General Discussion

May I suggest, as an addition to the "Timeline of War Planning" By Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane, the 1996 paper titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", from the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies. It was signed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, perhaps the chief White House intelligence "fixer" on Iraq. Here's an excerpt: "This effort [to weaken Syria] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

Dear Mr. Gonadface,
Get a life, you snivelling little twerp!O.k., enough of the compliments. What's with the ? instead of quotation marks when quoting statements. Are these guesses????????
Name one source other than the limey named. "Government officials" is as convincing as "what's-his-name" for authenticity( """ these are quotation marks).
Whining, backbiting, Monday morning quarterbacking,and terrorist appeasement are the only "weapon of crass discussion" you solution-less moronic cowards have. You are traitors in your hatred for this country and if there was justice in this world we'd all have the pleasure of watching a real man (such as Michael Jackson) spank the daylights out of you;
IMPEACH THIS!

Dear Conservative Jerk,
After criticizing a source for being an anonymous government official with no attributed name, thank you for submitting your post anonymously. You're certainly not a hypocrite. By your logic, (which is bending the word to the limit in your case) Beowulf should not be considered a great work of literature because it is attributed to no one. Government Officials do not wish to be identified. They prefer remaining anonymous kind of like...oh...I don't know...you. By the way, Monday Morning Quarterbacking only happens when the Quarterback screws up. I don't know about you, but I cannot accept representatives of our country who screw up time and time again.
Signed,
Thomas

p.s. I atleast have the guts to tell you who I am.

Do the Research yourself, even if others only read the news. The TRUTH is, many years before the LIES of WMD, Yellow Cake, Meltdown and Faithbased Agendas. There were the BUSH'S and I'm not talking baked beans.

Even before IG Farben and Prescott Bush and the grave robbers. This Bush Family and friends had Agendas to follow, and the Bussiness of WAR, for them has only gotten better, and most know it.

Most of the Right Wing feel its only Bussiness.

And besides it's the only thing there good at.

My friends, we come to a critical juncture regarding the Downing Street Minutes(DSM).For the past several weeks we have agitated for the mainstream media to acknowledge the DSM. This has finally happened and the mainstream response was just a big yawn and spin in favor of the Bush administration. Are any of us really suprised at this? It was to be expected. Just the fact that we kept up the noise for long enough and loud enough to get the mainstream media to even report on the DSM is a victory for us. A good first victory for us but now is the time to take the next steps.

What should those next steps be? We can blog all we want, even march with posters and shout slogans (both of which I have done) but the truth is that will change little to nothing. Writing letters to editors, media outlets, politicians, and others are positive actions as well but sadly are not likely to change the mainstream tenor of the debate surrounding the revelations contained in the DSM. This,unfortunately, is the reality of the situation and highlights the high hurdles facing our cause.

What is needed is some form of OFFICIAL action. The Honorable Rep. John Conyers Jr.'s hearing on June 16th 2005 was a good first salvo that we all cheered but it also served to highlight the difficulties we face. It is unlikely that the Republican controlled Congress will convene OFFICIAL hearings on the DSM any time soon, if ever. Rep. Conyers has said he hopes to hold more hearings and we all cheer him on, but will these subsequent meetings have official standing? Will they have subpoena powers as Rep. Conyers expressed a hope for towards the conclusion of the June 16th hearing? I certainly hope so as this avenue of inquiry is the most promising to date but I am not holding my breath that the Republican powers that be in Congress will empower any hearings that deviate from the party line.

Without OFFICIAL action being taken, and by OFFICIAL I mean actions with subpoena powers where people testify under oath, I am afraid the whole DSM affair will get swept under the rug just as the right-wing so desperately wants. With the Republican control of Congress and the conservative right-wing bias of the mainstream media what are our options? As much as I cheer on the efforts of Rep. Conyers I think it is unwise to place all our hope in one basket. What is needed is other OFFICIAL venues where people can be called to testify under oath too. What about state or even local courts and governments? A statement under oath carries the same OFFICIAL weight (remember lying under oath is perjury) whether made before the Supreme Court or the smallest local courthouse. Surely some portion of the information in the Downing Street Minutes could be pursued legally and OFFICIALLY, outside of the jurisdiction of the Republican controlled Congress, as an alternate approach to the frontal assalt Rep. Conyers is mobilising in Congress. This alternate strategy should even help Rep. Conyers in his quest on Capitol Hill as OFFICIAL inqueries from elsewhere will supply him with OFFICIAL ammunition with which pursue the fight.

My friends, think on this. Add your suggestions. We are fighting the good fight on a matter of the highest National (and even international) order. We have made progress but have many high hurdles yet to clear. At this critical juncture we risk having the whole Downing Street Minutes revelations fade away into obscurity if we do not keep up the pressure and proceed intelligently.

BTW, does anyone know where I can find a copy of the letter Bush sent to Congress outlining the reasons the United States needed to go to war with Iraq? I would very much like to read the wording of that OFFICIAL document. Thanks.

The sad thing about this forum is the minimal ammount of American citizens who think that their government is the REAL terrorist organisation. Believe me folks, no one outside the US, including your former allies, support the US anymore.

I cannot tell you how much your pathetic U.S. hating rhetoric is making you all look like a bunch of sorry losers. Try defending your country once in awhile, stop being ashamed of courage, strength and nationalism. Every country I have ever been too is very proud of thier heritage and groups like yourselves would be beat down if you opened your mouths. Just goes to show once again how lucky you are to be in the U.S. and able to speak out no matter how idiotic your theory, intelligence and views are. Remember this, Just finished my second tour in Iraq and I know what we did was the right thing to do. None of you pathetic losers have been there nor will ever. The military supports Bush, WE DO NOT SUPPORT YOU LOSERS.

Love it or leave it (I personally would love to fight against you losers) Bang! your dead

Would it be more effective not only to point out that Bush lied but also to repeatedly inform people that the Downing Street Minutes call into question the Presidents moral and political stance. Anyone can say that the slip away from the issue and say "We did eveything to avoid war" which we all know is a lie, but its no way to deny that (frame question this way) assuming these documents are true how do you Morally and Politically justify your actions??

That would do 2 things either force him to say that the minutes are fake, or force him to justify his lyin to the public

I'm just puttin it out there and I wonder how others feel about this??

In my opionion, one action the citizenry can do now,
to force the congress into action, is a GENERAL STRIKE.

If every worker, in every industry, everywhere in this
country, went on strike and shut down the COUNTRY, that
would send a message to the congress faster then greased
lighting. Since computers are the wave of the activist
future, use it to organize a general strike.

Start with one day, and if need be, increase
the days, until the representatives that work for Us,
get the picture. That the citizens will STOP.
Will stop, all business, all transportation,
all the necessary activity required to function
a thriving, wealth economy. The businesses will scream
bloody murder,and call their elected (bought) officals.
A general strike, will let every moneyed interest
in this counrty and every corporation around the
world that has transactions with the U.S.,
that the citizens are serious.

So what you all say, shall we STRIKE!!!

And nor, do you care. Personal gain (fame) is all Cindy wants. Something to latch on to because her son has died. She doesnt deserve a meeting with bush. She already had one. If she gets one. Then I want one. Catch my drift? Most likley not.

When are the bureau chiefs of our newspapers and networks going to snap out of their own vacation-induced trances and send some grown-up correspondents down to Crawford, Texas? For weeks now, Cindy Sheehan has not been asked a single question that is any tougher than "How does it feel?" The media have been acting as her megaphone. After Slate published her real opinions on politics (a weird confection of pacifism with paranoid anti-Zionism) last Monday, she was eventually asked about her statement that her son Casey had been killed in a war for Israel, and she denied ever having made it. So, we must now say that, as well as being a vulgar producer of her own spectacle, and an embarrassment to her family, Cindy Sheehan is at best a shifty fantasist.

After Slate published an extract from a letter that she wrote last March to ABC Nightline, Anderson Cooper of CNN asked her about the anti-Israel remarks the letter contained. She denied making them and proceeded in her blog to assert that someone had gotten hold of her original letter and somehow doctored it. This dark and murky allegation—evincing further paranoia on her part—has been easily and convincingly refuted, as can be seen. Cindy Sheehan, not content with echoing the Bin-Ladenist line that the president is the real "terrorist" and that he is the tool of a Jewish cabal, has dug a pit of falsehood around her own wild story.

This week, before family matters called her away from Crawford, she mutated her demand—that the president lower himself into that pit and join her down there—into the shameless request that he join her for Friday prayers. The nerve! We all know how much the MoveOn.org forces believe in the power of prayer, and in the president's sincere religious convictions (their contempt for this is the only thing on which I agree with them). But, hey, try anything once for a tear-jerker or a bit of moral blackmail—what Maureen Dowd has so laughably called "absolute moral authority."

What do these people imagine that they are demanding? Would they like a referendum to be held, among the relatives of the fallen in Iraq, to determine the future conduct of the war? I think I can promise them that they would heavily lose such a vote. But what if the right wing were also to demand such a vote and the "absolute moral authority" that supposedly goes with it?

One of three things could then happen. The ultra-right anti-Zionist forces of David Duke and Patrick J. Buchanan, both of whom approvingly speak of Ms. Sheehan's popular groundswell, would still lose the vote. So would the media fools who semi-automatically identify Sheehan and her LaRouche-like drivel with the "left" or "progressive" forces. This would leave us with a random pseudo-majority, made up of veterans and their relatives. Who wants this to be the group that decides? One might as well live in a populist, jingoist banana republic. Never mind the Constitution, or even the War Powers Act. Only victims and martyrs can decide! Get ready to gather under the balcony of a leader who speaks rotundly of such glory.

Then there is the question of humanitarian or pacifist emotion. Some have perhaps been drawn to "Camp Casey" out of reverence for life. Their demand, however, is an immediate coalition withdrawal from Iraq. Have they seriously asked themselves how humane the consequences of that would be? The news of a pullout would put a wolfish grin on the faces of the "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" brigade, as Mr. Zarqawi's force has named itself in order to resolve all doubt. Every effort would be made to detonate every available car-bomb and mine, so as to claim the withdrawal of coalition forces as a military victory for jihad. I can quite understand Ms. Sheehan's misery at the thought of her son being killed on some desolate road. But will she be on hand to console the parents whose sons are shot in the back while being ordered to surrender and withdraw?

I hope I don't insult the intelligent readers of this forum if I point out what the consequences of such a capitulation would be for the people of Iraq. Paint your own mental picture of a country that was already almost beyond rescue in 2003, as it is handed back to an alliance of homicidal Baathists and Bin-Ladenists. Comfort yourself, if that's the way you think, with the idea that such people are only nasty because Bush made them so. Intone the Sheehan mantra—repeated this very week—that terrorism is no problem because after all Bush is the leading terrorist in the world. See if that cheers you up. Try it on your friends. Live with it, if you are ready to live with the consequences of what you desire.

This is an argument, about a real war, that deserves moral seriousness on all sides. Flippancy and light-mindedness have no place. Cindy Sheehan's cheerleader Michael Moore has compared the "insurgents" in Iraq to the American minutemen and Founding Fathers. Do I taunt him for not volunteering to fight himself in such a noble cause? Of course I do not. That would be a low and sly blow. Do I say that he is spouting fascistic nonsense? Of course I do. Is Cindy Sheehan exempt from any verdict on her wacko opinions because of her bereavement? I would say that she is not. Has she been led into a false position by eager cynics who have sacrificed nothing and who would happily surrender unconditionally to the worst enemy that currently faces civilization? That's for her to clarify. While she ponders, she should forgo prayer, stay in California, and end her protest.