Yes, it's true.

Green: I'm glad you addressed the issue of that Bigtimer quote. I love your term "gasbag." I would like to think that most of us can see through a load of propagandized garbage whether it is pro-left or pro-right or center of the road. I suppose we're just needing validation for our beliefs so bad that we're willing to endorse something or someone like this, even when it is drivel that has been laced with emotional hot button verbage masquerading as patriotic or Christian (or both).

Green: I'm glad you addressed the issue of that Bigtimer quote. I love your term "gasbag." I would like to think that most of us can see through a load of propagandized garbage whether it is pro-left or pro-right or center of the road. I suppose we're just needing validation for our beliefs so bad that we're willing to endorse something or someone like this, even when it is drivel that has been laced with emotional hot button verbage masquerading as patriotic or Christian (or both).

Thanx, kiddo, it was my father who taught me to mistrust emotional cant when I was still very, very small. (I was less than 10.) In some ways this was a painful lesson for me to learn; children are passionate by nature and it was a bitter business having my father continually shower the cold water of reason over my passions. Painful at the time but the dude did do me a mitzvah.:huggie:

Big sigh.

Again, I ask: Outline the future for us poor conservatives

I can take a stab at it...

...or realists.

We realists already get it.

Show me how it's gonna be. Show me why I don't need to be "paranoid", unlike those here who have the very same "paranoia" against us. Show me why liberals are tolerant and accepting...because, with the exception of BJean, I have not seen it demonstrated. If, oh, 80% or better of the Muslim medressas in the Middle East are turning out tens of thousands of children ready to be suicide bombers...can I apologize for the 20% I inadvertently tainted with my generalizatio? I am aware that my statements do not apply to 100% of Muslims, but they do apply to enough to make a valid argument that there is an issue out there.

Let's DO talk about the madrassas.

The funding for the Wahhabi madrassas comes from Saudi Arabia. You remember the Saudis? The friends of the Bush family? THEY pay for these exported, fanatic, Mini-West Point training camps. (In my background, they were less militant, unarmed and called seminaries.) They got a good start in training poor Pashtun kids to go to war with the old Soviet Union when THEY thought it was brilliant to go to Afghanistan. All they've done recently is change their cast of "bad guys" and spread out to more areas of operation.

Maybe is has something to do with who has most recently invaded their lands. Funny how that connection keeps popping up.

I want one of you to explain how just backing out quietly, turning out the light, saying "excuse me" and "sorry" will change this? This was going on BEFORE we went into Iraq this time. I believe this "solution" is extremely simplistic and naieve and has the chance of a snowball in Hades of dealing with the problem of radical Islam and jihadists in the world. If we never interacted with any other country in the world, ever again, this situation would still exist. The difference would be that they would continue to come to our country, and would work harder, because they would certainly have more time and energy to do so, to attack us here.

Unless some other fools invaded them after we left. Then THEY would move to the head of the list.

Deal is, the alternative to backing out of the fight is to wipe out every Muslim on the planet and take over all Muslim lands. We can't leave any Muslims in place or they'll eventually turn into "insurgents," occupied people almost always resort to THAT ruse.

We need to get out. We need to leave the Middle East to the Middle East. They don't need the "crusading" (his word, not mine) jerk in the White House or any other leader of a Christian Nation bulldozing their way into Muslim countries to help. Our values in this country are heavily informed by the values of the (mostly) Christians who founded this land. Muslims in Muslim lands have values based on the values THEIR religion promotes. Having us there is not only AS insulting as having a bunch of Muslims decide I shouldn't go out of the house with bare arms or drive a car or let my hair show...it is, to them, even WORSE...because "defending the faith" is as integral to their belief system as "sharing the body and blood of Christ" is in most Christian religions. You can't take communion out of the Christian religions that practice it and you can't take "defending the faith" out of the Muslim belief system. And (at the risk of repeating myself), our going there to impart our values on their religious practices (because their religion is in every part of their day) is never going to be okay.

I am also aware of the public opinion polls...I do not base my evaluation of anything on public opinion polls. ...

We agree there...that's why I NEVER liked Bush, even after 9/11.

Does it show that the MSM has done a fine job in swaying people through sound bites that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and we should be very unhappy?

Do you include all the media throught the world as being involved in this vast conspiracy to which you allude? We get the most sanitized news in the world. We don't even see what we are doing to others and what we have done to our own.

Sure. What if they used their power to encourage people to hang together and accomplish this very difficult job? Wouldn't it be better for all of us, and even for the (most likely) new Democrat president in two years?

No. I don't want my media serving as cheerleaders for the White House. They did that in WWII (Democrat in the White House) and that's why Japanese Americans were robbed of their homes and possessions and sent off to camps in the desert...and hardly anyone said a word. And, btw, that was a war in which we were attacked by another country and where we knew where to retaliate, so there was a chance of winning.

Also...it's not the UNIFORM that makes the difference (and I did quote from the actual Geneva convention; it is what it is)...it is the FACT that terrorists are not accorded the same rights as bona fide soldiers. There IS a difference. Sorry you do not like that, but there it is. I did not write the Geneva conventions; I did not interpret them; I just quoted it for the purpose of clarity.

The Geneva Conventions--at least the ones I had to learn about when I was in the Army--did not apply to going to "war" against "bad ideas and practices." They would not apply to a "war on evil" or a "war on meanness" or a "war on bad manners." They apply to warring NATIONS. We are not warring against a nation. We are fighting terrorism. (Brilliant.) Declaring a vague war on terrorism (which, of course, can NEVER be won) makes every man, woman and child on the planet who gets in your (philosophical) way a target.

Back to the task, and one I am looking forward to reading about later. Tell me about the future. How will the world, or our country be a better place for me to live in 4 more years? Bush is gone...someone else is in the Oval Office. Presumably, there are new Cabinet officers, new diplomats, new foreign policy, etc. Tell me about my new tax rates (I'm a retired teacher, my DH still teachers, one child), my security in relation to the world, my personal freedoms/rights (seriously, I haven't noticed these being abridged, but some of you are worried about that), what new laws are on the horizon...lay it all out for me. How are things going to be?

I'm tired now...but I'll work more later. But, I'd suggest a subscription to Mother Jones for the time being.

Tell you what, I'll read some Mother Jones if you'll read some Weekly Standard.

Deal?

It's always enlightening to read opposing viewpoints. Infuriating sometimes, but enlightning.

When In Doubt, Start Another Civil War

Why Bush is Selling Arms to Fatah

By CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

There's one thing George Bush knows. You don't get to be the biggest arms merchant in the world by only selling arms to friends. If that were the case the only countries to which we'd sell arms would be countries like Great Britain and Canada and they're not going to buy enough to keep us in first place. And it's not Mr. Bush's fault that he doesn't know that there is a history in the United States of selling arms to people who have ended up using the arms against the United States. After all, it's hard enough for him to keep up with what's going on right now.

If he knew history, he'd know that in the 1980s the United States sold Iran 12,000 anti-tank missiles, 235 Hawk missiles and 200 Phoenix air-to-air missiles costing more than $1 million each. He'd recall that when we thought Mr. bin Laden was our friend for trying to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan (a country to which we are now bringing law and order in order to show the Russians how good old American know-how can get the job done) we provided him with stinger missiles. The ones bin Laden couldn't use he sold to Iran and got cash that has helped in his ongoing battle with his former arms supplier). Now Mr. Bush is arming the Palestinian organization known as Fatah.

President Mahmoud Abbas is a member of the Fatah party and the president of the Palestinian Authority. He was elected in 2005 and until 2006 Fatah controlled the Palestinian Authority. Some parts of Fatah get along with Israel-sort of. In 2006 legislative elections were held. Hamas won and took control of parliament. Fatah cabinet members resigned and were replaced by Hamas members. Hamas does not get along with Israel. It wants it removed from the face of the earth. Since the elections, relations between Fatah and Hamas have been tense and often violent. The two groups have tried unsuccessfully to form a unity government and since that failed have resorted to shooting at one another in the streets.

Mr. Bush is very concerned about the destabilizing effect a full-scale conflict between the two groups could have on the region. He fears it could turn into another Iraq. One way of dealing with the concern would be for him to initiate talks with the two groups and see if there is a way forward that would protect Israel's right to exist while at the same time eliminating the risk of civil war between Hamas and Fatah. That is impossible because the United States (and Israel for that matter) do not talk to groups that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Mr. Bush also doesn't talk to countries he doesn't like but that's another story. Ever creative, Mr. Bush has another plan. Sell arms.

Mr. Bush is going to pour $86 million into the coffers of Fatah. That is more than the total of all the monies the United States has given the PLO since it was formed in 1994. None of this aid would be necessary if Fatah had not lost the 2006 election. The money will help it regain what it lost at the ballot box. Mr. Bush understands that kind of thinking since he had to go the Supreme Court to become president after losing at the ballot box.

According to media reports in late December, with Israel's and the United States's approval, 2,000 AK-47s and two million bullets were transferred to Mr. Abbas's security forces, many of whom are loyal to Mr. Abbas and to Fatah. (Fatah's armed wing known as Al-Aqsa fighters are hostile to Israel and some Fatah folk have launched terrorist attacks against both the U.S and Israel but Mr. Bush hopes those people won't be given those weapons.) With $86 million it's a sure bet there will be lots more weapons heading Fatah's way. More arms is a sure fire way to bring peace to that region.

There is, of course, always the chance that the arms being sold will eventually be used against the merchant (us) or even Israel. That is because there are people loyal to Fatah who dislike Israel. Bassam Eid, head of the Palestinian Rights Monitoring Group in East Jerusalem says the Fatah faction is not a moderate movement and that the infusion of cash will "double the number of thugs" in Fatah. Dennis Roth, a Middle East advisor to two administrations said: "The $86 million reflects the basic sense in the administration that the only way to change things is through confrontation."

That is not surprising. Bullies are usually inarticulate and prefer a show of force to a show of brains, especially when not possessed of the latter. Mr. Bush is their poster child.

Big sigh.

Again, I ask: Outline the future for us poor conservatives or realists. Show me how it's gonna be. Show me why I don't need to be "paranoid", unlike those here who have the very same "paranoia" against us. Show me why liberals are tolerant and accepting...because, with the exception of BJean, I have not seen it demonstrated.

If, oh, 80% or better of the Muslim medressas in the Middle East are turning out tens of thousands of children ready to be suicide bombers...can I apologize for the 20% I inadvertently tainted with my generalization? I am aware that my statements do not apply to 100% of Muslims, but they do apply to enough to make a valid argument that there is an issue out there.

Not all Muslims go to Madrasas. Many of the Madrasas that do teach anti-Israeli and anti-USA philosophies are in countries that are our allies. Pakistan claims it does not have the money to build public schools that would stamp out the need for Madrasas. If the USA gave Pakistan the money it wastes in one week making enemies in Iraq, Pakistan could build non-indoctrinating public schools and shut down the Madrasas. The USA would then have been better off saving the money and bloodshed it wasted on the Illogical Illegal Iraqi Invasion and would be helping to make a better future for Pakistan, Pakistan's people and for itself.

Why Saudi Arabia has Madrasas is beyond money, but why doesn't someone in the US government put pressure on the Saudis to crack down? Could it be that because Ronald Reagan killed all of Jimmy Carter's "Alternative Fuel" programs that the USA has no guts to insist that our allies help us?

Can you spell O-I-L?

Also...it's not the UNIFORM that makes the difference (and I did quote from the actual Geneva convention; it is what it is)...it is the FACT that terrorists are not accorded the same rights as bona fide soldiers. There IS a difference. Sorry you do not like that, but there it is. I did not write the Geneva conventions; I did not interpret them; I just quoted it for the purpose of clarity.

The Geneva Conventions were written by countries who could afford conventional warfare, so they wrote the rules for themselves.

However, the USA is supposed to be the (self-professed) guiding light and to use torture and other forms of human rights violations is a despicable chapter in our history. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" he didn't say, "that all men in uniforms are created equal" nor "that all men who are US citizens are created equal".

President BuSh swore (at his inaugurations) to defend the Constitution of the United states of America. That includes: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

The Geneva Conventions must be acceptable to our constitutional guidelines to be ratified by the USA. That's what the fight in congress was all about last year.

However, the USA is supposed to be the (self-professed) guiding light and to use torture and other forms of human rights violations is a despicable chapter in our history. When Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" he didn't say, "that all men in uniforms are created equal" nor "that all men who are US citizens are created equal".

President BuSh swore (at his inaugurations) to defend the Constitution of the United states of America. That includes: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

The Geneva Conventions must be acceptable to our constitutional guidelines to be ratified by the USA. That's what the fight in congress was all about last year.

Re torture and all that: There is still some concern outside of the United States concerning the Maher Arar case. He was the Canadian national of Syrian origin who was deported from the States, not to Canada, but to Syria where he was emprisonned, interrogated and tortured.

He is now back home and has been declared clean by our specialists on terrorism but is still on your no-fly list.

Your ambassador called our Public Safety Minister "presumptuous" for repeatedly asking that his name be removed. It might be considered that your officials were presumptuous by removing a Canadian citizen to a third country, one that would use torture as an interrogation technique.

It seems that this policy of shipping suspicious folks off to these countries is called extraordinary rendition and while Arar has become the poster child for this, he is not the only one to whom this has happened.

It also seems that European airports are used as stopovers in order to refuel for the CIA planes carrying these individuals. In Arar's case the stopover was made in Italy.

But the European Union's parliamentary committee has been looking into this practice and they have now issued a report condemning the practice as "'an illegal instrument used by the United States.'" They also say that this "'damages and undermines regular police and judicial procedures against terrorism suspects.'"

Amnesty International been observing these developments closely by the way.

Now, it is true that the Canadian government is also on the hook for the Arar mess. It apparently had faulty intelligence concerning this man, too. Where the U.S. screwed up was by not sending this individual back to his own country, Canada, but instead opting for the unilateral move of shipping this individual to a country where torture is an approved conversational technique.

You might be interested to know that Senator Patrick Leahy (Dem) is attempting to force Attorney-General Gonzales to shed a little more light on this affair.

I mention this because European Union report would seem to indicate that extraordinary rendition has not been limited to Maher Arar. This means that the American government has been deliberately sending other individuals to countries where torture is considered to be inside the rules.

Is it just me or are some of you feeling frightened by this administration and its' right wing supporters? Where are they really taking us with all this?

I'm beginning to wonder if what they are doing to this country isn't just as scary as what Muslim terrorists are currently doing.

Did anyone hear the rumor that Obama is a Muslim or used to be? I heard it from a friend but I don't have any details. This friend also said his middle name is Hussein. Looking for anyone who's heard anything about it.

Did anyone hear the rumor that Obama is a Muslim or used to be? I heard it from a friend but I don't have any details and I can't find a news report about it. This friend also said his middle name is Hussein. Looking for anyone who's heard anything about it.

His middle name is Hussein, and he did go to a Muslim (but all-inclusive) school for a few years. I don't know whether he himself was Muslim, though. Check out the Obama for President thread for more details.

Ohmigosh, is that really true? He's son of Saddam Hussein? I hadn't heard that yet. But let's face it, where else would he get a name like that? They HAVE to be related. How could he possibly run for the office of the president of the United States of America with a name like that? Or with a family like that? He should be brought before a tribunal. Like in the case of Clinton!

Ohmigosh, is that really true? He's son of Saddam Hussein? I hadn't heard that yet. But let's face it, where else would he get a name like that? They HAVE to be related. How could he possibly run for the office of the president of the United States of America with a name like that? Or with a family like that? He should be brought before a tribunal. Like in the case of Clinton!

That's funny, BJean.

I was asking a question, asking for more information that I couldn't find myself. I never asked if he was related to Saddam.

Do you know a lot of non-Muslims with Muslim names?

His middle name is Hussein, and he did go to a Muslim (but all-inclusive) school for a few years. I don't know whether he himself was Muslim, though. Check out the Obama for President thread for more details.

Thanks, laurend. I'm headed out the door for dinner, but I'll check it out when I get back. If you have any more sources other than his own website, I'd appreciate it.

The only way you can run for president is if you are a natural- born American citizen.

On the bright side, if Osama isn't a citizen of this country by virtue of his birth, the Republicans have been wanting to change that law so maybe they will and he can run whether he's a naturalized or native-born American.