thing, and we'd better not fall asleep at the helm. The idea is to at
least have some kind of control.

Post by MNPearl
And, yes.....for
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean

exactly?

Post by MNPearl
Jean

Good question Jean.
You'd think the world would easily unite on this matter...the political
bickering on this is amazing to me.

Yes, I would think that it is amazing to you.

Post by EmmaLdy

Excuse me? What on earth do you *think* it means?! Good grief!
I'll give you a hint: Canadian troops have just arrived in Afghanistan
to replace the very exhausted German troops. This is part of the
Canadian contribution to the War on Terrorism. They were immediately
told to try as hard as possible to not look like the Americans, as the
people of Afghanistan does not trust the U.S., and therefore will not be
helpful when it comes to giving information or warnings. (It appears
that the heavy mass bombing of there

their

country somewhat annoyed them).
One thing that was done to help achieve this - is that the Canadian
uniform is a deep military green, and the Canadian flag is as
predominant as possible.

Seperate, seperate seperate.

I think you mean "separate, separate, separate."

Post by EmmaLdy
One will never proceed on a united front with that attitude.

One might advance a little more on the war against terrorism with that
attitude. One might just live a little longer, too. Being affiliated
or connected with the United States, at this time, is disadvantageous
when it comes to getting information from the Afghanis. Reality check,
Emma.

Post by EmmaLdy

Hang in there Jean.... I may be able to get you a spot with House &
Garden <hg>.
Take care,
Claudia
--------------040606010501060306020503
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<head> <title></title></head>Hi there, Jean.....
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> I haven't read all the posts pertaining to this subject, as
time has not
allowed me that luxury recently. However, from the recent posts that I
have been able to peruse in depth, it would appear that you take the
word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors quite literally. I never
take any politician's spin doctors literally; their purpose is usually
solely for damage control.
</blockquote> <!---->
Hi Claudia,
Well, I'm not quite sure who you are referring to. Who do you believe is a
spin doctor? </blockquote>
When it comes to presidential administrations, the press secretary is a'spin
doctor'- - that's part of his/her job. This person is advised onwhat to say,
and how to handle a situation, by those behind the sceneswhose names we
rarely know -- those who quickly research the bestmethods for instant damage
control -- which often means attempts todeflect the interest of the press in
other directions. These are thetrue spin doctors; it must be an interesting
job.
<blockquote type="cite"
'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.</blockquote>
You've got to remember your sources, Jean..... as I've said before,you seem
to take what comes out of the White House press room far tooliterally.
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.
</blockquote> I read as many reports as I can too,
Claudia, but I stop reading as soon as
</blockquote> I
<blockquote type="cite"> spot a bias one way or the other. I
studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.
</blockquote>
I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.
</blockquote> <!---->
Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both sides....
and try to pick out just the facts. </blockquote>
This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the Britishpress
showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you ratherfrequently ask
others to do your research for you in order to answeryour own questions, as
well. I don't think political coverage wasmeant to be your forte in
journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn'thave made it in the big league.
Everything is fine in theory; it'sputting it into practice that involves
skill.
<blockquote type="cite"
was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about
it.</blockquote>
You've mentioned that there is a "general bias" of the press on "bothsides."
In some parts of the press, yes, but certainly not all. Whenthe BBC aired
their information regarding the opinions of a group of"influential" MPs, as
did other papers and networks, they were statingthe facts *as told to them*
by those MPs. This should not come as asurprise, keeping in mind that a very
large segment of Parliament wasagainst the invasion of Iraq.
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq
</blockquote> The British press was against the war, so I
would read very carefully
</blockquote> anything
<blockquote type="cite"> they had to say.
</blockquote> Ummm.... I don't really need to be reminded of
above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise. As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.
<blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> Iraq
war 'boost' to terror fear
The Iraq conflict may have hampered the battle to defeat international
terrorism, an influential group of MPs has warned.
In its latest report, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee
also argues that nearly two years on from the 11 September atrocity it
cannot conclude the threat from al-Qaeda has diminished.
</blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <!---->
<blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> Well, I don't
know how they can say that. Many of the top operatives were
captured and their money was cut off. Did we get all of them? Of course
</blockquote> not.
<blockquote type="cite"> OBL was training some 12,000 or more
since 1996.
It's been nearly 2 years since 9-11. How many attacks have been stopped
before they could be executed since then? I don't think you can stop it all
unless you give in to their 'demands'. Should we do that?
Jean
</blockquote> You don't understand what these prominent Members
of Parliament are
saying?! Or the House of Commons foreign affairs committee?! [ The list
of the MP's names was published, by the way, but as this is a post on a
JD ng, I didn't go to the trouble of copying and pasting them here....
that sort of thing can get annoying to readers.]
</blockquote> <!---->
Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets
better?</blockquote>
You are not listening to what they are saying, Jean. They are talkingabout
deliberately escalating the risks.
<blockquote type="cite"
type="cite"> I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda
possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected. Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
</blockquote> <!---->
<blockquote type="cite"> The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war,
we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia
</blockquote> <!---->
Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism?
</blockquote>
In case you haven't noticed, Jean, there is a (very) serious attempt totry
and minimize the ability of terrorist cells to function.
Washington, itself, has stated that *new* strategies are needed - aswell as a
*new* definition of "victory" - to combat this very *new* anddifferent kind
of war.
The development of this strategy in ongoing, as this new form of 21stcentury
'war' is still in its infancy.
<blockquote type="cite"
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands?</blockquote>
Jean, I'm afraid that question is just far too absurd. I, personally,do not
think that terrorism will ever be beaten, as it has existed (inone form or
another) since the beginning of mankind. Now, with moderntechnology, it is a
global concern, rather than fear of the tribe downthe river from your little
settlement.
As soon as one cell is stamped out, another will likely arise to avengeit. I
believe that the so-called War on Terrorism will be an ongoingthing, and we'd
better not fall asleep at the helm. The idea is to atleast have some kind of
control.
<blockquote type="cite"
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean exactly?
Jean</blockquote>
Excuse me? What on earth do you *think* it means?! Good grief!
I'll give you a hint: Canadian troops have just arrived in Afghanistanto
replace the very exhausted German troops. This is part of theCanadian
contribution to the War on Terrorism. They were immediatelytold to try as
hard as possible to not look like the Americans, as thepeople of Afghanistan
does not trust the U.S., and therefore will notbe helpful when it comes to
giving information or warnings. (Itappears that the heavy mass bombing of
there country somewhat annoyedthem). One thing that was done to help achieve
this - is that theCanadian uniform is a deep military green, and the Canadian
flag is aspredominant as possible.
Hang in there Jean.... I may be able to get you a spot with House &Garden
<hg>.
Take care,
Claudia
--------------040606010501060306020503--

I think there are others in this thread who rely too heavily on the boob tube
for their "facts".
I think Jean would make a good writer and reporter.
I personally find most of her comments to be well researched and presented
fairly, abiding by fact as opposed to personal opinion or individual criticism.
emma

Tell me, Emma, have you also worked for a major corporation as a
journalist, too?
I'm sure that Jean would be a good writer, but not a reporter. There is
quite a distinction between the two, you know. However, to be blunt,
I'd hire her before I'd even consider you, based on credibility alone.


And thus ends my brief return on the subject of Iraq..... and the
isolationism of (most) of the United States to the reality of how they
are perceived abroad.


Claudia

[Claudia Levesque]

Post by Claudia Levesque
Tell me, Emma, have you also worked for a major corporation as a
journalist, too?
I'm sure that Jean would be a good writer, but not a reporter.

Fair question.
Yes, almost 20 years ago, freelance journalist and photographer.
And years ago owned a newspaper.

Uh huh. Somehow, I knew that you'd say that. Well, I didn't think
you'd stretch it quite as far as this......

Want to exchange credential information?

I think Jean does a lot of research and cares about the world.

I think Jean cares about the world and its people as well. The research
angle is an entirely different subject. Doing research is one thing,
deriving something concrete from said research is another.... and it's
the latter that counts.

I was only making a point in defense of Jean, that one loses their debate when
one goes into the personal insult mode.

You weren't making any "point," you were just being yourself.


I'm not insulting Jean. I like Jean. I'm simply stating that I believe
that she is not journalist material, and I'm speaking from experience.
I am not material for anything that involves math, although I studied
that for years..... as I said, everything is fine in theory until it is
put into practice.


Claudia

emma

[MNPearl]

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by Claudia Levesque
Tell me, Emma, have you also worked for a major corporation as a
journalist, too?
I'm sure that Jean would be a good writer, but not a reporter.

Fair question.
Yes, almost 20 years ago, freelance journalist and photographer.
And years ago owned a newspaper.

Uh huh. Somehow, I knew that you'd say that. Well, I didn't think
you'd stretch it quite as far as this......
Want to exchange credential information?

I think Jean does a lot of research and cares about the world.

I think Jean cares about the world and its people as well. The research
angle is an entirely different subject. Doing research is one thing,
deriving something concrete from said research is another.... and it's
the latter that counts.

Hmmmm......I suppose if I agreed with your conclusions derived from my research
then you would think differently. It's all a matter of opinion, Claudia. No
two people are ever going to look at things exactly the same way and that is
OK. I've got no problem with that, but it should be stated as an opinion.
When you want to call your opinion a fact, then you should be willing to share
your sources.

Post by Claudia Levesque

I was only making a point in defense of Jean, that one loses their debate

when

one goes into the personal insult mode.

Thanks, Emma. I agree.

Post by Claudia Levesque
You weren't making any "point," you were just being yourself.
I'm not insulting Jean. I like Jean. I'm simply stating that I believe
that she is not journalist material, and I'm speaking from experience.
I am not material for anything that involves math, although I studied
that for years..... as I said, everything is fine in theory until it is
put into practice.
Claudia

I think you are absolutely right, Claudia. I would never make it as a
journalist but not for the reasons you believe.


"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Virtugal]

What is going on here Jean. These are old posts and no one is interested in
them anymore. Why bring them back up and repost them with the answers? I think
this is rediculous. And not to say boring as all get out.

[MNPearl]

Post by Virtugal
What is going on here Jean. These are old posts and no one is interested in
them anymore. Why bring them back up and repost them with the answers? I think
this is rediculous. And not to say boring as all get out.

Hi Sue,

Sorry to bore you! I was away from the ng for a time and was trying to catch
up. What is the time limit on responding to posts anyway? When someone makes
comments about me I think I have a right to reply. Or am I wrong again?

Jean

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Virtugal]

You have a right to reply when someone is talking about a subject that concerns
you or is about you but good heavens Jean, the war has so-called been over for
months or at least that is the latest lie from our President. Sue

Post by MNPearl
Sorry to bore you! I was away from the ng for a time and was trying to catch
up. What is the time limit on responding to posts anyway? When someone makes
comments about me I think I have a right to reply. Or am I wrong again?

I have no idea if you are wrong because you did not post the post to which you
are responding. But why bring this sore subject up again?

[Diamondsnstones]

Sorry Jean I didn't know you were away but just lurking. It is just that this
topic was over and no one was mentioning it again. I hope your absense was for
a vacation and that you had a wonderful time. it is raining here and SNOWING
on the mountains. We may have snow up here before the weekend. I love snow.
but the Aspens will stop quaking and shimmering in the sunlight turning gold in
different lights but the smell of wood fires is in the air and winter cannot be
far behind. Sue

Post by Virtugal
What is going on here Jean. These are old posts and no one is interested in

Post by Virtugal
them anymore. Why bring them back up and repost them with the answers? I think
this is rediculous. And not to say boring as all get out.

Hi Sue,
Sorry to bore you! I was away from the ng for a time and was trying to catch
up. What is the time limit on responding to posts anyway? When someone makes
comments about me I think I have a right to reply. Or am I wrong again?
Jean

[MNPearl]

Hi Sue,

Oh do I wish I had been on vacation. Haven't had one of those in over 20
years. No, my daughter was very sick and I wasn't getting any sleep and my
fibro did a major flare on me. Things are slowly returning to normal
though....whatever that is.

I'm not ready for snow, but I'm sure looking forward to cooler temps. We have
been in the 90s here again this week...very unusual for September in MN. The
snow in the mountains is beautiful. I like snow too, but not just yet. Enjoy
yours, but please don't send it this way for another couple of months!

Jean

Post by Diamondsnstones
Sorry Jean I didn't know you were away but just lurking. It is just that this
topic was over and no one was mentioning it again. I hope your absense was for
a vacation and that you had a wonderful time. it is raining here and SNOWING
on the mountains. We may have snow up here before the weekend. I love snow.
but the Aspens will stop quaking and shimmering in the sunlight turning gold in
different lights but the smell of wood fires is in the air and winter cannot be
far behind. Sue

Post by Virtugal
What is going on here Jean. These are old posts and no one is interested in

Post by Virtugal
them anymore. Why bring them back up and repost them with the answers? I think
this is rediculous. And not to say boring as all get out.

Hi Sue,
Sorry to bore you! I was away from the ng for a time and was trying to

catch

Post by Virtugal
up. What is the time limit on responding to posts anyway? When someone makes
comments about me I think I have a right to reply. Or am I wrong again?
Jean

[Diamondsnstones]

We won't have serious snow for a few weeks yet I think although Breckenridge
had snow on the mountains and there is two feet of snow in the San Juans. I
hope that your daughter is much better now and everything is OK. I hope you
are not in pain. I think I do pain for everyone. IN my youth in church we
were taught to offer up our pain for someone else in pain or sorrow. I think I
have had enough to give health to hundreds. Sue

Hi Sue,
Oh do I wish I had been on vacation. Haven't had one of those in over 20
years. No, my daughter was very sick and I wasn't getting any sleep and my
fibro did a major flare on me. Things are slowly returning to normal
though....whatever that is.
I'm not ready for snow, but I'm sure looking forward to cooler temps. We have
been in the 90s here again this week...very unusual for September in MN. The
snow in the mountains is beautiful. I like snow too, but not just yet.
Enjoy
yours, but please don't send it this way for another couple of months!
Jean

[MNPearl]

That's a lot of snow, but it's not too early for snow in the mountains, is it?
My daughter is doing better, thanks. I'm hoping for some real progress in that
area in the next year. Yes, I am in pain. Haven't really had a pain-free day
in years. I remember being told to offer it up too. Maybe I need to get busy
and do just that. I'll be better once I get a few weeks of good sleep. I'm
working on that. Hope you find some relief once in a while too. Pain wears a
person out.

Jean

Post by Diamondsnstones
We won't have serious snow for a few weeks yet I think although Breckenridge
had snow on the mountains and there is two feet of snow in the San Juans. I
hope that your daughter is much better now and everything is OK. I hope you
are not in pain. I think I do pain for everyone. IN my youth in church we
were taught to offer up our pain for someone else in pain or sorrow. I think I
have had enough to give health to hundreds. Sue

Hi Sue,
Oh do I wish I had been on vacation. Haven't had one of those in over 20
years. No, my daughter was very sick and I wasn't getting any sleep and my
fibro did a major flare on me. Things are slowly returning to normal
though....whatever that is.
I'm not ready for snow, but I'm sure looking forward to cooler temps. We have
been in the 90s here again this week...very unusual for September in MN.

The

snow in the mountains is beautiful. I like snow too, but not just yet.
Enjoy
yours, but please don't send it this way for another couple of months!
Jean

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Claudia Levesque]

Hi Jean.....

Post by MNPearl
That's a lot of snow, but it's not too early for snow in the mountains, is it?
My daughter is doing better, thanks. I'm hoping for some real progress in that
area in the next year. Yes, I am in pain. Haven't really had a pain-free day
in years. I remember being told to offer it up too. Maybe I need to get busy
and do just that. I'll be better once I get a few weeks of good sleep. I'm
working on that. Hope you find some relief once in a while too. Pain wears a
person out.
Jean

I feel so very badly for you and Sue.... and Lisette and Squirrel. My
mother had rheumatoid and another form of arthritis (it's late, and the
name escapes me) and I've seen how debilitating and exhausting chronic
pain can be first hand.


To answer your question from another post (I was waiting for an accurate
weather report!) is has been raining in southern B.C. and the
temperature has cooled down - this has helped the firefighters
enormously. However, they say that some of the fires could even smolder
under the snow all winter long, and ignite full force again eventually.
I never realized that could happen.


It is heating up here again! Our temps are going to be back in the low
80s towards the end of this week... and some people have the impression
that all of Canada is cold!! Well, not you and Sue, as you have both
lived here.... not that far from each other, either.


I *sincerely* hope and pray that your daughter's recovery progresses. I
don't know what her illness is, but I do know what kind of stress any
sickness can bring to the mother.


Best to you,


Claudia

Post by MNPearl

Post by Diamondsnstones
We won't have serious snow for a few weeks yet I think although Breckenridge
had snow on the mountains and there is two feet of snow in the San Juans. I
hope that your daughter is much better now and everything is OK. I hope you
are not in pain. I think I do pain for everyone. IN my youth in church we
were taught to offer up our pain for someone else in pain or sorrow. I think I
have had enough to give health to hundreds. Sue

Hi Sue,
Oh do I wish I had been on vacation. Haven't had one of those in over 20
years. No, my daughter was very sick and I wasn't getting any sleep and my
fibro did a major flare on me. Things are slowly returning to normal
though....whatever that is.
I'm not ready for snow, but I'm sure looking forward to cooler temps. We have
been in the 90s here again this week...very unusual for September in MN.

The

snow in the mountains is beautiful. I like snow too, but not just yet.
Enjoy
yours, but please don't send it this way for another couple of months!
Jean

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[MNPearl]

Post by Claudia Levesque
Hi Jean.....

Post by MNPearl
That's a lot of snow, but it's not too early for snow in the mountains, is

it?

Post by MNPearl
My daughter is doing better, thanks. I'm hoping for some real progress in

that

Post by MNPearl
area in the next year. Yes, I am in pain. Haven't really had a pain-free

day

Post by MNPearl
in years. I remember being told to offer it up too. Maybe I need to get

busy

Post by MNPearl
and do just that. I'll be better once I get a few weeks of good sleep. I'm
working on that. Hope you find some relief once in a while too. Pain wears

a

Post by MNPearl
person out.
Jean

I feel so very badly for you and Sue.... and Lisette and Squirrel. My
mother had rheumatoid and another form of arthritis (it's late, and the
name escapes me) and I've seen how debilitating and exhausting chronic
pain can be first hand.
To answer your question from another post (I was waiting for an accurate
weather report!) is has been raining in southern B.C. and the
temperature has cooled down - this has helped the firefighters
enormously. However, they say that some of the fires could even smolder
under the snow all winter long, and ignite full force again eventually.
I never realized that could happen.
It is heating up here again! Our temps are going to be back in the low
80s towards the end of this week... and some people have the impression
that all of Canada is cold!! Well, not you and Sue, as you have both
lived here.... not that far from each other, either.
I *sincerely* hope and pray that your daughter's recovery progresses. I
don't know what her illness is, but I do know what kind of stress any
sickness can bring to the mother.
Best to you,
Claudia

Hi Claudia,

Thanks for the understanding and support. Many just don't take the time to even
begin to understand what toll pain takes.

Glad to hear about the rain in BC. We got rain for the past 24 hours too.
Glorious, beautiful, ground-drenching rain. They say we should get 1-2 inches
before it moves on. Yippee!

I remember when I lived in GA and folks would shiver when I mentioned having
lived in Canada. Many thought you all live in the frozen tundra. LOL I
myself was surprised that winters in Montreal were actually warmer than in MN
most of the time. They could get just as much or more snow however!

Jean

"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by EmmaLdy

Post by Claudia Levesque
This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well.

I strongly disagree.

with which part? about the bias of the press or the fact that Jean has a
tendency to tell others to do her leg work?

as to the former, there will always be someone's slant to the whole affair. we
all see the same point differently. the trick is not to include heresay,
circumstantial evidence, gossip, or unproven facts. in that respect, ALL media
is biased...by the person reporting, by the words chosen. each reporter only
points out what he or she sees. I can still disagree with it. but I was only
referring to my take on the Shrub's speeches, not the media's take on them.

as to the latter, I pointed out what I was reading and hearing in the
president's speeches. I pointed out that the evidence being presented shows
that the statement was based on faulty intelligence and he knew it. He struck
it out of one speech and put it back in another. I pointed out the fact that he
emphatically and determinedly builds a case for blue on monday and then, on
friday, turns around and says, no...blue isn't important and wasn't then, it's
red. Jean, instead of going through the man's speeches, looking it up for
herself says, Jesse show me. no...go look it up, Jean. I gave you the sources,
go read it.

Post by EmmaLdy

Post by Claudia Levesque
I don't think political coverage was meant
to be your forte in journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn't have
made it in the big league.

Source please?

her opinion...you can't figure that out? source for what?

Post by EmmaLdy
I think it's a great question.
And just because it's always existed doesn't mean you can't plan for it's
demise.

quite true...and you can also plan on true communism. and that won't work
either. planning doesn't mean that you don't accept certain aspects of human
nature and society at large. otherwise, you're just as naive about reality as
the Star Trek world.

Post by EmmaLdy
Seperate,

<sigh> you know, it would be nice if someone would occasionally learn to spell.
SEPARATE!!! DEFINITELY!!! WOULD HAVE!!!! <sigh> you know, being the progeny of
a schoolteacher gives you the weirdest fetishes. can we try to spell it
correctly? or at least admit when you don't know how? judas, with all the
dictionaries online, one would think....

but back to the point...I've noticed the same people that scream "united front"
are also the first people to tell you how different we all are and we should
rejoice in our difference and no, we are not all the same. which is it, folks?
and if we're that damn different, don't make such a comment when that society
shows it's pride and solidarity against the rest of the bleakness of the
colorless tapestry of this world. maybe that's our true problem. we're so busy
showing our uniqueness, we're moving away from each other as fast as the
universe is expanding. maybe a simple block to all this bullshit?


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Claudia Levesque]

Hi ya, Jesse....

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by EmmaLdy

Post by Claudia Levesque
This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well.

I strongly disagree.

with which part? about the bias of the press or the fact that Jean has a
tendency to tell others to do her leg work?
as to the former, there will always be someone's slant to the whole affair. we
all see the same point differently. the trick is not to include heresay,
circumstantial evidence, gossip, or unproved facts. in that respect, ALL media
is biased...by the person reporting, by the words chosen. each reporter only
points out what he or she sees. I can still disagree with it. but I was only
referring to my take on the Shrub's speeches, not the media's take on them.

Yes, such is the nature of the beast when it comes to reporting events
and the actions of individuals.... you can only relay what you,
yourself, see.... and, no matter how much you may try to offset this,
you have no control over how others may interpret your words.


Shrub's contradictions? I've lost count.....

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
as to the latter, I pointed out what I was reading and hearing in the
president's speeches. I pointed out that the evidence being presented shows
that the statement was based on faulty intelligence and he knew it. He struck
it out of one speech and put it back in another. I pointed out the fact that he
emphatically and determinedly builds a case for blue on monday and then, on
friday, turns around and says, no...blue isn't important and wasn't then, it's
red. Jean, instead of going through the man's speeches, looking it up for
herself says, Jesse show me. no...go look it up, Jean. I gave you the sources,
go read it.

Right. I honestly don't believe that Jean means for it to come across
this way, but I am left with the impression that she expects others to
do her homework. No one has the time for that. Learning is research,
and vice versa.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
I don't think political coverage was meant
to be your forte in journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn't have
made it in the big league.

Post by EmmaLdy
Source please?

her opinion...you can't figure that out? source for what?

Gee, I'm so glad that *you* could figure that one out, Jesse! <HG> Yep,
my opinion, based on a few years of active journalism under my belt.
With a tough boss.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by EmmaLdy
I think it's a great question.
And just because it's always existed doesn't mean you can't plan for it's
demise.

quite true...and you can also plan on true communism. and that won't work
either.

Hasn't yet, though God knows that they've tried.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
planning doesn't mean that you don't accept certain aspects of human
nature and society at large. otherwise, you're just as naive about reality as
the Star Trek world.

Exactly. No decent person wants it to be this way, but that is reality.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by EmmaLdy
Seperate,

<sigh> you know, it would be nice if someone would occasionally learn to spell.
SEPARATE!!! DEFINITELY!!! WOULD HAVE!!!! <sigh> you know, being the progeny of
a schoolteacher gives you the weirdest fetishes. can we try to spell it
correctly? or at least admit when you don't know how? judas, with all the
dictionaries online, one would think....

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feel better now?! <hg>

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
but back to the point...I've noticed the same people that scream "united front"
are also the first people to tell you how different we all are and we should
rejoice in our difference and no, we are not all the same. which is it, folks?
and if we're that damn different, don't make such a comment when that society
shows it's pride and solidarity against the rest of the bleakness of the
colorless tapestry of this world. maybe that's our true problem. we're so busy
showing our uniqueness, we're moving away from each other as fast as the
universe is expanding. maybe a simple block to all this bullshit?

Absolutely true: Individualism is important, or we are all just sheep.

However, in the case of the Canadian forces being told that they *must*
differentiate themselves from the U.S. troops, it is in order to open
roads of communication with the Afghani people.

Everyone is a target in Afghanistan at the moment, but my concern is
mainly for the U.S. troops. The massive bombing of that country
destroyed a great deal. Except for Osama, of course. Many of the
Afghan people are certain that the United States is simply bent on mass
destruction. Being a woman, though, I am certainly happy with some of
the results..... but being female over there still means that you are
very much a part of the minority.


Best to you,


Claudia

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
peace,
jesse
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey
A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!
Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Post by Claudia Levesque
Yes, such is the nature of the beast when it comes to reporting events
and the actions of individuals....

when is it true news? and when is it "yellow journalism?" when it's filling
time with anything and everything, double checked fact or not? when it's
purposely to inflame and incite passion for one side? yeah, there are those who
will do just that, and put the hard spin on it (no names, but their initals are
GERALDO RIVERA and BILL REILLY). a Tom Brokaw can stick to the facts of the
story, but he's still gonna give you his side of what he's seen and known. and
it will differ from Dan Rather's. and as you said, no controlling over how the
listener interprets. my OJDR--"A single song to a thousand ears becomes a
thousand songs." Ok, badly paraphrased. someone will correct me...I hope! ;-)

Post by Claudia Levesque
I honestly don't believe that Jean means for it to come across
this way, but I am left with the impression that she expects others to
do her homework.

in retrospect, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the question was more along the
lines of, "what are you disagreeing with," and not "I don't have time...." it
just hit me wrong at the time. gotta love partisan discussion...both sides feel
it so deeply.

Post by Claudia Levesque
Hasn't yet, though God knows that they've tried.

hey, at least I know the difference in them all.

Post by Claudia Levesque
Exactly. No decent person wants it to be this way, but that is reality.

and all young folks will listen to Mozart and Bach and never argue with their
parents or do anything the least bit rebellious. and we'll all live on a
perfectly climate controlled planet where we all love each other, rock and roll
is banned, no one works, and our enemies are out in space.

and then, monkeys will fly out of my butt!

Post by Claudia Levesque
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feel better now?! <hg>

LOL, yeah...I do. thanks! ;-)

Post by Claudia Levesque
Absolutely true: Individualism is important, or we are all just sheep.

true, but we need to balance it with what we have in common. that was really my
point. I am an Irish-American who eats, sleeps, loves to read and write, who
loves kids and nature and being with my friends. I dare say we have a great
deal in common. It unites us, makes us feel close and as if we belong to this
planet and society and species. if I focus too much on our differences, I lose
touch with what you feel, how we can work together...I lose my empathy.

Post by Claudia Levesque
However, in the case of the Canadian forces being told that they *must*
differentiate themselves from the U.S. troops, it is in order to open
roads of communication with the Afghani people.

yeah...that's really the sad part, isn't it? thanks, Shrub. that's a lot. this
is what your cowboy politics and diplomacy have reduced us to. asshat!

Post by Claudia Levesque
Many of the
Afghan people are certain that the United States is simply bent on mass
destruction.

quite a few Americans are pretty certain about that too, Claudia.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[MNPearl]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
as to the latter, I pointed out what I was reading and hearing in the
president's speeches. I pointed out that the evidence being presented shows
that the statement was based on faulty intelligence and he knew it. He

struck

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
it out of one speech and put it back in another. I pointed out the fact that

he

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
emphatically and determinedly builds a case for blue on monday and then, on
friday, turns around and says, no...blue isn't important and wasn't then,

it's

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
red. Jean, instead of going through the man's speeches, looking it up for
herself says, Jesse show me. no...go look it up, Jean. I gave you the

sources,

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
go read it.

Right. I honestly don't believe that Jean means for it to come across
this way, but I am left with the impression that she expects others to
do her homework. No one has the time for that. Learning is research,
and vice versa.

No, Claudia. I expect others to back up their statements with their sources
etc. If I don't believe the way Jesse believes, why in the world would I spend
time researching her statements? If she wants to convince me that she is
correct, then it is her responsibility to provide the documentation.

Jean

[MNPearl]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by EmmaLdy

Post by Claudia Levesque
This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well.

I strongly disagree.

with which part? about the bias of the press or the fact that Jean has a
tendency to tell others to do her leg work?
as to the former, there will always be someone's slant to the whole affair. we
all see the same point differently. the trick is not to include heresay,
circumstantial evidence, gossip, or unproven facts. in that respect, ALL media
is biased...by the person reporting, by the words chosen. each reporter only
points out what he or she sees. I can still disagree with it. but I was only
referring to my take on the Shrub's speeches, not the media's take on them.
as to the latter, I pointed out what I was reading and hearing in the
president's speeches. I pointed out that the evidence being presented shows
that the statement was based on faulty intelligence and he knew it.

This is the point I asked you to prove....that 'he knew it.' If you want to
say you believe he knew it, then that's your opinion and I can respect that.
If you want me to believe that it's a fact, then you need to provide proof.
Why should I go looking for your proof?


He struck

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
it out of one speech and put it back in another>

He did no such thing. Someone did, but not Bush himself. At least that is my
understanding.


I pointed out the fact that

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
he
emphatically and determinedly builds a case for blue on monday and then, on
friday, turns around and says, no...blue isn't important and wasn't then, it's
red. Jean, instead of going through the man's speeches, looking it up for
herself says, Jesse show me. no...go look it up, Jean. I gave you the sources,
go read it.

Again, if you're going to debate an issue it's not my job to provide the backup
for your statements. It's yours.

Jean

[MNPearl]

Hi Claudia,

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl
I try to find the 'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.

You've got to remember your sources, Jean..... as I've said before, you
seem to take what comes out of the White House press room far too literally.

You make an assumption as to where I get my information and what I believe.

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon

as

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I

Post by MNPearl
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.

Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both

sides....

Post by MNPearl
and try to pick out just the facts.

This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well. I don't think political coverage was meant
to be your forte in journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn't have
made it in the big league. Everything is fine in theory; it's putting
it into practice that involves skill.

When someone is making a statement it is they who should provide the backup for
that statement. If you want someone to 'get' your point....if you want to try
to convince them that your opinion is the right one, then it is 'you' who must
provide your sources and 'proof'. When you debate an issue, you bring the
material that led you to your conclusions into the debate. You don't tell the
other person to go look it up.

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl
Much of the press was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about it.

You've mentioned that there is a "general bias" of the press on "both
sides." In some parts of the press, yes, but certainly not all. When
the BBC aired their information regarding the opinions of a group of
"influential" MPs, as did other papers and networks, they were stating
the facts *as told to them* by those MPs. This should not come as a
surprise, keeping in mind that a very large segment of Parliament was
against the invasion of Iraq.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully

anything

Post by MNPearl
they had to say.

above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise. As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.

Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets better?

You are not listening to what they are saying, Jean. They are talking
about deliberately escalating the risks.

Yes, Claudia, I was listening to what they said. If you're going to have a
'war', then you are going to escalate the risks. My question again
is......what do we do about terrorism if we do not face it and try to do
something about it? Do we sit back and do nothing?

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected.

Of course it is to be expected. But again, what should have been the US
response to terrorism?


Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia

Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism?

In case you haven't noticed, Jean, there is a (very) serious attempt to
try and minimize the ability of terrorist cells to function.
Washington, itself, has stated that *new* strategies are needed - as
well as a *new* definition of "victory" - to combat this very *new* and
different kind of war.

Exactly. And that is why I do not like all the criticism.....because it is a
very new and different kind of war.

Post by Claudia Levesque
The development of this strategy in ongoing, as this new form of 21st
century 'war' is still in its infancy.

Post by MNPearl
If it can't
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands?

Jean, I'm afraid that question is just far too absurd. I, personally,
do not think that terrorism will ever be beaten, as it has existed (in
one form or another) since the beginning of mankind. Now, with modern
technology, it is a global concern, rather than fear of the tribe down
the river from your little settlement.
As soon as one cell is stamped out, another will likely arise to avenge
it. I believe that the so-called War on Terrorism will be an ongoing
thing, and we'd better not fall asleep at the helm. The idea is to at
least have some kind of control.

Post by MNPearl
And, yes.....for
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean

exactly?

Post by MNPearl
Jean

Excuse me? What on earth do you *think* it means?! Good grief!

That was meant to be sarcastic.

Jean
"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Claudia Levesque]

Hi Jean,

Post by MNPearl
Hi Claudia,

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl
I try to find the 'facts' and make up my mind based on those
facts. Someone can speculate and give an opinion, but when it comes to the
facts they should not be glossed over or enhanced in any way.

You've got to remember your sources, Jean..... as I've said before, you
seem to take what comes out of the White House press room far too literally.

You make an assumption as to where I get my information and what I believe.

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I try and read as many different international news reports as I can,
and attempt to cut through the chaff to get to the grains that have
common denominators.

I read as many reports as I can too, Claudia, but I stop reading as soon

as

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I

Post by MNPearl
spot a bias one way or the other. I studied journalism and was taught to
give... just the facts.

I went a little bit further than that.... I freelanced for the Hearst
Corporation for 12 years. Yes, give "just the facts" is a golden rule.
So is "check your sources once, then twice, then do it once more." You
also learn to sniff out spin doctoring, damage control and the general
murky waters of the political arena. That murky water applies to
businesses and exposure of rather corrupt charities, etc., as well.
Conflicting reports are a journalist's dream, as where there is smoke,
you will usually find fire.

Yes, I understand that, but I see a general bias in the press....both

sides....

Post by MNPearl
and try to pick out just the facts.

This is often true. However, your blanket statement about the British
press showed a bias on your part. I've noticed that you rather
frequently ask others to do your research for you in order to answer
your own questions, as well. I don't think political coverage was meant
to be your forte in journalism, Jean... I know that you wouldn't have
made it in the big league. Everything is fine in theory; it's putting
it into practice that involves skill.

When someone is making a statement it is they who should provide the backup for
that statement. If you want someone to 'get' your point....if you want to try
to convince them that your opinion is the right one, then it is 'you' who must
provide your sources and 'proof'. When you debate an issue, you bring the
material that led you to your conclusions into the debate. You don't tell the
other person to go look it up.

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl
Much of the press was against the war to
begin with and it is quite evident in how they report the news about it.

You've mentioned that there is a "general bias" of the press on "both
sides." In some parts of the press, yes, but certainly not all. When
the BBC aired their information regarding the opinions of a group of
"influential" MPs, as did other papers and networks, they were stating
the facts *as told to them* by those MPs. This should not come as a
surprise, keeping in mind that a very large segment of Parliament was
against the invasion of Iraq.

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
It is of great interest to me to follow the repercussions of the Iraq

The British press was against the war, so I would read very carefully

anything

Post by MNPearl
they had to say.

above. However, I am referring to *facts* here. What you might say is
"an influential group of MPs were against the war," (not the British
press, as that is not applicable here) but it would not be wise to do so
until checking if the Members of Parliament noted below *were* actually
against the war.... or are having present concerns. I have not followed
up on this information myself. Either way, it does not alter the
*facts* that these MPs are stressing their point in Parliament.
This same news item appeared on the CBC and other newscasts that pay
more attention to the international perspective than does the U.S.
press. I chose the BBC because it was the most concise. As I've said
before, Jean, I read several different news outlets before personally
deciding on the substantiality of a report.

Yes, I do understand what they are saying. But this is a 'war' on terrorism.
Why would one believe that it wouldn't get worse before it gets better?

You are not listening to what they are saying, Jean. They are talking
about deliberately escalating the risks.

Yes, Claudia, I was listening to what they said. If you're going to have a
'war', then you are going to escalate the risks. My question again
is......what do we do about terrorism if we do not face it and try to do
something about it? Do we sit back and do nothing?

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I find this quite astonishing, as the threat of al-Qaeda possibly
attacking the eastern part of the United States, the UK and Italy made
banner headlines a few days ago. They are angry, and they want revenge;
this was to be expected.

Of course it is to be expected. But again, what should have been the US
response to terrorism?
Osama bin Laden has risen to the level of

Post by Claudia Levesque

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
super hero extraordinaire in the eyes of the millions that hate the
west. The invasion of Iraq ("crusade") further legitimizes the agendas
of these religious zealots.
The MPs added: "In the wake of the Iraq war, we recommend that the
government make it a priority to work towards restoring the cohesion of
the United Kingdom's international partnerships, better to face the
daunting challenges of the continuing 'war against terrorism'."
....this is very wise advice. Sadly, I don't think terrorism can be
beaten, but a united front would certainly help.
Best to you,
Claudia

Hmmm....so what do you think the world should do about terrorism?

In case you haven't noticed, Jean, there is a (very) serious attempt to
try and minimize the ability of terrorist cells to function.
Washington, itself, has stated that *new* strategies are needed - as
well as a *new* definition of "victory" - to combat this very *new* and
different kind of war.

Exactly. And that is why I do not like all the criticism.....because it is a
very new and different kind of war.

Post by Claudia Levesque
The development of this strategy in ongoing, as this new form of 21st
century 'war' is still in its infancy.

Post by MNPearl
If it can't
be beaten, do we all just give in to their demands?

Jean, I'm afraid that question is just far too absurd. I, personally,
do not think that terrorism will ever be beaten, as it has existed (in
one form or another) since the beginning of mankind. Now, with modern
technology, it is a global concern, rather than fear of the tribe down
the river from your little settlement.
As soon as one cell is stamped out, another will likely arise to avenge
it. I believe that the so-called War on Terrorism will be an ongoing
thing, and we'd better not fall asleep at the helm. The idea is to at
least have some kind of control.

Post by MNPearl
And, yes.....for
sure.....we ought to stand united against it. But what does that mean

exactly?

Post by MNPearl
Jean

Excuse me? What on earth do you *think* it means?! Good grief!

That was meant to be sarcastic.
Jean
"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

I hope you don't mind, but I really don't want to go back several weeks
and discuss this again.


Nice to see you again, though! Hope all is going well in your neck of
the woods.


Best to you,


Claudia

[MNPearl]

Post by Claudia Levesque
I hope you don't mind, but I really don't want to go back several weeks
and discuss this again.
Nice to see you again, though! Hope all is going well in your neck of
the woods.
Best to you,
Claudia

No problem, Claudia. I haven't been able to get to the ng for a few weeks and
was trying to catch up. Hope all is going well for you too. We are praying
for rain here. Everything is so dry and brown and the fire danger is very
high.

Jean
"A man does not have to be an angel in order to be a saint."
--Albert Schweitzer

[Claudia Levesque]

Hi Jeanne!

Post by MNPearl

Post by Claudia Levesque
I hope you don't mind, but I really don't want to go back several weeks
and discuss this again.
Nice to see you again, though! Hope all is going well in your neck of
the woods.
Best to you,
Claudia

No problem, Claudia. I haven't been able to get to the ng for a few weeks and
was trying to catch up. Hope all is going well for you too. We are praying
for rain here. Everything is so dry and brown and the fire danger is very
high.
Jean

After a rather wet summer, things are turning seriously dry here,
too..... and I guess you've heard about the disastrous fires in southern
British Columbia. Unbelievable.


As far as replying to rather old posts, I'm not certain how it works,
but there seems to be a 'protocol' thing about not doing it. I wouldn't
have minded answering, though, it's just that I am so completely
exhausted when it comes to Iraq and anything ever related to it.... a
kind of 'burnout,' I guess.... I couldn't even read them.


Hope you get some rain....... and, dear God, I pray there is relief in
B.C. soon. If the big ski resort goes, so many people will be
unemployed......


Best to you,


Claudia

[MNPearl]

Post by Claudia Levesque
After a rather wet summer, things are turning seriously dry here,
too..... and I guess you've heard about the disastrous fires in southern
British Columbia. Unbelievable.
As far as replying to rather old posts, I'm not certain how it works,
but there seems to be a 'protocol' thing about not doing it. I wouldn't
have minded answering, though, it's just that I am so completely
exhausted when it comes to Iraq and anything ever related to it.... a
kind of 'burnout,' I guess.... I couldn't even read them.
Hope you get some rain....... and, dear God, I pray there is relief in
B.C. soon. If the big ski resort goes, so many people will be
unemployed......
Best to you,
Claudia

Hi Claudia,

Yes, I have heard about the terrible fires in BC. We haven't had any serious
ones yet, but everything is so dry, it wouldn't take much to get a bad one
going.

The post was more about the issues of debating than anything else. I'm sure
I'll have another opportunity to make my point. <hg>

Rain is in the forecast here for tomorrow and then again on the weekend. Sure
hope it materializes. We haven't gotten the rain that we were told was coming
for over a month. Are they forecasting any rain for BC? Guess we all need to
send some prayers their way.

Jean

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

I do listen to speeches the president gives and don't see
how the story has changed much at all.

oh darling, go read 'em again. it's there.

I listen to the
people themselves not some biased reporter. I draw my own conclusions.

as do I and I'm beginning to think we're not listening to the same speeches.

as you are a die-hard, left-wing
democrat..

no, I am properly refered to as a Conservative Democrat. I do not follow the
party line about many of the liberal planks. but I do believe there is a
conservative bent to them that would better serve the public.

or so you appear by the venom and hatred you spue about Bush and
most Republicans.

I don't have a problem with Republicans. I have a problem with this insane idea
that we are the saviors of the world, and I have a problem with a leader than
can't stick to one story and spends a lot of time backpedaling. or making sure
someone else takes the blame for his own screw ups.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[MNPearl]

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
oh darling, go read 'em again. it's there.

OK, Jesse, email me the speeches you are referring to and underscore the lies.
Then give me that data you have that proves they are.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
I listen to the
people themselves not some biased reporter. I draw my own conclusions.

as do I and I'm beginning to think we're not listening to the same speeches.

Yes, I do believe we are, but I don't have a disdain for Bush.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
as you are a die-hard, left-wing
democrat..

no, I am properly refered to as a Conservative Democrat. I do not follow the
party line about many of the liberal planks. but I do believe there is a
conservative bent to them that would better serve the public.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
or so you appear by the venom and hatred you spue about Bush and
most Republicans.

I don't have a problem with Republicans. I have a problem with this insane idea
that we are the saviors of the world,>>

So, you believe we should just stay out of it unless it appears on our
doorstep? By then it may be too late.

and I have a problem with a leader than

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
can't stick to one story and spends a lot of time backpedaling. or making sure
someone else takes the blame for his own screw ups.

OK, now here is where I have a problem. Please send me speeches etc where the
stories were changed. And when did he 'make' someone else take the blame?

Jean

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
peace,
jesse
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey
A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!
Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Virtugal]

I think the problem is that excellent private school you went to where you got
that first class education. Repetition is obviously their forte'. Jean you
are so busy calling people names you do not listen to what the man is saying.
BTW have you noticed, using various excuses, how many of his government is
leaving for parts unknown?

Post by MNPearl

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
oh darling, go read 'em again. it's there.

OK, Jesse, email me the speeches you are referring to and underscore the lies.
Then give me that data you have that proves they are.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
I listen to the
people themselves not some biased reporter. I draw my own conclusions.

as do I and I'm beginning to think we're not listening to the same speeches.

Yes, I do believe we are, but I don't have a disdain for Bush.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
as you are a die-hard, left-wing
democrat..

no, I am properly refered to as a Conservative Democrat. I do not follow the
party line about many of the liberal planks. but I do believe there is a
conservative bent to them that would better serve the public.

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
or so you appear by the venom and hatred you spue about Bush and
most Republicans.

I don't have a problem with Republicans. I have a problem with this insane idea
that we are the saviors of the world,>>

So, you believe we should just stay out of it unless it appears on our
doorstep? By then it may be too late.
and I have a problem with a leader than

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
can't stick to one story and spends a lot of time backpedaling. or making sure
someone else takes the blame for his own screw ups.

OK, now here is where I have a problem. Please send me speeches etc where the
stories were changed. And when did he 'make' someone else take the blame?
Jean

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
peace,
jesse

[Virtugal]

The Iraqis were never on our doorstep nor had they any desire to be.

Post by MNPearl
So, you believe we should just stay out of it unless it appears on our
doorstep? By then it may be too late.

And we are not the saviours of the world. It might be time to mind our own
business. We have problems here that beg to be addressed.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Hey Jesse if you have a right wing and a left wing you can fly. And for free

damn! that's what I been doing wrong!

<sigh>

how about I drive? got a low flying pilot's license for the Ford! ;-)


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[MNPearl]

Jean, a part of me thinks you could be doing this for yourself. But,
ok....you
get one freebie.
State of the Union, 1/2003
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Interesting, this is the same speech given right before, and had the same
sentence removed. But he didn't know it was faulty. NO ONE in the White House
knew it was based on a lie. Uh huh....right. Not to mention the fact, that
the
butt kicking all of a sudden became the tap dance through the minefield and
when no one would let it go, Dubya had to begrudgingly come out and admit his
own culpability. And on another note...funny how, we really started blaming
England's Intelligence AFTER the fit hit the shan on this one.

I have absolutely no idea who knew what when.....who besides the writer of the
first speech knew the reference was removed and for what reason. Why are you
so sure everybody knew everything? And, yes,
the press wouldn't leave it alone until he took responsibility, which he did.
And how did we start blaming England after the fact when the statement he made
was about British intelligence?

" Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations."
All those satelites up there and we don't know how to use them? Gimme a
break,
those things can find a flea on sandpaper. Dubya couldn't use one to spy on
Iraq? You really need a plane to fly over? Uh huh, same reason you have to
fly
inside Korea's no fly zone, right? See further down about the satelite
footage.
" Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely
putting us on notice before they strike?"
Since when can Dubya read minds? >Since when does he know the future? >They

had

to grab an Al-Qaeda operative to learn any thing and the best this man can
come
up with is "we planned...." Show me the airline tickets...oh, no, that's
right.
The bastards HAD the tickets, were ON the red lists, and still got to go on
the
planes. But that's Boston Airport's fault, right?

So, all that is Bush's fault????? Where's the proof that he knew?

"He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the
opinion of the world."
EXCUSE ME???? UN voted against that referendum, Georgie...you decided to go
to
war anyway. The cries for peace around the world was deafening...you decided
to
go to war anyway. Pot...cauldron...cauldron...pot...BLACK!>>

It was SH who refused to cooperate with the UN for 12 years. He said that he
had weapons. If SH was not telling the truth...imagine that.....then he has no
one to blame but himself. As I stated once before, if someone claims to have a
bomb, you have to handle that situation as if that person does have a
bomb....even if they might be making it up. Why weren't you screaming about
the WMD lies when the sanctions were made that killed thousands of innocent
children? Clinton bombed Iraq to get rid of these same WMD. If there were
none, the entire UN should answer for it....and BC.

It was amazing that after this speech, Colin Powell showed up with satellite
photos, documents, etc proving that Saddam Hussein had these weapons."
Where's
this evidence now? I deserve to see this. So do you. Amazing how all of that
conveniently disappears like Jerry Lander's handwritten answers.

Who said it has disappeared? Has some reporter asked about the evidence
recently? And, are we privy to this evidence or is it classified? If I
recall, one of those photos was of mobile labs which were
found....stripped/scrubbed clean, but found. Hey, maybe SH wanted everyone to
believe he had all these weapons and the means to make more so he could look
like the big guy to his neighbors. Of course, he did buy weapons components
from many countries. Maybe he shipped them back?

Reuters points out that "DEARBORN, Mich., July 24 (Reuters) - Weapons of mass
destruction have proven hard to find in Iraq and now they've disappeared from
President George W. Bush's speeches.
A reliable staple of past addresses, the four-words did not cross his lips
during two public appearances in Pennsylvania and Michigan on Thursday. Nor
did
Bush use the phrase on Wednesday in a formal update on the progress U.S.
forces
have made in Iraq that he delivered from the White House Rose Garden."
There, Jean...that's what I find questionable and that's what I find to be a
lie You want to know anything else? Get off your lazy butt and go read the
speeches like I did. There are enough inconsistencies in there to make anyone
question. Anyone who doesn't want to blindly follow and can read and make an
informed decision. I need no right wing OR left wing to tell me how to think.
I
listen!

If you make allegations, it is you who should put up or shut up. You've given
me absolutely no 'proof' of anything, just your opinion and that of others.
So, now someone is saying Bush leaves out WMD in his speeches. So what? What
the heck has that got to do with anything??? Bush said there was WMD. The UN
said there were WMD and enacted sanctions because of them. Bill Clinton said
there were WMD and bombed Iraq. Why do you continually focus on Bush saying
there were WMD when many said the same thing?

peace,
jesse
http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey
A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!
Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each
other
in the process.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Oh yes, indeed. I actually think those two idiots are dangerous.

oh, Rush Limbaugh scares me worse. I don't know who I pity more, him or his
"dittohead" followers. I think I'd rather hide in a cave that be accused of
mindlessly repeating what that man preaches. and you thought Pat Robertson or
that ilk was bad!

Print, right off
the wires (example: AP), is still the closest thing that we have to a
true medium.

I don't know, darlin'. they're getting just as bad. JMHO, I think this
obsession with filling 24 hours a day with the news is killing the profession.
They run out of things to say and resort to gossip, innuendo, and heresay. Or
conducting the trial in the press. That's even scarier. Hearst must be laughing
his ass off.

As
a matter of fact, I honestly believe that mankind will eventually
completely destroy this planet.... it's just a matter of when. A few
more thousand years from now? Six years from now?

am I the only one that ever wanted to slap the living shit out of Wesley
Crusher? talk about unrealistic. anyway...Dr Stephen Hawking puts it at the
year 3000. his opinion is that we'll have destroyed the resources of this
planet and reduced it to the same as Mars by then. that the planet will be too
hot to sustain life and there went that whirling ball.

The Bush Gang are like a
runaway train; they are so very heavy handed. Foreign policy is not
their strong point.

you mean they actually have one? somewhere? buried in the stupidity?

It's too bad that Shrub can't spend some time over
there, so that he could get an upfront and personal view of just how he
has screwed up.

hey, I'll cough up the money for the ticket. problem is, he'll get a return
ticket! <sigh>

Many are buying property in Canada. I don't
think that's the answer

of course not...it's in Ireland! ;-)

just kidding, Claudia. I'd love to come see Canada someday. I've never been
that far north and I"ve heard of such beauty. one day, I hope I get the
privilege.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[The Goddess in Tennis Shoes]

Be good children.
I am the one who doesn't fight fair, remember?

<sigh> she never lets me have any fun.

And where are my books, author
person?

had to unpack the suckers. they'll be going out this week, m' lady.


peace,

jesse

http://www.thecoffeyhouse.net
http://Writing.Com/authors/jwcoffey

A slice of entertainment that comes with a great cuppa joe!




Two brothers search for their father's murderer...if they don't kill each other
in the process.

[Diamondsnstones]

And my tape?

Post by The Goddess in Tennis Shoes
<sigh> she never lets me have any fun.

And where are my books, author
person?

had to unpack the suckers. they'll be going out this week, m' lady.

[Virtugal]

HUUUUUM!!!!!!!!!

gotta find that one