Comments on: Weak on Defense: Bush Dumps Arms Control Offices

By: Free Verizon Ringtones

Free Verizon Ringtones — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:21:00 +0000

Free Verizon Ringtones…

Free Verizon Ringtones…

By: The Muse

The Muse — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:31:16 +0000

Even as Bush makes the world more dangerous, he uses fear to sell his presidency to the public.

From You canâ€™t call it terror if youâ€™re not afraid of it.

…All the latest commotion was conveniently foreshadowed by the President a day earlier in a â€œmajor speechâ€ on terror. It was a real stemwinder. I have the Cliff notes.

Bush said: â€œ9-11â€¦terrorâ€¦assaulted by enemiesâ€¦great evilâ€¦covered in smoke and ashesâ€¦fire across the Potomacâ€¦new terror offensiveâ€¦kill children and the elderlyâ€¦mortal danger to all humanityâ€¦like a parasiteâ€¦as brutal an enemy as weâ€™ve ever faced.â€ Itâ€™s the same pep talk he gives every time his polls plummet.

Doesnâ€™t it seem odd that a President who conducts foreign policy like heâ€™s trying to get in touch with his inner-cowboy would be so intent on turning his own country into a herd of spooked sheep?

But with Karl Rove curled up into a fetal ball awaiting the word of a certain grand jury, and the rest of the team either fending off the FBI or dusting off their curricula vitae, Bush is kind of on his own. So heâ€™s playing the hole card, the only thing thatâ€™s ever worked for him. Be very, very afraid.

Terrorists, hurricanes, bio-agents, wild fires, housing bubbles, social insecurity, gay people getting married, be very, very afraid.

Now Bush is squawking about a military takeover when the Avian flu pandemic hits. How bad is it when weâ€™re afraid of chickens?…

full article

By: Gerald Gibson Jr.

Gerald Gibson Jr. — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:36:46 +0000

What I don’t understand is why have we not done much of anything about 9/11? Iraq is obviously a pet project of the NeoCons from before 9/11. Afghanistan was a joke and didnt even get Osama. We all know the history of how AlQaeda came into being and who is supporting them. We know that the two main countries supporting Osama is 1) Saudi Arabia ..where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from and where much $$$ support and moral support comes from. 2) Pakistan was/is used as the training grounds and weapons funneling system for Osama. This has been true since the war against the soviet union. In addition it is now public fact that the Pakistan military and Nuke scientists have been proliferating WMDs to Iran, Lybia, hell maybe even Osama. Recently Pakistan tested a cruise missle capable of carrying nukes.

I remember jumping to my feet on 9/11 when I saw the second plane hit and shouted war…which awoke my kids and scared my wife in to crying. We sat there all day saying this is going to be just like WWII which we both saw alot of since I like watching stuff about WWII on TV. We thought Bush was going to do what FDR did. An all or nothing war against those that were behind this. Bush was in the pocket of the people that did this. And the Democrats have not walked up to the plate and demanded that we stop Pakistan from getting the ICBMs that could wipe us out. The Democrats did not demand Justice against the Saudis. Instead the Democrats just complain about what Bush is doing. Are they planing on attacking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia after they get in power or are they just going to let 9/11 slide?

By: Think Progress » Two weeks ago, Think Progress

Think Progress » Two weeks ago, Think Progress — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:36:11 +0000

[...] highlighted news that the Bush administration “planning to quietly eliminate most State Department arms control offices” during the August recess. Good news: the restructuring is now (temporarily) on hold. 2:36 pm | Comment (0) [...]

By: Richard Clarke

Richard Clarke — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:48:33 +0000

Speaking of “weak on defense,” DoD documents now confirm that Clinton Admin layers prevented dissemination of information about Mohammed Atta and other al Qaeda members known to be in the U.S. in 1999 and 2000. Something about the “Gorelick Wall” preventing sharing of info about people here on visas.

9/11 Commission staffers were briefed on this issue, but Commission staff never gave the information to the Commissioners themselves. Commissioner Gorelick has so far declined to comment . . .

By: cymack

cymack — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:17:18 +0000

So the burns on nonproliferation agents might have to do with more than pique at having Iraq lies exposed, eh?

By: Amyfw

Amyfw — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:24:05 +0000

“Bush agrees, as long as the nonproliferation is done with unilateral military action, but no multilateral negotiated regimes.

Huh?

Comment by Narc Ã¢â‚¬â€ August 8, 2005 @ 11:40 am

Translation – Our enemies should reduce their weapons and we should increase ours.

Comment by Carlton Ã¢â‚¬â€ August 8, 2005 @ 2:12 pm”

Actually, what I meant was that the Bush Admin’s nonproliferation policy relies on military force and regime change (i.e. Iraq) rather than diplomacy and multilateral agreements such as the NPT, BWC, and CWC. Just witness the lack of support it gave to the NPT review conferencein May. And the torpedo it shot at the BWC. Its a huge change in U.S. policy.

But Carlton’s translation works for me, too.

By: Shado

Shado — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:30:24 +0000

I just recently found this feed and just want to say I appreciate all your comments and opinions, it has been eye-opening for me.

I don’t watch tv news anymore, I don’t trust who’s behind it. So I prefer to get my “news” from blogs as well- a much more balanced medium.

Thanks again

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:25:00 +0000

What’s next for the Right? I’m picturing a new bumper sticker:

“Arms Control means hitting the right city with your ICBM”

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:44:17 +0000

#36 Narc,
What a great quote you found. Thanks. I never realized Ike was so astute.

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:14:02 +0000

#4, Alan,
You might be right.

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:11:52 +0000

I feel like we are existing in a surreal world. When we should be advocating the limitation of arms proliferation, Bush& Co. are quietly undermining efforts. I am beginning to believe that those nut cases who climb to mountaintops to await the imminent rapture are on to something. They think like Bush!

By: Terrytheturtle

Terrytheturtle — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:55:22 +0000

And with acknowledgements to Kirk Douglas:

“I’m a commie”

“No, I’m a commie”

By: Terrytheturtle

Terrytheturtle — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:52:01 +0000

Narc #36: I enjoyed that, I’ve seen clips of it before but not the whole. Of course this innocuous looking paragraph stands out to me now: “A year ago last January we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world.7 You may have forgotten this. Lots of people have. But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed. I could name at least a half dozen other spots of the same character.” Ah, yes, “All the Shah’s men.”

By: narc

narc — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:17:59 +0000

Well, if he was… so am I.

By: narc

narc — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:17:09 +0000

Eisenhower was a communist.

You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.2

I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case.3 Others, and older ones, involved “interstate commerce.”4 But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this–in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

By: narc

narc — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:14:23 +0000

Don’t know if you are familiar with this, Terry. If you are, now you know it’s authentic. If not, you will get a kick out of it.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

By: narc

narc — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:12:37 +0000

More here:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm

And I agree with Obvious, obviously, 100%

By: narc

narc — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:09:34 +0000

Yes he was, Terry. Even Goldwater mellowed with age… or soured on the the theocrats:

From Not Your Father’s America

http://carapace.weblogs.us/archives/026843.html

The man Republicans lionized as a wellspring of conservative wisdom and scourge of government tyranny saw it coming.

Beware, Sen. Barry Goldwater warned: the country is being pushed into a theocracy by overbearing religious extremists who’ll suffocate individual freedom.

Did Goldwater, who died in 1998, foresee the sort of politicians and “religious” fanatics who turned Terri Schiavo’s tragedy into a circus?

Listen to what he had to say decades ago:

Ã‚Â· “The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.”

Ã‚Â· “I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?”

Ã‚Â· “And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’”

Ã‚Â· “When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”

Foretelling things to come, televangelist-politician Pat Robertson wrote in 1991, “By the end of this decade control of the major institutions of society will be firmly in the hands of those who share a pro-family, religious, traditional value perspective.”

Nine years later, George W. Bush was president. Stem cell research banned. Evolution discredited in education. PBS browbeaten by “moral values” Education secretary William J. Bennett. Broadcast language policed. Sex education textbooks censored to include only abstinence. Aid to foreign agencies involved in abortion cancelled. The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives created. The Justice Department forms the “religious rights” unit. Attacks launched on same-sex marriage. Pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.

Coming soon: hand picked “moral values” judges to enforce America’s conservative political pact with religion.

By: obvious

obvious — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:08:59 +0000

“John Birchers call Ike a commie back then. They were convinced he was.”

To someone in the radical right, anyone that talks about fairness, justice or compassion is a commie. Ironically they always want those very attributes applied to them anytime ‘taxes’ or ‘responsibility’ are involved. It’s not that they disagree with welfare or subsidies, they just don’t believe poor people or minorities should receive them. To a fascist loonie – the only good welfare is corporate welfare…