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

[DVD Burner]

I think Joel is a little bit uptight because I figured him out.

Joel, it's ok, you're amoungst your burning family. you can always tell us.
we wont hold it against you. we will never hold it against you for being a Democrat. you need to let your hair down and be true to yourself.

[G.W.B.]

sexy isotopia as

[G.W.B.]

woops wrong thread.

[DVD Burner]

[DVD Burner]

Warning!

Be careful. soon Isreal and the U.S. are going to try to blame the bommings that happen in Isreal in retaliation to what's going on in Iraq.


More bullshit.

[cowboyangel]

if I may make a little suggestion...let's keep the thread on topics rather than insulting eachother....democracy is only as great as the number of divergent voices it allows into the debate...

[cowboyangel]

hope this works...otherwise go to the url...

http://www.brightpathvideo.com

[DVD Burner]

Sorry. I was just trying to draw the Isreali Palistinian conflict thread here to politics but it seems that, that may not be the best idea either. I really think that shit needs to be hashed out before it hits the playa. maybe a
"Isreali Palistinian politics conflict thread " needs to be created.


anyhoo,

This will be the last ( I think ) of this type of topic.........so now, with Scott Peterson kinda winning in court, is it because of deep pockets like MJ or OJ or is it because of California fuck up cops?

[cowboyangel]

lack of evidence and a cool cold blooded sob

[DVD Burner]

handover of Iraq happens in a few hours instead of later this week. does that mean that haliburton gets out also?

[DVD Burner]

Well,

Now Iraq is it's own entity. It is official.......so they say.

[Simply Joel]

hope this works...otherwise go to the url...

http://www.brightpathvideo.com

thoe board has an entire thread devoted to "fuck" and it seems some undies get tied in some knots when the VP uses the word... on one of your own "Senator Leahy"

hmmmmmm, seems a little hypocritical?

[Simply Joel]

I think Joel is a little bit uptight because I figured him out.
:lol:

Do tell?

[cowboyangel]

hope this works...otherwise go to the url...

http://www.brightpathvideo.com

thoe board has an entire thread devoted to "fuck" and it seems some undies get tied in some knots when the VP uses the word... on one of your own "Senator Leahy"

hmmmmmm, seems a little hypocritical?

yo joel????? what's hypocrical is sacrificing Bono ("fuckinA" comment at Grammy's resulting in huge FCC fine upgrade) on the altar of decent language and then fuckwad cheney going on Fox News(?) to say he felt great about saying it to Sen Leahy!!!!!!and Bush excusing it as typical Senate floor stuff...............get it staight bucko....now I'll have that beer

[DVD Burner]

Ok, so now that the government got caught on camera C-span, with the vise president using the "F" word, does that mean that the government fines itself for vulgar lanuage ?

[Simply Joel]

hope this works...otherwise go to the url...

http://www.brightpathvideo.com

thoe board has an entire thread devoted to "fuck" and it seems some undies get tied in some knots when the VP uses the word... on one of your own "Senator Leahy"

hmmmmmm, seems a little hypocritical?

yo joel????? what's hypocrical is sacrificing Bono ("fuckinA" comment at Grammy's resulting in huge FCC fine upgrade) on the altar of decent language and then fuckwad cheney going on Fox News(?) to say he felt great about saying it to Sen Leahy!!!!!!and Bush excusing it as typical Senate floor stuff...............get it staight bucko....now I'll have that beer

one is governed by the FCC, one is not...

i do have it straight, bucky

[Simply Joel]

June 28, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Hollow Alliance
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

LONDON — At this week's NATO summit conference in Istanbul, it will be in the political interest of America's European adversaries — France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schröder — to appear to cooperate with the coalition helping Iraq complete its liberation.

At the same time, it is in the political interest of George W. Bush and Britain's Tony Blair to appear to be delighted with whatever safe and cheap aid that the Chirac-Schröder bloc allows NATO to offer instead of supplying alliance troops.

In this way, the French and German leaders can tell their nations that no diplomatic cost was attached to their opposition to removing Saddam Hussein. And Bush and Blair can face elections this year and next, able to make two claims: that the prewar split in the Western alliance has happily healed, and that the war was justified by the belated blessing of the leaders who fled from the fight.

Behind this facade, however, exists a hollowed-out alliance. Its previous common purpose — to block the westward march of Soviet imperialism — has not been replaced by a new purpose: to defeat imperial terrorism. Unless the democracies of France and Germany elect leaders capable of grasping that current challenge, NATO will continue to atrophy, supplanted by ad hoc coalitions of the willing to meet emergencies.

Such a withering of the West's grand alliance is not inevitable. Although savants in the U.S. seem certain that Bush and Blair will be punished by voters for their sin of strangling the worst regime in the cradle of terror, the view I get from London is different.

Britain's Labor Party is unlikely to thrust aside its eloquent leader and proven vote-getter. Blair has recently flummoxed internal dissenters as well as opposing Tories by proposing referendums not just on giving up economic sovereignty to Continental bankers but also on turning over political sovereignty to the bureaucrats of Brussels in the proposed European constitution. Like a strong majority of Euroskeptical Britons, Blair is now lukewarm on both issues, which snatches the clothes of the Tories.

Bush should accede to his stalwart ally's request for the release of four British subjects now held in Guantánamo, underscoring the special relationship. And as the interim government in Baghdad puts a nationalistic Iraqi face on its internal battle, Bush and Blair will be bolstered politically by (a) the reality of a shift in the war's fortunes as well as (b) the papering-over of the cracks in the wall of NATO solidarity.

Presume that Bush wins re-election this year and Blair the next. Further presume (and I know all this is hard to do) that necessary belt-tightening in France and Germany, at a time when unemployment is stuck near double digits, takes its toll at the polls.

Germany's Schröder is a political zombie, with a Thatcheresque successor in the wings. The sclerotic government of Chirac is desperately trying to block the rise of the charismatic finance minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. This savvy dynamo of Hungarian descent, 49, is tough on immigration, France's sleeper issue. Though he would surely irritate London and Washington in the grand French tradition, Sarkozy would probably not align himself with a German politician to treat the rest of Europe, as does Chirac, as children not well brought up.

Dare to think the unthinkable: What would the Western alliance look like if Bush and Blair receive fresh mandates, and Chirac and Schröder give way to leaders who see the modern collective defense in sponsorship of freedom outside their area? What if NATO is given new life by the urgent need to confront the new threat of terror networks?

Then we would see the emergence of NATO II, no longer North Atlantic but tied by need for citizen safety. It would not compete with the United Nations as a universal forum for debate and funneler of humanitarian aid, but be led by democracies willing to make proportionate sacrifices to provide for the common defense.

Of course, today's hollowed-out NATO could continue down the path of pretended mutuality that we will see in Turkey this week. And the voters of its member nations may follow Spain in choosing leaders averse to the cost of collective security. But as the old NATO showed, nations find safety in numbers.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

Ok, so now that the government got caught on camera C-span, with the vise president using the "F" word, does that mean that the government fines itself for vulgar lanuage ?

I believe C-span is cable, thereby avoiding some of the FCC's oversight...

Now, regarding culgar behavior by the legislative branch... once when i was a Page in the Illinois Senate Phil Rock, acting Senate President closed the session before fellow Democrat Leo Lempke could get some "pork" passed for his district around Chicago. Upon learning of Rock's closing, Lempke charged the podium in a rather ungentlemanly manner... (he was going to kick Rock's ass until he was help up by fellow legislators)...

So, bad manners are part of the process from my humble experience.

[DVD Burner]

Very good Joel! really very good.
I should have known you were a page or some kinda wierd ass shit like that.



Ok here's a good one for ya. So now that Bush has turned over Iraq, will this mean that he will be the one to make Sharone/Iseral look like an idiot?

(short Occupations in relation to Long occupations.)


God forbid Bush be made to look good.

[Simply Joel]

Very good Joel! really very good.
I should have known you were a page or some kinda wierd ass shit like that.
:lol:

Ok here's a good one for ya. So now that Bush has turned over Iraq, will this mean that he will be the one to make Sharone/Iseral look like an idiot?
(short Occupations in relation to Long occupations.)

Well, far from being optimisitic... it aint over until its over... so, we will be arguing about troops in Southwest Asia for a long time.

I think it is time for the Arab League and OPEC to get a handle on the radicals... and Bush and Sharon are making that possible... and due to the conservative nature of both... I think they are telling the Arab League to "put up or shut up."

Terrorism is everyone's enemy, there are no allies in a terrorist-run world... and I can assure you, none of us want the islamic terrorist's view of what should happen to civilization as we know it... in my humble opinion.

[cowboyangel]

thoe board has an entire thread devoted to "fuck" and it seems some undies get tied in some knots when the VP uses the word... on one of your own "Senator Leahy"

hmmmmmm, seems a little hypocritical?

yo joel????? what's hypocrical is sacrificing Bono ("fuckinA" comment at Grammy's resulting in huge FCC fine upgrade) on the altar of decent language and then fuckwad cheney going on Fox News(?) to say he felt great about saying it to Sen Leahy!!!!!!and Bush excusing it as typical Senate floor stuff...............get it staight bucko....now I'll have that beer

one is governed by the FCC, one is not...

i do have it straight, bucky

no you don't ...not when a highly visible public official like the vice says it in such a public setting......different standards for different folks???? Public examples?>

the senate had this kind of shit going on before the Civil War

[cowboyangel]

Tuck Tail and Run
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 29 June 2004

The American people are not comfortable dealing with words like "total failure" and "ruined credibility," but these are words that all of us are going to have to become accustomed to.

A process that began in September 2002 as a coordinated propaganda blitz to convince Americans they were on the verge of being gassed by an Osama-Saddam Axis of Doom, a process that was swathed in flags and a snarling, nationalistic patriotism, a process that has in the last 22 months delivered 855 dead American soldiers, thousands of gravely wounded American soldiers and over ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians to our collective doorstep, has now concluded with a farcical handover of 'sovereignty' in the dead of night.

One can almost imagine American proconsul Paul Bremer handing the keys to this rolling bomb over to former CIA pal and newly-minted Iraqi 'Prime Minister' Iyad Allawi with a snicker and a shrug. Thanks for the laughs, Iyad, but my helicopter is waiting on the roof.

In January 2003, less than 60 days before U.S. forces rained fire and steel upon Baghdad in the ' Shock and Awe' portion of this escapade, Mr. Bush stood before Congress and the American people to deliver his State of the Union address. In it, he solemnly informed us that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons (i.e. 1,000,000 pounds) of sarin, mustard and VX gas, 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, mobile biological weapons labs, a program to procure uranium from Niger to use in nuclear bombs, and connections to al Qaeda.

None of this - not one bit of it - was true. This didn't stop Bush' people from repeating these lies over and over again, even as all the evidence accounted against them. Pottymouth-in-Chief Dick Cheney continues to flap the Iraq-al Qaeda canard despite the fact that his best evidence to support the theory, a bin Laden insider named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, has gone off the reservation. Once, al-Libi confirmed the existence of a connection, but now he has changed his story completely.

The going theory on this flip-flop is that al-Libi endured some of the "aggressive interrogation techniques" we have become famous for, and told his interrogators what they wanted to hear. If you had electrodes strapped to your testicles while you sat in one of those dark rooms with the swinging, bald light bulb, you'd probably do something similar. Once the electrodes came off, and once al-Libi was confronted with evidence that contradicted his gonad-inspired claim, he reversed course and delivered another blow to Mr. Cheney's theory.

This is, in the end, merely an accent in the symphony. In attending to the present, here is what we call sovereignty in Iraq:

* 97 legal orders have been enacted by Bremer which are "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people, "which will last for years, and which allocate positions controlling communications, public broadcasting, securities markets, investigations into public corruption, petroleum and virtually every area of government to people loyal to the occupation force. One elections law crafted by Bremer gives a seven-member commission the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support.

* The 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, appointed by the Bush administration to run Iraq in its name, supposedly dissolved itself on June 1st. A little-noticed decree from the Council, however, guarantees Council members power to veto laws, approve Iraq's 2005 budget, and gives them seats on an array of committees that will choose the remaining members of the National Council. In short, the puppets installed by the Americans after the invasion, all of whom were roundly rejected by the Iraqi people as illegitimate, are still very much in charge.

* 160,000 American troops will remain in Iraq, but the new government will have no command over them. In fact, a recent decision by Bush and Rumsfeld grants total immunity to the soldiers and their commanders for any illegal acts they might commit. This newly sovereign Iraq will continue to be swarmed by an occupying force over which Allawi and friends will have no control whatsoever.

* Oil revenues from Iraq, the money Bush has repeatedly claimed belongs to the Iraqi people, totals more than $20 billion to date. Almost none of that money has made its way to the Iraqi people, or to the rebuilding of infrastructure, but has instead been redirected to the U.S. and British corporations which basically control the Coalition Provisional Authority. The contracts diverting these funds to these corporations are binding, and cannot be changed even if the 'sovereign' Iraqi government decides the money could better be spent elsewhere. For the time being, despite the billions of dollars coming out of Iraq' s oil industry, the diversion of funds created by these CPA contracts means that most of the money for the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure will come from American taxpayers by way of the U.S. Congress. According to a report by the BBC, most of the $20 billion cannot be accounted for at this time. The party is not likely to end soon; since oil production began, only 2,300 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with about 1 million in Texas. A large part of the country remains virtually unexplored.

* The most important person in Iraq will not be Iyad Allawi or any other Iraqi. The most important person in Iraq will be John Negroponte, former American ambassador to the United Nations, who has been tapped to be ambassador to Iraq. The American embassy in Baghdad will be the largest American embassy anywhere in the world. As ambassador to Honduras during the Reagan administration, Negroponte was accused of playing a central role in the human rights violations and terror campaigns which were exposed during the Iran/Contra scandal.

* The handover of 'sovereignty' was done two days early and in the dead of night, purportedly, to forestall any attacks planned for the now-discarded June 30 handover date. Somehow, however, this handshake between pals does not seem likely to dissuade those Iraqis disposed to resisting the invasion and occupation of their country. In all probability, the dying will continue, which is why Mr. Bush made absolutely sure Iyad Allawi is prepared to declare martial law in his newly liberated country.

George W. Bush would have us believe this is a great day, a great victory for the United States. Here is what we call victory:

* 855 American soldiers dead.

* Thousands more American soldiers wounded, many gravely.

* Over ten thousand Iraqi civilians dead.

* No weapons of mass destruction, and no connections to al Qaeda.

* $151 billion of taxpayer money spent to enable this mess in this fiscal year alone, money which came out of the border patrol budget, the rail safety budget, the Port Security budget, law enforcement agency budgets, firefighter grants, the bioterrorism budget, the First Responders budget, and more. Do you feel safer?

* An Iraqi government as close to democracy as the Earth is to the Oort Cloud.

* An American government thoroughly discredited on an international stage still rife with dangers to American security. As Cliff Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon Center which specializes in foreign policy, said, "I don't think you can turn around three years of U.S. foreign policy with some midnight initiatives. The image of this president in the public's and the world's eyes is pretty much established."

"Total failure" and "ruined credibility" are the watchwords for the day. A process that never should have begun in the first place, a process which had nothing to do with defending the United States, has led us to a place where every 'goal' put forth by the Bush administration, no matter how stupid or simple, has turned to ash. This is the great gift Mr. Bush has delivered to us: A midnight deal, a washing of hands, and a quick exit out the back door. Honor and integrity indeed.

William Rivers Pitt is the senior editor and lead writer for t r u t h o u t. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

-------
William Rivers Pitt didn't work for the CIA as did ole Saffire.........

[cowboyangel]

By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Home-made bombs and mines hidden in inner tubes or other harmless-looking flotsam may be bobbing in U.S. waters, a confidential FBI (news - web sites) bulletin warned shortly before new anti-terror shipping laws take effect.



The FBI report, issued last Wednesday and titled "Potential Indicators of Floating Improvised Explosive Devices or Terrorist Improvised Mines" said the agency knew of no specific planned attack, an FBI official told Reuters on Monday.

But he said the bulletin sought to warn local, state and federal authorities that such attacks could take place.

[DVD Burner]

Posted on Sun, Jun. 27, 2004





U.S. edicts aim to control Iraq

Bremer picks officials, revises legal code

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Walter Pincus

Washington Post


BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer has issued a raft of edicts revamping Iraq’s legal code and has appointed at least two dozen Iraqis to government jobs with multi-year terms in an attempt to promote his concepts of governance long after the planned handover of political authority on Wednesday.

Some of the orders signed by Bremer, which will remain in effect unless overturned by Iraq’s interim government, restrict the power of the interim government and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country’s democratic transition.

Among the most orders is the enactment of an elections law that gives a seven-member commission the power to disqualify political parties and any of the candidates they support.

The effect of other regulations could last much longer. Bremer has ordered that the national security adviser and the national intelligence chief chosen by the interim prime minister he selected, Ayad Allawi, be given five-year terms, imposing Allawi’s choices on the elected government that is to take over next year.

Bremer also has appointed Iraqis handpicked by his aides to influential positions in the interim government. He has installed inspectors-general for five-year terms in every ministry.

He has formed and filled commissions to regulate communications, public broadcasting and securities markets. He named a public-integrity commissioner who will have the power to refer corrupt government officials for prosecution.

Some Iraqi officials condemn Bremer’s edicts and appointments as an effort to exert U.S. control over the country after the transfer of political authority.

“They have established a system to meddle in our affairs,” said Mahmoud Othman, a member of the Governing Council, a recently dissolved body that advised Bremer for the past year. “Iraqis should decide many of these issues.”

Bremer has defended his issuance of many of the orders as necessary to implement democratic reforms and update Iraq’s out-of-date legal code. He said he regards the installation of inspectors-general in ministries, the creation of independent commissions and the changes to Iraqi law as important steps to fight corruption and cronyism, which in turn would help the formation of democratic institutions.

“You set up these things and they begin to develop a certain life and momentum on their own – and it’s harder to reverse course,” Bremer said in a recent interview.

As of June 14, Bremer had issued 97 legal orders, which are defined by the U.S. occupation authority as “binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people” that will remain in force even after the transfer of political authority.

An annex to the country’s interim constitution requires the approval of a majority of Allawi’s ministers, as well as the interim president and two vice presidents, to overturn any of Bremer’s edicts. A senior U.S. official in Iraq noted recently that it would “not be easy to reverse” the orders.

It appears unlikely that all of the orders will be followed. Many of them reflect an idealistic but perhaps futile attempt to impose Western legal, economic and social concepts on a tradition-bound nation that is reveling in anything-goes freedom after 35 years of dictatorial rule.

The orders include rules that cap tax rates at 15 percent, prohibit piracy of intellectual property, ban children younger than 15 from working and impose a traffic code that stipulates the use of a car horn in “emergency conditions only” and requires a driver to “hold the steering wheel with both hands.”

Iraq has long been a place where few people pay taxes, where most movies and music are counterfeit, where children often hold down jobs and where traffic laws are rarely obeyed, Iraqis note.

Other regulations promulgated by Bremer prevent former members of the Iraqi army from holding public office for 18 months after their retirement or resignation, stipulate a 30-year minimum sentence for people caught selling weapons such as grenades and ban former militiamen integrated into the Iraqi armed forces from endorsing and campaigning for political candidates. He enacted a 76-page law regulating private corporations and amended an industrial-design law to protect microchip designs. The changes were intended to facilitate the entry of Iraq into the World Trade Organization.

[Simply Joel]

no you don't ...not when a highly visible public official like the vice says it in such a public setting......different standards for different folks????


the senate had this kind of shit going on before the Civil War

Apparently, you do have a double standard... because, this administration can't say "fuck" but it was OK for the previous President to get head in the oval office with a subordinate employee... that's right folks, you can break EEO laws for sex, but you can't get angry with the opposition and tell them to "fuck themselves"

and now maybe you see it from my perspective....







yet i doubt it.

[DVD Burner]

Joel,

I would much more prefer Cheney or Bush to get themselfs some than for them to enjoy bombing everybody that has a bit of color to them.

In fact I would prefer them to inhale a good green than have them lie about their motives for a weak as war.

In fact I would prefer that they stop thinking period. They are way too dangerous as is.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Kerry states, "absolutely stunning that of the $18 billion that we approved last year for the reconstruction of Iraq, only $400 million has been spent."

Makes one think where is the money is being funneled to? Could an Iran/contra Type Affair be in the works?


A II Z

[stuart]

Apparently, you do have a double standard... because, this administration can't say "fuck" but it was OK for the previous President to get head in the oval office with a subordinate employee... that's right folks, you can break EEO laws for sex, but you can't get angry with the opposition and tell them to "fuck themselves"

and now maybe you see it from my perspective....

the problem, Joel, is that this administration purports to be all about family values, fining howard stern, clamping down on porn, getting god back into the schools, etc., etc., etc.. I don't have an issue with the VP of the US saying fuck at all. I have an issue with the VP, who road in with a party that said none of us should say fuck, saying fuck. Just like I don't have an issue with the POTUS gettting head but I have an issue with members of congress who are themselves adulterers saying the POTUS should not get head.

[stuart]

do as I say, not as I do is fucking bullshit.

(sorry, wrong thread)

[Simply Joel]

Apparently, you do have a double standard... because, this administration can't say "fuck" but it was OK for the previous President to get head in the oval office with a subordinate employee... that's right folks, you can break EEO laws for sex, but you can't get angry with the opposition and tell them to "fuck themselves"

and now maybe you see it from my perspective....

the problem, Joel, is that this administration purports to be all about family values, fining howard stern, clamping down on porn, getting god back into the schools, etc., etc., etc.. I don't have an issue with the VP of the US saying fuck at all. I have an issue with the VP, who road in with a party that said none of us should say fuck, saying fuck. Just like I don't have an issue with the POTUS gettting head but I have an issue with members of congress who are themselves adulterers saying the POTUS should not get head.

So, Tipper Gore's attempts at censorship... Yay or nay?

I don't recall a Republican platform on profanity... 'cause I might have been cussing at the time.

No, I don't like hypocritcal statements or bahvior...

I believe my orginal point (besides the one on the top of my head) was....

A whole lot of people sure got wound up about the VP saying "fuck" when they themselves use the word as entertainment (the "FUCK" thread)

and you are correct, those in Congress that are unfaithful should not throw stones when they reside in a glass house.

by the way, the USA did turn over Iraq in a manner of speaking, it is now up to Iraqis to get it right.

I am sure that statement will set someone's hair on fire.