Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[DVD Burner]

Did you know that Dick Cheney is a college dropout?



I did'nt know that.

[Simply Joel]

April 26, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Make Peace With Pot
By ERIC SCHLOSSER

Starting in the fall, pharmacies in British Columbia will sell marijuana for medicinal purposes, without a prescription, under a pilot project devised by Canada's national health service. The plan follows a 2002 report by a Canadian Senate committee that found there were "clear, though not definitive" benefits for using marijuana in the treatment of chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and other ailments. Both Prime Minister Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition conservatives, support the decriminalization of marijuana.

Oddly, the strongest criticism of the Canadian proposal has come from patients already using medical marijuana who think the government, which charges about $110 an ounce, supplies lousy pot. "It is of incredibly poor quality," said one patient. Another said, "It tastes like lumber." A spokesman for Health Canada promised the agency would try to offer a better grade of product.

Needless to say, this is a far cry from the situation in the United States, where marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance, a drug that the government says has a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical uses and no safe level of use.

Under federal law it is illegal to possess any amount of marijuana anywhere in the United States. Penalties for a first marijuana offense range from probation to life without parole. Although 11 states have decriminalized marijuana, most still have tough laws against the drug. In Louisiana, selling one ounce can lead to a 20-year prison sentence. In Washington State, supplying any amount of marijuana brings a recommended prison sentence of five years.

About 700,000 people were arrested in the United States for violating marijuana laws in 2002 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) — more than were arrested for heroin or cocaine. Almost 90 percent of these marijuana arrests were for simple possession, a crime that in most cases is a misdemeanor. But even a misdemeanor conviction can easily lead to time in jail, the suspension of a driver's license, the loss of a job. And in many states possession of an ounce is a felony. Those convicted of a marijuana felony, even if they are disabled, can be prohibited from receiving federal welfare payments or food stamps. Convicted murderers and rapists, however, are still eligible for those benefits.

The Bush administration has escalated the war on marijuana, raiding clinics that offer medical marijuana and staging a nationwide roundup of manufacturers of drug paraphernalia. In November 2002 the Office of National Drug Control Policy circulated an "open letter to America's prosecutors" spelling out the administration's views. "Marijuana is addictive," the letter asserted. "Marijuana and violence are linked . . . no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana."

This tough new stand has generated little protest in Congress. Even though the war on marijuana was begun by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, it has always received strong bipartisan support. Some of the toughest drug war legislation has been backed by liberals, and the number of annual marijuana arrests more than doubled during the Clinton years. In fact, some of the strongest opposition to the arrest and imprisonment of marijuana users has come from conservatives like William F. Buckley, the economist Milton Friedman and Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico.

This year the White House's national antidrug media campaign will spend $170 million, working closely with the nonprofit Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The idea of a "drug-free America" may seem appealing. But it's hard to believe that anyone seriously hopes to achieve that goal in a nation where millions of children are routinely given Ritalin, antidepressants are prescribed to cure shyness, and the pharmaceutical industry aggressively promotes pills to help middle-aged men have sex.

Clearly, some recreational drugs are thought to be O.K. Thus it isn't surprising that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America originally received much of its financing from cigarette, alcohol and pharmaceutical companies like Hoffmann-La Roche, Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds and Anheuser-Busch.

More than 16,000 Americans die every year after taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen. No one in Congress, however, has called for an all-out war on Advil. Perhaps the most dangerous drug widely consumed in the United States is the one that I use three or four times a week: alcohol. It is literally poisonous; you can die after drinking too much. It is directly linked to about one-quarter of the suicides in the United States, almost half the violent crime and two-thirds of domestic abuse. And the level of alcohol use among the young far exceeds the use of marijuana. According to the Justice Department, American children aged 11 to 13 are four times more likely to drink alcohol than to smoke pot.

None of this should play down the seriousness of marijuana use. It is a powerful, mind-altering drug. It should not be smoked by young people, schizophrenics, pregnant women and people with heart conditions. But it is remarkably nontoxic. In more than 5,000 years of recorded use, there is no verified case of anybody dying of an overdose. Indeed, no fatal dose has ever been established.

Over the past two decades billions of dollars have been spent fighting the war on marijuana, millions of Americans have been arrested and tens of thousands have been imprisoned. Has it been worth it? According to the government's National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, in 1982 about 54 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 had smoked marijuana. In 2002 the proportion was . . . about 54 percent.

We seem to pay no attention to what other governments are doing. Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium have decriminalized marijuana. This year Britain reduced the penalty for having small amounts. Legislation is pending in Canada to decriminalize possession of about half an ounce (the Bush administration is applying strong pressure on the Canadian government to block that bill). In Ohio, possession of up to three ounces has been decriminalized for years — and yet liberal marijuana laws have not transformed Ohio into a hippy-dippy paradise; conservative Republican governors have been running the state since 1991.

Here's an idea: people who smoke too much marijuana should be treated the same way as people who drink too much alcohol. They need help, not the threat of arrest, imprisonment and unemployment.

More important, denying a relatively safe, potentially useful medicine to patients is irrational and cruel. In 1972 a commission appointed by President Richard Nixon concluded that marijuana should be decriminalized in the United States. The commission's aim was not to encourage the use of marijuana, but to "demythologize it." Although Nixon rejected the commission's findings, they remain no less valid today: "For the vast majority of recreational users," the 2002 Canadian Senate committee found, "cannabis use presents no harmful consequences for physical, psychological or social well-being in either the short or long term."

The current war on marijuana is a monumental waste of money and a source of pointless misery. America's drug warriors, much like its marijuana smokers, seem under the spell of a powerful intoxicant. They are not thinking clearly.

Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Reefer Madness."

[Simply Joel]

April 26, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Brahimi's Two Mistakes
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WSHINGTON

U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, the Bush administration's great Arab hope to appoint a transition government that would bring democracy to Iraq, is off to a troubling start.

His first mistake was to announce on French radio that "the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians," as well as the "equally unjust support of the United States for this policy."

That freelance condemnation was too much for even Kofi Annan, who sent out his official spokesman to explain that Brahimi was "a former foreign minister of Algeria" who was "expressing his personal views" and not necessarily those of the secretary general.

Undaunted by this rebuke (U.N. officials are not empowered to condemn member nations), Brahimi went on ABC television to tell George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped Friday that President Bush's support of the Sharon plan to withdraw from Gaza made his task in Iraq harder because the brutal, repressive Israelis "are not interested in peace no matter what you seem to believe in America."

This supposedly fair-minded international civil servant — in whom we are entrusting the delicate assignment to negotiate a path to free elections among Iraqi Sunnis, Shia, Kurds and other groups — then used his ABC-TV forum to make his second mistake.

As the world knows all too well, the insurgent forces combining Saddam's experienced killers and Al Qaeda terrorists have taken control of Falluja, near Baghdad. Obliteration is not an option; we are not Putin's Russians taking Grozny after leveling it.

This presents us with a trio of options. Here is what the president, his National Security Council and top field commanders have been wrestling with this past weekend:

Do we continue to try to negotiate with the insurgents holding the city's residents hostage, with our forces taking casualties almost every day? A series of broken truces would show restraint and compassion for civilians but would be taken for weakness by many throughout Iraq. Terrorists would then attempt similar standoffs in other cities, with more casualties in the long run.

Or do we send in our marines and other troops, backed by tanks and choppers, to end the Falluja insurgency? That would risk raising the immediate level of bloodshed on all sides for a brief period — thereby potentially infuriating Arabs everywhere who would see the suffering on Al Jazeera television.

Or do we search for some third way — patiently recruit and train former Iraqi soldiers, pay them plenty, and run joint patrols with U.S. marines — in hopes that we can slowly grind down the opposition before it bleeds us to despair? If this compromise doesn't work, we could then choose option one or two: interminable delay, or fight to win.

Either the coalition will take charge of Falluja or the insurgents will create a capital for their comeback. Unless the terrorists turn in real weapons, the liberation should assert control, neighborhood by neighborhood, with enough infantry power to make the battle of Falluja as short and decisive as possible.

The diplomat Brahimi evades the choice, which is his second mistake. "In this situation," he says, "there is no military solution." He elevates that to a philosophy: "There is never any military solution to any problem." Pacifism has its adherents, but when bin Laden's agents are shooting at liberators, do you turn the city, and ultimately the country, over to them?

Brahimi, diplomats assure me, is not really a pacifist; Algerians did not drive out the French without bloody warfare. His strategy is to gain quick local support by denouncing Israel (always an Arab street-pleaser) and by aligning the U.N. with those Iraqis who — having been cured of crippling despotism — now feel free to throw their crutches at the doctor.

As semi-sovereignty approaches, Iraqi politicians, except for Kurds, curry voter favor by complaining about having to join the fight for Iraqi freedom. Ayatollah al-Sistani is so fearful that a fiery upstart backed by Iran's Hezbollah will steal his followers that he competes by demanding a tyranny of the Shia majority.

The U.N.'s militantly pacifist Brahimi is falling in with this anti-Western Arab demagoguery. In embracing him so readily as the acceptable legitimator, Bush's heart may have been too soon made glad.

[Simply Joel]

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

April 25, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Rue John Kennedy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

was at a dinner the other night and was introduced to a lovely Lebanese woman. We started reminiscing about the good old days in Lebanon and I asked her where she lived in Beirut. She said it was in a building off "Rue John Kennedy." I stopped her immediately. "Rue John Kennedy?" I said, rolling over the words in my mind. "I forgot there was a time when they actually named streets in the Arab world for an American president."

Will there ever be a street in Baghdad named after George W. Bush or any U.S. president? The fact that even asking the question today seems absurd tells you how far things have deteriorated. Indeed, the question I am asking myself is this: Has America become so radioactive in the Arab-Muslim world that we glow in the dark — and therefore it is dangerous for anyone to walk the streets with us, let alone name one after a U.S. president? Has America become so radioactive that Iraqi democracy and a prolonged American presence in Iraq have become a contradiction, not a necessity?

Consider what happened in Basra on Wednesday: Some residents spontaneously stoned British troops coming to rescue Iraqi schoolgirls who were caught up in the suicide bombings of Basra police stations. These were our best friends in Iraq — the Shiites — stoning the British, while they were trying to rescue Iraqi children attacked by Islamist terrorists.

That's what we're now up against. It is the wrath of a local population that has begun to view its liberators as worse than occupiers — because they can't even provide what tyranny does, i.e. control and security, which are the necessary foundations for economic or political development. That people would stone their would-be rescuers is also a reminder of how broken, traumatized and messed up Iraqi society is by decades of Saddam's rule, and of how it is caught up in some of the same anti-Western conspiracy theories that you can find on any Arab street today.

But here's what else I'm sure of: If today you asked the same Iraqis who threw stones whether they would like the Americans or British to leave, or regret that they came, they would tell you no. They still really want us to succeed. But the only chance we have of doing that is if we look at our situation, and the real nature of Iraq, right in the eye — something that the Bush Pentagon has been criminally negligent in doing. (This is the real intelligence failure in Iraq — a failure of common sense.)

We are now in the middle of a low-grade civil war in Iraq for who will control the place after we leave. That's the bad news. Here's the good news: I doubt we will be in Iraq a year from now — certainly not in large numbers. One of three things is likely to happen. First, the security and economic situations could continue to spiral downward, creating a Mogadishu-like situation in which we will have to fight our way out.

Second, we might manage, with the help of the U.N., to organize a reasonably legitimate Iraqi caretaker government to which we can hand `'limited" sovereignty on June 30. But that won't stop our opponents. They will go on attacking U.S. forces to provoke a U.S. retaliation that will embarrass the caretaker government, make its leaders look like our stooges and pressure it to throw the U.S. out.

Third, the least-bad scenario is that we will be able to stick it out and, with the U.N., conduct a decent election by the end of the year that brings a legitimate Shiite-led Iraqi government to power. I doubt that such a government is going to want to have U.S. troops protecting it for very long, and it will either invite us to leave gradually or insist that we put our forces under a U.N. umbrella.

To even get to this stage, though, the Bush team can't make another mistake in Iraq and needs to remedy all those it has made. A good start was made on Friday when the administration effectively conceded its error in disbanding the Iraqi army and firing too many low-level former Baathists, and began reaching out to them. One hopes this is part of a wider understanding that the first freely elected Iraqi government will be, at best, fragile, insecure and therefore highly nationalistic. You don't get from Saddam to Jefferson without going through a little Khomeini and Nasser — not in this neighborhood — and we're going to have to let Iraqis find their own path through this maze.

We have to be in this for the long haul — for that moment down the road, when, after we get out of their faces and they work through their issues, they invite us back. Only then might they want to name a street after an American president.

[Don Muerto]

...no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement assuming 'drug' means 'controlled substance.'

[Don Muerto]

Safire is such an annoying ideologue. His stilted rhetoric is only one rung higher that Limbaugh's ridiculous bleatings, and that only because he is literate and not high on oxy.

His first mistake was to announce on French radio that "the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians," as well as the "equally unjust support of the United States for this policy."

That freelance condemnation was too much for even Kofi Annan, who sent out his official spokesman to explain that Brahimi was "a former foreign minister of Algeria" who was "expressing his personal views" and not necessarily those of the secretary general. Undaunted by this rebuke...

Perhaps this is a political mistake, but it is not an analytical one. The fact that a permanent, veto-weilding member of the Security Council might be angered by this does not mean it shouldn't be said. Only the least-trenchant analysis of the Middle-East could downplay the importance of the Israeli occupation. Far from a 'rebuke,' I think Mr. Annan was simply insulating himself from the comments while allowing them to be made. He could have sent a stronger message very easily. Something like "Mr. Brahimi's statements do not reflect the views of the Secretary General."

...Brahimi went on ABC television to tell George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped Friday that President Bush's support of the Sharon plan to withdraw from Gaza made his task in Iraq harder because the brutal, repressive Israelis "are not interested in peace no matter what you seem to believe in America."

And? Of course it makes it harder to quell anti-Western sentiment when Sharon piles oil-soaked straw on the smoldering fire and Bush tosses in a flare. Frankly, I was shocked at the timing as it could hardly have been worse with the Fallujah and Najaf uprisings gaining steam. I find it interesting that Safire uses the phrase 'brutal, repressive Israelis' outside of quotes. He wouldn't be trying to bias this point would he? I am sure that Mr. Brahimi meant that very thing, otherwise the rest of Safire's article would fall apart.

This supposedly fair-minded international civil servant — in whom we are entrusting the delicate assignment to negotiate a path to free elections among Iraqi Sunnis, Shia, Kurds and other groups — then used his ABC-TV forum to make his second mistake.

Good point William. Maybe we would be better off having a peacemaker like General Kimmett, Negroponte or even Sharon broker a truce.

As the world knows all too well, the insurgent forces combining Saddam's experienced killers and Al Qaeda terrorists have taken control of Falluja, near Baghdad. Obliteration is not an option; we are not Putin's Russians taking Grozny after leveling it.

Too funny. In two sentences he manages to assert an assumption as fact, make an inappropriate analogy and insult Russia.

This presents us with a trio of options. Here is what the president, his National Security Council and top field commanders have been wrestling with this past weekend:

(this must have come after Safire briefed them)

Do we continue to try to negotiate with the insurgents holding the city's residents hostage, with our forces taking casualties almost every day? A series of broken truces would show restraint and compassion for civilians but would be taken for weakness by many throughout Iraq. Terrorists would then attempt similar standoffs in other cities, with more casualties in the long run.

Assumption: the city's residents are hostages.
Conclusion (i.e. Logical Fallacy): Negotiations are a slippery slope to higher casualties.

Or do we send in our marines and other troops, backed by tanks and choppers, to end the Falluja insurgency? That would risk raising the immediate level of bloodshed on all sides for a brief period — thereby potentially infuriating Arabs everywhere who would see the suffering on Al Jazeera television.

This is probably the most accurate paragraph in this article, although I doubt that anything short of wholesale and indiscriminate slaugter in Fallujah would end the insurgency there.

Or do we search for some third way — patiently recruit and train former Iraqi soldiers, pay them plenty, and run joint patrols with U.S. marines — in hopes that we can slowly grind down the opposition before it bleeds us to despair? If this compromise doesn't work, we could then choose option one or two: interminable delay, or fight to win.

It's pretty unclear why joint patrols would be more effective as a means to 'grind down the opposition.' It seems to me he is merely looking to substitute Iraqi casualties for American ones.

Either the coalition will take charge of Falluja or the insurgents will create a capital for their comeback. Unless the terrorists turn in real weapons, the liberation should assert control, neighborhood by neighborhood, with enough infantry power to make the battle of Falluja as short and decisive as possible.

Now how did I know that Safire was angling towards the 'no choice at all?' Makes you wonder why he even laid out 2 and 3 when 1 was the only option.

The diplomat Brahimi evades the choice, which is his second mistake. "In this situation," he says, "there is no military solution." He elevates that to a philosophy: "There is never any military solution to any problem." Pacifism has its adherents, but when bin Laden's agents are shooting at liberators, do you turn the city, and ultimately the country, over to them?

Wait, I thought he made his second mistake on ABC? Brahimi did indeed evade 'the choice.' Like me he doesn't see number 1 above as feasible. Fortunately, outside of Safire's mind there are other choices for reasonable people, and Brahimi, to explore.

Brahimi, diplomats assure me, is not really a pacifist; Algerians did not drive out the French without bloody warfare. His strategy is to gain quick local support by denouncing Israel (always an Arab street-pleaser) and by aligning the U.N. with those Iraqis who — having been cured of crippling despotism — now feel free to throw their crutches at the doctor.

'Mr. Safire, I assure you I am a diplomat, and as a diplomat I assure you that Brahimi is not really a pacifist because partisans in his country of birth drove out a colonial power' That certainly sounds juicier than saying Brahimi was the Algerian Minister for Foreign Affairs and a Representative to the Arab League towards the tail end of the independence movement. -Makes the guy sound like he was out on the front lines eviscerating people not a diplomat based in Jakarta.

Do you think Mr. Safire wears a tinfoil hat when he reads minds or did Mr. Brahimi lay out 'his strategy' to him?

As semi-sovereignty approaches, Iraqi politicians, except for Kurds, curry voter favor by complaining about having to join the fight for Iraqi freedom. Ayatollah al-Sistani is so fearful that a fiery upstart backed by Iran's Hezbollah will steal his followers that he competes by demanding a tyranny of the Shia majority.

What nonsense. Sistani heads the major Shia group in Iraq which is of the school of thought that they should not interfere with politics. Fortunately for all of us, Safire has been employing the tinfoil hat trick to peer into Sistani's fears and motivations.

al Sadr is from a rival school which believes in religious leaders being part of the government apparatus. al Sadr is a minor cleric of an order headed by an Iranian cleric exiled in Iraq. Safire might as well have claimed the boogeyman is behind al Sadr as Irans ruling clerics.

The U.N.'s militantly pacifist Brahimi is falling in with this anti-Western Arab demagoguery. In embracing him so readily as the acceptable legitimator, Bush's heart may have been too soon made glad.

'Militantly pacifist' -nice ring to a self-contradictory phrase. If Brahimi is a militant pacifist, what happened to the assurances to the contrary by the unnamed diplomat above? Doesn't anybody proofread this guy and point out that he contradicts himself within a few paragraphs?

demagoguery - Definition: [n] impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace

What a set of brass-balls Safire has to call anyone a demagogue. I wonder if he ever gets winded knocking all his Straw Men down?

[Don Muerto]

I am no fan of Friedman, but there is nothing like Safire to make him look reasonable.

That's what we're now up against. It is the wrath of a local population that has begun to view its liberators as worse than occupiers — because they can't even provide what tyranny does, i.e. control and security, which are the necessary foundations for economic or political development. That people would stone their would-be rescuers is also a reminder of how broken, traumatized and messed up Iraqi society is by decades of Saddam's rule, and of how it is caught up in some of the same anti-Western conspiracy theories that you can find on any Arab street today.

I do have a problem with this paragraph, which is the foundation upon which he raises his conclusions. I don't believe he can accurately lay the Iraqi ire at the occupying forces at the feet of 'decades of Saddam's rule' or 'anti-Western conspiracies.' If you ask me, I think they have plenty to be directly angry about with the occupier's and that many of the 'conspiracy theories' are more likely true than not.

Joel, I understand you choose to bold certain portions of the articles that you presumably find compelling. What do you think about leaving the original article intact, and then culling bits of it to comment on below?

[Simply Joel]

Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog /'de-m&-"gäg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times

Safire is a pundit...

Main Entry: pun·dit
Pronunciation: 'p&n-d&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Hindi pandit, from Sanskrit pandita, from pandita learned
Date: 1672
1 : PANDIT
2 : a learned man : TEACHER
3 : one who gives opinions in an authoritative manner : CRITIC
- pun·dit·ry /-d&-trE/ noun

since we are throwing definitions around...

Main Entry: ideo·logue
Variant(s): also idea·logue /'I-dE-&-"log, -"läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
Date: 1815
1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

[Don Muerto]

The thread would be better served if you could criticize specifics in my arguments rather than throwing labels at me. My personal bias is to think that you are an uncritical consumer of corporate media pap who is unable to effectively defend statements he believes in or assail my own. I could be mistaken, but until you state some of your own arguments I can't know for sure.

FWIW, I agree that Safire fits definition 3 of 'pundit,' but he is very far from definition 2.

[Simply Joel]

My personal bias is to think that you are an uncritical consumer of corporate media pap who is unable to effectively defend statements he believes in or assail my own.

Actually, you are mistaken for assuming that you are worthy of my thoughts and deeds.

[DVD Burner]

looks like Friedman and Safire do Joels thinking for him.

Why dont you use your own opinions Joel? Better yet, why not use your own opinions?

[Don Muerto]

Keep on repeating it Joel. At least you have learned that from the Bushies. And like the Bushies, you even screw up so simple a mantra, as your typing snide replies to me belie your statements on my unworthiness of your 'thoughts and deeds.' What you really mean is that I (and consequently, the board) are unworthy of any original content from you.

It's too bad you waste your breath trying to insult me when you could be doing a service to the thread you created by fostering debate instead of trying to squelch it.

[Simply Joel]

-WMD in Iraq do exist... they simply haven't been found... hey, maybe we should look in the mosques where armed gunmen are holding out (Fallujah) or possibly Syria.

-good riddance of Saddam Hussein.... cold-blooded killer.

-Iraq will be some sort of democratic government over time...

-Losing against terrorism is not an option.

-The defense of the USA requires both liberals and conservatives in the armed services... and yes, that means a DRAFT or National Service requirement for ALL eligible people... (get your passports ready if you don't like the program).

- life is not fair... get over that notion... and expect the worst. Then you can be mildly surprised it anything turns out in your favor.

-most of what is written has already been said time and time again, you and I weren't listening well enough to hear or read it the first time.

-life sucks, then you die.

Feel free to pick away at my beliefs... it is your right, protected by the consitution and its' officers... (Bush, Cheney, Powell, the Armed Forces)

[Simply Joel]

What do you think about leaving the original article intact, and then culling bits of it to comment on below?

Uh, no thanks.

[Don Muerto]

Flag Draped Coffin Censorship

I have to say that I think this policy is one of our most glaring examples of the hypocrisy in our government.

To begin, we have no qualms about plastering the national and intenational news media with pictures of bullet-riddled Qusay and Uday Hussein, yet we ban the media from taking pictures of flag-draped coffins that contain our soldiers.

The reason given is "out of respect to the families." While I agree this is a worthy goal, I don't see how an anonymous, flag-draped coffin impinges on the privacy of any family. Neither they, nor us can tell who is inside, but they will be seeing the one coffin that matters to them all too soon.

This policy was enacted during the first Gulf War, but relaxed until just prior to the invasion of Iraq. Is it any coincidence that the media was allowed to photograph coffins returning from Somalia, the USS Cole or the invasion of Afghanistan when these are morally defensible conflicts and casualties?

I think it is just a gimmick to distance the American public from the human costs of this war that are most likely to upset them, and frankly I think it sucks that our government feels emboldened enough to curtail the freedom of the press on such a flimsy pretext.

[Simply Joel]

Don Muerto wrote

"Wait, I thought he made his second mistake on ABC? Brahimi did indeed evade 'the choice.' Like me he doesn't see number 1 above as feasible. Fortunately, outside of Safire's mind there are other choices for reasonable people, and Brahimi, to explore. "


Care to expound on those choices?

Care to provide cites of those choices or the sources of those choices?

[Alpha]

Flag Draped Coffin Censorship

Well said, Don. I want to contribute to your comments but I think you've summed it up nicely. If my son/brother/whatever died in Iraq I would want others to see the coffins coming home, so that they could understand the pain that I would be feeling.

[Don Muerto]

WMD in Iraq do exist... they simply haven't been found... hey, maybe we should look in the mosques where armed gunmen are holding out (Fallujah) or possibly Syria.

I think it is fair to say that WMD's *if* they do exist in Iraq, certainly do not exist in the quantities or state of readiness the Bush Administration claimed as having 'proof' of. Even the White House has stopped making those assertions and is now labeling it an intelligence failure even though the primary intelligence apparatus (CIA) is on record as saying the WMD's did not exist in Iraq.

-good riddance of Saddam Hussein.... cold-blooded killer.

Indeed, good riddance, but which cold-blooded killer is the next one to be installed, equipped and then dethroned by the US?

-Iraq will be some sort of democratic government over time...

'Time' is long. I think Iraq will travel further down before it moves back up, and our goal (if indeed it is our goal) of a stable, secular democracy is nowhere near actualization.

-Losing against terrorism is not an option.

Good slogan. What does it mean?

-The defense of the USA requires both liberals and conservatives in the armed services... and yes, that means a DRAFT or National Service requirement for ALL eligible people... (get your passports ready if you don't like the program).

The military brass has no interest in a draft. The professional, volunteer army they have is much better than a bunch of unwilling conscripts on short rotations. That is the military lesson of Vietnam, the political one is not to let the media show what the war is like and thereby incite the citizenry to protest.

- life is not fair... get over that notion... and expect the worst. Then you can be mildly surprised it anything turns out in your favor

-most of what is written has already been said time and time again, you and I weren't listening well enough to hear or read it the first time.

-life sucks, then you die..

Cool. So you don't feel any need to fight crime, fight terrorists, or champion democracy because life is not fair and you die at the end of it anyway? Well, I have kids, so don't mind me while I try and improve the joint for them.

[Don Muerto]

If that is not what you meant, then what did you mean by posting those empty cliches? They are so timeworn as to have little meaning at all...

If you will notice, they were questions I asked in response, feel free to answer them. Just as I will be happy to answer yours:

Care to expound on those choices?

when I return.

You could also address some of the more interesting aspects of your statements and my responses such as WMDs or the draft.

[Don Muerto]

Does anyone else here wonder why you can delete your posts but not edit them? There was a reply from Joel between the two preceeding this one, and now that it is gone, my uneditable reply appears as if I am talking to myself. Strange board.

[Simply Joel]

WMD in Iraq do exist... they simply haven't been found... hey, maybe we should look in the mosques where armed gunmen are holding out (Fallujah) or possibly Syria.

I think it is fair to say that WMD's *if* they do exist in Iraq, certainly do not exist in the quantities or state of readiness the Bush Administration claimed as having 'proof' of. Even the White House has stopped making those assertions and is now labeling it an intelligence failure even though the primary intelligence apparatus (CIA) is on record as saying the WMD's did not exist in Iraq.

-good riddance of Saddam Hussein.... cold-blooded killer.

Indeed, good riddance, but which cold-blooded killer is the next one to be installed, equipped and then dethroned by the US?

-Iraq will be some sort of democratic government over time...

'Time' is long. I think Iraq will travel further down before it moves back up, and our goal (if indeed it is our goal) of a stable, secular democracy is nowhere near actualization.

-Losing against terrorism is not an option.

Good slogan. What does it mean?

-The defense of the USA requires both liberals and conservatives in the armed services... and yes, that means a DRAFT or National Service requirement for ALL eligible people... (get your passports ready if you don't like the program).

The military brass has no interest in a draft. The professional, volunteer army they have is much better than a bunch of unwilling conscripts on short rotations. That is the military lesson of Vietnam, the political one is not to let the media show what the war is like and thereby incite the citizenry to protest.

- life is not fair... get over that notion... and expect the worst. Then you can be mildly surprised it anything turns out in your favor

-most of what is written has already been said time and time again, you and I weren't listening well enough to hear or read it the first time.

-life sucks, then you die..

Cool. So you don't feel any need to fight crime, fight terrorists, or champion democracy because life is not fair and you die at the end of it anyway? Well, I have kids, so don't mind me while I try and improve the joint for them.

You make many assertions, yet provide no "cites."

and you seem make any and all attempts to surmise what I think and post... I don't believe I do that to you... so, spare me and all the others reading this....

[Simply Joel]

I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters... (computers). ~ ~ ~ Frank Lloyd Wright

[DVD Burner]

-WMD in Iraq do exist... they simply haven't been found... hey, maybe we should look in the mosques where armed gunmen are holding out (Fallujah) or possibly Syria.

This I found on the other list. I thought it would be the perfect time to post.

Just hope we get the info from the PCR/DNA tests as to where they came from and when.

< this is out of Iran, so consider the source. however, this is something I have been expecting for a long time /res >

http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsDetails_e ... =Political

Published on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 by the Mehr News Agency (Tehran, Iran)

New Reports on U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq <Full Article>

BASRA -- Fifty days after the first reports that the U.S. forces were unloading weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in southern Iraq, new reports about the movement of these weapons have been disclosed.

Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the country.

An Iraqi source close to the Basra Governor's Office told the MNA that new information shows that a large part of the WMD, which was secretly brought to southern and western Iraq over the past month, are in containers falsely labeled as containers of the Maeresk shipping company and some consignments bearing the labels of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in order to disguise them as relief shipments.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that Iraqi officials including forces loyal to the Iraqi Governing Council stationed in southern Iraq have been forbidden from inspecting or supervising the transportation of these consignments. He went on to say that the occupation forces have ordered Iraqi officials to forward any questions on the issue to the coalition forces. Even the officials of the international relief organizations have informed the Iraqi officials that they would only accept responsibility for relief shipments which have been registered and managed by their organizations.

The Iraqi source also confirmed the report about suspicious trucks with fake Saudi and Jordanian license plates entering Iraq at night last week, stressing that the Saudi and Jordanian border guards did not attempt to inspect the trucks but simply delivered them to the U.S. and British forces stationed on Iraq's borders.

However, the source expressed ignorance whether the governments of Saudi Arabia and Jordan were aware of such movements.

A professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment.

The professor also said these people have been openly asked to confirm or deny the existence of research or related WMD equipment. A large number of these scientists, who are believed to be under the surveillance of U.S.
intelligence operatives, have claimed that if they refuse to comply with this request, they may be killed or arrested on charges of concealing the truth if these weapons are found by the Bush administration in the future.

He said that the Iraqi scientists believe their lives would be in danger if they decline to cooperate with the occupation forces, especially when they recall that senior U.S. officer Michael Peterson once said, "Iraqi scientists are at any case a threat to the U.S. administration, whether they talk or not."

A source close to the Iraqi Governing Council said, "In the meantime, many suspect containers disguised as fuel supplies have been moved about by some units of the U.S. special forces. The move has been carried out under heavy security measures. Also, there are unofficial reports that the containers held biological and bacteriological toxins in liquid form. It is possible that the news about the discovery of the WMDs would be announced later."

He also said that such mixtures had been used by the Saddam regime in the 1990s.

The source added that some provocative actions such as the closure of Al-Hawza periodical by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, the secret meetings between his envoys with some extremist groups who have no relations with the Iraqi Governing Council, the sudden upsurge in violence in central and southern Iraq, a number of activities which have stoked up the wrath of the prominent Shia clerics, and finally, the spate of kidnappings and the baseless charges against the Iranian charge d'affaires in Baghdad are providing the necessary smokescreen for the transportation of the WMD to their intended locations.

He said they are quite aware that the White House in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has directly tasked the Defense Department to hide these weapons. Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S.
president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bush's public opinion rating as the election approaches.

C Copyright 2004 Mehr News Agency

[rodent]

You make many assertions, yet provide no "cites."

um, not meaning to be a dick but... pot, kettle, black.

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)

[Simply Joel]

http://www.odci.gov/

http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wm ... t_2002.htm

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/doc ... reword.htm

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88

[Don Muerto]

Joel, what assertions would you like me to cite? Most of what I have posted here is opinion and doesn't need a cite, but I would be happy to track down any relevant info if you specify what you need clarification on.

you seem make any and all attempts to surmise what I think and post...

You are correct, when I find what you have said to be incomplete or unclear I will seek to understand it by soliciting more information and asking questions. When two people do that, it is called 'conversation.' If your intent here is merely to throw words into the void, might I suggest you disconnect your internet connection first so that you won't be bothered with others' reaction to your words.

Tony, those reports have also been found in other newspapers besides the Iranian source you cite. I know I first saw it in a major New Zealand paper. Although I am cynical enough to think the Bush Admin might engineer an 'October Surprise', I don't find those reports creditable enough to be comfortable with them.

[Simply Joel]

[as a reminder (because it is printed somewhere on the e-playa), I re-post editorials from the New York Times on the e-playa because NY Times site requires registration in order to read it on-line, thereby doing an e-playa community service by providing a wee bit of curmudgeonly perspective from Mr. Safire.

Have a nice day in a free world, compliments of the United States of America...

The above states my intent.

[Don Muerto]

I am not one of the people who has criticized you for reposting Safire or anybody else. I support your right to do this and have even defended it.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... c&start=60


I do think that you have demonstrated a hostility to people criticizing what you repost, and that I do not support. I also think that if you post, or repost, something that people take issue with, then you will be the de facto (urp!) focus of their issues as you are the person bringing the POV to the forum.

A good case in point is the Safire article you reposted today. I critiqued it without mentioning you at all, and you still took offense. I absolutely welcome you to disagree with anything I say, but hopefully going forward you will address specifics instead of merely hurling labels or telling me I am not worth your time.

Like it or not, you are posting in a public forum and differing points of view are going to be expressed. The mature thing for everybody who posts here to do is to focus on the specifics of the argument regardless of what your personal feelings of the arguer are.

[DVD Burner]

Like it or not, you are posting in a public forum and differing points of view are going to be expressed. The mature thing for everybody who posts here to do is to focus on the specifics of the argument regardless of what your personal feelings of the arguer are.

I like that one Don. It's almost like I've heard that one before.

Anyhoo,

I just had to update my pic and change Ahnould out to Dick.

Here's some food for thought, knowing the Bush family history with the Nazis and how much the family loves war and weapons and being from Texas where most people (lets say specific people ) dont care much for any other kinds of people, have a tendacy to say things like, "yeah my best friend was _ _ _ _ _ _ _,"

I was just wondering,
suppose all of this hate was created by certain indivisuals just to get certain groups of people to hate each other and kill each other so certain people (lets say those that are really good at hiding in bunkers) could hide and wait for everyone to kill each other off so that these certain people could have this planet all to themselfs.

You know. Say something like;

Like have everyone on the planet start hating the Jews over something as simple as land. Brown people over there are only intersted in blowing up people over here. You know.....Blah blah blah blah.


I was just thinking.....ya know.


This planet with it's carbon based jelly dumb dumbs fall for anything.


Food for thought.

[DVD Burner]

that was just for the thick skinned of course.