But you already have a vote in the house - and you've had it for a while.

And listen, the Democrats may have controlled the agenda in the last Senate session, but that doesn't mean the agenda was full of left-wing bills. What got passed? Tax cuts? Patriot act? Homeland Security may have stalled, but that's Bush's fault (co-opted Lieberman's idea, twisted it, and sent it back as something no Dem that wants to be elected can vote for). Right wing judges have been stopped, but at nothing like the rate of left and center-left judges from Clinton that never got a chance. So lots of things that are remotely right-wing have hit the floor, and gotten a vote. Resolution on Iraq anyone?

It's nice to see someone from the right admit that Bush became President through a technicality. :) I'm not one of the people who are constantly up in arms about the whole situation, but I do think it's funny to hear you admit to it. However, Jeffords was driven out by Bush as much as he was welcomed by Daschle and Dodd.

Finally, those articles you sent were about Iraq - but not about Iraq and OKC. And Stephen Hayes's credentials - he's a smart guy, but he has an agenda. The Weekly Standard is one of the largest conservative weeklies, and he is one of the editors. I'm not discounting the work - I just think you have to remember the writer's bias. Same thing whether it's from the Nation or the National Review, etc.

Hermit 22

<B>Daschle backed tax cuts for the wealthy</B>
Yes, he did back the tax cuts, but only after holding it up for some time, apparently hoping to have some leverage in getting a deal for "displaced workers". By the time he signed it had support from all but the MOST leftwing Senators, a short list he would not have wanted to be on. So, I wouldnt be upset with him if I were you. He held up the vote as long as public opinion would allow, then cut a deal for the left.

http://www.c-span.org/capitolspotlig...1001/index.asp

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1072/107244.htm


The only other comment I have is that the wealthy PAY most of the taxes and I believe they should get some of it back. I know we disagree here but I think it's worh saying. I dont want to go into this today, but here are some numbers and references for a possible debate at another time.

Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html


http://www.ctj.org/html/senstim.htm

<B>and, eventually, the war on Iraq. </B>

I think this was just another game he was playing, trying to make W look bad (which he doesnt NEED help). If you remember that little rant on TV with Daschle saying something like "how dare you politicize the war Mr presedent" you will see that he was doing the same thing trying to obstruct support for the war. I'm not saying he was wrong, thats his job to vote his convictions. But as we look back we see that he was just "politicizing the war" which was exactly what he was bashing Bush for. He did all he could to stop the vote from happening and having the majority PASS the res, because there was an <B>election</B> coming up and he had to keep the people from endorsing Bush via going after Saddam. After all the BS stopped and the resolution came to a vote, it passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate. A large number of Dems even voted for it.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

<B>As a denizen of the American Left, I can say it was furious about the first and split on the second (leaning against it)</B>

<B>I will say in total honestly that your opinion has forced me to look very carefully at the decision to go after Iraq. I am still leaning for going , but with much less resolve.</B>

There are still many unanswered questions.

The last comment was answering Sycamore's question.

I am VERY slow at the keyboard, and often can find supprting links etc. I have many things to say about the possibilty of OKC/Iraq connection. I'm not going to charge right into the forum and say there is a smoking gun, but there are some very basic questions that need to be answered. I havent forgotten, I'm answering your other comments first.

<B>this is in response to Hermit22's comment These may more accurately address anti-gun bias but I'm trying to move it along and get some responses out.</B>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/15/02

<B>Gun Company Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B>

http://www.click10.com/mia/news/stor...14-161135.html

Grunow's lawyer asked for $76 million. But the jury found gun distributor Valor Corporation 5 percent liable for Grunow's death. The owner of the gun and the school board held the most of the liability, the jury found.

The jury didn't find any liability for Brazill, who pulled the trigger. Brazill stole the unloaded gun and bullets from a cookie tin stashed away in a dresser drawer of family friend Elmore McCray.
<B>The jury said Grunow's family should get $24 million from the three parties. The school board was told to pay her $10.8 million, the family friend was told to pay $12 million and Valor $1.2 million.</B>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media in this country is beyond gun control , as we see in this one small example in wording of this article.They want the manufacture and use of them to fade away. Gun control is what exactly? Keeping guns out of the hands of people that would use them illegally. I would agree with that, but thats not what they are after. If they truly wanted to premote handgun safety and reduce gun violence the headline might look like this

<B>Irresponsible Gun Owner Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B> or

<B>School Board Must Pay Teacher's Widow</B>

It could be said that the "gun owner" headline would be senseless because he doesnt have the money to pay the judgement, the second headline with the school board would be able to though. The school board headline wouldnt be a consideration because the agenda is placing <B>the gun</B> responsible, regardless of the facts and for that matter, even the jury's verdict.


If you look at who the jury found most responsible for the shooting, you will see that the the actual shooter isn't even listed. The owner of the pistol was most liable, the school slightly less liable, and the gun distributor was <B>dramatically </B> less liable. According to the jury , Valor was 5% responsible. Even at being 5% responsible , the writer put that in the headline. It was in one respect a noteable win. The precedence has been set (although this must pass through the appeals process) that a criminal can use a product<B> illegally</B> to hurt someone and those responsible for the manufacture or sale may be held liable. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems to be the case, although I dont have any supporting opinions or references.

The owner in any case needs to take the responsibility for leaving a firearm accessable to a minor. Even I think that's pretty fucking stupid and he needs a good thrashing.

I'm sure you disagree with my position here, but my goal for reading and posting here is to learn and explain.

<B>Thats not the only example of gun control advocates placing the blame on the gun and not the criminal though. There was another telling statement I heard on the radio recently that jumped out as being downright anti-gun, lets take a look</B>


Can we agree that Chief Moose of Montgomery county Md. is in favor of gun-control? I can present the background, though it would take some time. Let's say for the sake of argument, he is. He's for "sensible gun control". He seems to be anti-gun though and this is what leads me to that conclusion.

This article doesnt focus only on the anti-gun bias but has a quote supporting what I heard on the radio, that I cannot document as a reference.


Nov. 8, 2002 World Net Daily

<B>Chief Moose cost lives</B>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29590

by Paul Sperry

<B>When Muhammad and Malvo were arrested, Moose said the task force got the "gun" off the street, not the sniper. </B>

And, in an unsettling plea to the public at one press conference, he said, "You need to ask yourself: Who do you know that owns guns, and why?"

Since Bushmaster sells 50,000 AR-15 rifles a year and there arent 50,000 sniper shooting a year, wouldnt it be better said that the <B>criminals</B> were off the street, or maybe the <B>shooters</B> were off the street? He makes the gun sound like it's the problem, it's not. Chief Moose is a sharp guy and holds a doctorate, but he was exposing the anti-gun bias he has. More than likely he supports "sensible gun control" but the agenda is clear to me anyway.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<B>Another thing that I've just recently noticed was the absence of much information in the mainstream media regarding the resignation of Professor Michael Bellesiles. He wrote a book that took a slam at "the gun culture" (which I am one of) and totally misrepresented the facts. The Brady center backed him and he even recieved an award. I'd like to see this asshead flamed becuase he got a lot of attention from ant-gunners. I'm not asking for much, maybe CNN running a story on how he scammed the public. If my searched missed it......................never mind</B>

<B>"As for Michael Bellesiles ... this guy is turning out to be the Milli Vanilli of the academic community."</B>
Russell Baker of Atlanta, GA in a great e-mail now quoted in the Washington Times 1/01/02


Oct. 28 , 2002

<B>Professor quits in probe of gun book</B>

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021028-78905499.htm

By Robert Stacy McCain

Michael Bellesiles, the history professor who wrote that firearms were rare in early America, has resigned from Atlanta's Emory University after an investigation found he<B> "willingly misrepresented the evidence"</B> in his award-winning book.
[url]Published two years ago, Mr. Bellesiles' book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," garnered praise from gun-control advocates, won the prestigious Bancroft Award and was fiercely criticized by scholars who accused Mr. Bellesiles of misrepresenting or even fabricating evidence.

October 25, 2002 Emory University - Office of University Media Relations

<B>Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty</B>
http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Re...035563546.html

Although we would not normally release any of the materials connected with a case involving the investigation of faculty misconduct in research, in light of the intense scholarly interest in the matter I have decided, with the assent of Professor Bellesiles as well as of the members of the Investigative Committee, to make public the report of the Investigative Committee appointed by me to evaluate the allegations made against Professor Bellesiles (none of the supporting documents, however, are being made public). The text of the report is now available online at www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/.

http://www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/Re...nal_Report.pdf


<B>I know this needs work but I'm letting it fly for time reasons.</B>

I think I just heard someone on the radio that is more radical than me. It was Lee Rodges on KSFO in San Fran

he said something like "We need to blow Iraq clean off the godam map and then ask who's bleeping next?"

I think that's a bit much. Does that make me a centrist? :)

This is very curious. I wonder if this kid had beaten the teacher to death with a Louisville Slugger if Hillerich & Bradsby would have had to pay 5%? I guess that would depend in part on the widow's lawyer's skill in convincing a jury that H & B had designed the bat for killing in the first place. That might be a bit of a stretch for a bat, but people get the purpose of a gun no matter how it may be described.

What is more curious is the media's seemingly broad based bias against gun ownership. Bleeding heart, leftie, pinko that I am; I agree that the bias is there. What I don't get is why. Most of the media is owned by a small group of powerful corporate giants that in large measure depend on the Right to keep us pinko's from taking them apart and giving newsprint and bandwidth back to "the people" to whom it belongs. I certainly don't find these companies to be on "our" side, the left one that is. What are they up to?- I keep thinking. That said, I am for gun ownership: Not for protection from the criminal element, I remain unconvinced that it provides more protection than it causes danger; Not for sporting purposes though eating venison is slightly more honest than buying chicken at the store; The reason for gun ownership is to provide the means for revolution should that become necessary as at least Jefferson intended.
.

Two questions for you, slang:

1) When you say "we," who are you referring to?

2) Are you saying that the UN is ineffective overall, or just in dealing with Iraq?

OKC BOMBING - MIDDLE EASTERN CONNECTION

I agree, that would be very interesting. There are truly no smoking guns that link Iraq to terroism. If there were, the numbers supporting this war would be radically different, at least in american public opinion. Depending on what your source is, the numbers vary widely. I would like to see some progress on one question that's been nagging me, as well as millions of others.

There has been a consistent story, running here, running there, about this <I> crazy</I> woman from Oklahoma City, Jayna Davis. Her story has almost become an urban legend. It hasn't been until fairly recently that she's been taken seriously in the main stream. Well, lets say that she's recieved attention from the mainstream. Have her claims been investigated and proven or disproven? If she was indeed a crackpot, you would certainly see and hear something public and messy eliminating her argument, point by point. Maybe that wouldnt even be nessessary, she may be labeled a kook by some heavy hitter, someone respectable and having some influence. That hasn't been the case.

There have been more than a few credible people to give this case some airtime. Bill O'Rielly, Arlen Specter, The Wall Street Journal, as well as some smaller metro newspapers . Each has asked some good questions, checked out the story by calling gov't agencies and following up. Each attempt to verify basic info has been flatly rebuffed by the FBI. So, thats the end of the story, the FBI shut the door on it, it's a non-issue, she's nuts. If the FBI's "no comment" as well as an absense of any major media attempts to force the feds to release some basic documents is good enough for you, then I concede the point. I'm nuts, you're right, there isnt any fire here, it's all smoke at best. This is only a flimsy attempt to gain momentum for the war and a BAD one at that.

If you have some questions though, I think there are lot to be asked.

I searched the net and JD isnt selling anything, no books, no tapes. This doesnt clear her by any means but it takes away the money motivation angle. Is there another angle? If there was, wouldnt it be promoted by some columnists or reporter? There isnt, it's fishy.

The whole OKC investigation was done with suspicious haste, they dont want to dig it back up. Many people are not buying the FBI's conclusions. Disproving Davis point by point would take the steam out of 90% of the OKC bombing conspiracy theories. In a time when they are trying to look competent in light of their 9/11 screwups, why not issue a statement or have Davis make the same presentation to them? They could show what a nut she is by disproving her claims point by point, on tape, the whole thing would evaporate in seconds.

One of the things she claims is that there were 12,000 Iraqi soldiers allowed into the US after the 91 war. If this were true, we could certainly check on this, <B>using her own documentation or the INS's.</B>If this hasnt already been done, why can't we have it done. If they cant or wont do it, <B>why do we have these worthless boobs keeping records? </B>

What is the political opposition saying about the notion that a senior Republican senator is giving this issue the floor? Nothing. Why, wouldnt this be a great opportunity to slam the republicans? I can hear it now on some political show, "the Republicans are now so desparate for support for pappy's war, Spectre's suggesting that Jayna Davis( moderator chuckling) should get time to present her "conspiracy theory" to Congress (laughing outloud)!"

After reviewing hundreds of documents and websites, articles and commentaries on Jayna Davis, I am no longer asking myself if there is a connection, but WHY there has not been some official inquiry long before now.

I dont know this woman and I dont really care if she is proven to be a loon. It's time we put this whole circus to the test though. Maybe now we can.

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

By MARK RILEY

NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT
NEW YORK

Friday 23 March 2001 The age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/0...X4JWSBLKC.html

<B>Suddenly a crackpot theory gains credence</B>

Nicols plans to use the bin Laden link as part of his defence when his case is heard in Denver later this year. His lawyers hope it will help him avoid the death penalty.<B> Ms Davis will be called as a witness.</B>

It will not be the first time Ms Davis has been to court. Last year, she filed a defamation suit against the Oklahoma Gazette over reports labelling her theory a product of "fakery and embellishment". The two stories in question were headlined "Out on a limb" and "Liar, liar".

She said the stories damaged her reputation as a journalist. That reputation appears to have been considerably enhanced this week as hordes of journalists flock to her to capture their own piece of the latest conspiracy theory to captivate America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 15, 2001 Fox News

<B>O'Reilly Transcript: Has the FBI Ignored Information?</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,24825,00.html

This partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, May 14, 2001 was provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. Click here to order the complete transcript.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, investigative reporter Jayna Davis told us a few weeks ago that she tried to deliver information to the FBI about others involved in the Oklahoma City bombing but was rebuffed. Ms. Davis joins us now for an update from Oklahoma City.
Well, we finally got the FBI to tell us why they didn't take your stuff, Jayna, and they said they didn't want to have it on file so that they would have to turn it over to McVeigh and Nichols' attorneys in discovery because they couldn't check out what you said, and that seemed to make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

JAYNA DAVIS, FORMER KFOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Absolutely not. This was turned over initially in June of 1995 and I made several attempts in the following months, in the spring and summer of '95, to share this information with the FBI and they were very interested initially and I was talking to an FBI agent regularly in May and June of 1995. So I don't understand why it's...

O'REILLY: Yeah, but they came to the conclusion if we take information from this woman and we haven't checked it out and McVeigh and Nichols' attorneys want it, we have to turn it over to them and that's going to hurt our prosecution.

DAVIS: Yes, but they lost interest, Bill. In September and -- I'm sorry, in the spring and summer of '95. I went back to them in September of '97 to turn it over.<B> But they had plenty of time between the spring and summer of '95 and September of '97 when I returned. </B>

O'REILLY: To check your story out.

DAVIS: Yes, they did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2002 Fox News

<B>Tim McVeigh and a Possible Iraqi Connection</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55844,00.html

John Gibson

<B>I think we're all convinced by now that George W. Bush has the cross hairs on Saddam Hussein.</B>

And it's clear from the latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll that the American public supports action against Saddam by a huge, huge margin: 75 percent for — 14 percent against. In electoral politics that's a landslide.

But what do you think those numbers would be if it turns out reporter Jayna Davis is right? If the Iraqis were behind the Oklahoma City bombing, and Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were in fact so called 'lilly whites' recruited to act as fronts for Muslim or Iraqi, or maybe even Iranian, terror against the U.S. heartland.

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

September 5, 2002 WSJ.com

<B>The Iraq Connection</B>

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002217

BY MICAH MORRISON

<B>Was Saddam involved in Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing?</B>

The prosecutors in both episodes believe they got their men, and of course conspiracy theories have shadowed many prominent cases. Still, the long investigative work by Ms. Davis and Ms. Mylroie, coming to parallel conclusions though working largely independently of each other, has gained some prominent supporters.<B> Former CIA Director James Woolsey, for example, recently told the Journal that "when the full stories of these two incidents are finally told, those who permitted the investigations to stop short will owe big explanations to these two brave women. And the nation will owe them a debt of gratitude." </B>

Larry Johnson, a former deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism, also has examined Ms. Davis's voluminous research. "Looking at the Jayna Davis material,<B> Mr. Johnson says, "what's clear is that more than Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved. Without a doubt, there's a Middle Eastern tie to the Oklahoma City bombing."</B>

None of this is "hard evidence," let alone "conclusive evidence," that Saddam Hussein was complicit in Sept. 11 or any of the other domestic terrorist attacks. But there is quite a bit of smoke curling up from various routes to Baghdad, and it's not clear that anyone except Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie has looked very hard for fire. We do know that Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate former President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait in April 1993. Could he have been waging a terror offensive against the U.S. ever since the end of the Gulf War?<B> This remains a speculative possibility, but a possibility that needs to be put on the table in a serious way. </B>

September 26, 2002 Fox News

<B>Poll: U.S. Split On Pre-Emptive Attack</B>

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64174,00.html

Twice as many Americans view Iraq as an indirect threat than as a direct threat. Over half of the public (55 percent) is more concerned that Iraq will supply weapons to terrorists, while about one-quarter (23 percent) are more concerned that Iraq will attack the United States,<B> and 15 percent think both possibilities are of equal concern.</B>

Oct 2002 ChicagoMag.com - True Believer

http://www.chicagomag.com/stories/1002true.htm#more

By Steve Rhodes

As he descends into the fuzzy world of dot-connecting on the fringes, I wonder, How did this come to be? Has he always been like this—or did the impeachment send him off the rails? After all, until then, he was known as a<B> brilliant lawyer and staunchly loyal Democrat</B>—his first cousins, with whom he grew up and remains close, include Joe Lyons, a Chicago Democrat in the state House, and Tom Lyons, chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee. When he was named to the impeachment inquiry,<B> Schippers was almost universally described as possessing “the utmost integrity.”</B>

“Well, you know, when I was out there in Washington for the impeachment, I heard this conspiracy stuff about Oklahoma City,” Schippers says. So when he got the Oklahoma woman’s letter, he says,<B> “I thought, Here’s another nut. The same ones who will tell you that Bush had the towers pushed down.</B> But she had some specifics in there. I called her. I said, ‘Do you have any evidence?’ And she said, ‘Yes, I’ve got affidavits.’ I’ve got this, I’ve got that.

<B>“Now I’m starting to think, Either she’s nuts, and I’m gonna get a whole load of affidavits in crayon, or the woman’s got something.”</B>

Good—he thought it was nutty, too.

“She was an investigative reporter, so I gave her a little credit. Then she mentions she had been working with the<B> Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.</B>

“I said, ‘Why don’t you send me what you’ve got.’ She said, ‘I can’t send it. I’m afraid to put it in the mail.’ And I thought, OK, well, why don’t I turn on my radio and you just beam it up here?

“She says, ‘I’ll come up there and bring it to you.’ Now, remember, I was getting calls like this all the time—‘I’ve got information and it’s coming through my fillings,’ and all that. She and her husband turned up about two weeks later.”

Dramatic pause.

<B>“This woman is the best investigator I have ever seen,” he declares. He opens a bureau behind his desk and points to three fat black three-ring binders. “See these three volumes down here? This is what she brought.” The one he pulls out and hands to me says on the cover, “Oklahoma City Bombing, Investigative Evidence, Middle East Complicity, Volume One.”</B>

That, of course, is where Schippers’s office is. But despite all the craziness that has walked though his doors, he isn’t nuts. He just has faith in the evidence of things unseen—and in the kind that comes in big black binders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Thu, Oct. 03, 2002 Michael Smerconish Philli.com

<B>CONSPIRACY: The Okla. City-Sept. 11 Connection</B>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...on/4201780.htm

Now I know why former CIA Director James Woolsey has been quoted as saying that when the full truth is known about these acts of terrorism, the nation will owe Davis "a debt of gratitude."
Why her name is not already a household word is the greatest mystery of all. Just this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that<B> U.S. intelligence has "bulletproof" evidence of links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.</B> Rumsfeld didn't offer specifics. But here is what we know from the work of Davis.

<B>Davis has 80 pages of affidavits and 2,000 supporting documents</B>, and they suggest not only an Iraqi connection to the Murrah bombing, but also to the attacks against the Twin Towers.

Oct 5, 2002 Phillinews

<B>Specter asks probe of Iraq links to WTC-Okla. attacks</B>

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...al/4217752.htm

Rose DeWolf

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is calling for a probe into allegations of a possible Iraqi connection between the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City six years earlier.

<B>Specter said he has no plans to pursue the investigation himself, however, but has written to FBI Director Robert Mueller suggesting that the possible connection is worth pursuing.</B>

"I'm a little surprised that this hasn't gotten more attention, given that there is so much concern about whether Iraq has any connections anywhere," Specter said.

Oct. 10, 2002 Michael Smerconish/Philli.com

<B>SPECTER & THE JOHN DOE NO. 2 CONNECTION</B>

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...on/4251116.htm

What is it that the government doesn't want made public? Is she a crackpot, some kind of conspiracy nut? Does her work under scrutiny resemble Swiss cheese?

Or is it that she ruffles feathers when reminding us that the first APB after the Murrah bombing was for two Mideastern-looking men?<B> Perhaps somebody doesn't like her uncovering the presence of an Iraqi cell in America's heartland?</B>

21 October 2002 Thisislondon

<B> Iraqis linked to Oklahoma atrocity</B>

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/1678779

James Langton

Since then, Davis has<B> gathered hundreds of court records and the sworn testimony of two dozen witnesses.</B> Several claimed to have seen a man fitting Al Hussaini's description drinking with McVeigh in a motel bar four days before the bombing.

<B>But she has evidence that up to 12,000 Iraqis were allowed into America after the Gulf war.</B> Some of these, she suspects, are using their status as refugees for cover. "They are here," she said. "And they are highly trained and motivated."

Nov. 2, 2002 WorldNetDaily

<B>Reporter stands by allegations</B>

Jayna Davis rebuts critic, says evidence shows Iraq involved in attack

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=29513

By Jon Dougherty

"It is my understanding that my staff has contacted both the FBI and Justice Department requesting a briefing on the issues raised by these allegations, and these requests have been rebuffed," wrote Specter. "It is also my understanding that such a briefing was offered to former CIA Director Robert J. Woolsey Jr., but that he declined the FBI's offer."

"I would appreciate your comments on whether these allegations warrant further investigation," he said.

As of last week, Specter's office had yet to receive a response. Calls to his office yesterday were not returned.


I've also been trying to track down an alleged US House committee investigating this and havent been able to find it , although there are several smaller websites that have claimed it is just beggining.

I also found it interesting that the oringinal investigation to the wtc attack is being reopened (unconfirmed report heard on ABC News).

The background research for the whole "who supports the war" question took me many places. The US Intell agencies are apparently having quite a conflict between the CIA and the FBI.


The creation of the Homeland Security Agency may play a part in why these two are in such a struggle, I cant say for sure without sticking my foot in my mouth for a lack of supporting info.

I think it can be safely said that both agencies have lost credibility with the american people on some basics, and we're fucking tired of hearing we cant know due to "national security"

Maybe we'll get some answers.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, and while I don't think it impossible for Iraq to be involved in the OKC bombing, I'm still skeptical. After all, this would be the perfect time to implicate Saddam in that...a lot of people are still wary of our boys heading back to Iraq for Desert Storm 2: The Motherlode of All Battles. And yet, I'm still mainly hearing the cries of conspiracy. Not to mention, the FBI looks like complete dogshit right now anyway...wouldn't they want to blow open something like this to repair their reputation? Truth be told, this sort of thing should be front page news right now.

Specter's not a bad guy. Although, he was the one saying the Electoral College should be looked at after the 2000 Election...I never heard any follow up on that. Smerconish has his moments, but I think he likes to hear himself babble more than anything.

1) <B> When you say "we," who are you referring to?</B>

The extreme right wing. We want our gun rights back, less gov't in general, to rip the tax code out by the roots/prosecute the tax people, and to keep our sovereignty as a nation.

I dont agree with the religious right though. THEY, are fucking crazy bastards :)


2) Are you saying that the UN is ineffective overall, or just in dealing with Iraq?

This gets complicated, read through these first and then I can explain more

This is an official document from Louis Freeh, former head of the FBI

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

THE UNITED NATIONS - is perceived as an organization bent on taking over the world and destroying American democracy and establishing "the New World Order." The New World Order theory holds that, one day, the United Nations will lead a military coup against the nations of the world to form a one-world government. United Nations troops, consisting of foreign armies, will commence a military takeover of America. The United Nations will mainly use foreign troops on American soil because foreigners will have fewer reservations about killing American citizens. Captured United States military bases will be used to help conquer the rest of the world.

So...you like referring to yourself as "extreme?"

The way you listed that "United Nations" blurb is incredibly misleading. You make it look as if that is Louis Freeh taking that position, when he is actually referring to militias.

for crying out loud slang do what everyone else does and post links, no links and the article, i can click them all by myself, it makes the thread bloody unreadable.

I understand that I am in the minority in this forum. The Cellar
has been described to me as having a majority of left leaning participants on the upper end of the intelligence scale. That is why I am here, to learn and explain. I am on the opposite end of this spectrum and have a very hard time understanding the thinking of many people in this country. This is an exercise to help balance me, or at the least understand in depth the opposition's opinion

In this forum I am the extreme right, in my everyday life, I am just right leaning.

The quote from the letter was not intended to say Freeh believes this, I should have been more specific. It was to say that there are a substancial number of people that at least partially believe this. The quote sets the stage for an explaination and some examples. I believe that I can learn from the people in this forum, and at the same time at least explain the position of the right wing extremists.

I'm sorry, I was attempting to make reading them easier. The entire articles are not posted, just a part, where the rest of the article can be accessed for additional information.

I dont plan on posting that much again because it is extremely difficult to paste in and modify to look correct.

The format also bombed out on me twice while loading it, I'm not here to kill the server.

This might give you a rough (and I do mean rough) idea of where the main posters stand. You might even want to try the Political Compass yourself.

The results from the test are -3 and change and -1 and change, I saved the chart but I went back to look at it and I cant open it.


<B>I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy</B>

I do too, but I thought that WJC's Monica problem was just rumor until it really got some attention. Up until that time I had heard that he was everything from an alien to the anti-christ.
No matter where you stand on the outcome, I think it could be said that the prior rumors of conspiracy were laughed at. After the facts came out it didnt seem so silly.

This government has lost a great deal of credibility from the coverups. I dont know how we can get some trust back, even committee investigations are political.

This is for Hermit22
 

<B>COMMUNIST LINKS TO CLINTON</B>

Maybe. Depends on who you ask. I have seen Clinton spelled with a "K" more times than I can remember. Why would we do that besides just to look like asses? It has been my understanding that WJC was quite cozy with the Soviets, Chinese, and the North Koreans. This was alleged to have been well before the fall of the wall and the change in communism to a more capitalistic brand.

The most recent and seemingly clear ties to communist China that WJC had was in the Wen Ho Lee case. The last I remember hearing about this was actually a few years ago, but it has stuck with me. The allegation I heard went something like WHL gave the Chinese secret weapons technology and then soon after, WJC recieved campaign money from China. A lot of it, and in a way that was considered borderline illegal, if not outright. A review of the whole case reveals no clear ties to WJC, or even that WHL was actually a spy.

That's my mistake and I apologize.

While WHL did actually plead guilty to some felony in the handling secret weapons videos, the ties to WJC were not there. It does seem suspicious that he would not voluntarily account for the videos, and at the same time the Chinese have technically similar nukes, the case has apparantly been put to rest.

As for any other possible links of WJC to communists, if I come across something , I will post it.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/19/lee5_19.a.tm/

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/03/cia.deutch.02/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2000/09/aj091000.html

Hey slang, thanks for responding in a concise, coherent manner with citations. It's refreshing, even if the format can get confusing.

My mind is absolutely mush right now; too much time reading and writing papers this weekend. In fact, I looked at that last post of yours and thought you were saying that there was unequivocable proof that Clinton was somehow tied to Wen Ho Lee. I think I need a break.

I haven't really bothered to read the rest of your posts yet, but I will get back to you. Since you seem to be changing your opinion on the Clinton-Communism connection, maybe you'll shift opinion on other matters as well? It's never good to base your ideologies on hearsay (which isn't to say that we don't all do it, or that you do it with each of your beliefs). A little research and understanding goes a long way.

While I'm at it, I did see one other thing I wanted to comment on. I saw that court case where a gun company was held liable for a murder, and I don't think it will hold water on appeal, nor do I think I should. I talked about it more in my blog the other day.

and from your blog ...

You really ought to consider going to law school. I don't know if you have the prerequisites, but I think you're more than ready.

<B>And another thing , while I'm at it</B>

After posting the OKC bombing info I continued looking for the committee that is conducting the investigation. I found it , although have not confirmed it through a independant source.
We are still not to the point of revealling the smoking gun but the FBI seems to have lied about some key information, looking more and more suspicious.

The FBI originally denied the existence of some surveillance videotape from the buildings around the Murrah building shortly before and after the blast. A FOIA suit shows that there are some to be seen. They<B> may</B> show something relevant to the case. They may also just show something totally irrellevant to the case but embarrassing to the FBI. Either way I believe that the evidence needs to be reviewed by the GRC. This shell game is pissing me off.

http://www.indystar.com/print/articl...-8709-021.html

I'm also firing off an e-mail to Specter to tell him that we <B>are</B> watching (OK, me, I am watching) and that we think it's important to resolve this, Iraqi involvement or not.

I dont expect we'd see OBL or Saddam on those tapes, but I <B>sure</B> would like to know what <B>is</B>.

Given the length of the overall post, I think Slang made the right decision in terms of both posting links in addition to directly quoting the relevant bits of the supporting articles.

If you have something to say about his posts, address the CONTENT not the format.

In short, stop whining.

<h4>Chefranden</h4>

(Slang falls to the floor, bumps head )What!? Let me take another look at your post.

Yes, thats what you meant. <B>I totally agree with that statement</B>, but rarely hear anyone say that. Maybe because people fear we are getting close to the edge of revolution. I'm not crazy about the idea myself, however, I strongly believe that we need sweeping changes in this country that are unlikely to happen through the process of voting. My voting finger is twitching now, lets hope we dont get to the point where our trigger fingers need to twitch as well.

It's also important to say that the firearms are of no value to any revolution if they just hang on the wall or collect dust in the closet. In the past 5 years, in response to the percieved threat of confiscation of guns, the shooting sports have expanded but I dont have any hard data on how much. Here in rural Pa., there is a new pistol range being built in this TINY town and the membership of the high power rifle shooting league is growing. Any way you look at it, I see this as a good thing. People need to know how to shoot. It doesn't help anyone to have firearm related accidents.

Another point that I've heard more than a few times is that we dont need firearms in civilian hands for the purpose of resistance to tyrrany . That line of thinking says that the modern weapons of the military are so high tech, small arms couldnt defeat them, or even be effective. They may not. That's not the point. <B>The volume of small arms makes them effective, not their power or their technology</B>

Anyway, I looked on your profile and see you're a Nam vet. On behalf of the country I'd like thank you for your service. We appreciate your sacrafice. Some of us still see Veteran's day as something other than an excuse to buy a recliner with zero % interest .

<h4>hermit22</h4>

http://<a href="http://www.epic.org/...r3162.html</a>

I'd like to state for the record that I am not leaning in favor of the patriot act. There are some specific new provisions that are of concern to me. These are just a few that popped out at me. I dont speak "legalese" but these seem suspicious without digging in.

Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies.

Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Sec. 351. Amendments relating to reporting of (banking) suspicious activities. (This one really bugs me)

Sec. 356. Reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers and dealers; investment company study. (This one too)

Sec. 359. Reporting of suspicious activities by underground banking systems.

It seems pretty silly that the patriot act was needed to make these changes, but just scanning the text, they seem pretty reasonable.

Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.

Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.

And let me keep my comments for the "Homeland Security" re-org to a minimum by listing these quotes.

http://www.cato.org/dispatch/11-08-02d.html

According to Ivan Eland, Cato's director of defense policy studies,<B> "even before the September attacks, the U.S. government had sufficient bureaucratic machinery to deal with terrorist attacks on the homeland without adding a new department."</B> He added,<B> "the real problem revealed by the terrorist attacks is too much bureaucracy - causing too many communication and coordination problems - not too little."</B> In his commentary, "Bush Plan is Just 'Do Something'", Eland outlines the flaws that could render a new homeland security department ineffective.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28400

Meanwhile, despite evidence of an increased threat to U.S. security from such Islamic terrorist groups, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and his former deputy, Robert "Bear" Bryant, were shifting the bureau's counter-terrorism efforts to combatting threats from anti-government militia groups, violent white supremacists, anti-abortion groups and other "right-wing extremists."

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITI...urity/?related

Bush's proposal calls for all or parts of 22 government agencies to be pulled together under the umbrella of a single department committed to protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. The proposed department would have nearly<B> 170,000 employees,</B> and a budget of $37.4 billion.


I agree. He was just bringing up Goldberg's report though. I had to dig to find it and I dont remember seeing CNN giving it much coverage. It must not have been credible or was irrellevant. It didnt seem to be, but it hasnt recieved a lot of attention.

Your welcome. Its much easier to, at the very least, follow my thought process by looking over the supporting text.

Now wait a second Hermit. Let me clarify. I have found on a couple issues that have been distorted by some news sources and not followed up. As for WJC. I'm not finding the cold hard facts that supposedly indict him on <B>many</b> issues. It seems likely that I need to re-evaluate some positions here. That doesn't mean I have dissmissed the other allegations prior to my own research, I'm just letting up on the grip I have on his neck a bit. The list of WJC scandals is long. I still think Dem politicians suck , I just dont say it as often out of respect.


You may very well be someone I have been looking to talk to. You may be able to provide some books or articles on some security related issues . That would be appreciated.

<h4>Nic Name</h4>

Wow, this is funny! I wasnt expecting to see that on your page.

"Want a BIG Penis?"

Thanks for the support Wolf but you missed the point. If posting as I have been keeps Jag from pestering me.....WHY CHANGE IT?

Yeah, who says I don't like tasteless humor, when it's done intelligently. ;)

Slang, as much of an incredibly-left clamorer as jag can be, he can provide some great insight at times...you two can spend many hours debating the polar ends of the spectrum. :)

Nah...fuck that...I want a battle royale. Hermit and Jag vs. Slang and Urbane Guerilla...that sounds like a real treat! ;)

Now Slang, I read the Freeh report. Could you kindly explain your stance on the UN?

As far as Clinton and Communism...as I see it, the US has been trying to break open the communist world pretty much since the Bolshevik revolution. Trying to do business with countries such as North Korea and China is not only noble in nature, but just makes good business sense. I don't doubt that there are some secrets the Chinese have obtained...but it works both ways.

You know what's funny? In my travels both in the real world and online, I've found that foreigners seem to take a great interest in our country...its history and political structure. Moreso than maybe some Americans. Of course, it usually helps if they've spent some time here, but I rarely see or hear of Americans doing such research into other countries, beyond "scholars."

(Come on Jag...fuck Britain...come to the States. Come to Philadelphia...you know you want to. :) )

I'm not farmiliar with the specifics of how the UN works. The goals of the UN seem pretty reasonable, but they require some changes in the US that I find threatening. I'll throw some examples together to illustrate some key points without writing 20 pages. This might take some time though. Look for something in the next day or so, I'll have something for you.

Again, slang, I apologise that I can't address all of your concerns. I'm in the middle of writing a 45 page paper (stupid grad school!) and I'm just taking a break. If you want any information on national security, terrorism, or any such concept, just send me an e-mail; I'll be happy to respond as soon as I can.

Let's see...what did I want to address? Oh yeah, the UN. I'm a fan of the UN; I think it has served its purpose (provide a forum in which governments can express their grievances with each other instead of going to war) well. I'll actually be at the UN building for a few days this Spring, but that's a different story. Check out the UN Charter. The Basic Facts about the UN is another good place to start.

I just want to make sure... were you quoting the Patriot Act or Homeland Secuity? I think that the basic idea of the Homeland Security Department isn't bad. However, I don't like a lot of the riders that have been tacked onto it by the house any more than William Safire
does. I also think the attempt to de-unionize a good portion of the federal government in one fell swoop is disturbing. It basically says that any President can hire or fire any worker in that department as they see fit, and to me, that gives the President too much power. The banking tracking stuff was in a previous bill, but I believe it got struck down as unconstitutional. It's unsurprising that they would try it again.

Sycamore, it will be live on ppv next month.

"Morituri te salutamus!"
 

Yep, I'm sure none of us four would mind getting arena sand sticking to our sweaty faces, all to entertain Sycamore Imperator!

:p ... Ave!

I understand you are in favor of the UN . It may help you personally to understand why everyone isnt though. There is a side to the UN that you may not have seen. You are in Cali. The country does not see life as all of you there do. I am attempting to gather some key points with some of my personal experiences to give you perspective.

The quoted sections from the prior post were from the patriot act, which is inaccurately named by the way. A closer look shows it makes relatively small changes to existing laws and procedures.

IMO the homeland security act is not needed. This is my opinion as an engineer that has never worked in nor has experience with huge government bureaucracy. It concentrates too much enforcement and intelligence power into one agency.

As for the unions, I have witnessed first hand how fucking useless union work is. Though I do not believe people should be fired summarily, it is important for a business to shed the dead wood to remain competetive. A job does not exisit only to give a person an income, the position is created from a need of the company. From my experience, the unions are a bad thing. I understand you disagree.

Wolf: I prefer people to post content, not articles. When people write their arguements in the own words its far more useful. If i wanted to read a collection of news articles i'd read a newspaper.

Slang: Yea i know you'd prefer i didn't, pull bullshit, like DPRK reactors and comunist clinton links or whatever, people are going to call bullshit round here myself included. I"m really interested to see what you're on about with the UN, should be entertaining.

I still don't buy the Iraqi/OKC thing, its still a very long way from making sense. On the other hand its interesting nad i wouldn't be too shocked if there was something in it.

Content like you post? Mr. Jaguar, I have absolutely no doubt you are an extremely intelligent young man. I also have no doubt you are miles ahead of me. What I do doubt is your ability to make a valid point without it being just your opinion. What makes you support a specific idea? We rarely know, or at least I rarely know. You assume that everyone is from a similar background as you and has read the exact same information. On top of that you seem to "get feelings" and pass judgement very quickly on issues that you are both unfarmiliar with and disagree with in general principle. This makes both of us look like asses when either of us do this. And, it's your option to access the supporting information that is posted, but it's not required.

Participate in the coversation or not, I don't care. Your responses are weak in comparison to Hermit's. He seems to be interested more in understanding a given postion and debating it. He and I disagree on many issues but I can respect his ability to present the argument with something other than opinion. After reading his posts I can at the very least follow why he supports an idea. You Jag, on the other hand, try to prove to everyone that you are very intelligent with your responses. I doubt anyone would disagree, but you fail to make a rational argument to those of us that are not of exactly the same political background as you.

You could very easily change the opposition's opinion of you from "someone that needs to be bitch-slapped silly from one end of the room to the other" to "someone I disagree with but also respect". I personally hope you raise the bar. You have a lot to contribute, but your arguments thus far are unconvincing.


I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in the first sentence. That I'm full of bullshit I guess. The communist links to Clinton that I have researched show no conclusive evidence that WJC is a communist sympathizer. And , in these examples, I look like an ass. That isnt to say that other events couldn't lead one to believe that he's a little too cozy with the communists. They would only be an opinion though and I'm looking to avoid opinion without supporting evidence. When and if I have time to make a case that WJC is crooked or red, I will do so. There are many other issues to deal with at the moment.

I'm not providing my "other side of the UN" post for you Jag. When I make a case, you spike it immediately and discredit it by either saying the writing to support the arguement is bad or that you "get feelings" that it's false or invalid. You also totally ignore the fact that tens of millions of people also have opinion as I do and that there must be something that led us to a given conclusion. I don't post for you. That's an exercise in futility.



I say most respectfully Jaguar, it doesnt make sense to you. This is a very complcated case and there are many details that are relevant. I cant say that I buy the case either. What draws me to this controversy is the is the degree that the FBI and the DOJ have attempted to hide supporting evidence and have outright lied to the Government Reform Committee. If you arent following the case, the possibility of middle eastern accomplices seems weak. If you look at the the findings of the committee and the surrounding circumstancial evidence that could easily be proven false, it seems incredible that there isn't something to all this.

At this points, I dont think anything will come of this. Time is running out and the committee must conclude their inqury soon, without key supporting evidence that Ashcroft wont release, for whatever reason. After following this as closely as I have though, I will always be suspect of the FBI, the DOJ, and my government in general.


I also have some offline things I have to do that will hold up the completion my anti-UN explaination. After I finish that, I also have a LOT of other things that will limit my time to reply to questions but I'll do my best.

<h3>See, someone else thinks WJC is a Communist too!</h3>
"This administration must be in bed with the Chinese, because right now, our tax money is propping up a Communist dictatorship that has missiles pointed at us as I speak." - James Traficant November 16, 1999

And thus he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the nuances of diplomacy, or at least is trying to rabble rouse, one of the two, I'm leaning towards the latter. Its teh difference between diplomatic niceities, America follows the One China Policy for example and realpolitik on the other, America sells advanced weapons systems to Taiwan and keeps a fleet in the reigon.

If you disagree with a specific comment I've made, feel free to ask for sources. I provide them when I think they’re necessary, such as the analysis about the reactors being offered to the DPRK. I assume your comment about snap judgments is based on my opinion of the supporting article you posted about the Iraq/OKC link. That was made after skimming most sections of the site it came from, and reading 3 other articles on the site, as well as reading the main articles on the reporters page and skimming the other information on there and some of the links on the site as well.
I wouldn't call it a snap judgment but either way his writing style was decidedly unprofessional, I'm suspicious of any published material that is because it suggests the source of not particularly credible. Other articles on the site too were of a very amaturish nature, which suggested a writer who had little or no professional training or experience.

So what you are actually saying amongst that wonderful load of circumlocution is that you hold an opinion without any factual basis whatsoever, and thus don't feel safe about expressing your bias on here because you cannot support it.

Glad we cleared that up.

As for the Iraq/OKC thing, as I posted earlier, the Bush admin is desperate for anything to link Iraq to terrorism against America, while Occam’s razor would put that down to incompetence, i find it hard to believe there is not a better reason. There is quite possibly something in it, but it's not the most likely not the obvious answer.

I covered why i thought that article was unreliable at best, either way it was second teir information, more of a footnote than anything else. The case is interesting, but I'm going to attack any flaw I find, I intend to go into journalism, I’m naturally cynical of *everything*, often not entirely equally, but we all have our biases. I supported why I felt the article was dodgy, and received no reply, for you to then argue i based my attack on emotional denial is therefore an incompetent fallacy at best and a deliberate attempt to discredit though misrepresentation of the truth. by the way using the bold tag doth not make your points any more valid.

This is a joke. Traficant is currently in prison and has said some of the weirdest things I've ever heard from a member of Congress. That's what makes it funny. I was attempting to be funny by quoting Traficant to support my previously disproven statement of WJC. Sorry you didnt get it.

<a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/traficant/one-minute-1999.htm">I yield back all the flatulence in China paid for by the EPA.</p>

I've stated previously, i'm not that familiar with US politics, though that name should have rung a bell, read something about him recently, sounded like quite a decent fellow really. Least you know what the openly corrupt ones are doing, far more trustworthy. It fitted your 'if lots of people think the same thing it somehow becomes valid' theory quite neatly, so i naturally assumed the worst.

Yeah, Traficant's real credible when it comes to calling out sneakiness. ;)

Please excuse me for interjecting, but the Title of this thread should be more accurately called, Who supports ending the Gulf War?....
I contend that war is ongoing with Iraq and did not end. The minute Saddam broke the terms of surrender, he effectively un-surrendered erasing that ending. For the last 11 years, the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!
To this day, he wages war....it's time to end the Gulf War!

Jaguar, when the OKC bombing happened in 1995, many eyewitnesses stated there was a middle eastern looking man fleeing the scene. Don't even try to hang this on President Bush wanting Iraq, because in 1995 Bush was Governor of Texas, not Oklahoma...
and I doubt he reads tea leaves to predict a need for this scrap of information in the future.
Talk about conspiracy theories! Sheesh!
Our prisons convert anybody who wants to convert to terrorism. Even gullible white boys like McVeigh, even PuertoRicans like Padilla....did you know that Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister? True. I believe it was Padilla running from the scene in OKC, but no one seems to want to know for sure.

Sycamore, The Chinese do have missles pointed at us this very moment, as did the Soviets back in the day. We don't have missles pointed, but we do have a protocal of attack planned out to follow.

Wow...I forgot about that and I'm pretty "up" on what's going on with the whole case. That's just coincidence though ;)

huh? What's 'this' ? A new war? Please, try again and next time try and articulate your point more clearly.

Cairo & slang

The plot thickens ... Lana Padilla is the name of Terry Nichols ex-wife. What do you make of that?

http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/facts/Inve...ctDeadline8-4/

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/1997/N...s/6457168.html

It is noted here that Lana Padilla told the Wall Street Journal that she was not aware of having any relation to Jose Padilla.If Padilla is married to McVeigh's sister, as well, you might want to post that here.

It's not just Saddam. We've (along with the British) been running a full-on bombing campaign since 1998.

First, why does a man of Middle Eastern descent have to be somehow involved? Couldn't they be just running from a big explosion? I know I sure as hell would want to get my white ass out of there.

Second, McVeigh (as far as I know) was never in prison. There have been no connections between him and any extremist groups, just a specific ideology (Christian Identity). Most of his inspiration came from reading The Turner Diaries - in fact, the OKC bombing was almost a line by line reading of that book. I actually just started reading it for school (the seminar about Christian Identity is next week so no, I'm not reading it to become an anti-Semitic racist pro-gunner); for anyone who's interested, it's available here.

Hi Hermit22,
Nice to hear from you. You say, "It's not just Saddam, We've been running a full on bombing campaign since 1998." Let's see, how can I put this in the nicest way possible....
It never is the rapist, is it? It's always," Her skirt was too high, her blouse was too low." and "What was she doing out at that hour, she was just asking for it." Pathetic! Like blaming a woman for being raped, or blaming the VanDamm's lifestyle for their daughter's murder...blaming US is totally appalling. It is just Saddam, and everything we have done is reactionary to what he did first.

It doesn't ~have~ to be a middle eastern man, but that's what the witnesses and evidence shows. Witnesses saw the two(McVeigh and JD#2) in the rental truck driving around the day before the bombing as well as fleeing from the scene.
I think Nichols was the one who had the terrorist connection, not McVeigh.

In my travels, I've noticed how some Latinos look almost Asian...it could be the Native American ancestry. Some of them I've seen also look Middle Eastern. Some folks say I look Latino or Arab, though most of my ancestry is Native American and German.

Hmmm...eyewitnesses say a middle eastern-looking man fled the scene right after an incredibly traumatic event. Eyewitness testimony can be incredibly flawed...hmmm.

I'm not betting with those kind of odds.

So what exaclty has Saddam done this time? As far as we have proof, not much i can think of.

Great point. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. That's why we need to have the Feds release the surveillance tapes from the surrounding buildings security systems. These have been confirmed to be under seal. You know, the ones that arent supposed to exist but yet have been verified to exist by a Federal judge looking into the FOIA suit. These tapes may very well show nothing. I would bet that there isn't anything convincing on them. The way they are playing with the evidence is suspicious though.

<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20021102.shtml"> As O'Reilly points out in a recent </a> article, it doesnt look like we'll be getting any answers on any topic in the near future.

<a href="http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/9/001153-8709-021.html">Here's the article that </a> says the tapes do exist.

<a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/mcveigh.html">I also found this while looking for any credible evidence.</a> So the above article may be wrong. Who the hell knows? If Ashcroft would release the tapes maybe I could move on to another possible conspiracy. Like maybe the Malvo sniper case....misguided young sniper, or CIA operative? :)

My hard drive crashed and all my background info on the UN is gone. I'll get the original arguments posted when I can

I wonder if there is a conspiracy between Microsoft and the Department of Disinformation to prevent slang from getting us the dirt on the UN. ;)

I'm on it Nic Name

Next time read what I say, and then post a diatribe. Try to keep it on topic.

I was simply responding to a quote that "the only one who realized the war was still ongoing was Saddam!" You said it, you should remember it. So what did I say? That the war has been ongoing since 1991? That we began Operation Desert Fox in 1998 by dropping bombs on Baghdad? Or some vague reference to the cut on a woman's dress? Maybe you're trying to make some unsubstantial connection between Lewinsky's dress and Desert Fox (both were going on at the same time)?

Most of the world realizes that a limited war has been ongoing for many years. We are shielded from it by the media because, well, frankly, we don't care. There's no drama, so whatever.

Whatever, indeed....try to comprehend the last line of my post,"It is just Saddam, and everything we have done(Desert Fox,Food for Oil, and No Fly Zone conflicts) is reactionary to what he did first(un-surrendering).
The "diatripe" before that line was to all the "Blame America"(for all the World's woes) wankers
out there...if you are not one of them, it wasn't to you then.

Anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that the Gulf War has not ended yet. And well frankly, it's about time we cared.

Hey Sycamore,

I'm still gathering evidence of the coming UN takover of the US, but I just came across this rather incriminating photo that <a href="http://briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=ASHCROFT-med-2.jpg&.src=bc&.view=l&.done=http%3a//briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/slang324/lst%3f%26.dir=/%26.src=bc%26.view=l">supports my case.</a> It's pretty scary, don't look at it alone.

<TT> Slang disclaimer: This photo is doctored and is only a joke for entertainment puposes only, any resemblence to any government officials (UN or US) is purely comical. If you happen to use this photo in any court of law, media outlet, or social gathering, please understand that I am under no obligation and cannot be held liable if you appear to be delusional . If you agree with this, please click "supports my case" above. If you don't, simply move on to the next post. Thanks.</tt>

Slang,
 

Oh my goodness!!:D

Makes me want to fire up Global Operations and play the terrs in that level with the bluehats ...

the difference between high and low level conflict.

jaguar,
Welcome back! I missed you.
You are right, anyone who thinks an attack on Iraq is a pre-emptive action, doesn't realize that high and low levels of conflict have been ongoing and the Gulf War has not ended.

The Iraqi situation is what happens when politicians don't plan, in advance, for the upcoming surrender. Learn about what Yalta, et al were all about - why they were so important to ending that war. Why such planning was so important in keeping the mistakes of WWI from being repeated.

Had those in power in 1990 decided to remove Saddam as a condition of surrender, we would not have been in this position. Clearly Saddam was a candidate for crime against humanity in The Hague. However senior George Sr admininstration political types made Saddam's surrender conditions so pathetic that things like the no-fly-zone were appended to the surrender AFTER the surrender agreement was signed. Had those American political types done their job in 1991, none of this morass would exist.

Before you go about solving problems by dropping nuclear bombs, first learn how we got here in the first place. George Sr administration screwed up. George Sr himself suspected something wrong in a news conference where he said he just did not feel we had accomplished everything and was not comfortable celebrating so early. George Sr was correct. His adminstration let Saddam off the hook and even made it almost impossible for the UN inspectors to find all those weapons of mass destruction.

Bin Laden's attacks on the world are directly traceable to the fact that we said we would leave the Gulf after war was over. We lied. One need not agree with bin Laden's actions to still understand reasons for his actions. We lied. We did not leave the Gulf. We remain in a continuing skirmish with Saddam because we agreed to these, what are now unacceptable, surrender conditions.

Based upon the conditions we agreed to, an attack on Saddam requires new UN approval. There is no way around that fact - which even right wing extremists in the administration conceded to. Yes Cairo. An attack on Saddam is not justified by any 1990 UN resolutions. Even senior officials of the George Jr administration concede that point.

Saddam conformed to the original surrender conditions. To attack Saddam, a smoking gun is first required. That is exactly what the recent UN resolution demands. That necessary smoking gun is why Germany, Mexico, Syria, China, and France all agreed to the new resolution. A smoking gun must be produced before any attack on Iraq can be initiated. That is fact. That was fundamental to the UN resolution. That is what those who honor rules of law appreciate. That is what you outrightly ignore in your opinions. You ignore that a smoking gun must be presented before any attack can even be considered. Welcome, again, to reality.

I was going to explain the concept of a ladder of conflict, with neat little examples to try and get it though Cairo's thick head. But simpsons reruns were on and well, time is valauble.

What's a "think head?" I know that some people use their heads to think, but I've never heard of a "think head."

Wrong again! And the lengths to which you will stoop to enable Saddam are frightening, BTW!!!!
Conditions of surrender are conditions of surrender, regardless of "planning"...you break it, you buy it. One such condition was to conform to the 16 UN Resolutions he broke. Since removing Saddam in 1990 was not our mission, doing so would have caused what Saddam threatens will happen now with the Arab street. Our mission in 1990 was to stop Saddam's greedy oil grubbing, so he couldn't blackmail and hold hostage America's interests. Mission accomplished! Bush 41 beat back Saddam and reduced him to a pile of quivering blubber, crying to save his rear! Colin Powell advised Bush 41 that ousting Saddam would hurt Arab Relations, and assured Bush 41 that Saddam's replacement would be much worse than a beaten-down compliant Saddam. So, if ya want to lay blame on how we got here....Powell and giving peace a chance are the culprits!!!!!

Who's trying to solve problems by dropping nuclear bombs? Oh, right...Saddam is!!!!
We said we would leave the Gulf after the war was over??? First of all, the Gulf war isn't over! And second, Saudi Arabia won't let our troops leave, seems they are afraid of being overthrown by bin Laden's terrorist network, and the Royals begged the UN to install US there in the first place!(Learn a little History, dude.) So "your truth" is false, the fact is, Saddam said he surrendered...HE LIED!
In wartime, we don't need to P-foot around with Diplomacy, no need to ask permission to defend our Country in a 10+ year ongoing war, no need for a "smoking gun"...the "smoking gun" is the fact that the Gulf war has no ending!
All this PC crap going on right now is un-necessary and a waste of time, which Saddam loves I'm sure!
Saddam ignores fundamental UN Resolutions...
Saddam ignores the Rules of Law...
In Kuwait and to the Kurds, Saddam ignores the fact that a "smoking gun" must be presented before any attack can even be considered...
Sure would be nice if you would apply the same standards and barriers to Saddam that you expect of me!!!!! Reality is lost on you! Reality is, in any fight, if our side is bound by rules, and the other side is not...our side loses everytime!

Yes, "think head" was right!....*sigh* Using my brain to think, instead of a spacer to hold my ears apart(Jaguar), does have set backs. I can't be brainwashed and live in ignorant bliss...like tw does. LOL.....

Nice post Cairo, a little too short but nice. :D

PS I need a freakin staff to keep up with all these posts!


And another thing dammit. I'm sick of reading the phrase smoking gun! Enough already! Christ!!

Why thank you so much, slang...you did notice that I was being "nice". So unlike me, I think I'm coming down with something, maybe?

Although...It comes as no surprise to me that this
idiot can not figure out the situation with Iraq,
because he can't even figure out how to address
Bush 41 and Bush 43!!!!! :eek: :angry:

LOL....I'm Baaaaack! :beer: