Remarkable State of the Union Speech... - Page 2

The US directed the writing of the Japanese constitution - giving the women the vote and simultaneously broke up the great noble landholdings and divided it amongst the peasants.

"After we don't find them in Syria, shall we invade Iran just in case?"

Possibly - we clearly shouldn't take that option off the table. However our success in Iraq will make that les likely and will strengthen our diplomatic tools. Think about it - Iranians watched as Iraqis and Afghanis living in their country went to Iranian polling places and cast votes - a right that no Iranian student truly has in any comparable way. The impact of this could be huge and very liberating.

As for Pakistan the circumstances are extremely different. The Pakis have WMDs because their mortal enemies, the Indians, have WMDs. This can serve to stabilize and calm the region while preventing a massive war. The possibility that the Pakis will shoot nukes at Israel are extremely remote and are in no way comparable to the threat inherent if Syria or Iran had them.

"This is where you are quite wrong, that's not coming from me either, we did know there were no WMD's we had weapons inspectors tell us, we bombed and sanctioned Iraq for about 15 years leaving no capabilities and inspectors sure of the destruction of at least 95%."

I am sorry but you are simply wrong. I do not know where you are getting this but who ever it is is lying to you. You should learn the facts, by yourself, so that you can discount these sources of propaganda that are pulling the wool over your eyes.

Iraq had storehouses of WMDs that the UN had documented. The UN saw them with their own eyes BUT did not see their destruction. We do not know today where they are or what happenned to them - thats a fact.

You sound very much like an opposition tool who has been fooled and lied to to such an extenet that you are now incapable of debating with any kind of rationality and impartiality.

Try Scott Ritter of the UN weapons inspection team, as for the cherry picked intelligence I don't remember the chicks name, but she works where they got that info.

Again, you need a much less hypocritical understanding of what propaganda is and who has the power, resources, connections, and need to use it.

Did you know of the various lawsuits against Bush and the White House from FBI and FBI translators over information regarding 9/11 that I think are still ongoing but cloaked in National Security, are you aware of the conflict of interest issues of the 9/11 commission, are you familiar with any of the military and FEMA drills before and on 9/11, including live fly remote control drones and false blips on NORAD and I do believe whatever the air traffic people are called too, that I could be wrong about cause I don't remember everything. Quite frankly there is just too much to remember all of.

Most of this can't even be found in the 9/11 report, which still has classifed sections of course.

Is that all you have to say on my post? Don't you understand that the only way in which America's presence in Iraq is justified is if you plan on making into a Taiwan or a West Germany.

Otherwise, its going to be another unstable banana democracy with true power elsewhere, as in Afganistan.

Bush's new strategy is dangerous, unprecedented and needlessly dangerous. If we want to stop terror, we should have tried the strategy that worked in the far east. That involved massive aid to Japan, Korea and Taiwan (all three at first dictatorships, Japan an American run military dictatorship). It only involved war when our satelites were attacked (Korean War), which is comparable to Gulf War I. War when we were not attacked, Vietnam, is far more difficult. Because we have to occupy a people, instead of just destroy his military.

If Bush was serious about fighting terror, he should have used time and tested methods. His ignorance is no excuse, new circumstances haven't change a thing in this regard. If America wants America's model to look good to foreigners, which is what I think the war on 'terror' is all about, then Bush should have used the strategy which worked well in the Far East and spectacularily well in Western Europe.

Of course I know who Scott Ritter is - he was one of Clinton's loudest critics and demanded that the US take greater action against Iraq. Then he switched views and now he is considered to be extremely disreputable - wasn't he accused of some crime - underage sex - or something recently?

As for your conspiracies - I have nothing to say because you aren't making any accusations, as usual. What are you trying to say? Do you believe the US or Mossad was involved in 9/11 or do you not?

----

DT-

The reason I didn't comment more is because there wasn't much to disagree with. I believe that the US is following a West Germany model and suffering from many of the same problems that we experienced there (insurrection, terrorism, accused of being occupiers). At his convention, Bush read from a NYTimes article from the late 40's that said America had failed in Germany and listed many of the same things that the critics today and your post claim. Of course we didn't fail.

You don't think Iraq and Afghanistan are receiving massive aid and will continue to receive massive rebuilding and aid? It looks like Allowi (sic?) will not be the new Prime Minister - so much for you claim that the election was a puppet orchestration. I am curious, what would you have done different in Iraq after the toppling of the Ba'thist regime?

My conspiracies?, firstly, don't be the perpetual repetittive ass yourself even Fox News covered the FBI lawsuit directly after 9/11, second answer the question (oh wait, I think you just did, you know nothing of it), thirdly, oh so Ritter was accused of something and is now disreputable, oh he made sense when bitching about Clinton but not Bush, apparently only one is allowed to be bad or your a fruitcake. Makes sense to me.

Does it matter to you why he "switched views", like after the WMD's were properly taken care of and Bush lied. Oh, wait its because of some unrelated incident right? But Bush did coke and whatever else, has drunks for daughters, but is a god of moral values, again, makes sense to me.

So hypocrisy and propaganda are a one way street to you still I take it, grow up.

Why do you keep avoiding an answer regarding your conspiracy theories. Are you denying there was a conspiracy now?

Ritter speaks out of both side of his mouth. When you cite him which Ritter are you refering to - the one of the last 4 years or the one during the Clinton admin? It is for this reason that he is disreputable and possibly mentally unstable. But since he says he is wrong now when he said he was right I am sure you must agree with him since that suits your philosophy to a tee.

I love it when your side accuses Bush of doing coke when you have not a single witness to such an event. Exposes your extreme wackiness. I love it even more when your side accuses his daughters of being drunks when they have done nothing that most teenagers have not done. It exposes your mean-spiritedness and willingness to attack the innocent.

I love sitting back and watching your side dig their own graves.

You think Iraq is appropriate for a West German model? Really? There is a key difference, non-state elements in Germany were overwhelmingly pro-American, in Iraq they are overwhelmingly anti-American.

That means that the occupation is bound to be far bloodier. And far more chaotic. How is Iraq going to become West Germany when the army has so little control that Iraqis periodically lose what they had under Saddam: electricity and running water.

The West German model only functions with a friendly opposition willing to keep the country together even with only the skeleton police force America's army provides. Compare with West Germany, in which huge armies were parked.

Clearly Bush, by abolishing the Iraqi Army and all this ideological and unnecessary de-Baathification was following a West German model. But this isn't West Germany, they *hate* us (except the Kurds, of course).

People who can't see the difference between West Germany and Iraq are kidding themselves. The chaotic situation today, the weak infrastructure, the complete lack of law and order, these are symptoms of assuming this was basically WW2 (compare with Afganistan, where allying with shady warlords has avoided us an Afgani war, but has also meant nothing has changed). What's more, most Germans wanted some American presence, to stop West Germany becoming a part of East Germany.

The situation in Iraq was completely inapropriate for a West German model. Now, its failure is showing by the huge amounts of Iraq death due to lack of law and order and utilities. Any possible solutions in Iraq usually involve discriminating against the Sunnis, which many predict will lead to a civil war in that 1/5 of the country (supported through arms by the vast numbers of sunni arabs in other countries).

A Far Eastern model in Egypt, Turkey or Jordan would have beena hundred times safer and more appropriate. Egypt, Turkey and Jordan are Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Iraq was not West Germany.

Gainesville Sun Headlines
Pg. 1A Bush cuts to target police at local level.

Pg. 9A 2.5 Trillion Budget fight coming soon!

Pg. 10A Sharp cuts likely for commodities, farm programs.

Pg. 10A Budget: Bush proposal would limit spending
[continued from 1A]

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050204/ZNYT02/50
2040311

Bush, on Road, Pushes Warning on Retirement Benefits Plan
New York Times

GREAT FALLS, Mont., Feb. 3 - President Bush took his proposal for a new Social Security system on the road on Thursday with a stark warning to younger workers that the retirement program will go "bust" within four decades if it is not overhauled and with a call for his supporters to demand action from Congress.

But a day after he made overhauling Social Security the centerpiece of his State of the Union address,
Mr. Bush ran into a brick wall of opposition from Democrats in Washington and skepticism even from influential members of his own party in Congress, leaving him facing perhaps the toughest and highest-stakes legislative battle of his presidency.
Mr. Bush made some gestures to bipartisanship as he traveled to Montana and North Dakota on the first day of a two-day, five-state swing intended to impress on voters and members of Congress a need for action this year on Social Security. But he showed no signs of backing down, even as he prepared to plunge into another partisan battle next week, over his call for a new effort to hold down government spending and cut or eliminate scores of domestic programs.
"I've heard all of the complaints - and you'll hear a lot more - how this is going to ruin Social Security," he said at his first stop, in Fargo, N.D. "Forget it, its going to make it stronger."
At a later stop here he said, "This is doable. It's just going to take some political will."

In sketching out in his State of the Union address how he envisioned a new system working, Mr. Bush was trying to jump-start negotiations with Congress, reassure Republicans that he would give them political cover and win over at least a few Democrats, his aides and advisers said.
But the response from within both parties on Thursday suggested that Republicans did not feel much safer politically and that Democrats had been emboldened to fight back. And it highlighted the difficulty Mr. Bush faces as he puts his political fortunes on the line in an effort to reshape an immensely popular and successful program whose problems, despite the dire picture he painted, are not projected to become acute for years.
He tried to clarify his approach. Responding to questions from the audience here, he told the mother of a mentally retarded adult daughter that there would be no change to the disability portion of the system.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050206/ZNYT03/50
2060310

U.S. Drops Criminal Inquiry of CIA Anti-drug Effort in Peru
New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 - After a secret three-year investigation, federal prosecutors have decided to end a criminal inquiry into whether at least four Central Intelligence Agency officers lied to lawmakers and their agency superiors about a clandestine anti-drug operation that ended in 2001 with the fatal downing of a plane carrying American missionaries, Justice Department officials said this week.
"The Justice Department has declined a criminal prosecution," said Bryan Sierra, a Justice Department spokesman, in response to a question about the previously undisclosed investigation. The conduct under scrutiny was part of a CIA operation authorized by President Bill Clinton beginning in 1994 to help the Peruvian Air Force to interfere with drug flights over the country.
The Justice Department's decision ended an inquiry that current and former government officials say was the most serious to focus on the official conduct of CIA officers since the Iran-contra affair in the late 1980's. More broadly, the inquiry had been seen within the CIA as a message that employees could be held accountable for operations that go awry, at a time when officers at the agency are coming under scrutiny in other areas, like the interrogation and detention of terror suspects.

"A criminal investigation is something that breeds a risk-averse culture at CIA,"
said a Bush administration official familiar with the case.
The officials said the investigation had not been directly related to the act of shooting down the plane, which was carried out by a Peruvian Air Force jet after the missionary plane was misidentified as a potential drug smuggling aircraft by a CIA surveillance plane operated by contractors. An inquiry by the two countries in 2001 found that the action, in which an American missionary, Veronica Bowers, 35, and her 7-month-old daughter, Charity, were killed, was the result of language problems, poor communications and shortcuts in following established procedures.
Instead, the officials said, any charges would have stemmed primarily from earlier actions in which CIA officers in Peru allowed an erosion in safeguards drawn up in consultation with the Justice Department, in part as protection against possible criminal liability.

"But since he says he is wrong now when he said he was right I am sure you must agree with him since that suits your philosophy to a tee."

Right, like Bush and WMD's. You are a hypocritical and judgemental ass.

There is no such thing as MY conspiracy, I haven't played an active part in government lately.

If you are worried about my referrences take it up with the ones making the claims, I'm not going to pointlessly argue with you, I was asking if you were familiar with some issues, but you'd rather play the holier than thou everything possibly bad about Bush is a lunatic conspiracy card which does nothing but keep you ignorantly obediant.

"But this isn't West Germany, they *hate* us (except the Kurds, of course). "

This is where I think you are flat out wrong. I truly think that the OVERWHELMING majority of Iraqis, including a majority of Sunnis are pro-America. What makes you think that Iraq is a bastion of Anti-Americanism? This clearly isn't backed up in the polls I have seen. That's why you don't understand how that mayor of Baghdad is far more representative of Iraqi opinion than you think. Of course the Iraqis don't want to be occupied and of course they don't want to see their natural resources stolen by a foreign power. Of course they are cautious but as America continues to keep its word and provides example after example that we are nothing more than their liberators they become more and more our truly indebted friends.

" Now, its failure is showing by the huge amounts of Iraq death due to lack of law and order and utilities."

Huh? Huge amount of deaths? Whose deaths? Clearly you are not talking about American deaths, are you? Iraq has more utilities and cleaner water now than anytime after the Gulf War. And Iraq is mostly stable except for the Sunni Triangle where the insurrection is occurring. And the insurrection can actually be a stabilizing factor that will strengthen the democracy in the long run by reminding the majority of exactly what it is they do not want in their country (needless deaths of Iraqis, foreign terrorists, destruction of property, etc).

"Any possible solutions in Iraq usually involve discriminating against the Sunnis, which many predict will lead to a civil war in that 1/5 of the country (supported through arms by the vast numbers of Sunni arabs in other countries). "

People make such claims, I believe, because they are generally ignorant about the nature of the Iraqi people. Iraq has three main factions - true. However these factions do not promote an environment of division to the extent that many people argue. Iraqis are far more united behind being Iraqi than many understand because almost everyone in Iraq has a close relative that is a member of the other faction. Secondly, the factions can serve the democratic process by creating checks and balances to those in power. As Madison argued, factions are necessary for a healthy democracy.

Leftwood,

You are still running for cover. I will ask one last time. Maybe you will finally find the courage to give me an honest answer.

Do you or do you not believe there was a conspiracy involving the CIA or Mossad on 9/11?

"This is where I think you are flat out wrong. I truly think that the OVERWHELMING majority of Iraqis, including a majority of Sunnis are pro-America. What makes you think that Iraq is a bastion of Anti-Americanism?"
And where do you get your numbers? Blind optimisim? I compare to Europe. Europe, for the last 50 years the closest allies of the US, is today extremely suspicious of the US.

Therefore, I expect piss poor Arabs being run by pro-American authoritarians and being killed by Jews using American guns to hate us A LOT MORE. Especially when they invade your country, overthrow your government and put through a 10 year embargo designed to make your country poor.

I go also from a Jordanians and Syrian I know. These are educated, quasi-western people (one of them is Christian) and yet they hate the US because they believe the US is there for oil. And they believe the US is there so that Israel can continue its ethnic cleansing of the west bank unhindered.

Nowthese guys hate America, but they're rich and westernized and secular. Now I imagine the opinion of a piss poor Iraqi, who undoubtedly has had to deal with the American embargo (and I don't care if the embargo was a good idea or not, he will still hate you for it), has had his basic utilities interrupted and rendered unreliable because of war, who undoubtedly knows someone (or friend of friend) who has died through American 'collateral damage'.

It seems inconceivable that they would like America. In fact, it seems completely absurd. Understand, I don't know the polls. But I have Europeans (who have no reason to hate America) and other Arabs to compare to. I also have American policy. Which consistently attempts to destroy/weaken Arab states, supports authoritarian regimes for their oil and has militarily maintained Israel's (perceived and real) ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.

It just seems completely absurd. It would be as if the Chinese invaded California, killed and kicked out all whites, supported a new Hispanic-Mexican Californian state, propped up a heavily oil-exporting People's Democratic Republic of Texas and then was puzzled when Americans didn't like them.

"Huh? Huge amount of deaths? Whose deaths?"

The Lancet, a respected journal, claims 100k deaths because of war. I don't know what the numbers are. I don't know what to believe, but I know what respectible people are saying. I don't believe the lancet has any incentive to lie, I certainly know Bush does.

"Iraqis are far more united behind being Iraqi than many understand because almost everyone in Iraq has a close relative that is a member of the other faction."
Um. No. Is it coincidence that the insurgency is limited to the sunni triangle? Are you aware that many Kurds are flirting with the idea of independence and will no doubt fight for it if things don't go well in Bagdad.

Iraq is an artificial creation of british imperialists, it is not a nation. Just like African states, it has the potential for civil war (and *everybody* is talking about it, respectable Newsweek writers, British intelligence)

"And where do you get your numbers? Blind optimisim? I compare to Europe. Europe, for the last 50 years the closest allies of the US, is today extremely suspicious of the US. "

Gallup has done polls there as has other polling organizations.

And it depends on who you mean in Europe when you say closest ally? Certainly not the French. Certainly not all the Europeans that protested Reagan's arm build-up in Europe during the Cold War. And suspicious you say? I say jealous, frustrated and way too dependent. Europe gets much if its technology, most of its global defense and most of its culture from the US. Europe lost its standing and has been hanging too long in our shadow. Of course this disturbs people who have such an elitist view of themselves. However, when trouble within the European continent comes along - like the dispute with Spain and those islands (I forget the specifics) who did Europe call to settle the matter? They called Bush and Colin Powell to the rescue. They couldn't even handle an internal matter themselves. Talk about lame. They surely couldn't handle Bosnia themselves. And now the Germans are crying because were gonna pull our bases out and move them east to places like Romania. The Europeans are hardly credible critics.

"Therefore, I expect piss poor Arabs being run by pro-American authoritarians and being killed by Jews using American guns to hate us A LOT MORE."

Being killed by Jews? WTF are talking about now. You are talking about the Arabs love for their Palestinian brethren? Give me a break! The Arabs have done nothing to help out the Palestinians except convince them to start wars against the innocent Israelis. How much land has the Syrians or Egyptians or the Jordanians offered to the Palestinians? What's scary is that anti-Semitic rhetoric isn't only rampant amongst Arabs but amongst brainwashed Europeans as well. Give back Northern Ireland to the Irish before you start preaching to the Israelis - who won their lands after being attacked by coalitions of Arab nations. Yes many Arabs hate Americans because we are good friends to the Jews - what would you recommend we abandon the Israelis so we can be loved by the likes of Osama and his cult?

"I go also from a Jordanians and Syrian I know. These are educated, quasi-western people (one of them is Christian) and yet they hate the US because they believe the US is there for oil. And they believe the US is there so that Israel can continue its ethnic cleansing of the west bank unhindered"

Do you even know any Jordanians? I have known quite a few and none of them hate America. Jordan has also kept close ties to the US, now has a parliament even with women ministers and American blood in the royal family. Syria is a backwards military controlled regime with an economy that continuously grows at a smaller rate than their population. Neither Syria nor Jordan (only 6%) are Christian - you are thinking of Lebanon.

The Iraqis are willing to die for their freedom - that's what the purple stained fingers reveals. And they will remember who liberated them and will remember those who were against it.

"It would be as if the Chinese invaded California, killed and kicked out all whites, supported a new Hispanic-Mexican Californian state, propped up a heavily oil-exporting People's Democratic Republic of Texas and then was puzzled when Americans didn't like them. "

That's such a stupid comparison. In the first place Californians are not under the control of an evil dictator but are represented by an elected official. Secondly, the US and China have not fought a war or are in a cease-fire. Thirdly, Californians would never believe themselves liberated like the majority of Iraqis do. Lastly, the Chinese would not set up a free, democratic republican government that protected civil rights that actually put their nation's resources into the hands of the Iraqi people for the first time in their lives.

Was The Lancet for or against the war? That may explain their incentive...? From what I've read no war of this scale has had less civilian deaths in world history than this war nor has a nation devoted so much money, people and resources to protect against civilian casualties.

"Iraq is an artificial creation of british imperialists, it is not a nation"

That is such an ignorant statement I cant believe you continue to make it. Have you ever even met an Iraqi? I assure you none think the way you do. Syria was created by the French, Jordan by the British - are they also not nations? OMG come on dude! And what the hell was Iraq, Jordan, Syria etc before the Europeans established them as nations, do you know?

Leftwood,

You are still running for cover. I will ask one last time. Maybe you will finally find the courage to give me an honest answer.

Do you or do you not believe there was a conspiracy involving the CIA or Mossad on 9/11?

I hold no firm beliefs one way or the other, which I have already stated, I know that we can't even make the judgement past what insiders have said, and that there exists conflicting information as well as information simply deemed Classified beyond reach.

With this knowledge of a lack and conflict of knowledge I know it would be rediculous to make an absolute claim in any direction, including yours.

You didn't mention the Pakistani ISI in your query, which is closely linked with the CIA, and the guy who leads it whose name I forget at the moment, but who was reported to have given 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta and was meeting with two heads of US who I can't recall at the moment either.

The only thing I've heard about the Mossad, which is Israel's CIA type group right? Is weird filming of the event and spies, oh and that someone claimed the voice of the hijacker to be clearly Israeli.

But that's most of what I've heard regarding them and 9/11.

But are you aware of Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior and the other wargames on 9/11 that were including drills of basically the 9/11 attacks that no one could have imagined?

And no, not just the canceled excercise mentioned on Nightline or whatever show mentioned that.

My main arguments against people with your posistion is bias and the coloring of judgement from it, hypocricy of on the one hand claiming anothers argument to be sophistic for being based on propaganda and hearsay when that is all we have access to, that is all tv is, truth is censored, and we need to understand what that means to our ability to understand the world around us.

And if you don't think truth is censored than you don't understand what National Security is or means or what classified information is.

And propaganda is just biased promotion of or against an idea, person, organization or point of view. Political spin etc.

This is a two way street.

LMAO - so you believe there may be a conspiracy. So all the people on the planes that made phone calls were lying or were they simply witnessing CIA agents dressed up to look and act like Al Qaeda? Why doesnt Al Qaeda deny their involvment?

My God man, are you really this far out there?

You know, in truth I shouldnt laugh cause its not funny, it is very, very sad!