------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted on Thu, Feb. 20, 2003

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, eh?
By Molly Ivins

Creators Syndicate

We have been enjoying a lovely little spate of French-bashing here lately. Jonah Goldberg of National Review, who admits that French-bashing is "shtick" (as it is to many American comedians), has popularized the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to describe the French.

It gets a lot less attractive than that.

George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried."

That was certainly amusing.

One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Adolf Hitler.

On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny.

In the few places where they had tanks, they held splendidly.

Relying on the Maginot Line was one of the great military follies of modern history, but it does not reflect on the courage of those who died for France in 1940. For 18 months after that execrable defeat, the United States of America continued to have cordial diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany.

One of the great what-ifs of history is: What would have happened if Franklin Roosevelt had lived to the end of his last term?

How many wars have been lost in the peace?

For those of you who have not read Paris 1919, I recommend it highly. Roosevelt was anti-colonialist. That system was a great evil, a greater horror even than Nazism or Stalinism.

If you have read Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild, you have some idea. The French were in it up to their necks.

Instead of insisting on freedom for the colonies of Europe, we let our allies carry on with the system, leaving the British in India and Africa, and the French in Vietnam and Algeria, to everyone's eventual regret.

Surrender monkeys? Try Dien Bien Phu. Yes, the French did surrender, didn't they? After 6,000 French died in a no-hope position. Ever heard of the Foreign Legion? Of the paratroopers, called "paras"? The trouble we could have saved ourselves if we had only paid attention to Dien Bien Phu.

Then came Algeria. As nasty a war as has ever been fought. If you have seen the film Battle of Algiers, you have some idea. Five generations of pieds noirs, French colonialists, thought it was their country.

Charles de Gaulle came back into power in 1958, specifically elected to keep Algeria French. I consider de Gaulle's long, slow, delicate, elephantine withdrawal (de Gaulle even looked like an elephant) one of the single greatest acts of statesmanship in history. Only de Gaulle could have done that.

Those were the years when France learned about terrorism. The plastiquers were all over Paris. The "plastic" bombs, the ones you can stick like Play-Do underneath the ledge of some building, were the popular weapon du jour. It made Israel today look tame. For France, terrorism is "Been there, done that."

The other night on 60 Minutes, Andy Rooney, who fought in France and certainly has a right to be critical, chided the French for forgetting all that sacrifice. But I think he got it backward: The French remember too well.

I was in Paris on Sept. 11, 2001. The reaction was so immediate, so generous, so overwhelming.

Not just the government, but the people kept bringing flowers to the American embassy. They covered the American Cathedral, the American Church, anything they could find that was American.

They didn't just leave flowers -- they wrote notes with them. I read more than 100 of them. Not only did they refer, again and again, to Normandy, to never forgetting, but there were even some in ancient, spidery handwriting referring to WWI: "Lafayette is still with you."

Look, the French are not a touchy-feely people. They're more, like, logical. For them to approach total strangers in the streets who look American and hug them is seriously extraordinary. I got patted so much I felt like a Labrador retriever. I wish Andy Rooney had been there.

This is where I think the real difference is. We Americans are famously ahistorical. We can barely be bothered to remember what happened last week, or last month, much less last year.

The French are really stuck on history. (Some might claim this is because the French are better educated than we are. I won't go there.)

Does it not occur to anyone that these are very old friends of ours, trying to tell us what they think they know about being hated by weak enemies in the Third World?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045

VIVA LA RESISTANCE'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every French soldier who was in Indo-China volunteered to be Indo-China. So every last Frenchman at Dien Bien Phu was a volunteer who knew that they were volunteering for combat. They were untypical examples of the French (or anyone else's) military. The reason that all of Vietnam was not handed over to Ho Chi Minh in 1954 was that the French threatened to get serious and send non-volunteers there so that there would finally be sufficient troops to fight his forces. This information is available in Bernard Fall's histories which were widely available in the 1960's. "Hell In a Very Small Space" deals with Dien Bien Phu. She should be ashamed not to have read Mr. Fall's books during the Vietnam era.

She said one thing accurately, but by it was by mistake. She said "The trouble we could have saved ourselves if we had only paid attention to Dien Bien Phu." Had Eisenhower supported the French requests to use our bombers based in the Philippines to bomb around Dien Bien Phu, Ho Chi Minh may have not been able to form a government. To his shame, Eisenhower refused to do it unless he had support from all the Congressional leaders, and Lyndon Johnson (to his greater shame) did not support it.

European Fears of the Gathering Jihad
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 21, 2003


The pro-Saddam Hussein European manifestations of February 15th that brought millions into the streets of European capitals are the culmination of Charles de Gaulle’s political vision of a European destiny led by France. During World War II de Gaulle was the leader of French resistance against the Nazis, but his post-war anti-Americanism rallied many of his previous enemies. Hostility to America and antisemitism were strong in various French circles: the communists, the left, and particularly among the numerous politicians, civil servants, intellectuals and businessmen, who had willingly collaborated with the Germans. Those political currents had important links with the Arab-Muslim world.

De Gaulle’s vision intended to restore to France a dominant role in international affairs by the construction of a strong and united Europe as a counter-weight to American power. After the loss of Algeria in 1962, France’s last Arab colony, de Gaulle oriented his policy toward the Arab-Muslim world. During the 1960s, a French Mediterranean policy was elaborated, which would link as an economic and political geostrategical unit the European Community (EC) and the Arab League countries. But Arab collaboration had a price: the elimination of Israel. In spite of France’s efforts to bring its European partners closer to Arab views, many countries were reluctant to follow this path. At that time, the Arab-Israeli conflict didn’t provoke any interest or declaration from the EC.

After the Syro-Egyptian October 1973 war against Israel, and the third Arab defeat, the Arab oil producers proclaimed an oil embargo, increased the oil price four times, lowered the production, and classified the consuming countries into friends, enemies, or neutrals. Now, France’s maneuvers to align the EC on the Arab anti-Israeli policy in order to create a strong Euro-Arab bloc succeeded. The nine countries of the EC, meeting in Brussels (November 6, 1973) issued a joint Resolution, which endorsed the Franco-Arab policy in respect to Israel.

In 1974 the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was founded to strengthen the political, economic and cultural co-operation between Europe and the Arab world. The Association had about 600 members in 18 national Parliaments of the countries of the enlarged European Union (EU), as well as in the European Parliament – and all the major trends in European politics were represented. This Association organized regular meetings with Arab leaders and politicians and served as a channel between them and the European governments, the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers, and the Commission of the European Communities. In other words, it was a most powerful Arab lobby functioning through European functionaries, built into the European institutions to influence European policy at its summit.

In the following years, this body was reinforced by a political, economical and cultural structure, named the Euro-Arab Dialogue, which united at the highest level the EC – later to become the European Union – and the countries of the Arab League. The Europeans tried to maintain the Dialogue on a base of economic relations, while the Arab countries tied the oil and business markets to the European alignment on their anti-Israeli policies. Even though some countries were reluctant to follow this path, the joint proclamations of the EU concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict endorsed the anti-Israeli points established previously by the Second Islamic Conference in Lahore, Pakistan (February 1974).

Henceforth, an associative diplomacy binding the Arab-Muslim countries and the EU developed in international forums and especially in decisions concerning the Middle East conflict. During Euro-Arab symposiums the oil threat was brandished and pressure was exerted on the EU, as a reminder that economic relations were inexorably tied to Europe’s political alignment with Arab anti-Zionist policy. However, the Dialogue was not restricted to influencing European foreign policy against Israel and detaching Europe from America, it also aimed at establishing permanently in Europe a massive Arab-Muslim presence by the immigration and settlement of millions of Muslims with equal rights for all, native-born and migrants alike. This policy endeavored to integrate Europe and the Arab-Muslim world into one political and economic bloc, by mixing populations (multiculturalism) while weakening the Atlantic solidarity and isolating America.

To facilitate Muslim settlements in the West, cultural changes in school teaching, universities and social life were imposed. Textbooks were rewritten in view of allaying Muslim susceptibilities, and university teachings in Middle East and Islamic history soon conformed to Arab-Muslim norms and their worldview. Recommendations were emphatically and repeatedly imposed for spreading the knowledge of the Arabic language in Europe, and the learning about the superior Islamic history and civilization. As these decisions were taken, and then implemented through the mechanism of the Dialogue that covered every country of the EU, a profound cultural Islamization — through the network of schools, universities and the blessing of Islamophile clergymen — conditioned the mentalities of two generations of European youth. To this cultural transformation was added from within the demographic pressure of an ever-increasing Muslim immigration and, from without, an all-encompassing symbiosis on every level with the Arab-Muslim world. This symbiosis built on the system of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and hence approved by the higher political authorities of the EU, covered book publishing, university exchanges, television, press and radio collaboration, theological rapprochement, youth meetings, and intense collaboration between numerous ONG organizations, humanitarian activities, workers unions, economical and financial relations. Scientific, nuclear and military training were provided as, for exemple, France’s nuclear program with Iraq, culminating in the construction of the nuclear reactor Osirak, destroyed by Israel in 1981.

The development of those complex ties between the Arab-Muslim world and the EU was, at its core, conditioned by an anti-Israeli and anti-American policy, the Arab ambition being to detach Europe from its Atlantic ally. As Palestinian and Islamic terrorism developed, the EU — anxious to save its growing and multiple interests in the Muslim world — accused Israel and U.S. policy of provoking it. Rather than confronting Islamic terrorism, European leaders resorted to appeasement by condemning Israel. Anti-Zionism, integrated into the developing Euro-Arab relations became a European sub-culture of hate, denigration and disinformation, nourished by the inner dynamic of the Euro-Arab Dialogue that led to the rise of Eurabia. Opposing views were silenced to maintain a monolithic façade of Islamic correctness in the press and publications. From September 2000, the outburst of Palestinian terrorism within Israel triggered a violent antisemitic wave in Europe as if it had become the heart of Arabism.

France, Germany and Belgium, the troika leading Eurabia, imposed monolithic orders for the EU and their African satellites. An alliance with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, comprising 56 countries, would provide world supremacy at the UN in some issues. The Euro-Arab bloc’s reliance on UN “international legitimacy” is based on its virtual control of this forum. Essential to the Arab League’s policy in relation to Israel, Arafat — the godfather of international terrorism — became the key regulator between the EU and the Arabs. The EU assumed the main funding of the Palestinian Authority, and until now the European Parliament refuses any investigation of how more than a billion euros of European taxpayers’ money, transferred to Arafat, has been used.

Today the Iraqi crisis confronts the EU governments with three decades of pusillanimous policy based on oil, markets, short-term economic gains, and an imperialist ambition of domination. It is practically impossible now in Europe to control Islamic terrorism either from within or without. Nor can the EU accept the destruction of the multifarious symbiosis created by all European political parties with the Arab and Muslim world, to the detriment of their own country's security. Europe has undergone a profound structural and demographic change, which is not yet fully perceived by Europeans, even less by Americans. This transformation of a Judeo-Christian based-civilization and culture by strong trends of Islamization is creating social, political and cultural grounds for confrontations that could provoke dangerous social implosions. The drifting away of Europeans from America is not, therefore, due to their superior moral exigencies, as some superficial analysts write. Rather, this drift reveals a traumatic fear of a terrorism that the EU always refused to acknowledge, scapegoating instead Israel and America. It reveals the preservation, at all costs, of Arab and Muslim corrupt dictatorships, including Arafat, with whom the EU has built its economic and international political strategy, power and security. And, more threatening, it indicates a profound transformation, a mutation, whereby a civilization is drifting toward 'dhimmitude.'*

______________

*Author's note: Dhimmitude derives from the surrender of the Christian clergy and political leaders to the Muslim jihad armies, and their submission to Islamic domination of both their lands and peoples. In exchange, they received a pledge of protection ('dhimma') from the Muslim sovereign - and the cessation of the jihad war. This "protection" was conditioned on a ransom payment (jizya) that was extorted from the vanquished Christian and Jewish populations (dhimmis). Sometimes, Christian submission to Islam was rooted in personal ambition. Dhimmitude often induced self-hatred, and hatred against Jews and Christians who resisted the jihad and Muslim domination. Christian dhimmitude has been a world force for Islamization throughout history.

The French are our only allies that helped us in the Revolutionary War, without them, we'd still be British subjects.
The French philosophers gave us the ideas that allowed for the Declaraton Of Independence and the Constitution. Without the French we wouldn't have had the freedoms that we have.
The French, unlike other allies, that only ask for money and only give us spies and bribe our government officals, actually gave us something: THE STATUE OF LIBERTY (Amerca's symbol).
And now, the French are fighting against Bush's war, and if they succeed will save thousands of American lives. And that's exactly why they are being trashed by the right wing red necks. Oh, and ever since Sharon decided that he wanted French Jews to take up the slack in immigration to Israel, France is suddenly being described as being Anti Semetic. Fcuk Bush, and Fcuk Sharon: France is GREAT.
Take the time to thank them.

"One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Adolf Hitler.

On behalf of every one of those 100,000 men, I would like to thank Mr. Will for his clever joke. They were out-manned, out-gunned, out-generaled and, above all, out-tanked. They got slaughtered, but they stood and they fought. Ha-ha, how funny. "

Hey, Molly, why don't you stick to recipies and house cleaning tips? Your knowledge of history is underwhelming.

First of all, France's casualties in the First World War have nothing to do with their disasterous showing in the Second. Germany suffered even more casualties than the French in the First World War, yet it was these same Germans who so easily bested the French in the Second. How did they make more babies than the ever-loving French? Maybe Momma Ivins can give us some down-home fat-broad slick-ass answer.

Second of all, they were not out-manned, out-gunned or especially out-tanked. They had a comparable number of men, a superior number of artillery pieces, and a superior number of tanks. In addition, the tanks they had were better armed and armored than the Germans.

The French were beaten because they were fooled into the trap of moving their forces to the Belgian frontier in an attempt to stop what they thought would be another Schleiffen Plan. The Germans masterfully duped them, then exploited the weakness in the middle (North of the Maginot Line, South of the Belgian-French frontier) and drove a steel wedge between the majority of the combat units of the French Army and most of France. In short, they were out-generalled, so I guess even Ivans can get one right.

In the end, the French lost 100,000 men between May 10th and June 22nd. The French surrendered after only 42 days. They did not stand and fight, they were soundly whipped and then slaughtered in the rout to Dunkirk.

I love it when a weak-kneed Leftist, tired from painting Bush=Hitler posters all day, gets her HUGE panties in a wad because someone on the Right has the temerity to crack a joke. Watch the Queen of smarm get her back up about someone disrespecting the Frogs. Grow up and slim down you bitch. And read a book once in a while.

The President is not a King. It was correct and proper in a Republic to seek the assent of Representatives of the People.

Like most Trolls you are seeking to lend buttress to Unconstitutional acts of unilateral agression by the Executive.

In short you are an ignoramus.

It was just a matter of time before one of these neocon dorks barfed on us. They are such geeks. I can see there red, blustery faces, butt crack hanging out, pumping there fist in indignation over the stupidest, geeky bullshit.

Tom, what right did the French have to colonize Vietnam?

It was just a matter of time before one of these neocon dorks barfed on us. They are such geeks. I can see there red, blustery faces, butt crack hanging out, pumping there fist in indignation over the stupidest, geeky bullshit. So don't buy their cheese, already!

Tom, what right did the French have to colonize Vietnam?

France is GREAT!?

10 dirty deals that France has done to aid Saddam

TWO-faced Jacques Chirac has cosied up to evil Saddam Hussein for 30 years. Here are ten links between France and Iraq that have helped the tyrant remain in power.

1 The French President first met Saddam in 1972 when the pair struck a lucrative oil deal. Chirac described Saddam then as a “personal friend” and little appears to have changed. Chirac is the only Western head of state to know Saddam personally.

2 France has sold the tyrant arms worth £15billion, more than even the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.

3 They have also built two nuclear reactors near Baghdad.

4 Saddam was close to getting an A-bomb before Israeli jets blitzed his facilities in 1981 in a raid condemned by Chirac as “unacceptable”. Without Israel’s hardline act, Saddam could have held the world to ransom with nuclear arms.

5 Chirac is so keen to build on relations with Saddam he has his own special envoy in Baghdad who is so trusted he is even allowed to sit in on Iraqi Cabinet meetings.

6 Despite world opinion, the men have continued to cut deals. Chirac encouraged French firms to help re-arm Iraq after its war with Iran in the 1980s. French companies sold Baghdad warplanes armed with Exocet missiles.

7 Chirac was so keen to help his old pal he even extended him credit when Iraq failed to meet the repayments. France also sold Iraq equipment to improve the accuracy and range of Scud missiles.

8 Despite tough UN trade sanctions, French firms hold massive oil contracts with Iraq. And there are many more in the pipeline — even in the aftermath of a second Gulf War, Chirac has told energy bosses.

9 Time and time again France has turned a blind eye to Iraq’s abuses when they have been exposed by the UN Security Council. It comes as no surprise to diplomats that French firms keep on landing lucrative deals.

10 World leaders were horrified after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 but France again helped Saddam. Under pressure from Chirac, then President Francois Mitterrand sent emissaries to 24 countries assuring them France would only participate in the war as a “defensive” measure.

You, Kevin, are a useful idiot.

When an article makes an effective counter-argument to the latest spin the trolls are told sell. It immediately gets clobbered with Spam.

Recognize then that the article is worth reading and noting.

This is probably true, some of it anyway. Maybe not. But this is what Limbaugh has been feeding to these Ditto Heads as of late, and they've been regurgitating it around the country. It's part of Rove's smear campaign. It'll work on these chimps, of course. They ignore the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam, Halliburton doing 73 million in business, etc., etc., etc. They don't give a shit. Morons.

Contrary to what Limbaugh is selling is the fact that he will never allow a competent voice in opposition to the "spin of the day". Thus the dildoeheads think they are getting the straight poop. And that is what they are getting - straight poop.

The genius of Limbaugh is that he will tell the truth 98% of the time - like any good disinformation artist he knows that disinformation is more effective if most of what he says is verifiably true.

Here's an example from a day or two ago - I tuned in to see what the Party Line was for today: (The enclosed quote is from memory but is pretty much word for word.) While talking to a caller about Iraq (bashing anti-war protesters as all being on the kooky left) and how after the invasion we will be able to prove that "we were right all along about Iraq (weapons in their arsenal) he slipped this in: "after we have taken out one nuclear power then they will be against us "going into Korea and taking out Mentally ill Jung ...". Notice the big lie slid in is the implication that Iraq HAS Nuclear Weapons. Jabba The Hut strikes again.
There is ZERO evidence that Iraq has any Nuclear Weapons and Rush would know this. Therefore he is caught in a very quickly slid in piece of disinformation.

In a way I feel sorry for the dildoheads as they do believe they are getting the truth and want so much to believe the hero who has in the past defended their point of view.
It is sad really. Rush is a Liar and a Shill and they don't get it.

This belief that they (the dildoheads) are the most informed, when in fact they are the least informed has a technical term: "pseudo-certainty." I call it being a fucking moron.

Point granted.

You children make me laugh. Why not answer the charges, offer refutation? Is it because you cannot? You try to discredit your oppostion by saying they are mere tools of a radio personality or chicken hawks rather than debate them on the substance of the argument.

7 you make the point that the United States was involved in the arming of Iraq in the early 1980's. You further claim that the Haliburton Company has profited from trade with Iraq.

First of all, the fact that we as a nation had dealings with Iraq in the past does in no way leave us responsible for the actions of the Iraqis in perpetuity. Using your logic, the fact that Stalin traded raw materials with the Germans right up to 22 Jun 41, and colluded with them on the issues of Finland, the Baltic States and Poland makes Stalin responsible for all the German atrocities during the rest of the Second World War. Foolish notion.

Second of all, if Haliburton has profited in the way that you claim, prove it. Provide us a link to a reputable news source which will show the link from Cheney through Haliburton to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. And I did say a reputable news source - no linking to Sheepdog or Diogenes' weblogs.

I suspect we'll be treated to no answers from you two mouths, because the Left is full of yappers but short on substance.

Doggie, my daddy taught me a long time ago to never argue with an idiot...

Who's talking to you, Mr. Mom? I don't ask you things, I tell you things. I certainly wouldn't ask you to express your opinion on a complex issue - wading through thousands of misspelled words and hundreds of profanities would be a waste of time.

So toddle off now - I'll bet COPS is on.

The French are great!

What are you, the fuckin' schoolmarm, Pvt. Fido? Do you prance around the barracks asking the soldiers "now, clean it up boys...and work on that vocabulary, OK?"...what a pathetic little man...

Oh, that's right, a RESERVIST....sitting on your fat ever spreading ass in front of the dim screen is your post, doggie...

...now, Do as your Master commands.....FETCH!

Who is "Ungrateful"?
America, France, Fascism, and Debts of History

by Paul Street; February 20, 2003

“We Saved Their Butts”

It is difficult to imagine the bitter irony with which many French people must be receiving the American charge of “ingratitude.” For the last two weeks at least, leading United States Congressmen, editorialists and others have been bashing the French for their supposed failure to support international “law and order” by joining America’s reckless and dangerous campaign to needlessly massacre Iraqis. There is even talk of an American boycott of French goods. Much of the criticism has focused on the charge that France is “ungrateful” for America’s heroic efforts to save them during “the Good War” – the great Allied struggle against German and Japanese fascism between 1941 and 1945.

Listen, for example, to Fred Barnes, executive director of the reactionary Weekly Standard. Last Thursday, Barnes expressed his outrage that France would “actively try to undermine President Bush” on Iraq “after all we’ve done for them” – including “saving their butts” in World War II.

Behold the outraged former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. “I encourage everybody in America: do not go to France,” Koch said last week. “These people were Nazi [collaborators] in large part. We saved them – and they turned on us.” “Most of us,” chimed in “war” enthusiast Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Queens), “believe [the French] would all be speaking German if it were not for US military intervention.”

Three weeks ago, US Senator John Kyl noted that America “liberated” France from “Hitler’s grip” in a statement denouncing “old Europe’s” (France and Germany’s) supposedly irrelevant opposition to American “war” (massacre) plans in the Middle East.

Deleting America’s Fascist Accommodation and Emulation

History holds a less than exalted position in the nation that Michael Eric Dyson once aptly called “The United States of Amnesia.” Still, it is interesting to note how consistently elite would be-architects of American opinion feel driven to construct fundamentally, albeit bad, historical arguments on behalf of their various projects at home and abroad.

A funny thing forgotten by practitioners of the new American sport of French-bashing is that US policymakers helped enable the rise of European fascism that culminated in Hitler’s march of terror. As is apparent from the relevant historical literature, the US watched with approval as Fascist darkness set over Europe during the inter-war years. American policymakers saw Italian, Spanish, German and other strains of the European fascist disease as a welcome counter to the Soviet threat – essentially the demonstration Russia made of the possibilities for modernization (industrialization, urbanization, and nation- building) outside the capitalist world system – and anti-capitalist social democracy within Western European states.

In 1937, the US State Department’s European Division argued that European fascism was compatible with America’s economic interests. This key diplomatic agency reported that fascism’s rise was a natural response of “the rich and middle classes” to the threat posed by “dissatisfied masses,” who, with the “the example of the Russian Revolution before them,” might “swing to the left.” Fascism, the State Department argued, “must succeed or the masses, this time reinforced by the disillusioned middle class, will again turn to the left.” The French Popular Front government of the middle 1930s was an example of the popular left threat that made fascism acceptable to American officials before Hitler really launched his drive for a New World Order. It is true that fascism became an avowed US enemy during WWII. This did not occur, however, until fascism, holding power in two leading imperialist states, directly attacked American interests. American policymakers intervened against fascism on the basis of perceived national self-interest, not out of any particular concern for the human rights of the French or, for that matter, European Jews or anyone else. After the war, it is worth noting, America’s accommodation of European and Asian fascism in the inter-war period became the model for US Third World policy. In the name of resisting supposedly expansionist Soviet influence and anti-capitalism, the US sponsored, funded, equipped, and provided political cover for numerous Third World fascist regimes. In doing so, it protected and enlisted numerous Nazi War criminals (e.g. Klaus Barbie) perceived to have special skills in anti-leftist counter-insurgency. And today, as it prepares a “pre-emptive” invasion of a weak state to advance an American-dominated New World Order, the US quite reasonably strikes many European and other world citizens as the closest thing in recent historical memory to the Hitler’s Third Reich.

Who is Ungrateful?

The American right wants to view France’s position on US Iraq policy as a French referendum on its historical debts to other nations. Fine – perhaps, then, we should see France’s resistance to the Bush War Party as an expression of its deep gratitude to Russia, which opposes Bush’s Iraq campaign and which lost 25 million lives in the struggle against fascism-Nazism. No nation did more than Russia to stop the Nazis. If their charges of French ingratitude are to be taken seriously, America’s warmongers believe that a decent nation expresses proper gratefulness for a survival-enabling historical gift from another nation by embracing the savior nation’s current policy agenda, whatever the widespread opposition of the saved state’s population. By this standard, however, America ought to be taking its policy cues from France. After all, it is incontrovertible historical fact that French military assistance was crucial to America’s victory in its War of Independence against the British Empire between 1776 and 1783. Perhaps the French should launch a public relations counter campaign, accusing American policymakers of being ungrateful for the heroic sacrifices made by France to enable the very birth of the United States. The French do feel gratitude for the role Americans played in expelling the Nazis. When they see George W. Bush sneering from their television screens about the concocted threat posed by Iraq, however, they do not flash back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the heroic struggle against world fascism. They see a dangerous new potential world dictator, one who manufactures exaggerated foreign threats to justify a Nazi-like drive for unchallenged world power.

What is the moral calculus whereby one nation’s historical debt to a stronger nation’s past opposition to a shared monstrous enemy mandates the weaker state’s supine subservience to the stronger state’s current global agenda – even when that agenda puts the weaker state at significant risk?

Better Analogies

The charge of ingratitude was once leveled against America’s Founding Fathers, in the aftermath of what American history texts call “The French-Indian War.” The accusation came from King George’s British Empire, aghast at the North American colonists’ reluctance to pay the costs of supposed imperial protection. The ensuing struggle sparked by British efforts to enforce proper imperial subordination culminated in the American Revolution, successfully completed with crucial assistance from France – something for which the American people should be eternally grateful.

Here, perhaps, we find a somewhat more useful historical analogy than WWII to grasp “ungrateful” France’s reluctance to jump on board the imperial campaign of history’s new and more dangerous Mad King George.

Among the many reasons for people to know their history, few are as compelling as the power such knowledge gives them to critically scrutinize misleading historical statements made by policymakers to advance terrible agendas. The hysterical French-bashing historical propaganda recently spewed out by America’s modern imperialists and their chauvinistic cheerleaders is an excellent example.

Paul Street (pstreet@cul-chicago ) is a Lecturer on urban class and race relations at Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois.

You know that there's no reasoning with them, so why do you bother? You try and they insult you. You explain and they deride. You point out a fact and they list a fiction. You pin them down and they change the subject.

Their worlds are based on this fragile set of lies and anything that might dislodge a part of that foundation simply cannot be tolerated.

Fuck them in their sorry state.

"When an article makes an effective counter-argument to the latest spin the trolls are told sell. It immediately gets clobbered with Spam. Recognize then that the article is worth reading and noting."
.
IN OTHER WORDS:
.


THANK THE FRENCH (AND GERMANS, AND RUSSIANS, AND CHINESE). START E MAILING (FAX IS BETTER) ALL SECURITY MEMBERS. BE SURE TO ASK RUSSIA, CHINA AND FRANCE TO USE UN VETO.

Bark, I wasn't talking to you, unless your alias is Pvt. Fido...

...now what is this, 34 and still pickin' schoolyard fights? Well, I'll meet you after school in the smoking area, punk!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well SIMPLEton,
As usual you provide a narrow distorted viewpoint which is tailored to your master’s wishes.

By the way did I strike a nerve by pointing out the dishonesty of your comrade in disinformation?

On Cheney’s Links to Hussein:

“According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1998 and last winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure. The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other U.S. company doing business with Baghdad.”
Link to complete article: http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1791

Another: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm

And Another: http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/4005941.htm

And Another: http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/000809.html

And Another: http://www.shelbycountyliberalpress.org/cheney.htm

If you wish to talk about support of Hitler and his rise to power you really should provide the reading audience with a full spectrum of facts otherwise people might get the impression that you are a shill pushing an agenda.

IBM punch card systems were used by the NAZI’s to mechanize, count and organize the shipment of human beings from Poland to the death camps. And IBM can’t cop out on this one because their tech’s, Warsaw Office, (Ghetto - Warsaw - Gypsies - ring any bells?) maintained the Punch card Readers for the NAZI’s. Last I checked their home offices were located in the U.S.A. not Russia.

Or shall we speak of the banking house of Brown Bros. & Harriman - NY, NY who acted as financial backers and conduits for the NAZI Regime. Not to mention their prestigious associate Prescott Bush - cited 3 times for trading with the enemy (NAZI Germany) during the height of W.W.II. George H. W. Bush only volunteered for service after his father was cited the third time.

Perhaps we could speak of Dow Chemical The Partner to I.G.. Farben Manufacturer’s of that wonderful new product Zyklon B. You know - that Zyklon B - Showers - Auschwitz - get the connection yet.

However as much as I enjoy dismembering your spam I really don’t care to take much time for it except when I am interested in doing the research necessary to destroy your position. Which is always possible because you have a problem - you can’t go where the truth goes and have your arguments hold up.

You still have not responded to the following prior post:

I ceased caring about what you had to say when it finally occurred to me that it did not matter how well I refuted your points. You show all the hallmarks of the professional disinformation agent and so therefore it is a pointless exercise.
Either you will one day start thinking for yourself or you will not. Either you will read and heed the warnings of the Founders or you will continue along your traitorous course.
Countering the same discredited rationale over and over is not my idea of a debate.
There is sufficient data available to show convincingly that the current regime is:

Dishonest - in that every time their rationale or "evidence" is shown to be false they simply ignore the evidence, falsify new evidence for their case, issue a phony terror alert to keep everybody agitated and not thinking, or if that is not possible develop a new rationale. What began as "let's get C.I.A. Agent Osama Bin Forgotten" then became a war to remove WMDs® from Sadsack Hussein. Now that it has become apparent he has no significant stockpiles it is morphing into a war to liberate the long suffering Iraqi people - more of whom have been killed by the actions of the U.S. Government than Sadsack Hussein. It is obvious that there is an agenda at play other than the one developed for public consumption.

This started out as "a war on terror" and ended up becoming a war on the Constitution and freedom; the freedoms of all Americans not part of the ruling Plutocratic Clique (and perhaps their paid sycophants). We now have 2 bills that are unarguably Unconstitutional and a third in the works. All are invasions on the liberties secured by the blood of my forefathers (I am a descendent of a founding family so my ancestors were here before the Revolutionary War). It was passed to me as a trust, to you as well but you seem willing to bend over and squander it, and I am not inclined to subscribe to cheap jingoism sold with PsyOps tag lines.

We have as yet to have a convincing explanation of what really occurred on 911. And don't give me that tired old line about Muslims hating us because we are free. That dog won't hunt. The Current Junta has attempted to block or limit any investigation at every turn - including appointing Henry, useless eaters, Kissinger to run the Whitewash.
19 Arabs - 8 of whom are still alive and no explanation as to how they were able to overcome the Cockpit Crews of 4 Airliners without ONE giving an alert. BULLSHIT. That is even more fantastical than 19 Arabs who were incompetent pilots who suddenly acquired the skills of a trained military pilot (despite being trained at a Flight School with C.I.A. connections - whose owner Rudi Dekkers has now had 3 attempts on his life - wonder why?) and evidence that would suggest they could not even competently fly a Cessna 180. You are too intelligent to believe that pantload so therefore I know you to be a liar and a Psyops Shill operating from an agenda other than that of forwarding the truth. Quite frankly sir you disgust me. You are not a Patriot. You advocate and support policies and actions contrary to the best interests of this nation which result only in untold misery and suffering and offer profit only to your masters.
Now go listen to a Rush Replay so he can reinforce your prejudices. Are you a 24/7 subscriber? Silly question I know - just want it on the record.

Now go lick your master's hand.

Did you have to shoot 19 torpedoes
into that leaking scow, Diogenes?
Don't mechinegun the lifeboats
and dynamite the floating bodies
please.

Q. Why did line French line Paris streets with trees?

A: So the German's could march in shade.


In all seriuosness, I think we can all agree that even without their pathetic attempts to protect their oil interests as of late, the French are at best, tolerable and more often than not, loathsome.
When this action starts, and, of course, it will, let's bomb france first.

If north Korea can face down
(along with Sharon) the smirker
With a few alleged nukes, our
hero in the white house has only
defenseless, beaten and starved
countries to feel safe about attacking.
France we know has them.
People hate France because they resemble
us so much. Self serving and nationalistic.
But hey, I've never been there.
VIVA LA FRANCE.

Why do the French recruit highly trained military personnel from other nations to be their only first strike combat troops?(French Foreign Legion) I think the answer is obvious, there is a shortage of cheese eating surrender monkeys who are man enough to defend their own country's interests.

Why Single Out France?


70% of ALL Europeans do not believe in this war
95% of Turks do not believe in this war
78% of the British do not believe in this war
75% of the Australians do not believe in this war
The Chinese do not believe in this war
The Russians do not believe in this war
The Canadians do not believe in this war
The Japanese do not believe in this war
The Mexicans do not believe in this war
1/2 of Americans do not believe in this war

Why single out France?
No one outside of America and Israel believes in this war.
NO ONE !

I don’t get it. Homer is a sarcastic joke about the average white suburban male who is fat, lazy, uneducated, simple-minded, with an understanding of his world through his ego, which is represented by his appetite. When Homer said “cheese eating surrender monkeys” the author was making fun of you. (Matt G. intended to make sociopolitical commentary of US suburban culture, okay?-- “springfield”)

The fact that people actually use homer-isms as a way of expressing their individual emotions is painfully ironic--- and I would laugh, except you guys are too “Homer” to know that Homer has got your number--- and that makes me worried.

No wonder US polls show that an alarming number in the US believe Saddam is connected to 9-11/ bin-lad without any information stated by the US govt. to support such weirdness.

How desperate, how tiresome. In England the Simpson’s are enjoyed because of this little joke about America. Now it is your turn. Stop being detached and try and identify with Homer-- as you are he.

I'm confused. You say that war never solved anything. Do I live under the King of England?
Do I live under the Articles of Confederation?
Do I speak German? Nein


Can someone please tell me what will happen if Saddam continues to develop WMD and we do nothing?

What if we did nothing back in WWII?

Would the French be holding this position?

How many Kurds would die if not for US military intervention?

How many Human rights violations go on in Iraq on any given day?

Why does Saddam keep all of the Countries wealth to himself?

Why did he gas the Kurds?

Why do you blame Israel for everything bad in the Middle East?

Did Saddam not pay suicide bombers to attack Israeli civilians?

Should Sharon not want to defend his people?



So after thinking about these questions, tell me, what is your solution to these problems?

It sounds like you would like to turn your head away and pretend that it doesn't go on. Who are we to say that the human life does not include everyone, no matter where they are in the world. I would be glad to fight in this war as it is a war that will help boost the gloabal economy with an impact that you could never imagine? Millions of lives will be saved in the long run. It may cost hundreds of thousands of lives if a person like Saddam Hussein is permitted to produce nuclear bombs. Don't be fooled by anti-war literature, look at what you see in front of your face with your own eyes. Then make your own judgements.

An Endless Supply of Morons:

“Can someone please tell me what will happen if Saddam continues to develop WMD and we do nothing?”
Not much. He dares not use them or see his country turned into a Green Glass Parking Lot.

“What if we did nothing back in WWII?” Absolute idiocy - the equation attempted is Saddam = Hitler. Hitler was the leader of a first world nation with a thriving advanced technology base. Saddam is running a Third World Desert that could not build a decent Fan.

“Would the French be holding this position?” Too stupid to respond to.

“How many Kurds would die if not for US military intervention?” The Kurds are in Rebellion against Saddam’s government. Why don’t you ask William Tecumseh Sherman - Get it? Atlanta - Bonfire - Rape and Pillage? Get the connection?

“How many Human rights violations go on in Iraq on any given day?” Probably no more than occurred under our loyal ally The Shah of Iran and his notorius Secret Police, or under our “Good Friend” Augusto Pinochet.

“Why does Saddam keep all of the Countries wealth to himself?” Why does Duhbya want his Oil?

“Why did he gas the Kurds?” Per our own DIA he did not. The bodies inspected showed signs of Cyanosis - Saddam used Mustard Gas - A Blistering Agent. The signs are indicative of gases used by the Iranians. A battle was fought at the site where the alleged gassing took place. The D.I.A. concluded there was no evidence that Saddam gassed the Kurds.

“Why do you blame Israel for everything bad in the Middle East?” No. About 95%.

“Did Saddam not pay suicide bombers to attack Israeli civilians?” No. He did send money to some of their families after the fact - as did our good friends the Saudis.

"Should Sharon not want to defend his people?" Certainly but that does not require him to turn Palestine into a racially segregated community with a hundred little Bantustans. It does not require the IDF to uproot Orange Groves and Olive Orchards or confiscate lands that belong to others to establish segregated communities while putting down the Palestinian People with a bloody mailed fist.


So after thinking about these questions, tell me, what is your solution to these problems?

Simple: Pack your Parachute, get on a plane, and go do what you think should be done. Me I'm going to work on my Tan.

Read,

B. Nethanyahu's "Fighting Terrorism: How The West Can Win"

His writing is purely loaded right-wing assumptions.
It will help you simplify your rants while giving some insight on the White House game. There are some excellent duplications that Bush et al are playing today. (as if we are going to be relaxed if we demolish Iraq, right). Give it a read, you'll be able to fill your head with so much shit you'll be able to fight all the way from here to eternity.

Don't forget to (re)read the post above about Homer you'll get some important points from that post. it applies to you and your duncical pals.

have a glass of wine.

A long delayed reply to Diogenes:
“I ceased caring about what you had to say when it finally occurred to me that it did not matter how well I refuted your points. You show all the hallmarks of the professional disinformation agent and so therefore it is a pointless exercise.
Either you will one day start thinking for yourself or you will not. Either you will read and heed the warnings of the Founders or you will continue along your traitorous course.
Countering the same discredited rationale over and over is not my idea of a debate. “

I haven’t had much time lately to post to this board. Believe it or not, lots of stuff is going on. Anyway, since when have you EVER refuted ANYTHING I have said? You live in a fantasy world, Captain Hook, and you ramble on without making much sense. This thread is a classic example. Somebody posts a Molly Ivins article which is – surprise – absolutely wrong on the facts. Now why don’t you want to talk about the facts, D? Do the voices in your head tell you not to? I’m not a professional disinformation agent - I’m just a guy who isn’t going to let you cowardly rats prattle on unchallenged. You’re wrong about 99% of the time, and I’m here to let you know it.
“There is sufficient data available to show convincingly that the current regime is:
Dishonest - in that every time their rationale or "evidence" is shown to be false they simply ignore the evidence, falsify new evidence for their case, issue a phony terror alert to keep everybody agitated and not thinking, or if that is not possible develop a new rationale. What began as "let's get C.I.A. Agent Osama Bin Forgotten" then became a war to remove WMDs® from Sadsack Hussein. Now that it has become apparent he has no significant stockpiles it is morphing into a war to liberate the long suffering Iraqi people - more of whom have been killed by the actions of the U.S. Government than Sadsack Hussein. It is obvious that there is an agenda at play other than the one developed for public consumption. “
Well you are sort of correct. The goal from the beginning has been to remove the threat of terrorism again reaching American cities. The dismantling of the terrorist regime of the Taliban was the first step. The scattering and incarcerating of most of Al Queda was the second. The removal of Saddam Hussein will be the third. Fourth will be the collapse of the Mullahs of Iran, Fifth the democratization of Saudi Arabia. Somewhere in there, Kim Jong Il will be found face up with a lot of extra holes in his head, and Korea will be liberated. Again, the goal is to ensure the peace and security of the United States, got it now?
“This started out as "a war on terror" and ended up becoming a war on the Constitution and freedom; the freedoms of all Americans not part of the ruling Plutocratic Clique (and perhaps their paid sycophants). We now have 2 bills that are unarguably Unconstitutional and a third in the works. All are invasions on the liberties secured by the blood of my forefathers (I am a descendent of a founding family so my ancestors were here before the Revolutionary War). It was passed to me as a trust, to you as well but you seem willing to bend over and squander it, and I am not inclined to subscribe to cheap jingoism sold with PsyOps tag lines.”
At times like this I begin to suspect that you and Sheepdog are one and the same person. Only he has demonstrated an ability to communicate married to a paranoid state that could very well be serious enough to warrant institutionalizing.
You claim that our freedoms are under attack. Crying wolf and running about like Chicken Little presupposes that the Supreme Court will idly allow unconstitutional issues to pass unchallenged. Yep, they do that all the time. Just let any old law come down the pike and post it up. They’re too busy golfing or rigging Florida election results.
Accusations of ‘bending over’ should not be made by an apologist for a mass murderer, you cowardly swine.
“We have as yet to have a convincing explanation of what really occurred on 911. And don't give me that tired old line about Muslims hating us because we are free. That dog won't hunt. The Current Junta has attempted to block or limit any investigation at every turn - including appointing Henry, useless eaters, Kissinger to run the Whitewash.
19 Arabs - 8 of whom are still alive and no explanation as to how they were able to overcome the Cockpit Crews of 4 Airliners without ONE giving an alert. BULLSHIT. That is even more fantastical than 19 Arabs who were incompetent pilots who suddenly acquired the skills of a trained military pilot (despite being trained at a Flight School with C.I.A. connections - whose owner Rudi Dekkers has now had 3 attempts on his life - wonder why?) and evidence that would suggest they could not even competently fly a Cessna 180. You are too intelligent to believe that pantload so therefore I know you to be a liar and a Psyops Shill operating from an agenda other than that of forwarding the truth. Quite frankly sir you disgust me. You are not a Patriot. You advocate and support policies and actions contrary to the best interests of this nation which result only in untold misery and suffering and offer profit only to your masters.
Now go listen to a Rush Replay so he can reinforce your prejudices. Are you a 24/7 subscriber? Silly question I know - just want it on the record. “
Ok, now I’m pretty sure I’m talking to Sheepdog – or maybe even Nessie. No one, not a single rational human being believes that the United States government is responsible for the 11 Sep 01 attacks. Even if you polled those deluded fools who parade in their appeasement marches you wouldn’t find a significant number of such deluded wackos. You are out on that limb pretty much by yourself, D. You are so desperate to believe that the government is lying about who really pulled off the 11 Sep 01 attacks that you ignore all the evidence at hand, and instead see the trilateral commission, the Carlyle Group, the Freemasons, and every other paranoid delusion a fevered mind like yours can come up with. You say the Arab world doesn’t hate us? Why not listen to the mullahs from every single mosque from Morocco to Pakistan?
You really have a bad case of self-loathing.
Paranoids like you are useless to argue with, so I’ll settle just for embarrassing you. You cannot lose because a) if evidence is presented to you it must be forged. And b) if evidence is not presented, then there is no evidence. What a wonderful sick little world you inhabit.
Look, there are those that oppose the coming war who have at least good intentions. They oppose war because they don’t think it’s necessary. I understand their point of view, but they are wrong. My own parents are opposed because they believe that even if Saddam Hussein has WMD’s he would never use them out of fear of US reprisals. The same stupid argument used to be foisted about why terrorist acts didn’t occur here. If Saddam Hussein succeeds in developing advanced WMD’s do you really think he would scruple to use them? Do you really think he wouldn’t make them available to organizations which would be eager to acquire them? What does he stand to lose? What does he stand to gain?
I have spent a great deal of my life in service to my Country. For more than five years I was on active duty and for almost ten I have been a reservist. I pay my debt to my Country for the freedoms I have been given. You say I disgust you? Good. I want all traitorous cowards to be disgusted by me. I can think of no higher accolade than to have appeasement mongers, Communists and their fellow travellers dispise me.
Finally, I don’t listen to talk radio. So guess again.

Ok, now I’m pretty sure I’m talking to Sheepdog – or maybe even Nessie. No one,
not a single rational human being believes that the United States government is
responsible for the 11 Sep 01 attacks.
(not nessie, he has a nice bunker)
You are long on vitriol, but thin on verifiable information.
But don't let that stop you. Man that keyboard.

Sheepdog, I was just funning you. I was checking to see if you're still around.

Well SIMPLEton not A Very Strong Rebuttal but I’ll Give you an “E-” for some effort.

I am not inclined to spend a lot of time rebutting you but candor demands some sort of reply. We shall see as to it’s length as I shall make my points as I see need. (As I had already surmised you are a “Cake Eater”. Should I address you as Colonel? Lt. Colonel I believe so the honorary Social Bump is due. By the way I spent significantly more time on active duty than you so put a sock in it.)

Let me tackle these in the order I find most compelling of response:

As you are no doubt aware the President is the only Officer under the Constitution who has an Oath stipulated in the Constitution. (Congress by tradition takes a similar one but it is not required by the Constitution.) It is one of the responsibilities of the Office as envisaged by the Authors of our Constitution that the President by power of Veto would have the final responsibility in defense of it’s integrity. The doctrine of Judicial Supremacy was an invention of Chief Justice Marshall in 1819 (McCullough Vs. Maryland) if memory serves. It was not part of the text of the Constitution which lays the responsibility at the feet of the President. In signing into law the Siamese Twins of Tyranny the un-Patriot Act and the Homeland Security act a major assault was made upon the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights and the pResident Violated his sacred Trust and his given OATH.

Adding to the crime was that these illegal and unconstitutional acts of Treason were proposed by said same pResident in the conduct of his office. They were forced through under pressure by said pResident, at a moment of distress and turmoil, and were unread by the “Legislators” that voted them through. However, as is, and should be, readily apparent the line of last defense should be the President not the Courts. A President exercising the responsibilities and trust of his office should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, allow unvetoed an Act of Congress which transgresses the Constitution. To knowingly do so is a violation of his Oath and an act of Treason.

Please note the word RIGHTS. These are not privileges they are RIGHTS not ceded to the authority of the Central Government. One of the fundamental principles of our Constitution is that it is a document which ENUMERATES and LIMITS the powers ceded to the need for a central government. As a consequence of this plan the central government has no authority to exercise powers not specifically delineated and delegated to it by the Constitution.

If you writhe in anger at the jabs of my barbs it is not because I stand rebutted but that you stand exposed. The responsibility of the Citizen Soldier is measured by the order in which those words are enumerated: Citizen first, Soldier second. It is perhaps a heavier burden upon the man at Arms because of the constraints of military order and discipline. However, conscience, and law, are quite clear in the primacy of those responsibilities. “I vas chust followink horders” is not a defense. It is not a justification for adhering to domestic enemies.

Your attempt at a rebuttal viz. the questions I raise regarding 911 are lame and insignificant. The only rationale you offer for not giving them consideration is the tired old canard of labeling them a “Conspiracy Theory”.

“When all other possibilities are eliminated whatever left, however improbable, is the truth.” Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

“Now go listen to a Rush Replay so he can reinforce your prejudices. Are you a 24/7 subscriber? Silly question I know - just want it on the record. “
Ok, now I’m pretty sure I’m talking to Sheepdog – or maybe even Nessie. No one, not a single rational human being believes that the United States government is responsible for the 11 Sep 01 attacks. Even if you polled those deluded fools who parade in their appeasement marches you wouldn’t find a significant number of such deluded wackos. You are out on that limb pretty much by yourself, D. You are so desperate to believe that the government is lying about who really pulled off the 11 Sep 01 attacks that you ignore all the evidence at hand, and instead see the trilateral commission, the Carlyle Group, the Freemasons, and every other paranoid delusion a fevered mind like yours can come up with. You say the Arab world doesn’t hate us? Why not listen to the mullahs from every single mosque from Morocco to Pakistan?
You really have a bad case of self-loathing.
Paranoids like you are useless to argue with, so I’ll settle just for embarrassing you. You cannot lose because a) if evidence is presented to you it must be forged. And b) if evidence is not presented, then there is no evidence. What a wonderful sick little world you inhabit.”


You answer none of the questions and instead engage in the vice of which you accuse me. That of hurling brickbats and name calling again using the all purpose justification that anyone who would even suspect the Government of wrong doing is delusional. I could write a small treatise just listing the crimes committed by the U.S. Government. Most of which would horrify and shock the average American were they aware of these dark moments in American History. Again you avoid the issue by not even addressing the questions. There are no answers offered to them in the “OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY”.

Answer the questions if you can. I know you will not and will claim the press of time, but I thought I would leave them on the record so everyone can see how you turned tail and ran.

Let me restate them for you:

“We have as yet to have a convincing explanation of what really occurred on 911. And don't give me that tired old line about Muslims hating us because we are free. That dog won't hunt. The Current Junta has attempted to block or limit any investigation at every turn - including appointing Henry, useless eaters, Kissinger to run the Whitewash.
19 Arabs - 8 of whom are still alive and no explanation as to how they were able to overcome the Cockpit Crews of 4 Airliners without ONE giving an alert. BULLSHIT. That is even more fantastical than 19 Arabs who were incompetent pilots who suddenly acquired the skills of a trained military pilot (despite being trained at a Flight School with C.I.A. connections - whose owner Rudi Dekkers has now had 3 attempts on his life - wonder why?) and evidence that would suggest they could not even competently fly a Cessna 180. You are too intelligent to believe that pantload so therefore I know you to be a liar and a Psyops Shill operating from an agenda other than that of forwarding the truth.

To which I would add for your consideration:

Why was NORAD asleep? There were two air bases, one with 7 minutes intercept time, the other 10, along the direct flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Why was NORAD able to scramble two F-15’s and have them alongside Golfer Payne Stewart’s aircraft within 10 minutes while unable to intercept any of the 4 JUMBO JETS in a period of about 2 hours? Was their perhaps another agenda at play? I can understand the first POSSIBLY making it through, but not 3 more.

The plane that hit the Pentagon descended 7000 feet in 2 minutes in a tight spiral described by Air Traffic Controllers as “military like” in it’s precision. It then proceeded at tree top height, even clipping some branches, to hit dead center a 71 foot high wall. And this was allegedly done by a pilot trained only in simulators who had never actually flown a Jet Aircraft AT ALL.

Your circumlocutions and avoidance of answering ring shrill and hollow.

“Accusations of ‘bending over’ should not be made by an apologist for a mass murderer, you cowardly swine.”

At what point did I offer apologia for Saddam Hussein? Please cite the passage. I am really quite puzzled. You invent a rationale for a rebuttal from whole cloth.

My time for this minor chore has expired. You still stand openly exposed for what you are: nothing more than a shill parroting what you have been told to sell.

Cost of a homemade flag dipped in kerosene: $1.00
Cost of a lighter: $.30

Watching some jerk terrorist catch on fire while lighting our flag: PRICELESS!

Why can't I stop laughing?

!!!!!!!! Why can't you?

This is for you sheepshit!

error

... here sperm!

...

What are you doing here, spamming Indymedia? Shouldn't you be strapping on your parachute with the 101st? Or are you like your hero GW? Go die for oil, leave us alone.

"Chicken hawk" is interesting as an insult because it is such a pure example of reactionary thinking or, rather, the substitution of reaction for thinking.

Return of the 'Chicken Hawks'

By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, October 30, 2002; Page A23


The general trump-it-all insult that the antiwar crowd aims at the pro-war crowd these days is a neat little portmanteau term that manages to impute, at once, cowardice, ignorance, selfishness, bloodlust (as long as the blood spills from others' veins) and hypocrisy: "chicken hawk."

The generally accepted definition of the term, which dates at least to 1988, describes "chicken hawks" as public persons, generally male, who advocate war but who declined a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime.

"Chicken hawk" is interesting as an insult because it is such a pure example of reactionary thinking or, rather, the substitution of reaction for thinking. It is the sort of thing you say when you need to stop the argument in its tracks because you simply can't bear to address its realities. Other obvious examples of the type might include "my country right or wrong" and "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

As these suggest, the power of the reactionary argument-stopper is in inverse correlation with any underlying truth. Nothing could seem more immediately unanswerable than "my country right or wrong." Of course: It is your country, and it remains your country no matter what, and at first blush this seems the morally admirable position. But nothing could be more disastrous, or less morally supportable, than the philosophy this tautology represents: "My country right or wrong," wrote G.K. Chesterton, is on a moral par with "my mother drunk or sober." This is an idea that ends you up with Napoleon's France, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China.

So it is with "chicken hawk." Its power lies in the simplicity that comes with being completely wrong. The central implication here is that only men who have professionally endured war have the moral standing and the experiential authority to advocate war. That is, in this country at least, a radical and ahistorical view. The Founders, who knew quite well the dangers of a military class supreme, were clear in their conviction that the judgment of professional warmakers must be subordinated to the command of ignorant amateurs -- civilian leaders who were in turn subordinated to the command of civilian voters. Such has given us the leadership in war of such notable "chicken hawks" as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Further, the inescapable logic of "chicken hawk"-calling is that only military men have standing to pronounce in any way on war -- to advocate it or to advocate against it. The decision not to go to war involves exactly the same issues of experiential and moral authority as does the decision to go to war. If a past of soldiering is required for one, it is required for the other. Chicken doves have no more standing than "chicken hawks." We must leave all the decisions to the generals and the veterans.

I am myself not technically a "chicken hawk," as I was, thank God, a few years too young to serve during the Vietnam War and too old and too untrained to be of any military use during the next significant war, the Persian Gulf War of 1991. But I suppose I fit the spirit if not the letter of the slur. I am certainly now a hawk, and during the Vietnam years I was certainly a dove. What changed me was in fact experience of war -- but not as a soldier.

I covered the Gulf War as a reporter, and it was this experience, later compounded by what I saw reporting in Bosnia, that convinced me of the moral imperative, sometimes, for war.

In liberated Kuwait City, one vast crime scene, I toured the morgue one day and inspected torture and murder victims left behind by the departing Iraqis. "The corpse in drawer 3 . . . belonged to a young man," I later wrote. "When he was alive, he had been beaten from the soles of the feet to the crown of the head, and every inch of his skin was covered with purple-and-black bruises. . . . The man in drawer 12 had been burned to death with some flammable liquid. . . . Corpses 18 and 19 . . . belonged to the brothers Abbas . . . the eyeballs of the elder of the Abbas brothers had been removed. The sockets were bloody holes."

That was the beginning of the making of me as at least an honorary "chicken hawk." After that, I never again could stand the arguments of those who sat in the luxury of safety -- "advocating nonresistance behind the guns of the American Fleet," as George Orwell wrote of World War II pacifists -- and held that the moral course was, in crimes against humanity as in crimes on the street corner: Better not to get involved, dear.



© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Not to read the print propaganda
from the 'libral' media.

Diogenes, you don't make any sense. The Congress has the responsibility to make law. The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Bill were argued over, and passed by, Congress. You can piss and moan all you want about it, (and I'm sure you will), but them's the facts, Jack. CONGRESS PASSED THE LAWS. This means that the majority of Congressmen believe that the law passes Constitutional muster. The President, advised by legal minds a bit more astute than yours, signed the bills believing they passed Constitutional muster. The Supreme Court will review them should they find any problem with them.

But all that is just crap, because Diogenes read the Constitution more closely than anyone. His interpretation of all clauses is to be taken as the final word. You are an insufferable creep. If you know so much and care so much, then run for office and make a difference you coward. If you don't like the system, change it. But no, you'd rather piss and moan, moan and piss and pretend you have an intellectual leg to stand on, when your arguments are laughable and your train of thought off the rails.

As to the rest of your conspiracy theory crap, can it Junior. We know who attacked us. We know who celebrated. And all your Blame America Firsting won't make your rediculous dreams any more real.

You mean the five members of the mossad
who were found to have traces of H E in
their van when arrested after filming and
cheering the WTC assult?

Aww, Fido's just pissed off 'cause he's wearing his ass for a hat after he lost that DU argument.

Aww, pobrecito

No, KPC, I didn't lose any argument. If you want to talk about DU, let's talk. I've handled DU rounds, and know a damn sight more than you do about them. So if you really want to talk DU we'll talk. Otherwise go soak your tiny little head.

If DU is as toxic as is claimed, then why are there no complaints about DU from Kuwait? The majority of battles in the first Gulf War took place here, including the discharge of a large amount of DU. Why are Kuwaiti children not dying from DU poisoning? Does DU just really dislike Iraqis?

Your friend Diogenes trots out an apologist for the Taliban as a credible source on DU in Afghanistan. Nice try. As usual with you clowns, its as easy as a search of Google to discredit you. It makes one wonder - if your BS is so thin that anyone can see through it, how come you continue to put it out there?

Let me guess, it's time for some swearing.

See, my doggie comes when I call him....

Listen, very simple, even for you...either it is toxic or it is not. Now, you've handled rounds (oooooohh, ya big STUD) and you know a damn site more about it than me, SO...you know the answer is YES...DU is toxic...You know it, I know it, everybody knows it... that is an undeniable fact. DU is Toxic. Fuck ya gotta have an MSDS just to handle it, but you don't know shit about that, facts are inconvinient things to you, to be ignored when they do not support your script, to be touted when they do (which is never)...

Now, I don't what your flubbering about Kuwait this and Taliban that...nothing to do with it fuckhead...DU is Toxic. Period. End of fuckin' debate...except for broke dick doggies like you...

...now you go do your little soldier boy dance, pull some strawman shit outta your ass, y'know, SPFOP (Standard Pvt. Fido Operating Procedure), what you ALWAYS do...

...and we laugh!

I considered ignoring your post as it is so lame as to be embarrassing. The least you could have done was organize an orderly retreat.

Somehow I wonder if you are even the same SIMPLEton. Did he perhaps assign an underling to compose a reply?

It is not my fault you are ignorant of your own Constitution and the founding documents and debates. A good grounding in the Constitution is something all citizens should have and sadly, as you prove, do not. If you disagree with my position then try reading the Constitution yourself. Read the debates surrounding it’s creation. Spend a little time in the company of Thomas Jefferson, james Madison, and George Washington. Your abysmal ignorance of the fundamental precepts underlying our Constitution betray a great depth of shallowness. You would claim to be defending freedom by destroying it. As usual you try to weasel out with a very tepid and transparent artifice of diverting from the main issues at play. You sir are the coward in this argument and are criminally negligent in your duties as a citizen.
Yes the Congress is responsible for originating, debating, and passing the Bills. The President, in the role of the executive, is responsible for reviewing and if he finds them acceptable signing them into law. If not he should Veto. He has sworn an Oath to defend the Constitution. Sole responsibility does not lie with the Judiciary. This is elementary and to attempt to divert by assigning some arcane depth to the clear issues is transparent artifice.
In a Congress that actually followed the Constitution ideally no bill would pass that did not fit within it’s bounds. Unfortunately such is not the case. As you indirectly admit by saying “let the courts decide it”. Well, it is also your responsibility as an INFORMED citizen to know enough to be able to decide for yourself. You defend your position with fulmination and bluster not reason and facts.
I stand behind my earlier condemnation. You are not a Patriot, you are a pseudo patriot claiming a mantle not your due. I am at a loss as to how to further deal with your ignorance. You would have a Dictatorship and not a free country and for such as myself who desires to be, and remain, free your viewpoint is absolutely foreign and abhorrent.
In the case of the Patriot Act as per Congressman Ron Paul (R) TX the bill was not even available in printed form at the time of passage. There is no way there could have been an informed debate the way it was ramrodded through. Was Congress Derelict in it’s duty. Certainly, and without a doubt.

Patriot Act Summaries and Analysis:

At EPIC.ORG: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

At CATO.ORG: http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/levy-martial-law.html

At the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html

Homeland Security Act: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul62.html

Your closing line is beautifully illustrative of the phrase “invincible ignorance”.

“As to the rest of your conspiracy theory crap, can it Junior. We know who attacked us. We know who celebrated. And all your Blame America Firsting won't make your rediculous dreams any more real.”

Translation: “I don’t wanna’ look at the awful truth and you can’t make me. Can’t, can’t, can’t.

And you are right I cannot. Truly that makes me sad. As our country drifts toward tyranny that may well be the epitaph of freedom. “I don’t want to look because then I might have to do something.”

So that you might not forget I repost the questions I have posed to you:

“We have as yet to have a convincing explanation of what really occurred on 911. And don't give me that tired old line about Muslims hating us because we are free. That dog won't hunt. The Current Junta has attempted to block or limit any investigation at every turn - including appointing Henry, useless eaters, Kissinger to run the Whitewash.
19 Arabs - 8 of whom are still alive and no explanation as to how they were able to overcome the Cockpit Crews of 4 Airliners without ONE giving an alert. BULLSHIT. That is even more fantastical than 19 Arabs who were incompetent pilots who suddenly acquired the skills of a trained military pilot (despite being trained at a Flight School with C.I.A. connections - whose owner Rudi Dekkers has now had 3 attempts on his life - wonder why?) and evidence that would suggest they could not even competently fly a Cessna 180. You are too intelligent to believe that pantload so therefore I know you to be a liar and a Psyops Shill operating from an agenda other than that of forwarding the truth.

To which I would add for your consideration:

Why was NORAD asleep? There were two air bases, one with 7 minutes intercept time, the other 10, along the direct flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Why was NORAD able to scramble two F-15’s and have them alongside Golfer Payne Stewart’s aircraft within 10 minutes while unable to intercept any of the 4 JUMBO JETS in a period of about 2 hours? Was their perhaps another agenda at play? I can understand the first POSSIBLY making it through, but not 3 more.

The plane that hit the Pentagon descended 7000 feet in 2 minutes in a tight spiral described by Air Traffic Controllers as “military like” in it’s precision. It then proceeded at tree top height, even clipping some branches, to hit dead center a 71 foot high wall. And this was allegedly done by a pilot trained only in simulators who had never actually flown a Jet Aircraft AT ALL.
These are not the only questions unanswered as I am sure you must know. While I can speak only for myself I can say that I have observed many others who are troubled by these UNANSWERED questions. You cannot be ignorant of them SHILL.

Your circumlocutions and avoidance of answering ring shrill and hollow.

OK i thought we all had this down to make it realy simple -
They (al quaeda) hate USA because it is in saudi arabia. They hate australia because it is in east timor.
The muslim holy men in the more radical countries dont like USA because it is not muslim and it it quite visible therefore acts as a lightning rod.
That and the USA/Australia keeps retarding the spread of Islam to various countries - even though some times it protects islamic countries from falling under non islamic countries. The details (whether if be east timor or israel are basically irellevant to them).
The average muslim on the street believes what he is told by whoever is doing the telling.

As for the rest of your post I am waiting for your "logical alternative" to the scenario the government has put forth and how the government has been able to hold together such an elaborate conspiricy and even more importantly why all the people needed to keep it a secret would risk trial as a trator to conceal it.

I would bust them soon as I could blink getting executed as a trator (besides being responsible for deaths) is not my style.

Both of you ask for the "logical" alternative to what is currently in place. I can't help it -- when I see repetition of appeal by different post-er's (is that what we call ourselves [although I've endured, shithead, a couple of times]), I scratch and think, is this one in the same?



(na, move on.)

Diogenes you are such a silly little creature that your insults just bounce off. In your entire boring first paragraph all you reestablish is that you are as pompous as you are paranoid. I am reasonably well versed in the Constitution and the pertinent discussions which accompanied its passage. But let’s not quibble over little old me; let’s discuss the matter at hand.

Your contention is that the President is a ‘traitor’ because he signed into law the Patriot Act. By your own admission this act was authored by and passed through a bipartisan Congress. Is it your contention that all the members of Congress who voted for this act are traitors? It must follow logically that if the President is guilty of Treason for merely approving an act, then those that debated and passed it are MORE guilty. So say it, you silly little creature. According to you, the President and the majority of the members of Congress are traitors.

There have been times, my soft old man, that the United States has had to suspend certain liberties and rights for the protection of the country. During the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc. the sitting Presidents had to make hard decisions which reduced or eliminated certain rights of individual citizens. Once these conflicts had ended these rights were restored. There is no reason to believe that this case is any different.

Furthermore, while you look down your nose at the concept of Judicial Review, it is a fact that this practice has been in effect for better than one hundred years, and has served the country well.

Finally, what an arrogant little turd you are. You really believe that your understanding of the Constitution trumps that of scores of legal scholars, judges, Congressmen and the President. All hail Diogenes’ superior knowledge. And why doesn’t Diogenes run for elected office? Is it not his duty to do so? Is it not his light and truth we are all yearning for? Of course there’s that embarrassing little point about believing that George Bush and Ariel Sharon orchestrated the 11 Sep 01 attacks for personal gain, but hell, Diogenes is right, right, right.

You should check in to a mental ward, Bonaparte.

You are even more amusing than Bush Admirer. Where is your
case? I don't see it. You don't even know when your ass
has been wasted in debate. Poor boy.

I am shocked, SIMPLY, shocked that you would resort to what amounts to nothing more than warm air and personal invective. For your insults to have effect I would have to have some respect for your position. I long ago ceased being troubled by ad hominem attacks. Use of such ALWAYS shows that the person resorting to them has nothing VALID with which to sustain their position.
You state the obvious as though it is representative of profound insight. Would you like a cookie? Of course Congress derelict in it’s Constitutional duty. Does it approach Treason? To the same degree that the pResident’s actions do regarding the same unconstitutional actions. Well, yes. And your point?

“There have been times, my soft old man, that the United States has had to suspend certain liberties and rights for the protection of the country. During the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc. the sitting Presidents had to make hard decisions which reduced or eliminated certain rights of individual citizens. Once these conflicts had ended these rights were restored. There is no reason to believe that this case is any different.”

That this has at times occurred does not make it legal or Constitutional. Lincoln took many actions which were beyond the bounds of the Constitution. If you are knowledgeable, as you allege, and for which I have seen no evidence, then you would know that such actions have been debated. And your assertion that these rights have always been returned is FALSE. When Lincoln pre-empted the Constitution he established a new balance in our Nation wherein the Federal Supremecy as opposed independent states came to rule the land. Much to the endangerment of the liberties of all. You are nothing more than a little Quisling who would seek shelter in shallow sophistry to further the aims of your Masters.

You take refuge again in shallow name calling. Oooooooh - Conspiracy Theory ‘ ooooooooh. Boooooga, booga, booga. Anyone who does not swallow unfiltered the pronouncements of the corrupt politicians in authority must be delusional. “We have told you how it is now take your Prozac and shut up. Stop asking questions - it could be unhealthy.”

War is Peace.

Ignorance is Strength

As before you seek to avoid answering or even attempting logical refutation to the questions I pose. I have offered no theory it would appear to me that you are the one inferring that it is the Political Elite that staged 911 or let it happen. Why do you believe that?

I would also point out that those named as the culprits have never been PROVEN to be such. All that has been put forth have been the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORIES which are so laughably weak when analyzed that they throw even more question as to the intelligence and ability of the current corrupt administration.

I repost the UNANSWERED questions:

“We have as yet to have a convincing explanation of what really occurred on 911. And don't give me that tired old line about Muslims hating us because we are free. That dog won't hunt. The Current Junta has attempted to block or limit any investigation at every turn - including appointing Henry, useless eaters, Kissinger to run the Whitewash.
19 Arabs - 8 of whom are still alive and no explanation as to how they were able to overcome the Cockpit Crews of 4 Airliners without ONE giving an alert. BULLSHIT.

That is even more fantastical than 19 Arabs who were incompetent pilots who suddenly acquired the skills of a trained military pilot (despite being trained at a Flight School with C.I.A. connections - whose owner Rudi Dekkers has now had 3 attempts on his life - wonder why?) and evidence that would suggest they could not even competently fly a Cessna 180.

You are too intelligent to believe that pantload so therefore I know you to be a liar and a Psyops Shill operating from an agenda other than that of forwarding the truth.

To which I would add for your consideration:

Why was NORAD asleep? There were two air bases, one with 7 minutes intercept time, the other 10, along the direct flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Why was NORAD able to scramble two F-15’s and have them alongside Golfer Payne Stewart’s aircraft within 10 minutes while unable to intercept any of the 4 JUMBO JETS in a period of about 2 hours? Was their perhaps another agenda at play? I can understand the first POSSIBLY making it through, but not 3 more.

The plane that hit the Pentagon descended 7000 feet in 2 minutes in a tight spiral described by Air Traffic Controllers as “military like” in it’s precision. It then proceeded at tree top height, even clipping some branches, to hit dead center a 71 foot high wall. And this was allegedly done by a pilot trained only in simulators who had never actually flown a Jet Aircraft AT ALL.

These are not the only questions unanswered as I am sure you must know. While I can speak only for myself I can say that I have observed many others who are troubled by these UNANSWERED questions. You cannot be ignorant of them SHILL.

Your circumlocutions and avoidance of answering ring shrill and hollow.

You must be new, Lancer. If you can follow debate, congratulations - you're alone on your side of the aisle.

I fail to see where I have been bested in any facet of this little debate. Diogenes claims the President is a traitor because he passed a law. I claim that Diogenes' understanding of the Constitution and his grasp of reality is questionable at best.

You have at every turn failed to refute my thesis. You are left naked and exposed with naught.

Your whistling is shrill and tuneless, and played over, and over, and over, and over, again.

What thesis, you ninny?

First you make an accusation that the President is a traitor because he signed some legislation. You do not castigate the Congress, whose duty it is to author and pass this legislation in the first place, and you also cast aspersions on the concept of Judicial Review, so you are not making sense.

Second you desperately want me to respond to your paranoid delusions concerning the Sept 11 attacks. I'm not going to bite. If you want to ignore all the evidence to the contrary, fine, but don't expect someone with the least intelligence to argue with you. Perhaps you can debate KPC on this point.

So, I take it is then your contention that the pResident did not take an Oath to defend the Constitution?

Do you contend as well that he cannot summon the resources neccessary to do a proper review of a Bill?

Sheer idiotic ramblings of a deranged SHILL.

And as always you twist your opponents position; a very dishonest tactic. Many legal scholars have commented on the question Judicial Supremecy and there is no support for it in the Constitution. It is the accepted "law of the land" by fiat and tradition only. There is a substantial argument that it violates the seperation of powers. Do some reading before you further betray your ignorance.

As for the Questions you do not respond because you cannot provide sound answers. That is the truth of the matter and I will not let you avoid it. To attempt to answer destroys your position and you know it and I know it. The questions are valid and unanswered but as a SHILL for the PARTY LINE you must continue to avoid them and the longer you do the less credibility you have.

The questions are valid and are based on publicly available information.

I've been lurking at this sight for a few months now
and have a few observations to share.
Although Simple Simon and his name calling may attempt to
trivialize your admirable and to me valid legal and historical points, he cannot admit it. You do concede certain points as they might occur and are graceful enough
to admit it.
Personally, I believe this ideologue is truly blind to the
unlawful actions of this administration. I am impressed by your patient if futile endeavor to enlighten him. There is a great deal of information you bring to this board.
Speaking for myself, I have been educated by your efforts.

I have a great love for the truth. If I have brought anything to this board that you have found of use then I am pleased and honored that you would find it such.

U.S. Accepts Saddam's Latest Proposal

(2003-02-26) -- The White House and Saddam Hussein have finally found common ground on one issue of the current crisis. The breakthrough came when Mr. Hussein told CBS News reporter Dan Rather that he won't go into exile.

"We will die here," said the Iraqi president. "We will die in this country and we will maintain our honour."

The Bush administration immediately accepted the proposal.

"The president doesn't know who else Saddam's talking about when he says 'we will die here'," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, "But as long as that includes Saddam, we're open to the idea. Of course, there are still a lot of details to work out. But now that he has conceded one of our major demands, it's just a matter of timing and methodology, and how much of our assistance might be required."

Mr. Fleischer said Saddam would have to supply his own "honour".

"According to our data, he doesn't have any of that in stock," Mr. Fleischer added.

Diogenes, you must have a short somewhere.

You have said that the President is a 'traitor' because he signed legislation. You have not said that those who authored and passed this legislation are similarly 'traitors'. You have failed to demonstrate your point - only substituting your rediculous OPINION that the signature of the President on a bill is the same as treason. I have said this a half dozen times now, and every time you come back with insults and rediculous statements.

Do you think, maybe, that legal scholars have advised the President and members of Congress on this issue? Do you think, maybe, that some members of Congress are lawyers themselves, and are familiar with the Constitution? Or are all issues regarding the Constitution to be handed over to you, you pompous ass?

Well after everything I read about French people I felt much better when I read the comments on this site, especially the first one which was pretty accurate and which gave a good understanding of the nature of French people, in my opinion.
I am glad to see that there are still some people-whether they are American or French- that did not give up their moral values to childish stereotypes that are as old as the world and that only contribute to increase nationalisms, which can only trigger the international scene.
Nobody is perfect and nobody can claim he knows everything better than anybody else and can decide, or at least think, for other people.
Critical mind is indeed the first priority. Without a sense of critical mind, we are all lambs.

Keeping it civil, I see.
You're REALLY a piece of work there, Simple.

And you are an insufferable toady with little to say. Why don't you toddle off to anti-American studies class before you're late?

error

Geez, you sure got a lotta fuzz to refer to ANYONE as a toady...you are such a shameless bootlicker that you've got the permanent smell of shoeleather on your breath...

...fuckin' clown, Pvt. Fido, you are a fuckin' clown!

Ah, the devistating wit and timeless charm of KPC. Just get home from daycare sonny? If you read above, Lancer was just getting done saying how much she admires Diogenes. It was getting a little sickly sweet in here.

S.S.'s feelings are hurt because no one respects him here. Poor little boot-licker!

But there's always the Bush Admirer to fall back
into the arms of and apply kisses to, the hurt spot.

No, nothing helps but the blood of Iraqi Republican Guards. Soon, sweet solace, soon.

...but a lick at his own doggie ass will do in a pinch!

...ain't that right DOGGIE?

Don't hurt his feelings or we'll get another spray of spittle and raging frustration at not being able to empty
a clip or two into into any dissenter, like a loyal S.S. goon would do.

Merci beaucoup, many thanks, to Molly Ivins, for defending the French. For her very eloquent balancing act. The act of xenophobia performed by some Americans enraged by the fact that the French would not submit to the will of the White House was hurtful before it became laughable. France, supposedly a nation that surrenders easily, is resisting the war-loving government of the most powerful nation in the world. Do you call that surrender?
Suppose France was populated with Black people, would that simplistic, yet nasty, verbal persecution occur? Isn't xenophobia a cousin of racism?

Xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.

Look, Joe-Mary, nobody here hates the French, and we certainly don't fear them (who would?). So I guess we're not xenophobes. We just pity them.

Answer the questions in my last post and they answer your nonsensical rant.
(By the way I did answer your question several posts ago - either you did not read it, you did not understand it, it did not register, or you have conveniently forgotten it.) Which is it? Having dealt with you long enough I think D. Conveniently forgotten it is the correct answer to my rhetorical question. Now don’t thank me too much for the favor of answering for you.

I had thought to repost it in this little reply but it would be good exercise for you to back up and locate it.

Onward! You, as totally expected, completely ignored the central issue of my last post. Again, truth is YOUR enemy.

Did Mr. Bush take the Presidential Oath which binds him to obeying and defending the Constitution?

This is not “Rocket Science”. It is a simple yes or no question

Or did it not count because he had his fingers crossed?

In the event you are not familiar with the Presidential Oath here it is in it’s entirety (It is located in Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 8 - of the Constitution of course.):

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."”

As you are no doubt unaware the Presidential Oath is the only one the Founders saw as necessary to include in the Constitution. The view of the founders was that the Presidents responsibility is to act as a check on rash and irresponsible legislation. As well the unknown author of the un-Patriot Act is to be found in the White House - or at least the D.O. J. as it was brought from the Executive to the House and Senate “Leadership” for introduction. And to reiterate my position they are just as guilty of violating their sacred trust.

Article II. Section 4. of the U.S. Constitution:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article III. Section 3.
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

You may have a valid point in that the crime of violating one’s Oath may not fit this Constitutional definition of Treason unless it could be shown that the action in violation was for the furtherance of a broader subversion of the lawful Constitutional Government i.e., “...adhering to their enemies...”. Which would be very difficult to prove. People in an illegal “CONSPIRACY” generally do not advertise that intent or actions - that’s why it is called a conspiracy. As Jefferson put it (roughly from memory): “Where a series of events all evince a common design one may rightly infer a conspiracy. It is in fact unlikely such would advertise their actions....” He was speaking of the Aaron Burr CONSPIRACY - a matter of historical record. However, I think we could safely consider knowingly signing into law an unconstitutional bill to be a “high Crime” and as such an impeachable offense. False Swearing is akin to fraud and is illegal in the Several States. And yes the same would apply to any Congressman who did same.

This as even you can see does not leave a lot of wiggle room “to let the courts decide it” which I am sure, by your use of the phrase, are well aware that those were the exact words used by pResident Bush when asked about it’s dubious Constitutionality. The list of Cities, Towns, and Counties, which are blocking enforcement of it’s provisions grows daily. One State, New Mexico if memory serves and I am sure you’ll correct me if I am wrong, is considering legislation to do so on a statewide basis. What hogwash your comment in that regard was and is. Sophomoric Sophistry is too kind.

Tell me, do you regard your Oath as “flexible”? Or are you a man of your word?

You may fume and sputter all you wish, and I expect you will, but your defense of the indefensible is refuted. (At no time have you offered rebuttal based upon Constitutional Scholarship.) Rather convincingly refuted I might add - modestly of course. Not bad for a SOFT OLD NCO eh, Cake Eater?

By the way you still have not answered any of the following questions. You have in fact studiously avoided addressing them in any way resembling a rational response. I do not consider your pathetic attempts to brush them off by using that tired old “Conspiracy Theory” canard a response.

Just in case you have forgotten:

“We have as yet to have a convincing explanation of what really occurred on 911. And don't give me that tired old line about Muslims hating us because we are free. That dog won't hunt.

The Current Junta has attempted to block or limit any investigation at every turn - including appointing Henry, useless eaters, Kissinger to run the Whitewash.

19 Arabs - 8 of whom are still alive and no explanation as to how they were able to overcome the Cockpit Crews of 4 Airliners without ONE giving an alert. BULLSHIT.

That is even more fantastical than 19 Arabs who were incompetent pilots who suddenly acquired the skills of trained military pilots (despite being trained at a Flight School with C.I.A. connections - whose owner Rudi Dekkers has now had 3 attempts on his life - wonder why?) and evidence that would suggest they could not even competently fly a Cessna 180.

You are too intelligent to believe that pant load so therefore I know you to be a liar and a Psyops Shill operating from an agenda other than that of forwarding the truth.

To which I would add for your consideration:

Why was NORAD asleep? There were two air bases, one with 7 minutes intercept time, the other 10, along the direct flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Why was NORAD able to scramble two F-15’s and have them alongside Golfer Payne Stewart’s aircraft within 10 minutes while unable to intercept any of the 4 JUMBO JETS in a period of about 2 hours? Was there perhaps another agenda at play? I can understand the first POSSIBLY making it through, but not 3 more.

The plane that hit the Pentagon descended 7000 feet in 2 minutes in a tight spiral described by Air Traffic Controllers as “military like” in it’s precision. This mind you, was in a Jumbo Jet, not an F-15. It then rapidly leveled off and proceeded at tree top height, even clipping some branches, to hit dead center a 71 foot high wall. And this was allegedly done by a pilot trained only in simulators who had never actually flown a Jet Aircraft AT ALL.

These are not the only questions unanswered as I am sure you must know. While I can speak only for myself I can say that I have observed many others who are troubled by these UNANSWERED questions. You cannot be ignorant of them SHILL.

As for these Questions you do not respond because you cannot provide sound answers. That is the truth of the matter and I will not let you avoid it. To attempt to answer destroys your position and you know it and I know it. The questions are valid and unanswered but as a SHILL for the PARTY LINE you must continue to avoid them and the longer you do the less credibility you have.

The questions are valid and are based on publicly available information.

Your circumlocutions and avoidance of answering ring shrill and hollow.

No Bonus for you this week.
And quite frankly you are a traitor to this nation and the principles upon which it was founded. You bring dishonor upon yourself and your uniform. You offer defense and support to those who would subvert this nation to their own petty ends. You are a craven Quisling untrue to either your Oath or your Country. You are without honor and without defense. Your only successful argument is force, to deprive your fellow citizens of their liberties and their birthright of freedom. To rain war and havoc at your Master’s beckon and to destroy the lives of people who have committed no offense and wish only to live their lives free of the influence of the evil which those of your stripe would further. The cause you cow to is not on the side of decency and it follows a path purely of destruction and evil. You have intellect, but bereft of Soul you act as an animal. It would be my hope and prayer that even such as you might recover your lost humanity. Unlike you I do not wish evil upon others for my own gain. I would not pursue a course of destruction unless it were the only course open to assure freedom’s light undiminished. Those for whom you advocate are evil, and you are befouled by the willing association. May the candle be extinguished, the book closed, and your destiny to wander endlessly in the “Outer Dark”.

Ha ha ha

It WAS his finest moment after all.
Very intelligent man who thought trees
produced more pollution than industry.

That man ended the Cold War. Your best work is sitting in the bottom of your toilet.

Ketchup is a vegetable.

However, I do think he had some good points. I do believe he was loyal to his country and his Oath until the Alzheimers began to set in.
Most of the worst excesses of the Reagan White House would seem to be traceable to Bush I. I can't prove that but it is my sense of what occurred.

Would you please leave so I can take a another Simon?

Damn, you got there fisrt.

Provided South America amply with
terrorists, funding those Somosa thugs with
weapons and transportation to wage vicious
war on such soft targets as day care centers
hospitals and farm co ops.
They really remember him down there all right.
And that was just Nicaragua
El Salvador, Guatemala also remember him.
Remember the four nuns that were accidentally
raped and murdered?

Did you read my last little number on Simpleton?

Of course; you seem to be able to hammer a 10
penny into his obfuscating swill better than I
could, but I have little patience with the 11B
'got so much free time' boot licker.
My taxes poorly spent, again still.

I guess everyone has to have a hobby. Just lately it has been doing my best to discredit Simpleton's Swill.

It is not that hard to do - just ignore his attempts to divert. Anywho - I have noted that you are a little better at deliver quick jabs.

I remember this Cobra Gunner I knew - "I may be small but I hit often. I may not hit hard but I hit often. I may go down but I get right back up."

You know how dogs snap at flies.

You still have not responded to my last major Salvo. I would invite one and all to see how Simpleton got his ass kicked. See above.

Simple Simon seems to enjoy hitting below the belt, literally. I try to hear all arguments before making a decision over a matter, but I lost all respect for this writer when he couldn't maintain a decent level of decorum in expressing his opposition to Miss Ivins. He seems more concerned about her being a woman with an opinion than about offering up a fair rebuttal to her editiorial. As beneficiaries of a constitution that allows us freedom of the press, we should recognize the right of all Americans (and we all ARE Americans) to express our opinions. Should we disagree, we should maintain civility and respect about our opponent's person. Simple Simon, you have a right to disagree with Miss Ivins, but you went way beyond the issue in question. I have not always agreed with her either, but I respect her right to have an opinion. You, sir, are no gentleman.

I wish I had read on a little further. Or maybe I wish I hadn't read here at all. Although several of you think you are so superior to each other, you actually come off sounding like twin brothers, so well matched are your vicious banter and endless insults. I'll leave you to your childish besting. There's bound to be an forum for adults around here somewhere.

...now who's sounding superior?

I think you take this waaaayyy to seriously...

No adults here lady. Just bare knuckles and broken bottles.

You, young lady, are a twit, a wuss, a jerk-off and yes, a coward.
You rump ranger leftists are getting the you-know-what kicked out of you and you still haven't the courage to unveil yourself as what you truly are-- insecure momma's boys and girls who are scared **itless of trying to succeed in a Capitalist System and therefore seek to overthrow said System and replace it with a socialist or communist system which would reward even the stupidest slugs such as yourself.
I say either take the welfare we working people will provide you or get out of the United States. China would be a good place for you.

Doth blow out your anus in the form of words.
What war were you in? Can we see your 201 file?

Well SIMPLEton I think we have a rare point of agreement - kind of like Patton when he exchanged insults with the Russian General.

Oh Socrates I think someone has a cup of something for you to drink.

I am no one else here.
All I am saying is the strongest evidence is a colection of facts that can only support one explination - such as the collection of facts that prove evolution or gravity. None of them prove it individually but collectively they are compelling because there is no other plausible explination.

Kevin, you are a bigot.

Simple Simon plays so rough when it comes to attacking the poor and elderly. Pick on someone without dentures and you'll get your clock cleaned, you racist homophobe.