Hardly. You still have a choice. Stop making excuses.

Stop pretending to be a judge.

Bobby --don't get mad in a misplaced way; that truth comment wasn't targeted to you.

Here are the links you asked for:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robb...bbins091903.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/....cfm?docid=2441

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/378fmxyz.asp

http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/167gwjtp.asp

What I want to remind you is that Iraq and Saddam had extensive ties to terrorists... and that you shouldn't fall subject to that standard rube where the terrorism link is proven and the reader says "But I meant the terrorists that destroyed the WTC and Pentagon". Cause the link to those terrorists is still obscure and may be for years... just like finding out what FDR really knew about the concentration of USNavy ships in Pearl before the Japanese attack.

MIB, you're right... it is a choice. An option. A voluntary decision made by informed consent. Free will rules. There are hundreds of other choices --even for the urban legend story of the kid brought up on grand theft charges and he is given the choice of 5 yrs in prison or 4 in the navy. Choices.

And a lot more than most sympaticoes will allow for in real life.

Got any links from "unbiased" sources?

Why have you chosen not to sign up? They need you.

Yes, it is voluntary and no one suggested that military service should be compulsory for the children of Senators and the like. (However, perhaps such a trade-off would cause our government to use our military force in a more judicious manner and we'd actually have a well-armed military.)

The absence of the children of the wealthy and the powerful in our military does show that those who profit the most from the freedoms the military secures raise their children in such a manner so that military service is not even a consideration.

Given my profession and field of work, as well as the extent of my family (which has quite a number of very affluent Republicans in it), I can tell you that the privileged scoff at military service as a virtue more than any "Blame America" liberal sneers at yellow ribbons. Sure they talk the talk, but ask them to hand over the gas guzzling SUV? Have them teach their kids the virtues of public service (including military service)? Hah! I have a wealthy female relative who works in the oil industry. She is pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-GOP, pro-Rush, pro-Fox news, etc. I once asked her when she was going to tell her child the virtues of serving in the military. She nearly spilled her drink. Her 18 year old son would never set foot in Iraq. Ever. To a man (and woman) every wealthy pro-war GOPer with whom I've ever engaged in political discussions have had the same attitude. Must their children serve? Of course not, it is a voluntary service. But it does show that the rich are raising their kids so that military service is not an option.

But back to the Newsweek issue, I'd like to know what great plans this administration had going on that was going to repair the relationship with our Islamic friends that the Newsweek report derailed. And what damaged that relationship and our international image? It couldn't have been policy memos on torture or false WMD claims or basing the cause of war on a single (and unreliable) source or Gitmo or Abu Ghraib by any chance? (Note: I blame the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and within the administration for each and every one those fiascoes, not the military, not America.)

Did Newsweek retracted the whole story? I thought I heard that they just retracted the allegation that the source was confirmed.

4 years of mess crankin' might make him wish he'd taken jail! Right GJ and GMG? GO NAVY!

lol - remember that old SNL ad? Port of call: BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY

yo, Mike, there's some paint over here that needs chippin'. wink

[ May 20, 2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: GatorJamie ]

Aquaman, I guess we differ on how people consider military service, the decision to go to war, the choice to serve... my opinions come from knowing people who have done all three --your's come from the people you know... ok, find a better group of people to associate with.

I'm happy to have it confirmed once again that I have a terrific group of friends and family --honorable, decent, loyal, patriotic, civic minded and profoundly American.

But the whole line about wealthy or upper middle class despise a military option for their sons or daughters is bunk in my world. And if I heard it, I'd take the opportunity to point out the disloyal, uncivil, and unpatriotic nature of those attitudes (no, Bobby, those are not truths).

Its ok. I bet you gave that oil exec some hell. She deserved it, believe me.

I'll get to the Newsweek part of your post a bit later... time to run.

OH MY GOSH! Is he running off to sign up to fight in the war? Nah...he's just running.

While y'all are continuing your p*ssing contest, there is a thread that you have to look at - bobby posted it.

Yes, it's from the New York Times, so I am sure we're all supposed to dismiss it as liberal propaganda, but it comes directly from the government - their own report, in black and white. No anonymous sources, no misplaced blame - our government; the one that we are all responsible for, no matter which way we voted.

You want truth MiMatt, well it's all there - murder, beating, torture, humiliation - and often the victims were later determined to be innocent. Just guys caught up in a war zone and an army that was unable to even communicate with them very much.

I have to believe the Newsweek article would not have mattered if even the Afghanis had not heard of the beatings, the tortures, the horrific abuse at the hands of Americans in their own country. I am simply ashamed to be an American right now.

I was for the invasion of Afghanistan, but even that war, with the best of intentions behind it, was handled poorly, and it is a stunning success compared to Iraq (and that's considering that both poppy production has increased and the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan again).

So you can argue whether the Newsweek article mattered, you can voice your support for Bush and his cronies, but understand that it doesn't matter. The truth is already out there, and it is hurting us across the Middle East daily.

I was just wondering something… Just off the top of my list of Anti-Religion…

-10 commandments debate
-Xmas break being called xmas break
-death of the pope

Just a few of the good ones.

You all have remained very consistent in your hate of religion, it’s leaders and their contempt against you…

Why the free pass for the Muslim world who’d sooner put you to death than listen to you?

I mean really, it almost sounds like you say they are justified in rioting and killing people…

Yet, someone like the pope is mean, vile, and evil….

Amazing.

PhillyFan, what post have you been reading? Why do you have an anti-religion list? Do you really want a debate? Fine. It is Christmas vacation, not X-mas. The Ten Commandments? I live by them. The Pope? Don't know him, but I am sure he is a fine man. Any other questions that are completely off-topic?

Relevant article from WorkingForChange.com: Newsweek's retraction doesn't change the fact of Koran desecration at Guantanamo

But the writer's just another durn librul in the media, so the righties on this board may dismiss it.

This has everything to do with religion...

Actually the newsweek story looks almost sane compared to the linked website...

Once again PhillyFan, you did not answer my question, nor did you answer my debate. Why do you have an anti-religion list? Seems kind of odd for a man that votes for a man whom God speaks through.

Though we don't know how many have died due Newsweeks error, we have a pretty good idea how many US soldiers have died due to this administrations multiple errors. Preempting the UN inspectors was one of many.

And the deception about the death of Pat Tillman merely compounds those errors.

FBI files offer more accusations of Koran abuse. Can you retract a retraction?
CNN Story

Retraction? Well, depends.

The 'Scoop' Heard 'Round the World. Sadly.

In each case, the question that is not being asked is \"is the story true?\"

You might want to pay a vist to that Columbia Journalism Review website. There are some good articles there.

Meanwhile, mainstream media weighs in:

Reese Schonfeld, Co-founder of CNN, Says \\"The Public Does Not Have a Right to Know\\"



[ May 26, 2005, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Pentagon says no evidence of Koran toilet flushing has been found. Yeah, these are the same liars who said for months that Patrick Tillman was killed by "the enemy".
CNN Story

The Pentagon has confirmed (conveniently late on a Friday evening) that there has been multiple confirmed abuses of the Koran. They include guards throwing water balloons into cells, splashing urine on it, stepping on and kicking it in cells and a guard writing obscenities in an inmate's book.

That reads more like a review of a Robert Mappleworth revival than any Pentagon Paper.

Interesting how those who defend - and argue against defunding - such "art" are also those who kvetch and cavil so loudly about alleged abuses of the Koran. Where's "Piss Christ" when we need Him? :confused:

uh, that's mappleTHORP.....

Do you guys mean Mapplethorpe? I didn't know he did anything with actual depictions of urine, though something with suggestions of 'golden showers' might be his style.

Christmas and Xmas are interchangeable and perfectly acceptable in either use. Hint: Look up the Greek letter "X" and see why Xmas = Christmas.

Actually, in my twelve years of public schooling it was always "Winter Recess."

Sorry, MIB, I speak fluent English, not fluent Greek. Re-read the post and you'll see why I was making the differenciation between saying X-Mas and Christmas. It was in response to some neo-con boneheaded statement about liberals not liking religion.

He meant Andres Serrano, who created the photograph "Piss Christ." But hey, right wingers don't operate in a fact-based environment in the first place. (Cf. Ron Suskind, etc.)

BTW, how on earth did a soldier's urine get through a vent onto one of the suspects and his Qu'ran in the first place?

[ June 06, 2005, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Right you are, FT; Mapplethorpe and Serrano. Birds of a feather and easily confused by non-devotees of their oeuvre, even if we're forced to fund them from time to time. Most reasonable folks will forgive an occasional error in identification, especially as rare as mine are. But "right-wing" I am not; more at law and order Libertarian, as I've said before.

Birds of a feather? Check out this link and then this one (WARNING: it's kind of gross). You may wish to revise your statement.

Mapplethorpe became notorious for a very small, atypical part of his work. I've seen his stuff hanging in McDonalds.

[ June 06, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: JC ]

You've also "said before" that you were a "conservative" and a "moderate."

Ever thought about joining the Libertarian Party?
I hate to break it to you but the rethuglican party is getting more and more right wing, I know you havent noticed.

Yes, but "more at" doesn't limit me to law and order Libertarianism, either. The one constant is that I'm not a right winger, even as most liberals would define that term. And while I've noticed that a lot of rabid right wingers make a lot of noise in the current GOP, and draw an equal amount of attention from the mainstream press, I haven't lost sight of its past or given up on where it's going in the future. So leave the labels for those who can't make judgments on their own but require others to do that for them. I'll stick with addressing issues and working for or against them as it best suits my beliefs.

Thanks for making my point, they've done a lot more than "make a lot of noise" - keep those blinders on nice and snug.

As for the labels - you put those 3 on yourself, I wasnt putting words in your mouth.
I guess that makes you "one of those who cant make judgements on their own."

"Rabid right wingers" not only "make a lot of noise in the current GOP" and get "an equal amount of attention from the mainstream press," but they are running your beloved Republican Party, if you haven't figured out yet. Dick Cheney, Gale Norton, Margaret Spellings, Tom DeLay, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Jim Sensenbrenner, etc., are rabid right-wingers. You can't just close your eyes and make them go away--they are in control of your party and, unfortunately, our government.

They're not conservatives and sure in the hell aren't libertarians, since they throw tradition and restraint out the window, can't get enough of wars they lie to initiate, spend "the people's money" through the roof while giving as much as possible to their well-connected friends, disrespect personal autonomy and want to impose their anti-scientific religious beliefs on everyone, and on and on. They know quite well that their extremism is unsustainable, which is why they're trying to create the conditions for perpetual war and a security state, to keep themselves in power. It's disgusting, but again, these are the people running--not just being antic--your party.

I'll take you at face value that you're not a "right-winger," although some of your comments, like blaming homosexuals for our persecution based on public marches (which have only existed since the 1970s) when outright persecution of homosexuals, including death, has existed for centuries, strikes me as particularly right-wing. To give another example, you support someone like Janice Rogers Brown, whose judicial writings are hardly either "libertarian" or "conservative"; they represent radical, extremist right-wing fringe beliefs.

FT, you misinterpret - because I'm sure you properly understand - my words on "blaming" gays "for our persecution based on public marches." The marches don't cause it; what they do, in their most bizarre - i.e., usual - forms is reinforce stereotypes of ridiculous promiscuity among us and engender contempt for us. Persecution predated the '70s, as you recognize, and the parades only help to keep it going. To say one causes the other is not what I said, but I do believe that the sooner we clean them up, the better for us and for our rights. That's why I generally avoid them and will never march in one as they are presently constituted. If people want to see me on the march for our rights, they can measure my stride through the law reports, where I believe I can do the most good.

As to JRBrown, I continue to disagree with your miscasting her as a right-winger. I trust you've read some of her opinions, as I have, although I don't know that you've actually sat down and talked with her, as I also have. She impresses me with her smarts and willingness to say what needs to be said, even if it offends those who continue to cling to failed solutions that solve nothing. Life can be tough, sugar-coating tough issues doesn't make solving them any easier, and she's got the courage and intellect to make her ideas known. To me, they're welcome and I believe that she'll be a strong and positive addition to the DC Court of Appeals - if not eventually to the SCOTUS.

Interesing omission on the right wingers comment, I guess he still believes they only "make noise."

Jimmy Carter, one of the best ex-presidents we have ever had, has called for the closing of Gitmo.
CNN Story

BobbyDearest, not that you've ever been known to tolerate views outside your shuttered world, but others have weighed in on whether your PosterBoiPrez Jimm'ah should have spouted off --ala WeScream4HowieDean and Hillary of late.

Seems he might not be the best Prez in history.

http://www.gaypatriot.org