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

[Simply Joel]

I cant find it here on this thread anywhere but I could have sworn that I made mention on here somewhere about the 45 min missing from the FAA and NORAD reports the day of 911.

Did I mention that already? Just trying to get my thoughts together here so I can give my opinion accurately. :wink:

cites?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/ ... on911.html

Who exactly is the "Center for Cooperative Research?"

http://www.unansweredquestions.net/time ... of911.html

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel ... 461&page=2


My google search of " FAA, NORAD reports, missing, 9/11" resulted in about 8,260 hits.

This one might even be credible....
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html


DVD... all that effort to post actual links took a whopping 5 minutes of my time... I think accurate and opinion are mutually exclusive terms in this conversation.

[DVD Burner]

DVD... all that effort to post actual links took a whopping 5 minutes of my time... I think accurate and opinion are mutually exclusive terms in this conversation.

Hey,

None of these are my opinions.

Damn Joel. That 5 min was a lot of work.

[stuart]

First Amendment rights... the ones I spent a career defending.

do you work for the ACLU?

[Simply Joel]

http://www.arng.army.mil/history/


The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest enduring institutions, celebrated its 366th birthday in 2002. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The Guard doubled the size of the Regular Army when it was mobilized in 1940, more than a year before Pearl Harbor, and contributed 19 divisions to that war, as well as numerous other units including Guard aviation squadrons. More than 138,000 Guardsmen were mobilized for Korea, followed by numerous smaller mobilizations for the Berlin Crisis, Vietnam, and numerous strikes and riots at home. Approximately 63,000 Army Guardsmen were called to serve in Desert Storm, and in the decade since then Guardsmen have seen a greater role than ever before -- conducting peacekeeping in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardsmen were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad.

Today's National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing the states with units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing the nation with units ready to defend the United States and its interests around the world.



On the other hand....

http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of nearly 400,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.


hmmmmm 366 years of service versus 84 years... I will say both organizations have a place in a free society.

I really don't expect you to agree with my perspective, because;
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

[Simply Joel]

Democracy necessarily means a conflict of will and ideas, involving sometimes a war . . . between different ideas.

The very essence of democracy is that every person represents all the varied interests which compose the nation.

Democracy is a great institution and, therefore, it is liable to be greatly abused.

Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all, but let not democracy degenerate into mobocracy.

Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep.

Democracy and violence can ill go together.

Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side.

Democracy, disciplined and enlightened, is the finest thing in the world.

The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.

My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest.

To safeguard democracy the people must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect, and their oneness.

Intolerance, discourtesy, and harshness are taboo in all good society and are surely contrary to the spirit of democracy.

In true democracy every man and women is taught to think for himself or herself.

The spirit of democracy cannot be established in the midst of terrorism, whether governmental or popular.

Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.

[Simply Joel]

JUSTICE

Justice will come when it is deserved by our being and feeling strong.

Justice does not help those who slumber but helps only those who are vigilant.

Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

[DVD Burner]

And here I thought Bush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider" line was complete bullshit. Now it makes sense - he was talking about Iraq, not America.

How so right you are. It seems that all ethnicities are getting Kidd knapped including the Chinese. Amazing how greed has no boundries.

[DVD Burner]

Oh, and that's just part of my opinion.

[DVD Burner]

And oh hey,

IMHO, there is nothing in the PDB that says, "HEY, There is a plane that is going to fly into the WTC on 911"!

Amazing how the low IQ had know idea that there wasn't any red flag in the 8/6/01 PDB.

MHO.

Another sign of irresponsibility.

[Simply Joel]

"There is nothing like the burden of responsibility to promote accountability."

April 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
From Gaza to Baghdad
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Something is brewing in Gaza that may help U.S. officials think through how to deal with what is boiling in Iraq.

Consider an intriguing article on Tuesday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz pointing out that Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority and Hamas, longtime rivals, had "made a great deal of progress" toward setting up a new administration to run Gaza after Israel's unilateral withdrawal. The article quoted Hamas leaders as saying that they were willing to participate in the administration of Gaza now that it is being "liberated" — for which Hamas claims credit — and not being turned over in the context of the Oslo peace accords.

Here's the message I take from this: There is nothing like the burden of responsibility to promote accountability. Ariel Sharon has declared his intention to withdraw Israeli forces and settlements from the Gaza Strip — without any formal agreement with the Palestinians. Mr. Sharon has given up on negotiating with Arafat, let alone Hamas, but he finally understands that Israel cannot go on controlling all these Palestinian lands and remain a Jewish democracy. So he is unilaterally pulling out of Gaza, just as his predecessor, Ehud Barak, pulled out of South Lebanon: you want it, it's yours.

What the Haaretz story tells me is that Arafat and Hamas understand two things: One, the morning after Israel's pullout, they will get to pat themselves on the back for being Gaza's liberators. And two, the morning after the morning after, the Gazans will be tapping Arafat and Hamas leaders on their shoulders to ask for jobs, water and electricity. Yes, Arafat and Hamas will continue to blame Israel for shortages of all those things, but those charges won't quite fly once the Israelis pull out — provided Israel is smart and allows Gaza openings to the world so it doesn't become just a big prison, and Israel also withdraws settlements from the West Bank.

Ask Hezbollah. For all of its boasts about driving the Israelis out of South Lebanon and marching next on Jerusalem, since the Israeli pullout to a U.N.-approved border, Hezbollah has never dared cross that border in force. Why? Because Hezbollah knows that Israel, having pulled back to the U.N. border, has the moral and strategic high ground, and would blow up the power plants of Beirut if Hezbollah invaded. And Hezbollah doesn't want that responsibility.

"Maybe it's good that Hamas wants to claim credit for driving Israel out — if they are responsible for liberating Gaza, they are also responsible for running it," said the Israeli scholar Yaron Ezrahi. "It diminishes Israel's responsibility and increases Hamas's at the same time. The only way to really reduce the violence is when you create a context where Palestinian leaders, not Israel, are held accountable by their own people for the negative fallout from violence."

And this leads to our challenge in Iraq. America's Baghdad boss, Paul Bremer, is absolutely right when he insists that we must turn over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30, as promised. Why? Because we may have trained thousands of Iraqi policemen, but without a government of their own, they are defending America — which they will never do with vigor. The only thing they might defend is a government of their own. Moreover, right now many Iraqi leaders blame the U.S. for what is going wrong in Iraq. The Bush team deserves much blame, but not all. Iraq's nascent leaders will act in a concerted and responsible fashion only when they — like Hamas, Arafat and Hezbollah — have the burden of responsibility.

I'm not advocating unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. I am advocating putting every ounce of energy we have behind the U.N. effort to replace the current Iraqi Governing Council with a legitimate, broad-based caretaker government to run Iraq from July 1, 2004, until elections in January 2005. Hard, but not impossible.

After decades of colonialism and misrule, and then a traumatic dictatorship in an already tribalized society, Iraqi national identity is weak — and insecurity only weakens it more by prompting people to fall back on their tribal units. But there is an Iraqi identity. It takes security, though, for it to emerge. Even Iraqis don't know how strong it is, and they won't know until they are handed the keys.

Only then can we gradually shift the burden for Iraq's self-construction or self-destruction to Iraqis themselves. Only then will they begin to be accountable — and accountability is the mother of both self-restraint and self-government.

[stuart]

the people want a body. Who will the admin give to them? We know it won't likely be tenet. CIA and the WH have a detante of dirty little secrets. If I had to guess, I would say ashcroft gets sold out. It's been looking, in the hearings, like he's the guy they have not been protecting. Also, he's enough of a zealout that they can probably trust him to take one for the teem and keep quiet.

any thoughts?

[DVD Burner]

ashcroft
any thoughts?

I had'nt thought about that. You could be right. He's dedicated enough to even sing and dance with and for these guys in public. <snort>

[Simply Joel]

From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
--Thomas Jefferson

[DVD Burner]

The cards, the cards, where are the cards?

[Simply Joel]

April 16, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Sharon Plan of Disengagement
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON

"Back in November, so many plans were around," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told me yesterday just before heading back to Israel, "from the Saudis, from Geneva, from the Arab League, and I saw we could not resist those pressures without a plan of our own.

"What could I do — destroy the Palestinian Authority? No — Israel cannot take on its shoulders the lives of three and a half million Palestinians. Sign a peace agreement? No — terror would only begin again. Leave as is? No — I've seen everything in Israel since the War of Independence, and it's my responsibility to deal with it now.

"I discussed this between me and myself and came up with a new initiative." He calls it the Disengagement Plan; it will be hailed and denounced as the Sharon Plan.

Because Palestinian leaders have allowed terrorists to wage war against Israel, turning the well-intentioned "road map" into a dead letter, Sharon proposed to establish security without them. This involved not just a security fence, but for Sharon to say "yes" to calls to withdraw from Gaza and other exposed Israeli villages in the disputed West Bank.

"I had to take this dangerous step of relocating some of our people," Sharon said. "In Israel, the right does not like me to do it, and the left cannot do it. But you don't wait forever."

This week, President Bush stunned Arab dictators and their acolytes in the U.N. and the E.U. by taking the Sharon "yes" for an answer. For the first time, the U.S. government labeled as "unrealistic" the notion that Israel would be forced to "a full and complete return to the armistice lines" (rejecting the loaded word "borders") of 1949. That new realism covers "existing major Israeli population centers," which Arabs call "settlements."

The Bush document also applied realism to the device that Yasir Arafat used to break up the deal that President Bill Clinton thought he had brokered: a "right to return" that would swamp Israel with Palestinians. Bush made clear that refugees would return to a Palestinian state, not to take over the Jewish state. Sharon added: "Don't create false expectations. Our answer will be no."

America's historic, unequivocal support of what the world knows must be part of a two-state solution puts pressure for peaceful negotiation where it belongs: on Palestinians, who must take control of their destiny away from fanatics sworn to destroy Israel. As Iraqis are also learning, free nationhood comes to those with the courage to control violent extremists.

Bush prevailed on Sharon to ease the disruption of Palestinian lives along the the security fence, which I think will encompass the Ariel salient, and to delay a Jordan Valley barrier. Sharon will take all 7,500 Israelis out of Gaza by the end of next year, and the settlers' movement is infuriated.

But having promised "painful compromises" — code for withdrawals — before his recent elections, Arik expects to remain in office through a Likud Party vote and possible coalition defection. "I'm not boasting" (he used the Russian word for boasting), "but I am not suspected of compromising our security." If the far right parties desert him, he'll bring in Labor, headed by his old rival Shimon Peres. A threatened indictment? "A terrible libel."

He speaks highly of Colin Powell and almost reverently about Bush: "Something in his soul committed him to act with great courage against world terror. Though under constant pressure, the man has not changed his mind."

What does he think John Kerry's reaction will be to the Sharon Plan? "I hope to meet with him when I come back next month."

[DVD Burner]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/ ... 0449.shtml

[Simply Joel]

dubious

\Du"bi*ous\, a. [L. dubius, dubiosus, fr. duo two. See Two, and cf. Doubt.] 1. Doubtful or not settled in opinion; being in doubt; wavering or fluctuating; undetermined. ``Dubious policy.'' --Sir T. Scott.

A dubious, agitated state of mind. --Thackeray.

2. Occasioning doubt; not clear, or obvious; equivocal; questionable; doubtful; as, a dubious answer.

Wiping the dingy shirt with a still more dubious pocket handkerchief. --Thackeray.

3. Of uncertain event or issue; as, in dubious battle.

Syn: Doubtful; doubting; unsettled; undetermined; equivocal; uncertain. Cf. Doubtful.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[stuart]

It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel's so-called security fence, which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.
Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law.

This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America's opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has written that the wall is "unlawful." Another ministry official, who inspected the "security fence," said it should be on the Green Line or "indeed on the Israeli side of the line." A British parliamentary investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli land, condemning the barrier as part of a "deliberate" Israeli "strategy of bringing the population to heel."

What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also — as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of "politicide" against the Palestinians — helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.

Even before construction of the barrier was under way, the United Nations estimated that Israeli barriers, infrastructure projects and settlements had created 50 disconnected Palestinian pockets in the West Bank. As the design of the wall was coming into view, the World Bank estimated that it might isolate 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians, more than 10 percent of the population, and that it might effectively annex up to 10 percent of West Bank land. And when the government of Ariel Sharon finally published its proposed map, it became clear the the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state.

The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources, which Israel and its settlers can appropriate as they choose, while the indigenous population often lacks water for drinking.

Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands. "Hiding behind security rationales and the seemingly neutral bureaucratic language of military orders is the gateway for expulsion," the Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in the daily Haaretz. "Drop by drop, unseen, not so many that it would be noticed internationally and shock public opinion." The same is true of the regular killings, terror and daily brutality and humiliation of the past 35 years of harsh occupation, while land and resources have been taken for settlers enticed by ample subsidies.

It also seems likely that Israel will transfer to the occupied West Bank the 7,500 settlers it said this month it would remove from the Gaza Strip. These Israelis now enjoy ample land and fresh water, while one million Palestinians barely survive, their meager water supplies virtually unusable. Gaza is a cage, and as the city of Rafah in the south is systematically demolished, residents may be blocked from any contact with Egypt and blockaded from the sea.

It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel. This has been true since 1971 when, with American support, Israel rejected a full peace offer from Egypt, preferring expansion to security. In 1976, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement in accord with an overwhelming international consensus. The two-state proposal has the support of a majority of Americans today, and could be enacted immediately if Washington wanted to do so.

At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States.

[Simply Joel]

is this your source?

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries ... pdate.html

[stuart]

nope

it's a chomsky article

[spectabillis]

Dont believe it, but interesting...

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:39:15 -0400
From: Dmitri Gusev <[email protected]>
Subject: Article for the JRL: Author of bin Laden's "Mein Kampf" Russian-born?

A couple of weeks ago I asked a friend of mine, Russian writer and Afghan war veteran Vladimir Grigoriev to find out if "The Foundation", a 1951 sci-fi bestseller by Isaac Asimov, a well-known American author and scientist, was translated and published in Arabic, and if so, under what title? Yesterday, I learned that my friend contacted his former professor Olga Frolova, currently the Chair of the Arab Philology Department, School of Oriental Languages, St. Petersburg State University, and she confirmed that the book was published in Arabic as "Al Qaeda", the title matching the name of the international terrorist network founded and headed by Osama bin Laden. (The Western media usually translates "Al Qaeda" back as "The Base", as if a base of terrorists were been referred to.)

This peculiar coincidence would be of little interest if not for abundant parallels between the plot of Asimov's book and the events unfolding now. The central character of "The Foundation" named Seldon, the pioneer of a new scientific discipline called "psychohistory", predicts that the Galactic Empire is about to fall. While the process of disintegration cannot not be stopped, Seldon decides to send an expedition to a remote place on the outskirts of the Galaxy and establish The Foundation, which is to become the nucleus of the next Empire. Even though the Old Empire tries to destroy The Foundation with its superior military might, Seldon's plan eventually works despite many predicted difficulties and occasional random hiccups. Seldon does not live long enough to see the triumph of his cause, but he leaves videotaped messages at a machine timed to broadcast them to his followers and instruct them at the turning points of The Foundation's history, as his forecasts are coming true.

[DVD Burner]

Any comments on Woodward?

[Simply Joel]

Any comments on Woodward?

putz

[Simply Joel]

And the beat goes on.....

Scandal With No Friends
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON — How fares the multination cover-up of the richest rip-off in world history?

Obstruction of justice has never had it so good. Last month, after some badgering in this space and elsewhere, the House International Relations Committee announced it would look into the $5 billion kickback scandal in the United Nations' six-year Iraqi oil-for-food program, the largest humanitarian aid effort ever undertaken.

Our State Department, eager for U.N. help in Iraq, wants no revelations of U.N. ineptitude and corruption. It waltzed the committee staff around.

Senate Foreign Relations, however, not wanting to be upstaged by its House counterpart, called instant publicity hearings to blow off steam. Chairman Dick Lugar asked if some countries turned a blind eye to the rampant theft of aid that should have gone to hungry Iraqis because they "saw a money-making opportunity."

Senator Joe Biden chimed in, demanding that our ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte, release the names of the U.S. companies that State has known for years have been part of the kickback scheme. Negroponte, soon to be our man in Baghdad working with the U.N., said that no such list had been compiled.

Meanwhile, because U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's son was on the payroll of the Swiss company hired to monitor the imports, and because Kofi's right-hand man had been in charge of the program rife with 10 percent kickbacks, the world's foremost diplomat announced he would appoint an independent panel to investigate.

He chose men of integrity: Paul Volcker, former U.S. Fed chairman; Judge Richard Goldstone, the first Balkans war crimes prosecutor; and Mark Pieth, a Swiss lawyer said to be an expert on money laundering.

End of cover-up, right? Wrong. Volcker properly required a Security Council resolution, which would presumably empower his panel to take sworn testimony and gain access to the U.N.'s corrupt contracts that enabled Saddam to build palaces instead of providing food to his people.

But such a U.N. resolution would reveal dealings with companies in Russia, France and China — all Security Council permanent members whose nationals had their hands in the till. As Senator Lugar suggested, some nations had secret profiteering reasons to keep Saddam in power.

To nobody's surprise, Vladimir Putin's government was the first to say nothing doing. Russia's U.N. spokesman said, "We understand the reputation of the secretariat is in question, but we do not think it is possible to adopt a resolution on the basis of mass media reports."

Of the 270 suspected kickbackers and recipients of illegal allocations of oil whose names were revealed by Al Mada, the Iraqi newspaper, one-fourth were Russian, including a member of the Russian Parliament and a former Russian ambassador to Baghdad. No wonder Putin wanted no "regime change," and now resists any serious investigation.

And what of those "mass media reports" about the scope of the corruption, which are backed by the initial findings of Congress's General Accounting Office? Editorialists have dutifully tut-tutted. Reporters have passed along some details of what the G.A.O. estimates is a $5 billion fraud (not counting $5 billion more in smuggled oil). The Financial Times, working with Italy's Sole, recently advanced the story, interviewing a middleman to show how an apologist for Saddam got $400,000 to finance a film.

But outrage that drives coverage is selective, and there is little establishment appetite to pursue this complex scandal. Speaking power to truth, Newsweek headlines "Anti-U.N. Campaign," and reports dark suspicions by U.N. bureaucrats that the scandal was "drummed up" by the doves' Iraqi villain, Ahmad Chalabi.

France's U.S. ambassador writes under "Oil-for-Food Lies" in The Los Angeles Times that "unfounded accusations . . . have been spread by a handful of influential, conservative TV and newspaper journalists in the U.S." He noted that all 15 members of the Security Council approved all the oil-for-food contracts, and "the complete contracts were only circulated to the U.S. and Britain, which had expressly asked to see them. . . ." (And State shut its eyes — and has no list?)

Lawyers and accountants hired by Iraq's Governing Council will appear before Chairman Christopher Shays' national security subcommittee on Wednesday. The Connecticut congressman offers journalists a useful briefing memo, but expect little coverage; this scandal has no friends.

[DVD Burner]

WILLIAM SAFIRE.


Why is it that when people that have one idea and stick to that idea, that idea seems not to be such a good idea, they never admit when the idea they originally had was a bad idea? They just go on and talk about someone else’s idea that may be a bad idea in order to alleviate any attention that is on their idea off and put the focus on someone else’s potentially bad idea.

I guess they figure that by not admitting their mistake they feel that their mistake will eventually go unnoticed. I've noticed that their mistake never goes away. It just gets compounded by more mistakes that are created by the original mistake. Kind of like telling a lie. Then you have to tell another lie to cover the last lie till one day you forget the original lie and everything falls apart.

When will at least most learn that when one admits to ones mistake, it is the beginning to mending the mistake which in some cases just may turn out not to be a mistake at all because someone besides ones self recocognizes what the original idea was to be about. Well in the cases where the outcome were to be a positive one, that is.

WILLIAM SAFIRE seems to be one of these types of people that have a hard time admitting when he has made a mistake. That's not good. He is leading many people down a wrong path. IMHO of course.

But keep those WILLIAM SAFIRE articles coming. I'm sure we'll watch him hit a brick wall soon.

That's the thing l like about paper trails.
_________________

[DVD Burner]

I ment to answer Don awhile back but did’nt really have the time to do it so I’ll answer his question now while I have some time.
The question:

Simply stating that something is true, or a fact, or 'proof' carries absolutely no merit. Allow me to demonstrate:

* Black is White
* Up is Down
* This is Proof

None of these statements is provably true, yet I assert them much as you have asserted political points that I do not beleive you can back up. Instead of you insisting that your point be disproven, how about you prove it for us?

Please feel free to use a link if it is to some content that is directly applicable to the subject. Providing a link to the sinfinity site does not accomplish this.

I don’t believe in
*black and white,
*good verses evil,
*bad guy and good guy,
*up and down,
*left and right,
*republican and democrat,
*ugly and pretty.

I only know of right and wrong.

Either something is done right and works like it’s supposed to, or is done wrong and doesn’t work.
The only proof seen is taken for granted; the end result is, it works.

So far, everyone that is currently in office in this administration, that is spending my tax dollars, is doing it wrong. (and I really dont like what these guys are doing with my tax dollars. I'd rather pay my taxes to Burningman. Is there anyway I can do that? I find it a much better type of government.) Judge both end results for yourself. Proof.

[Simply Joel]

WILLIAM SAFIRE.


Why is it that when people that have one idea and stick to that idea, that idea seems not to be such a good idea, they never admit when the idea they originally had was a bad idea? They just go on and talk about someone else’s idea that may be a bad idea in order to alleviate any attention that is on their idea off and put the focus on someone else’s potentially bad idea.

I guess they figure that by not admitting their mistake they feel that their mistake will eventually go unnoticed. I've noticed that their mistake never goes away. It just gets compounded by more mistakes that are created by the original mistake. Kind of like telling a lie. Then you have to tell another lie to cover the last lie till one day you forget the original lie and everything falls apart.

When will at least most learn that when one admits to ones mistake, it is the beginning to mending the mistake which in some cases just may turn out not to be a mistake at all because someone besides ones self recocognizes what the original idea was to be about. Well in the cases where the outcome were to be a positive one, that is.

WILLIAM SAFIRE seems to be one of these types of people that have a hard time admitting when he has made a mistake. That's not good. He is leading many people down a wrong path. IMHO of course.

But keep those WILLIAM SAFIRE articles coming. I'm sure we'll watch him hit a brick wall soon.

That's the thing l like about paper trails.
_________________

I really wonder what error or mistake you are referring to.... holding the UN accountable? overthrowing Saddam Hussein? or just because you don't agree it is an error?

I don't believe pundits lead anyone down any path... most people IMHO are blissfully stumbling through the darkness... and Safire is just one of many beacons.

Time will tell who is in error, yet I believe it is far too soon to make a judgement on what is and is not a mistake.

[DVD Burner]

Thanx Joel for not being too severe in your response to my opinion.
I agree that time will tell which way is right as time has told before.

As I've said before on this thread and many others:

de facto, who killed kennedy?

no conspiracy theories now.

I'm not pulling cites cause it will be known in time.
as always.

And just to note something Markov mentioned earlier:

I can't imagine that anyone could be as slimey as Bush. As a rule I can't stand Democrats or Republicans, but Kerry will get my vote this year. Not that I like Kerry, but I just can't stomach the thought of four more years of Bush.

I think if the devil were running, you would have a better bet than Bush. In fact, Bush is so bad Jessie Jacson, Al Sharpton or Don King could do a better job, either slimey or honestly. Now you know that's pretty fucked up.

[stuart]

Safire is just one of many beacons.

do you really think so?

[Simply Joel]

Safire is just one of many beacons.

do you really think so?

Yup, along with David Broder; Washington Post, Clarence Page; Chicago Tribune, Thomas Friedman; New York Times, and Tim Russert; NBC's Meet the Press.

All bright intelligent people that weekly place their reputations and credentials on the line, whether anyone concurs or not.

yes, they are all part of the larger media machine, yet "where I live, they speak with authority" unlike many of the references and cites thrown around here like dung.

So yeah, I take a conservative outlook on events... yet I am continuously accused of being a liberal by all those around me here in the midwest.

What should be taken from all this is... at least we get to express a diseenting opinion without the constant fear of physical harm... and most moderates in Iraq, North Korea, China to name a few.

Additionally, I really don't see too many liberals out there defending the constitution, yet they seem to be first in line to exercise their rights as defined by the constitution.

Look in the mirror, if you like that person, so be it. Personally, I know I can improve as a human being, each and every day I look into the mirror and I make an effort to do so.

and taking a word of caution from Joni Mitchell...

"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone"

As I have said before, this democracy is a pretty nice experiment and I don't look forward to the day it no longer exists.