News-Record.com

Osama Bin Laden won on 9-11, I now realize. He made the people of the United States give up their rights to privacy, to have their papers secure without government snooping, and a number of other things. Now we have Whorge Bush threatening to take away even more by screaming about "Terra! Terra! Terra!" "The terrorists" have become the boogeyman excuse for bigger government getting away with everything. When in fact the biggest threats to our freedom are found inside the D.C. beltway. Fifty years ago, the American people would still not have let themselves be defeated by their own "leaders" as they have with Whorge Bush.

"I also take umbrage at Mr. Moschetti's statement that Democrats believe "that Bush, not the terrorists, is responsible for terrorism."

Well, I can't accuse Ms. Simmons of patronizing the left wing blogs where you will find many democrats accusing Bush of being responsible for terrorism.

At least we have a couple of more years of adult leadership that is not afraid to take the offense against the raghea... uh, Muslim freedom fighters and not crawl to the U.N. like the LIMPWRISTED democrats are prone to do and beg for toothless 'sanctions'.

I agree totally with the letter writer.

It appears that the UN helped bring a stop to the fighting in Lebanon, so maybe there is another way to handle things.

What is the total of dead American soldiers in Iraq? I never see it on the corporate media. Bush still says we are winning. Winning what, Neocon?

Neocons are Socialist Scum raises a good point. Remember five years ago, right after the towers fell? Everyone was looking for guidance, and our leadership told us "Go on with your lives, travel, go out to dinner, buy stuff. If we let this event damage our economy, the terrorists have won." Everyone remember that?

Now fast forward a few years, and we have warrantless spying, Congressmen calling for restrictions on the press, mainstream media calling for a federal department of censorship, challenges to free speech, the Geneva conventions being called "quaint" by our AG, torture coming up as a viable tool, violations of the constitution by the White House, and other damage to our civil liberties. So what do our neighbors on the right say when asked about these things? They lash out at the left, and they call us treasonous.

So to summarize, loss of liberty is part of the sacrifice in the "war on terror". But if we stop shopping, then the terroroists have won.

I came to this conclusion a couple of weeks ago, and it truly sickened me. I love this country, and would not prefer to live anywhere else. But I felt like my decades-long understanding of what we were about was crumbling beneath my feet. The pedestal on which I had placed the US does not seem so tall any more. We are no longer a nation of laws, of values, of morality. We are a nation of commerce. And I'm having a little trouble getting used to that.

That’s a great point Howie. I for one think our country has always been about business more than anything. The Revolutionary War was about commerce, not freedom from oppression.

I'm not saying the results have been all bad. I just feel that our notions of what this country is about may be more influenced by patriotic history books than reality. Commerce is not bad, it's just bad when people take a back seat to profits.

Thanks Stevie. I agree with you. I'm a big fan of the capitalist model, and think it's the best one going. But I'd always viewed our commerce system as the fuel that drives the machine that is our country. Now I think we're the fuel, and commerce is the machine. And you're probably right about the romance of history books. Maybe I'm the last one to catch on. Still a rude awakening though.

Howie,

I don't think you should give up idealism either. America is a great country. Click on the link below for my favorite Schoolhouse Rock, No More King. I think the present day King George should see this too! ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeOlIfvr_p0

Don't you just love these?

Excellent points folks. I, too, have lost those rose-colored glasses with regards to the US. Usually I am an optimistic person who looks deep to find the good in all things. But it is more difficult than ever to look at our government objectively an not see all the ugliness, dishonesty, greediness and downright evilness. It is as if the very basis of our country has been polluted by crooked politicians.

What is it going to take for the citizens of the US to wake up and fight the evilness that exists here in our own country? When is enough going to be enough? When are we going to demand that our government be "for the people, by the people"?

I know some of you will label me a doomsayer and dismiss me as a kook. Whatever. But the apathy of the American people is nothing more than mind-control and it is in the advanced stages. Liken it to the price of gas or the training of an elephant. (The illustration of gas mind-control was printed yesterday or the day before.) Gas prices near $3/gallon. We are outraged. We get verbal (mouthy). Then when the price of gas is lowered, it is cheap gas. It is not really "cheap gas" but cheaper than it was. But that planted seed that keeps growing is how the oil companies control your thoughts re gas prices.

An elephant could easily crush a human. Humans know this so they start the insideous task of taking control of the elephants' mind. They chain a leg to a stake, a long chain to begin with. When the elephant gets used to the longer chain, the trainer shortens it. And thus the trainer is able to control the massive beast.

Such is the American people as a whole. Our government keeps shortening the chain, taking away our freedoms, a little at a time until we get "trained". Then we throw up our hands in frustration and collectively say "You can't fight city hall." Apathy is the goal and the American people are complying with the plan.

I am almost 61 years old. It sickens me also to see what a corrupt nation we have become (politically). I'm all for changing things. That is the reason I'm not going to vote for any incumbent. If that doesn't work, I'm all for a revolution, if that is what it takes to restore plain old common decency to our government; local, state and federal.

Yvonne and Howie,

Great posts. I think a large problem with America is that we have folks with nothing better to do than make new laws. With each new law, there is almost ALWAYS a loss of freedom. Considering that a lot of our 'leaders' are lawyers, they are even more hyper about creating new losses of freedom.

With our form of government, I really don't see how we could not evolve into a country with less and less freedoms.

i think the issue is momentum waisted. we had a real chance to make great strides in the world because the attack was so horrendous. George Bush had my support. we have waisted that good will in a wasteful war. Have you notice how Osama is back in the white house radar?

Cute video, SD. Very feel good, and we all need that.

Enjoyed posts, SD, Yvonne, and Howie. Watch out, Nit, you said evolve which might be mistaken by some as EVOLUTION.

I'm with you Yvonne, no votes for incumbents. Maybe we can at least send a message.

Agree with you Don. BTW, what's happening with Saddam?

Speaking about loss of freedom...just spend 30 minutes on phone with the bank...have been customers for 43 years and got a letter saying the IRS says our SS numbers don't match names. When I FINALLY talked with a person in Richmond she said it was part of the Patriot Act and we had to fill out a form...what's with that?

I know what you mean Don. Just days after the attack of 911, Iranians held a huge candlelight vigil honoring and mourning our dead. Yet our "liberal" media continually ran footage of two or three Arab women chanting in the streets in celebration. That fact literally makes me want to cry. The war machine can't have us seeing Iranians as human. After all, we may need to attack them soon as well.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/5.html

NASS, I think your signature does absolutely nothing to further polite discussion on this board. I agree with your opinions, but I think you do them a disservice when you use such a derogatory signature.

As for terrorism, I don't think Bush is responsible for it's existence, but every time he does something he fans the flames and makes the terrorists even more dedicated to destroying us as a nation.

Don,

Right on the money. We had the chance to do so much. I, along with most citizens, was looking for guidance. If we'd been asked to sacrifice for the good of the country, we'd have done so. Instead: "make sure to shop. Christmas is right around the corner. Don't let the terrorists win".
Do you think they view our eroding state of liberty and view that as anything but a victory?

And Nitpicker, your point highlights part of the problem that Yvonne introduced. It takes money and some occupational independence to run for even the lowest offices. So the system is set up for people like attorneys who have money, and can step into and out of positions with greater ease than a person working in a corporation or a 9-to-5 job. The root of the problem is money. I don't have the answer for this one; I'm still working on it. I'm not sure the "vote out the incumbents" plan is any better, since they'll just be replaced by more of the same. But maybe Yvonne's revolution might be the answer. I'm just not sure.

Alot of good material---Howie, I think as you do that many Americans were looking to the government for guidance at a time "when" and even now as well.

I hope that we get the point that we can't be a people who look up the chain of command for guidance any more. We really do need to be more informed, more courageous in our voices and actions and start taking more responsibility for where our country goes. We really need to hold our representatives more accountable to us. That indeed is a difficult task as I have found out--"getting through and to" is truly a challenge. I got a return letter from one of our representatives which was totally unrelated to what my issue was.

Although many of us have political affiliations, we really need to think "American" and vote for the person who embodies the commitment to those things that really need to be addressed. My values and support go back and forth (Left/Right) depending on what the issue is and what the implications are. So categorizing people as belonging to just one camp might not be as valid or maybe should not be as valid as it once was. I remember the phrase "If the followers lead, then the leaders will follow".

All one has to do is stop and remember the country immediately AFTER 9/11.

We were as united as I have EVER seen us as a country. We would have all signed up to do our part to rid the world of the terrorists who took down the WTC and crashed the other two planes. Our President stood at a position ANY leader would envy. He had the world in the palm of his hand, with an outpouring of support from all political persuasions.

WHAT DID HE DO?

He squandered the moment, and he squandered the opportunity to be remembered as one of the GREATEST Presidents EVER!

He was given the authority to go to war, but as a last resort!

WHAT DID HE DO?

He went into Iraq on trumped up intelligence, on a mission he and the neocons had decided on
BEFORE the events of September 11th.

Vote out all of the "lapdogs" for Bush.

Oh, and for God's sake, DO NOT vote for neoconservative VERNON ROBINSON!

A good leader brings out the best in people: sacrifice, hard work, humor, comraderie, hope. This president has brought out the worst:
divisiveness, cynicism, petty bickering, despair. He continues to ask only the military to solve his problems, while dismantling all other areas of government.
Fear-mongering, to paraphrase, "is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Fortunately, the country is more than the president. We don't have to throw out all the incumbents; this would be caving in to cynicism.
We are past due for some honesty, past due for some alternatives to shooting and bombing, past due for some thoughtful approaches to complicated problems.
Many people want more than sound bites, jingos, and slogans. It would be wonderful if we had more complete reporting on current events.

Joejoe,

You paint an appealing picture, but the skeptic in me says we're too far into the soundbite culture to make an effective turnaround. I think there's enough anger and disenchantment for this election and maybe '08, but things will likely move back to the middle, regardless of which party is in power, and we'll maintain the business of politics as business. John McCain had the right idea a few years ago about getting the money out of the equation. But the McCain/Feingold solution was not well thought out. Now it's worse than ever. Again, I don't have the solution, but I can sure see the problem.

Stevie D.

i remembering seeing those "celebrating women" on fox news. later it was determined that it was stock footage.

squandered is probably a better word. on 9/12, i wanted to see the head of Osama on a platter. still do. i still firmly believe this is where George Bush erred. I think Pakistan would have eventually handed Osama over if we had kept pressing full full troop deployment in Afghanistan. i just hate to see 2500 plus souls lost in a quagmire.

Osama Bin Laden was and is 9/11.

The above friends speak my mind!

Shalom

Well, all the old hippies got a good group hug going here today! (Except for the DementedDeacon, of course. Only the usual nastiness there). I just hope none of you suffer any back injury from patting each other so vigorously.

Still no apologies for our President here, either. He has no reason to apologize for protecting our country - that's his job.

Nic,

What kind of reality do you live in where creating many more enemies than you're eliminating equals protecting our country? Do you honestly feel safer today than you did on September 12, 2001? If so, I wish I had some of the Kool Aid you've gotten your hands on.

Creating enemies? How? By fighting people who have vowed to kill us? I don't buy that argument at all. I do feel safer today than I did on September 12, 2001. And I feel a LOT safer than I did from January 1993 - January 2001. And a WHOLE LOT safer than I would if George Bush had lost either the 2000 or 2004 election. (I forgot - he did lose, but he stole both of them.)

You wouldn't like my Kool Aid - contains only water, sugar & Kool Aid. Sorry.

Al Qaeda vowed to kill us. They are not the enemy we pursue. We chose an impotent dictator and a powerless nation as our target, not the people who vowed to kill us. All that did was create more people bent on killing us. Now we're in a civil war we don't understand, and there is no scenario that ends well for us that I can see.

It's not that you can't see, it's that you won't. But I'll try to explain. This is not World War II - there can be no "push to Berlin" or "invasion of the home islands." To defeat Al Qaeda, we must engage them where they hide, and train, and plot. Iraq was a nation friendly to the terrorists, with a brutal dictator leading a murderous government. By assisting the Iraqi people install a democratic government, we make it more difficult for the terrorists to operate.

I will admit to concern about the outcome of the war on terror. We are fighting an enemy who uses guerilla tactics - tactics that have been very successful throughout history when employed against conventional armies. It's how America gained her independence from Britian. I am also cncerned that with daily body counts on television (6 U.S. Soldiers killed today!!), (unfriendly) reporters embedded with the troops, and many leftists in our country who, for whatever reason, don't see the importance of victory, America will again be forced to leave a war before it can be won. (How long would the homfront supported FDR if there were live pictures of the Normandy invasion, or the Battle of Anzio, or the Battle of the Bulge on TV?)

You want a scenario that ends well for us? Let the military do its job, get the media out, and wait a few months. We win, the people of Iraq win, and the restof the world knows we mean business.

Still no apology from me for supporting our President. He is listening to his generals and defending our country.

ND, thanks! It has been a rough day....I needed the laugh provided in your last posting!

Shalom

Nic,

You've obviously been studying Ann Coulter's handbook on how to avoid civil debate. Remind me, was it page one or two that says "When all else fails, blame the media". And from what I can see, all is failing with regard to this administration.

And also thanks for chiming in. You've helped to prove my initial point. You want censorship of the media as part of the strategy to win the war on a noun, and you apparently see no problem with that scenario. Meanwhile, according to our president, if Toys R Us and Burger King miss their earnings forecast for a quarter, then the terrorists have won. Nice to know what's important in our country.

Interesting letter from another newspaper:

Benjamin Ferenccz, an 87-year-old prosecutor, was responsible for convicting 22 Nazi officers for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Hating to see young people killed due to a war that could be settled by other means, Ferenccz has worked for over 60 years on an alternate solution to the use of warfare for settling disputes.

After World War II, the U.N. charter stated that no nation could start wars without the U.N. Security Council's permission.

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) ratified by over 100 countries, made it possible to adjudicate cases of conflicts. Ferenccz says that such an international justice system could have been used to put Saddam on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Even though the Bush administration originally signed the ICC treaty, the president withdrew the United States' signature less than a year later. Three months later, he signed a new law to prevent the U.S. from cooperating with the ICC.

This law authorizes the president to order our military to invade the Netherlands to free U.S. personnel imprisoned by the ICC.

Ferenccz says that the ICC should try both Saddam and G.W. Bush for starting aggressive wars -- Saddam for attacking Kuwait in 1990 and Bush for invading Iraq in 2003.

Was Bush thinking ahead when he withdrew the U.S. from participating in the ICC treaty? Yes.
If he were convicted and imprisoned by the ICC for war crimes in Iraq, the new law authorizes Bush to order invasion of the Netherlands to rescue himself.

Pat Buchanan just said that within a few months we will have spent the same amount of time in Iraq than we spent involved in WORLD WAR II! What a joke this President is to go about giving "political" speeches just before the mid term elections---Surprised he hasn't let Brit Hume spend a couple of nights in Crawford with him so FOXNews could have exclusive coverage.

I do not think George W. Bush should be Impeached, but he dang sure has more reasons to BE Impeached than the GOP led fiasco a few short years ago. Their foray into the sex life of the President turned everyone's stomach, and has made it difficult to Impeach ANY President for ANY reason now. And who was right there in the middle of the pack loving every minute and every dollar wasted on it??

HOWARD COBLE!

He was so into it, that he got the high hard one every time a television camera came his way. Too bad though, because Bob Barr always jumped in between Howard and the camera.

*******************

Bottom Line: George W. Bush had the world in the palm of his hand but did not lead. He had OBL in the mountains of Tora Bora and he let him go----yep, a six foot tall Arab among the "little ones" and we still haven't caught him. But we sure keep catching all those #2's!

(How many #2 al queda leaders are there?)

Great post Carol! Christopher Hitchens with his book and documentary, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, has laid out a good case that Kissinger is a big reason for America's historic opposition to the world court as well. Kissinger would definitely be tried in this court over his alleged role in the 1970 murder of Chilean General Rene Schneider.

The General was planning on validating the election of Chilean Marxist leader, Salvador Allende. Well, we all know the world court eventually got a hold of Pinochet, the man who later took over Chile through a U.S. sponsored coup. I imagine our government knows Kissinger would be next. Hitchens also argues that Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia influenced the rise of the Khmer Rouge, who killed millions.

I imagine they are also protecting George H.W. Bush for the invasion of Panama. This action has also been condemned by the U.N. as an illegal invasion. For those who don't like that assessment, Hitchens is an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq. He's a socialist and an alcoholic as well, if either side needs ammunition to attack the messenger rather than the message.

These woodstock style threads always makes me a bit nauseous.

World traveler, review your first grade primer to understand how there is always a #2 man in a chain of command.

Woo-hoo! Woodstock style thread! Dudes, this is like totally the Dawn of the Thread of Aquarius!

Neo, this thread was getting too huggy kissy for my stomach too, besides I've been busy making money today. Peace and love to all!!

You have nothing to say about the message, so you attack the messengers. How original. I could go on, but I've got to go to bed. I have to get up and make some money tomorrow, just like I did today. Aren't you all proud of me for having a job?

Lighten up howie, if stevie can recognize humor so can you. Why do you always think someone is attacking you?

I'm light Dan. No big deal here. I was hoping for actual discussion about a serious issue yesterday, and all I got was a couple of cheap shots across the bow. Then your comment, when added to your frequent refrain about your favorite bumper sticker ("Annoy a liberal...") seemed like an opportune time to point out that I, too have a job, and for what it's worth I'm also very happy. No offense was taken, and I don't know why you presume I thought I was being attacked. Regardless, as I said, it's no big deal.

Carol,

I think your statement pretty much sums up why democrats do not control the presidency or the congress. The idea of allowing a world court (ICC) or the United Nations to hold authority over the United States is acceptable by very few people. The idea of our country having to ask permission of the United Nations to go to war just ain't going to fly with most of us. John Kerry took some big time hits for a statement he made that was (mis?)interpreted as this. I don't see how your statement could be interpreted as anything else.

Supporting our president being imprisoned in the Netherlands? That would be great for our country, wouldn't it?

Sorry, but that idea, in my opinion, is just plain nuts.

I will however, give you credit for having the courage and fortitude to express how you truly believe.

I believe that if John Kerry were elected, that is EXACTLY the path he would have pursuid. He just didn't have the balls to say it. Or, actually, he did kind of say it. He just didn't have the balls to say it after finding out just how unpopular his position was.

Howie, glad you are ok. Late at night is not the time for me to get too serious. I appreciate humor as do Neo & Stevie. After getting the kids and wife to bed, I'm ready to relax.

Glad you remember my favorite bumper sticker, although I don't have one.

Nit, you don't support Kofi Annan for prez in '08 like Carol does? Oh that's right he wasn't born here....damn laws and regulations.

Dan,

I think you are right. We can't cooperate with our neighbors around the world to bring justice to tyrants. Then we would be submitting to the New World Order which is, of course, led by the Antichrist through the United Nations.

The ICC! Geez! What has that tree-huggin Carol been smokin? We might as well just throw on the black robes and start chanting hail Satan!

Seriously though, I too have a lot of reservations about the U.N. and don't like the idea of world government quite yet (not that the U.N. is any such thing). I'm afraid we are not evolved enough for that kind of cooperation.

However, I do agree with the idea of a court like the ICC that holds men like Pinochet and Milosevic accountable. I support the U.N. for what it is, a roundtable to talk and work things out and hopefully prevent wars.

It's a tough call for sure. I just don’t like the influence Christian fundamentalist, end of the world crap-ola has on this issue. And you know it does!

I'm just an old hippie and I don't know what to do....

I didn't write the article I posted..just found it interesting.

Did I miss something or did we not go to Iraq to enforce the UN mandates? That's what I heard the prez say, over and over. Iraq was not cooperating with the UN and we would make them. Then I heard him say we didn't need the UN's permission to go to war with Iraq. Sounded stupid to me then and still sounds stupid.

Nit, if I understand your logic, it is OK for the US to invade foreign countries and tell them how to run them, but no one can tell us what to do...we bad???

IMO, no matter how bad Kerry would have handled the Iraq situation, it could not be worse than it is now.

Carol,

Don't know if anyone's still reading this thread, but I want to recognize one of your points as right on the money. It's disturbed me since before we went into Iraq that we continued to use the "Saddam has willfully violated the UN sanctions", while in the same conversation we heard "we don't need the UN's support to go into Iraq". So to put it another way, we are enforcing a UN resolution that the UN does not want to enforce. This is the very reason I have said several times that we have moved from being the world's policemen to being the world's vigilantes. We enforce international laws that we determine are relevant, even though the body that wrote the law deems them irrelevant. I think it would be like me blowing up liquor stores because I still believe the 18th amendment is valid.

As to the reason we went to Iraq, please check out this link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report