To the editor:
Six years ago, the World Trade Center was hit by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001. Now in 2007, we are still overseas, fighting for democracy, doing all we possibly can to win this terrible war. It is not only a war, but many things: hatred, struggle, a fight consisting of many lives taken for our country.
On that dreadful day in September, many years ago, many people wondered: Why? Why must they choose our strong country, not another? Why must we be forced to decide between them and us? And, most importantly, when? When, if ever, will there be peace on our Mother Earth again?
Now, the general public is asking a new question: When will Bush bring the troops home? As we all know, before 9/11, almost everyone in this glorious country supported Bush. Now, gradually, most have turned against our beloved president. He is just doing his rightful duty in office, after all! He believes, and so do I, that we should bring home the troops when the Iraqi people have democracy.
It would be wonderful to have them home again, since we miss them all so much. My second cousin, Scott, is over there, and I miss him so much my heart aches. But I know that he is doing his part and that God will watch over him and all of our men and women serving overseas. God will see to it that all of them make it home, if only in our hearts.
Bridget Cary,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Rightytighty (anonymous) says…
Great letter! someone out there still has hope and is willing to stand by our president in hard times like myself.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Wow. The government brainwashing machine still works. Probably the only thing they aren't really cutting back on funding.
coneflower (anonymous) says…
Unbelievable. Somebody still thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11, other than that brown-skinned people were involved. Have they been in a coma the past four years?
Stain (anonymous) says…
I believe this letter is satire. They almost had me fooled.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Anyone remember when the Bush Administration told us to get Shrink Wrap and wrap up our houses with it and that would protect us from Anthrax?
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
temperance (anonymous) says…
Ditto to Raginbear's "Wow." Gee, I wonder if Bridget Cary watches Fox News? And is Bush still "beloved" if everyone has turned against him?
" . . . we should bring home the troops when the Iraqi people have democracy." Hear that Scott? Your second cousin wants you to stay in Iraq until 2047.
paladin (anonymous) says…
Uh......................nevermind.
http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppm...
oh kay now--everbody sing it out!!!!! be proud and sing it loud!!!!!
"God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home."
windex (anonymous) says…
Gag. Out with critical thinking, in with sentimentality.
I agree with anxiousatheist (though for the record, I'm a Christian): Next election, why don't you just stay home and pray, Bridget, and we'll do the voting.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I guess it must be "inane letters" day at the JW.
armyguy (anonymous) says…
If the President and Bridget both think that we should be in Iraq until they have a democracy WTF are we still doing there? They have a democracy, we gave that to them. They have had many elections and elected their leaders. What have those leaders done?
DaveR (anonymous) says…
It was on the CBS news last night that I saw a university study showing how the planes of 9-11 sliced through WTC 1 & 2 like they were made of butter & sugar wafers.
Anybody else see that?
paladin (anonymous) says…
That's right, they were made of gingerbread and icing and lolipops and licorice whips and lots of other goodies. Shame on those bad people for making such a mess!
acg (anonymous) says…
"As we all know, before 9/11, almost everyone in this glorious country supported Bush. Now, gradually, most have turned against our beloved president. He is just doing his rightful duty in office, after all!" Wha-wha-whaaaat? Are you living under a rock, sister?
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
"we are still overseas, fighting for democracy, doing all we possibly can to win this terrible war."
Really? Now that would be news. How delusional some people can be -- no, INSIST on being.
"As we all know, before 9/11, almost everyone in this glorious country supported Bush."
It was at this point that I realized that the whole letter was in jest.
drewdun (anonymous) says…
"baghdad (ap) -- The U.S. military announced the deaths of 14 American troops, including five killed Thursday in a single roadside bombing that also killed four Iraqis in Baghdad."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world...
Can one of the wingers on here explain to me what exactly our troops are doing in Iraq, besides dying patrolling a civil war that is really none of our business?
drewdun (anonymous) says…
re right-thinker: Once again, we see the hostility the right has towards reality. The press reporting the truth is somehow turned into 'leftist media against the troops.' What a joke.
And that's a very credible website you linked to, rt. That would be like me posting a link to mediamatters.org to show our version of press bias. And, fwiw, it has been shown repeatedly that the vast majority of attacks in Iraq on our troops are from Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, not AQ. It would appear you are the confused one.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
'"At no time did Saddam tell bin Laden, 'Hey, don't use us as a justification for attacking the U.S.' "
And you know this how?'
Given that there was almost no communication between the two, the letter writer could very well be literally correct, even though she is completely wrong in her implication.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
I met a government employee a few months ago, who was in Iraq in the early days to help set up their democracy. He said the Iraq people's mindset was to elect someone to tell them what to do. We have a mindset that we elect someone, so we can tell them what to do. That's why people are really unhappy with Congress. We elected them to get control of a President we are stuck with for 579 more days. They didn't do it. But our mindset hasn't changed. This is a philosophy that evolved over the years, going back to the Greeks, and especially going back to England, not to mention the influence of many Indian tribes here in the New World. Of course, they don't teach very much Social Studies anymore, so people don't understand that our democracy was a long time in the making. The Iraqi people come from a long history of rulers who told them what to do. It will take generations before they understand. You can't just read a book, then understand and accept democracy.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
"He is just doing his rightful duty in office, after all! He believes, and so do I, that we should bring home the troops when the Iraqi people have democracy."
Rightful duty? To lie and mislead and ignore evidence to enter a war of choice against a nation that did not attack us? Think again, Bridget.
When the Iraqi people have democracy. So this was/is the goal, huh? I thought it was to rid Iraq of WMD, so that there would be no smoking gun mushroom clouds over american cities.
And now to expect democracy, after we leveled every bit of infrastructure and civil institution in Iraq, purged every professional politician, doctor, lawyer, et al. for their membership in the Baath party, and have installed a cadre of partisan brutes to lead the country.
Wake up Bridget. Time for a reality check.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
A better question:
Jill Carroll, a journalist for the "Christian Science Monitor," was kidnapped in January 2006, by Muslim extremists; six or seven months later, in August, a crack team of Marines captured the kidnappers. Carroll returned home to America.
Osama bin Laden helped orchestrate, finance and inspire the World Trade Center bombings on September 11, 2001. More than five years later, bin Laden is still free, and still inspiring terrorists with his regular video releases to Al Jazeera and terrorist websites.
President Bush swore to make bin Laden's capture a priority. "Dead or alive," he said.
Why is bin Laden still free?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
karensisson (anonymous) says…
right_thinker:
The tragedy of Iraq has long since eclipsed any bickering about right or left. This administration has hurt America and they have hurt everyone - you included. It's your Constitution, too. Your rights. Your tax dollars. Your national debt. Your troops on the ground in Iraq.
The right or left b.s. is so last century. If only we had the luxury of only having to bicker about the same old basic right/left differences in philosophy. It's a post-Bush world and we have much bigger problems now.
mick (anonymous) says…
Instead of worrying about a democracy in Iraq we should look out for our democracy here. The NAFTA corridor is going full speed ahead, the DOT is ignoring Nancy Boyda's bill to restrict Mexican trucking (it passed the House 411-2), the Senate, White House and mainstream media are eager to give our sovereignty away with the amnesty bill. The Presidential Directive of May 9 claims dictatorial power for the White House in case of a "catastrophic emergency" and noone is saying anything.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
This woman must get all her news from religious radio. She hasn't a clue.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Of course Jill Carroll wasn't trying to elude U.S. forces. She was a captive, and her *captors* were actively trying to elude U.S. forces. Or do you think otherwise?
Bill Clinton didn't get bin Laden, because at the time, bin Laden wasn't a priority. He wasn't seen as that big of a threat.
Bill Clinton made several mistakes during his presidency. Arguably, Bill Clinton was the worst president in the history of the United States. Bill Clinton should be retroactively impeached.
But maybe you can answer this question, since you gleefully ignored my last question (while I attempted to answer yours):
How will putting Bill Clinton in jail... eliminate any potential threats from Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda?
Thanks
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"...before 9/11, almost everyone in this glorious country supported Bush."
No, we didn't. He stole the election, then used 9/11 to attack Iraq so Halliburton could take over Iraqi oil fields.
Worst president ever.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
The writer says, "As we all know, before 9/11, almost everyone in this glorious country supported Bush. Now, gradually, most have turned against our beloved president."
Ah, no.
Before 9/11 Bush's support was tepid at best. After 9/11 the country rallied around him, put aside their partisan differences and their bitterness over the 2004 selection, and gave him an approval rating of 90%. America gave him the benefit of the doubt, because we'd been hurt from outside, and we rallied around our leader and supported him. Nearly all of us.
Bush squandered that 90% approval. He did that by his actions. He never deserved our support. he took advantage of it to do what he wanted.
Worst president in American history. By far.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
ferdinandlanghoff says: Bin Laden did attack us in Iraq's name.
WTF does that mean?
Were they screaming "Iraq!" instead of "Allah Ahkbar!" when those planes hit?
Mkh (anonymous) says…
This LTE is a grand illustration to the power of delusion and ignorance.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
"I guess that's why it was called Operation Get Saddam's WMD and not Operation Iraqi Freedom."
What a stupid comment. They could have called it anything they wanted, but the fact is that the administration used WMD as justification to congress, the UN, and the american people for war against Iraq. The "Iraqi democracy" thing emerged only after the administration was forced to admit by reality that Saddam had no WMD.
Remember the Rice comment about smoking guns and mushroom clouds over american cities?
Are you 3 years old? Were you not alive or paying attention when this was happening? Or were you watching only Faux news?
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
I love how people claim that some "God" will protect the soldiers. Look at how many have already died. Were those soldiers evil or anti-God? I bet someone will claim that "It was their time," or "God had another purpose for him/her." Yeah, right. They died in order to protect Bush's oil interest and make his Daddy proud. I've met several soldiers who regret going there and felt that they were working for oil and nothing else. Get these soldiers home and send Bush and his daughters to Iraq. Better yet, send them to Iran.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
ferdin,
I take it you voted for Bush? When will you admit that you were wrong? How much incompetence does he have to display before you realize he's a horrible person for the job.
FACT: Bush used WMDs as the MAIN factor to attack Iraq...everything else was secondary.
reason: To scare people into suppporting the cause...democracy in Iraq doesn't exactly rally support.
result: No WMDs, but Halliburton gets a fat contract while troops protect Halliburton workers.
Keep telling yourself whatever you want and stay tuned into Hannity. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Kevin is a windup toy with only one behavior possible. My question is-- who keeps him so wound up?
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"I'm bowing out for the day"
Good riddance.
Bubbles (anonymous) says…
Where is Alexander the Great when you need him.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"As is the case in Darfur. Apparently, Americans cannot get worked up over genocide, whether it's in Darfur or Iraq."
Very true. Fear for safety is the only thing that gets the average American worked up. The Bush administration knows this and exploits it every chance they get. Unfortunately, Americans play right into it.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
"Why is bin Laden still free?"
And why is al-Qaeda stronger today than in 2001?
Those are the prime questions. And responsibility rests with The Decider.
Is there a grade lower than "F"?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says:
Kevin is a windup toy with only one behavior possible. My question is- who keeps him so wound up?
______________________________________________
roflmao!!!
You did **NOT** ask that question, bozo!!
Surely you didn't... because I know you're *MUCH* smarter and *MUCH* more observant that that!! :D
Still, I find it telling that he's answered several questions the past hour... except my last one @ 10am...
--Ag
lawrencechick (anonymous) says…
While things are definitely not ideal in Iraq, no one can deny that we have NOT had a terrorist attack since Sept. 11th in this country. I'm sure this is not from lack of trying, so the administration must be doing something right. I agree that we will never succeed in the middle east because these people still live in the stone ages. (Literally, since stoning is an acceptable punishment there). Isolationism is our only option because they will always hate we "infidels" until they convert us or kill us. I'm not ready to go Burka shopping, so screw 'em!
oleg512 (anonymous) says…
It is interesting to me that there are so many people out there who are getting worked up over a letter written by a fifth grade, 10 year old girl. Bridget is a brave girl who loves her country and her cousin. She is also a very good writer, which must be why so many of you think she is a grown up.
Sincerely, Her proud parents
ndmoderate (anonymous) says…
I just read an apt saying yesterday: Killing for Peace is like screwing for chastity.
drewdun (anonymous) says…
"Jamesaust (Anonymous) says:
Is there a grade lower than "F"?"
"I" - And I think we all know what the "I" stands for.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
" I took issue with someone who said that there were no secondary factos enumerated prior to the invasion."
Ferdinand, your making sh17 up. Where did I or anyone else say this? I was saying that WMD was used as justification, and from watching speeches and reading the news, it was the main justification used by the administration (Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.).
Ferd, don't make stuff up when anyone can go back in the thread and plainly see what was said.
I understand that it sucks for you to be on the losing side of an argument, but don't resort to falsification.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
lawrencechick (Anonymous) says:
While things are definitely not ideal in Iraq, no one can deny that we have NOT had a terrorist attack since Sept. 11th in this country. I'm sure this is not from lack of trying, so the administration must be doing something right.
Well, hon, you cannot possibly know if it is not from lack of trying, and you cannot possibly know if attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and occupying it has prevented any terrorist attack in this country.
But you are one of those individuals the cabal in the White House are to die for - someone who will swallow anything they spin out for ya! It's my understanding you are among 29% of the population.
temperance (anonymous) says…
Likewise, I apologize if Bridget took offense. She expresses herself well, especially for someone 10 years old. (oleg512's claim seems legit: I googled her name and it returned a LJW "Family & Friends" photo that included a caption for someone appearing to be about 10).
But it's really depressing to see evidence of a new generation who think we're currently in Iraq as a military response to what happened on 9/11 a new generation who conflate Osama & Saddam.
temperance (anonymous) says…
karensission: Do you mean 26% of the population?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354100/...
lawrencechick: if you're crediting Bush for the lack of attacks in the US since 9/11, do you hold him equally accountable for his abject failure to protect our homeland on 9/11? The biggest terrorist attack in US history occurred on his watch and, under his leadership, the criminals who organized it are still at large after 6 years. How *doesn't* that make your man Bush colossal failure?
26%
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
"You most certainly argued that the democracy aspect of removing Saddam from power emerged after the invasion. I showed that that rationale was offered prior to the invasion. You were incorrect and I made up nothing."
Except word meanings and arguments made by others.
Look up the meaning of the word "emerged", dipstick. It does not mean "created". If you read, thought about, and comprehended what I have said at least twice now, you would know that the "Iraqi democracy" excuse "emerged" only after the invasion and the dearth of WMDs.
lawrencechick (anonymous) says…
Temperance- You honestly blame the president that was in office for 8 months prior to Sept. 11th , than the one that was there for 8 years???
Karensisson- Do you think the terrorists were satisfied with Sept 11th and had no plans to attack again? There were multiple terrorist plans stopped here and in Europe. Keep up with that thought process and you mind as well buy a Burqa in a fashionable fall color.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
"Temperance- You honestly blame the president that was in office for 8 months prior to Sept. 11th , than the one that was there for 8 years???"
Yes. See the little intelligence memo to the nascent President Bush titled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US".
There is overwhelming evidence that Bush was given a big heads up by the outgoing Clintonites about bin Laden, but Bush ignored this and chose to focus on a missle shield (hmm that sounds familiar)...
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
You're cherry-picking again, ferd. So dishonest. You pick the 4th meaning in one definition while ignoring the vast majority of the others that do not suite your argument.
Merriam Webster
Main Entry: emerge
Pronunciation: i-'m&rj
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): emerged; emerg*ing
Etymology: Latin emergere, from e- + mergere to plunge -- more at MERGE
1 : to become manifest : become known
2 : to rise from or as if from an enveloping fluid : come out into view
3 : to rise from an obscure or inferior position or condition
4 : to come into being through evolution
dictionary.com
verb (used without object), e*merged, e*merg*ing.
1. to come forth into view or notice, as from concealment or obscurity: a ghost emerging from the grave; a ship emerging from the fog.
2. to rise or come forth from or as if from water or other liquid.
3. to come up or arise, as a question or difficulty.
4. to come into existence; develop.
Cambridge:
emerge (become known) Show phonetics
verb [I]
to become known, especially as a result of examination or questioning:
The facts behind the scandal are sure to emerge eventually.
[+ that] It has emerged that secret talks had been going on between the two companies before the takeover was announced.
She's the most exciting British singer to emerge on the pop scene for a decade.
emerge (appear) Show phonetics
verb [I]
1 to appear by coming out of something or out from behind something:
She emerged from the sea, blue with cold.
2 to come to the end of a difficult period or experience:
The Prince emerged unscathed from the scandal.
emergence Show phonetics
noun [U]
the process of appearing:
The emergence of small Japanese cars in the 1970s challenged the US and European manufacturers.
emerging Show phonetics
adjective [before noun] (FORMAL emergent)
starting to exist:
Western governments should be giving more aid to the emerging democracies of the Third World.
emergent economies/markets
wiktionary
to emerge (third-person singular simple present emerges, present participle emerging, simple past emerged, past participle emerged)
To come into view.
To come out of a situation, object or a liquid.
The submarine emerged from the ocean.
To become known.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
Bush's approval rating drops yet again, making him the "least popular president since Nixon".....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19352087/...
drake (anonymous) says…
You America haters are unbelievable. This poor little girl still believes in her country and her president and all you can do is call her names and spew your vile hatred of President Bush. Some of you even have questioned her love of her cousin. I hope you feel better about yourselves.
I ask all of you one simple question: Do you want the United States to win this war? Yes or No
lawrencechick (anonymous) says…
Greyheim- "Well, hon, you cannot possibly know if it is not from lack of trying"
***************
I think both administrations failed on Sept 11th. But bush-haters seem to think it all started the day he took office. If Clinton knew for 8 years how dangerous Bin Laden was he should have spent less time under the desk with Monica. In the transition week between Presidents, his juvenille staff should have spent less time removing the "W"s from the keyboards and more time emphasizing the threat of Al queda!
drake (anonymous) says…
Did I type too fast for you on the question part of my post, SB?
drake (anonymous) says…
Do you want the United States to win this war?
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"I ask all of you one simple question: Do you want the United States to win this war? "
Yes.
Did I think going to war was a huge mistake? Yes.
Was I right? Yes.
Should we pull the majority of troops out of Iraq now that Saddam is out of power. Yes.
Should we keep limited military at our new huge bases there? Yes.
Got any more questions Drake?
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"You America haters are unbelievable."
I don't hate America...just Americans who are trying to destroy democracy and take away Constitutional rights like the Bush administration. Don't worry, I don't hate Americans like you, Drake. I just try to talk some common sense into them...like never, ever elect an oil tycoon into the white house. Just b/c you can see yourself having a beer with the guy isn't a good reason to elect a man into most powerful office in the world.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
lawrencechick (Anonymous) says:
Temperance- You honestly blame the president that was in office for 8 months prior to Sept. 11th , than the one that was there for 8 years???
Karensisson- Do you think the terrorists were satisfied with Sept 11th and had no plans to attack again? There were multiple terrorist plans stopped here and in Europe. Keep up with that thought process and you mind as well buy a Burqa in a fashionable fall color.
The burqa comment seems a little misleading and not accurate. Even now that women do not have to wear the burqa in Afghanistan any longer, many choose to still wear it. Other muslim women choose to wear a head scarf. This has nothing to do with terrorism and oppression in the traditional sense. It has to do with certain Islamic interpretations of the Qu'ran
lawrencechick (anonymous) says…
Greyheim- Did you not ask me this question "lchick, when did karen say anything about the terrorists being satisfied?" That was my answer.
Defender- actually I cringe at both Hannity and Limbaugh. You keep talking about "crackin open some history books" but seem to have no facts youself.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
I am guessing then, based on some comments here, that to be patriotic means, necessarily, that you are "pro-war" or at least not "anti-war". Yet we have had many politicians and founding fathers who are or were against war. I guess that they are or were not patriots. Hmmm. So discourse in a democratic country, beliefs and ideas that may not match the general public (although statistically the country IS moving further to the left or at least away from the right) means you are un-American?
Hmm. I never knew that before. I am so glad I have you all to school me on why I am anti-American. You might be right. Aren't you all supposed to report me to Homeland Security? Guess if you haven't, you should question just how dedicated YOU are to the war and patriotism. If you don't report me for being so un-American as to question (in a democracy?!) the legitimacy of US foreign policy, I will be forced to report you for being so un-American as to neglect to report an "America hater" such as myself.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
lawrencechick (Anonymous) says:
While things are definitely not ideal in Iraq, no one can deny that we have NOT had a terrorist attack since Sept. 11th in this country. I'm sure this is not from lack of trying, so the administration must be doing something right. I agree that we will never succeed in the middle east because these people still live in the stone ages. (Literally, since stoning is an acceptable punishment there). Isolationism is our only option because they will always hate we "infidels" until they convert us or kill us. I'm not ready to go Burka shopping, so screw 'em!
Wow! Ignorant AND racist! Sweet.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
"I'm not sure they are stronger. ... That would seem to indicate that al Qaeda is weaker."
I am uncertain how anyone accesses any source of news short of Fox (which nowadays doesn't like to talk about war) without hearing one instance after another of 'al-Qaeda Resurgent.' Here's one of numerous examples:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/art...
Punch Line: "U.S. intelligence agencies have completely revised their assessment of al Qaeda and reached an alarming conclusion: Bin Laden already has a safe haven-in Pakistan-and may be stronger than ever."
One consequence of incompetently executing warfare is that the enemy survives ... and learns. Today, W has transformed Iraq into the largest terrorist training camp ever conceived by mankind. Its graduates are in the tens of thousands. They've set up shop in Lebanon and in Gaza (gee, even the Palestinians are worried about them now), and through out all of North Africa, East Africa, and are all but in control of whole sections of Pakistan. Frankly, 'we're not killing them over there so they can come and kills us over here.'
Another:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
Sorry, I find a "lack of attack" test to be "lacking." We all know that the point is one of propaganda: no attack is "success" but another attack would never be "failure" - merely another dig at expanding dictatorial powers even further. The incidents you cite were the result of an asleep U.S. government (right on up to that infamous report to Condi: Bin Laden Intent on Striking America). What you are measuring is the wakefulness of the government, not the strength of this expanding threat.
mick (anonymous) says…
The politicos want it all to be about Iraq from now through 2008. The mainstream media wants it all to be about Iraq. You all care more about showing off your rhetorical skills or your political correctness than the very sovereignty of our nation. See my 9:46 post. For more info see stopthenorthamericanunion.com. We need to make the issue about the US Constitution in 2008 or else we will lose it.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
Looking over some of your other posts, Lawrencechick, it appears not only are you ignorant and racist, you also have chosen to denigrate the homeless, those in poverty (including children and their families), people who live on the east side of town, so on and so forth.
Good for you!
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
A little smattering of Lawrencechick's love and logic:
"lawrencechick (Anonymous) says:
Totally agree old enuf- people are tired of seeing generation after generation of families jumping from one lover to the next, each of the 3-5 kids having a different last name, and at least one morbidly obese parent on "disability for back pain". It's not the exception of most poor families, it's the norm."
The last part really kills me: "It's not the exception of most poor families, it's the norm."
So all poor families are these people of which you speak? I will be sure to tell that to my clients who were laid off from work, support their children on McDonald's salary, etc. I am sure they will be glad to know that they are actually just fat, lazy, slutty and stupid.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
right_thinker,
Most of us didn't realize the letter was written by a 10 year old. I, personally, didn't realize that a 10 year old wrote it b/c it's on par with the same logic as a lot of neocons in this part of country. It either speaks volumes for Bridget, speaks volumes about neocons, or both.
I thought you were bowing out for the day.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
Scenebooster,
Really, how many times has R_T referred to liberals as mena, hateful name callers, etc, whilst doing the very same thing? No surprises here. I may be a b*tch, but at least I know I am.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
ferdinandlanghoff (Anonymous) says:
Crispian:
"Wow! Ignorant AND racist! Sweet."
lawrencechick brings up burkas and you call her "racist." I'm curious. Please tell us how you came to that conclusion, esp. when you consider that there are women of all races who wear burkas.
Ferdinand, you are asking me about the wrong part. The point of me saying that was that she was basically stating that if Al-Quada had it's way, we'd all be in burqas and I KNOW burqas are worn by many cultures-a generalization made on either ignorance, racism or both. The second issue was the continual references to the people of the middle east living in the stone age, being backwards, however she said it.
Sorry you felt the need to jump to the defense without actually considering what I was saying.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
lawrencechick wrote:
"I agree that we will never succeed in the middle east because these people still live in the stone ages. (Literally, since stoning is an acceptable punishment there). Isolationism is our only option because they will always hate we "infidels" until they convert us or kill us."
Ferdo, this is the part I consider to be racist....the continual use of "they", stating that "these people" in the middle east ALL live in the stone ages, etc.
lawrencechick (anonymous) says…
Crispian: That is a great strategy- when you have no point or can't stand someone disagreeing with your supreme opinion, throw in the "r" word- that'll distract them!
karensisson (anonymous) says…
Sorry for my anger earlier. It's just that people like this writer - the fact that there are still 29% with her view - keep our troops over there, dying every day. This war goes on because of ignorance - the kind expressed in this letter.
Fourteen more troops died in the last 48 hours. Some of us care about the dead Iraqis, also.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
right_thinker,
What's all the fuss? I always assumed by your posts that you were no older than 10, and you have been constantly corrected, rebuffed, and rendered inane. Now all the fuss about 10 year olds?
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
"This young girl shows more intelligence and common sense than 95% of the liberals on this forum."
Um, with all due respect to Bridget, she does not.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
r_t,
Oh, wait. She is actually ten years old. Not just the mind of a ten-year-old. I see your point now (and if you wear a hat, it won't show).
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
ferd, lchick, et al.,
I understand that it is difficult to admit that the president of the United States entered a war of choice on drummed-up pretenses, put american troops in unnecessary danger, lied to the american people, and used fear of terrorism to restrict individual liberty and undermine the constitution. The vehemence and blind dogma of your posts hints at the conflict inside of you.
This is a tough pill for most to swallow, especially if one has been a loyal Bushie.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
Anonymous user
ferdinandlanghoff (Anonymous) says:
karensisson:
Classy. Attack a 10-year-old.
Where does it say this is a ten year old?
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
Ferd queried: "And if getting bin Laden were an easy task, why didn't Bill Clinton get him? He had eight years."
Ferd, again, it is almost as if you were not alive. Remember the cruise missle strikes in Sudan? The strikes that targeted Al Quaeda operations in the country? The strikes that both the right and left painted as "cover" for Clinton's sexual misdeeds?
Could Clinton have done more? Sure. But to say he did nothing is just factually wrong.
bin laden was rising to prominence during Clinton's term. Bush has had 6.5 years after bin Laden attacked this country. Instead of pursuing bin Laden and Al Quaeda, Bushco decided to attack another nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on the US.
lawrencechick (anonymous) says…
Max 1- You are correct , Saudi Arabia and other oil countries are rolling in money. They build beautiful gold plated everything. Now, if only women could vote............or drive...........or leave the house without a man. But silly things don't matter!
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) says…
ferdin,
Why wasn't there a recount in Florida? Oh yeah, Bush cronies on the Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris put a stop to that.
Did Bush link 9/11 to Saddam to strengthen his case to attack Iraq? Yes.
Does Halliburton have control over Iraqi oil fields? Yes.
Do thousands of people watch Hannity and Fox to get their news? Yes.
Does Drake think that if you disagree with neocons and Bush that you hate America? Yes.
Could anything be further from the truth? No.
Has a failed oil tycoon been a successful president? No...probably will go down as the worst ever, actually.
Can you prove any of these points invalid? No.
How do these points suggest that I have less intelligence than a 10 year old? They don't.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"How will putting Bill Clinton in jail: eliminate any potential threats from Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda?"
Who is making that argument?
__________________________________________________________________
I am making that argument, based on your never-ending, obsessive-compulsive hatred of a man who, at the end of the day, is really no better or no worse than you... or I.
Everyone here knows of the web site, http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com
If you, at least, didn't believe there was a sliver of hope in accomplishing this goal, why put the site up to begin with?
So... I'll try to reword the question... on a fairly realistic premise...
Let's presume that Republicans, hardcore conservative Republicans, sweep the 2008 elections. Presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, the works.
Work on the long-delayed, much-deserved "retroactive impeachment" begins in January 2009. The impeachment is achieved in April of that year. Let's say, arbitrarily, April 17th, a Friday.
During this time, Osama bin Laden remains free.
How should the search for bin Laden resume on Monday, April 20th, 2009? Who should be responsible, from that point forward?
--Ag
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
Bridget Cary gets the "stupid person of the day" award.
coneflower (anonymous) says…
It makes sense this is a child, though it does not say that anywhere. One can forgive some naivety, but it's never too early to learn one should speak only the truth and check facts.
This letter is filled with factual errors, starting with Bush's pre 9/11 approval rating (it was lousy) and his post 9/11 rating (very high).
Kudos to her for speaking out, but someone should have helped her to write the truth.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"When, if ever, will there be peace on our Mother Earth again?"
When, if ever, was there peace on our Mother Earth before? It's not a particularly peaceful place, and it never has been, except in the naive sheltered existence of Suburban America. If THAT'S what you're referring to, you can go back to that any time. Don't read the papers, don't watch the news. If you follow those instructions, its highly likely that you will never need to think about terrorists ever again. Or, of course, you could demand that the papers and the news focus on our domestic trivialities and ignore the problems of the rest of the world, as we were doing before 9/11. That would probably have the same effect. Although, come to think of it, its not particularly peaceful in America, and you're certainly more likely to be mugged on the street and shot rather than killed by terrorists, but whatever random thing you want to focus on as being unpeaceful and unsafe, that's your boat.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
Right thinker,
Name one way, other than your pocketbook, that Dubya has left this country better than before he got it. He has proposed bunk science (Creationism), severely limited the ability to cure diseases (stem cell research), destroyed civil liberties (Patriot Act and NSA warrantless wiretapping, illegal detainment of 'enemy combatants', torture scandal), skirted the issue of education (No Child Left Behind), led a fiscally irresponsible government (record budget deficits), alienated and discriminated against citizens (issue of gay marriage), overthrown a government only to see the country fall into civil war (Iraq), and been lauded by the global community as one of the worst presidents to lead this country. Other than that, I suppose he is doing just great.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
"How can liberals demand that Bush being impeached for what they consider offenses, and then turn around and vote for Hillary, whose husband committed the same offenses?"
Dubya didn't boink an overweight intern. But Clinton didn't destroy our liberties and start an unwinnable war.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
Let's see: The government can listen to anything I say without my knowledge, they can unlawfully search my home without warrant if it is deemed a "national security matter". They can detain me indefinately if I look Arab, practice Islam, or have said something vague to the effect that the government and somebody should do something about it. Let's talk about the Patriot act for a moment. The government can access my bank records, library records, medical records without my knowledge. Bush can fire any US attorney that does not share the same extremist viewpoint as he
We are no safer since 9/11. The government has succeeded in scaring us to the point that we will acquiesce to their unlawful measures to "protect" the nation. And yes, Bush did start this war. There was no reliable proof (which is much different from evidence as sceneboost pointed out earlier) that Saddam had WMDs. The rest of the world looked at the evidence presented and determined that the proof provided was not good enough to warrant action.
Under Bush, probable cause is a notion of the past.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
And the obsessive-compulsive smokescreens continue! :))))))))
"How can liberals demand that Bush being impeached for what they consider offenses..."
Don't ask me--ask a "Liberal." You'll probably recognize one better than me. I think there are more important issues, such as finding and capturing Osama bin Laden. Sad that you don't feel that to be as important as I do. :)
"... and then turn around and vote for Hillary, whose husband committed the same offenses?"
Again, you'll have to ask someone who plans on voting for Hillary. That "somebody" probably won't be me. There's exactly one scenario that would prompt me to vote for Hillary: If she were the Democratic nominee, and she were neck-&-neck with Sam Brownback, who miraculously won the Republican nomination.
My top two choices for the job of "Chief Executive #44"--Colin Powell and Michael Bloomberg, in that order--currently aren't even running. But we're more than 18 months away from that big day, so why obsess about it, right? :)
Osama bin Laden, on the other hand... still a threat, a current threat. Don't you agree?
What do you think should be done about him, today, right now? And who do you think should be responsible for that mission? :)
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Oh, and to satisfy one other bit of your morbid, obsessive-compulisve curiosity...
If something drastic happens in the next 18 months or so, something really, really heinous that demands the impeachment of George Bush, well, then let's do it. Right now, I'm sorry to say that I think such an effort--based on his current record--would be a waste of time and money. It probably holds some sort of satisfying, emotional appeal to certain extremists, but there are bigger fish to fry right now. :)
--Ag
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
"You imply I am richer due to GWB, then say he is fiscally irresponsible."
Yes, in fact I am. Bush pushed tax decreases through Congress, without any foresight into the consequences. Less tax receipts + increased government funding = budget deficit. We are only 10 years removed from a budget surplus, and we now have a deficit so bad that it has hurt the value of the dollar abroad. More and more of our debt is being bought by countries such as Japan and China. If these countries decide to stop buying our debt, then the dollar will fall flat on its face, and we are then royally screwed.
Ask an educator is NCLB works, and they will tell you no. Schools are beginning to focus all of their tiem and effort on the standardized tests that determine funding. Students spend weeks and months in classes that teach them solely what is included in the test and how to score well on the test.
How is stem cell research an abortionist platform? Thousands of viable embryos are tossed into the trash each year. These embryos, which the right wing claims are humans, are merely tossed in with used needles or incinerated. These embryos could be put to better use a la stem cell research. While much has been made about the advances of adult stem cells, it is embryonic stem cell research that offers the best hope of curing Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and paralysis.
Creationism. A bunch of bunk. I doubt you have read this in your right wing literature, but scientists have successfully created organic matter from inorganic compounds. Science has viable theories on the origins of us all, but all creationism can offer us is "let there be light". The only hand God had in creating the universe was maybe starting the big bang.
Aren't we all a member of the global community? Do we not have a responsibility to help provide for the betterment of all mankind? The right wing is so isolationist in its views to be almost quaint. Quaint if it weren't for the rabid rascism, ant-immigration, anti-poor and anti-homeless agenda the right so fervently pushes.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
"The Patriot Act is merely the ACLU's wet dream.
What have you got to hide?
Are you paranoid?
Maybe you should be checked out?"
Actually, the Patriot Act is the ACLU's worst nightmare, as it is the worst nightmare of any person with half a brain. And no, I have nothing to hide, but the government has absolutely no right to invade my privacy. What I do in my own home, what books I read, how I spend my money, is my business alone. The government needs to stay out of the lives of individuals and stop destroying civil liberties so that defense contractors can get rich. If I chose to read Marx or even Saddam's horrible novel (yes, he was an author), the government has no right to know. A person in this country should be able to pursue any pleasure or activity they choose in the privacy of their own home without government knowledge or consent. And in case you are wondering, no, I am neither gay nor an S&M enthusiast.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Just so you all know. This letter was written by a 12 or 13 year old girl. The link below shows a picture of her. Unless there is some other Bridget Cary in Lawrence, I suggest you guys ease up on the hateful language toward her. However much I may disgaree with her viewpoint, I think it took alot of courage for her to express her opinions publicly and I think its great that someone so young can express her opinions well, honestly and last but least not anonymously. More the I can say about the lot of us here including me....
http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/2007/f...
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Correction....need to go to bed.....
"I think its great that someone so young can express her opinions well, honestly and last but NOT least not anonymously. More THAN I can say about the lot of us here including me:."
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"A person in this country should be able to pursue any pleasure or activity they choose in the privacy of their own home without government knowledge or consent. And in case you are wondering, no, I am neither gay nor an S&M enthusiast."
_________________________________________________________
Hhhhmmmmm...
Given the current climate, I would extend that right (or set of rights) specifically to:
1) Legal citizens of the USA
2) Legal immigrants to the USA
Anyone not here legally? Sorry, try again! :)
--Ag
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
Ag,
That seems fair enough. Also, if I might add this piece to my own comment. Obviously, a person engaging in pedophilia should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law, but holding the views that man-boy love is A okay is a freedom of expression. This is a truly morally repugnant expression, but the mere idea is constitutionally protected, not the illegal acts. That is what the ACLU is trying to do in this case. They are not condoning pedophilia, they are trying to protect the 1st amendment in this country. NAMBLA is a crazsy bunch of pedophiles, but their belief that it is okay is constitutionally protected. By the way right_thinker, I am not a lefty loony. I merely want the protections promised to us by our constitution to continue and not be hindered by bogus foreign policy, morals, or whatever may infringe upon them.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"It appears to me that bozo, Defender, greyheim, scenebooster, et. al. find it difficult to counter points made by conservatives here and instead seek to get them banned"
No, I stated quite specifically in the last day or so that I didn't want you go be banned, Kevin. As long as you're blogging away, on and on and on and on, on the same two or three unsupported and unsupportable assertions, we know you can't be getting into any real mischief.
Good luck on that quest for the holy secret decoder ring, too. You'll always be one of the popular kids to me.
Jayhawktriplegrad (anonymous) says…
"before 9/11, almost everyone in this glorious country supported Bush."
uh---he LOST the popular vote. Most of us knew he was an incompetent boob from the very start. Perhaps you should guest on the Tonight Show's Jaywalking segment. I think you qualify.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Cite examples of unsupported and unsupportable assertions."
Geez, Kevin, every justification for this war has been shown to be total BS, and when confronted with that fact, all you can do is come back with "but, but, but, Clinton!!" of one sort or another. Get a clue, dude!! They're losers, and you cling to them like static.
"Were you not popular as a kid? You seem fixated on this secret decoder ring and popularity issue."
You're the one with the frequently displayed suck-up reflex, Kevin. You can deflect all you want, but sooner or later, even you'll have to look in the mirror. Glad I won't be there when you do.
crazyks (anonymous) says…
Kodiac, while it may be the same person, there's no way of knowing. Seems a lot of people here have been assuming, unless they actually know the letter writer.
Seems to me that Bridget Cary could be a very common name.
Crispian, while I can't deny that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, I don't believe this is proof that the current administration is necessarily the reason why.
We didn't have any terrorist attacks for decades PRIOR to 9/11, either. What were all those administrations doing right?
jonas (anonymous) says…
More like A decade, at least domestically, but your point remains intact.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
Someone emailed me privately to say the writer of this letter is a ten-year-old girl - someone who is "proud" therefore might have some personal relationship to the girl.
I too would be proud of a child who had the courage to write a letter to the newspaper, and cared about an issue that much. She also has the potential to be a lovely writer.
It bothers me that this child wrote things that are not true, among them: "As we all know, before 9/11, almost everyone in this glorious country supported Bush." We all know that Bush's approval ratings before 9/11 hovered around or under 50%. His approval ratings after 9/11 skyrocketed. Why don't this child's "proud" parents help her use Google to research her points? When my kids writer a paper for school, I make sure they do it responsibly. When their school newspaper, on which one of my children worked, printed the old lie that Al Gore said "I invented the internet" (complete with quotes) I helped my child look this up, and I should have written the teacher to ask that she not let such things pass.
Someone needs to help this child continue to develop into a good writer and an informed and responsible citizen. Giving her a "free pass" with the facts just because she is ten is not the way to do it. Someone should gently help her research her next letter before it goes to the editor.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
"God will see to it that all of them make it home, if only in our hearts."
Sorry Bridget, that's not good enough for me. I want my cousins back alive. No more deaths for Cheney's folly.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Prior to 1945, Japan had no history of democratic rule, democratic institutions, or serious democratic movements. Japan has been one of the world's most stable democracies for several decades now."
Playing loose with the facts again, eh, Kevin? Japan was and is a constitutional monarchy, and prior to the 1930's, the parliament and democratic parties were actually more powerful than the emperor or the military.
This was short-lived, however-- militarism, aspirations to be an imperial/colonial power on par with their European counterparts and the coveting of other countries' natural resources destroyed that. Curious that you cheer incessantly and uncritically as BushCo takes us down a similar path.
deec (anonymous) says…
"According to a letter from William Leonard, director of the oversight office, Cheney's office argued it did not meet the definition of an executive branch agency and therefore was exempt."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/politics/06/2...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Clinton, Clinon, blah, blah, Clinton, Clinton, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
It absolutely amazes me that you all Still respond to RT. Why don't you just spend the morning pounding your head into a concrete wall? Do you all really think that we can ever have productive discussion threads if everyone just argues with RT's idiot claims. Sheesh, you even entertain his copy cat spin monkey gang. RT has nothing but spin folks, there are 250 plus posts and this thread goes nowhere.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
lawrencechick (Anonymous) says:
Crispian: That is a great strategy- when you have no point or can't stand someone disagreeing with your supreme opinion, throw in the "r" word- that'll distract them!
Yeah, you got me there. Characterizing ALL people in the middle east as being in the stone age and wearing burqas and hating the US and wanting to kill us isn't racist....Just stupid. Does that feel better now?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
http://www.rense.com/general67/comdt.htm
Bush Sr 1993 Assassination
Attempt Never Happened
By Wayne Madsen
9-12-5
More details emerge on the phony 1993 Saddam assassination threat against George H. W. Bush. After WMR's report on senior Bush's close relationship with Kuwait, a country that supported groups associated with "Al Qaeda" and the 9-11 attacks on the U.S., more details have been provided by State Department sources on the alleged 1993 assassination threat by Saddam Hussein against ex-President Bush. The U.S. ambassador to Kuwait during 1993 was Edward W. (Skip) Gnehm, an ardent Bush supporter who was appointed by Bush in August 1990. Gnehm presented his credentials to the Emir in April 1991 after serving as ambassador to the Kuwaiti government-in-exile in Taif, Saudi Arabia. Gnehm took up his position in Kuwait shortly after U.S. forces occupied Kuwait after the routing of Saddam's forces in Operation Desert Storm. President Clinton kept Gnehm on as ambassador to Kuwait until April 1994.
FBI agents sent to Kuwait to investigate the car bomb assassination threat against Bush believed the entire operation was bogus. They believed the Kuwaiti government rounded up a few Iraqi whiskey smugglers, planted Iraqi ordnance left in Kuwait by Iraqi forces as "evidence," and staged the entire assassination plot in order to ingratiate themselves to Bush and put pressure on the Clinton administration to retaliate against Iraq. The FBI team that interrogated the accused Iraqi "assasins" sent their reports back to FBI headquarters by secure fax rather than official State Department communications channels because those circuits are routinely monitored by the CIA and National Security Agency and would have assuredly come to the attention of Woolsey and Bush's allies at Langley. The faxes consisted of 30 to 50 pages per night. A Kuwaiti judge later dismissed the assassination charges against Iraq due to lack of evidence.
continued....
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
continued...
Another Bush family contrivance: The "assassination plot" against GHW Bush in Kuwait and a retaliatory attack on Saddam Hussein
After the Clinton administration decided to send 23 cruise missiles into Iraq on June 27, 1993, Gnehm, eager to please Bush and Clinton, called Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Shaikh Sabah Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah (the former Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S.) at his home during the wee hours of the morning to request permission for the U.S. cruise missiles to overfly Kuwaiti airspace on their way into Iraq. (It was the daughter of Sabah named "Nayirah," it will be recalled, who made up a phony story about witnessing Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators on to the floor before a carefully contrived October 10, 1990 phony House "hearing" chaired by Democratic Representative from California Tom Lantos and organized by the Saudi and Kuwaiti shill public relations firm Hill & Knowlton. Nayirah was Nayirah al Sabah and she was not in Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation but in Washington, DC). Gnehm personally dictated the contents of the overflight permission cable to National Security Adviser Anthony Lake at the White House ("granted diplomatic overflight clearance for cruise missiles.") Some of the U.S. cruise missiles hit civilian residential areas in Baghdad, including the home of famous Arab artist Leyla Attar, who was killed in the attack. Gnehm, a fluent Arabic speaker, is reported by embassy staff to have been too close for comfort to the Kuwaiti government. That resulted in conflicts with embassy principals, including the Regional Security Officer and the US Marine contingent.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Well, Kevin, your last post accomplished absolutely nothing in proving your contention that Japan had no history of democratic government. From the mid-teens to the late twenties, prior to WWII, they were indeed governed by a constitutional monarchy and a parliament controlled by democratic parties. It didn't survive long, but it did happen.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Good post, greyheim-- it should be pointed out that the brief period in which democratic institutions held some sway was mainly possible because the emperor at the time was relatively weak.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Clinton was wrong about lots of things, Kevin, most glaringly Iraq. Your continued attempts to use his policies (which were mostly just continuations of Bush I policy, anyway), as justification for BushCo being orders of magnitude more wrong remain, as always, intellectually, morally and logically bankrupt.
But watching an ineffectual suck-up like you flounder about in the attempt is certainly grand entertainment.
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
Wow.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
I said that by "messages with no words" bin Laden meant terrorist attacks. Do you think he meant he was going to blow kisses at Clinton? You stil haven't told us what you think bin Laden meant when he said he would send Clinton "messages with no words."
_____________________________________________________________
I think you're right about that. I think bin Laden was clearly implying that terrorist attacks--including 9/11--were on the way. Clinton missed it. There's certainly a possibility that, had bin Laden been captured in 1999 or 2000, that the World Trade Center towers might still be standing.
But, be that as it may... time travel still hasn't made the leap from "science fiction" to "science fact." We can't go back to change the past.
So... in June, 2007... who do you think should be responsible for hunting down and capturing Osama bin Laden, and the rest of Al Qaeda? Who should take up that mission, plan it, execute it? Who should then shoulder the responsibility for it? Who should reap the rewards of success... or, God forbid, swallow the bitter waters of defeat?
Or, should we perhaps "write off" all further attempts to capture bin Laden... resigning ourselves to the notion that one, and only one opportunity occurred... during the Clinton administration... and that opportunity was bungled?
Do we quit... or do we try again?
Interesting questions, aren't they?
Something tells me they're all "false premises," though... ;)
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Should Bush be held to the same level of accountability as other presidents, including Clinton?
What about our next president, who will take office in January 2009?
And... how *can* we go back and change the past?
How would a "retroactive impeachment" truly help us in 2007? 2008? 2009? :)
--Ag
karensisson (anonymous) says…
lawrencechick wrote:
karensisson- Do you think the terrorists were satisfied with Sept 11th and had no plans to attack again? There were multiple terrorist plans stopped here and in Europe. Keep up with that thought process and you mind as well buy a Burqa in a fashionable fall
Do you really think a True Believer could not strap on a bomb and walk into a shopping mall in any town in America, right now?
If they wanted to attack us, they would attack us.
Haven't you noticed, another terrorist plot is foiled every time the attention on BushCo has taken a particularly bad turn? When there are more than 3 scandals in the headlines in any given week, bingo, another terrorist plot foiled!
Speaking of Burkas, allowing oneself to be manipulated and controlled by lies and fear is at least as oppressive.
coneflower (anonymous) says…
right_thinker,
Don't be naive.
coneflower (anonymous) says…
yes
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
Ferd the turd,
I think I know precisely what karensisson was saying. When things are going swell in this country, the government does not leak out or hold press conferences about foiled plots that were never close to materializing. But when things start to go badly, the government needs any sort of good news it can get its hands on, so it unofficially endorses leaks and press conferences. How do I know this? My uncle works for the State Department in Washington, and I have talked to him numerous times about this. He said that the administration has a need to keep terror on the fronts pages. By doing this, Bush is relegating the wars to page six. My uncle went on to say that many, if not most of these foiled plots were barely in the planning stage; basically it was a small group of people getting together saying, "This government sucks. Let's do something about it." The government tries to paint a picture that there were actual bombs at airports and FBI agents tackled evil terrorists as they tried to board planes. This couldn't be further from the truth. The FBI monitors these people for upwards of 5 years, trying to rope in as many bystanders as possible.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"Moonbat Alert!! Moonbat Alert!! Moonbat Alert!!"
_____________________________________________________
And would you say that hanging your hat on a "time machine journey" that will probably never happen... more or less "moonbat" than karensisson's comments? :)
--Ag
Mkh (anonymous) says…
Unbelievable.
Stain (anonymous) says…
The naivety in here is stunning.
I'm not sure which is more stunning - this letter, or that there are this many people agreeing with it. Kansas sucks.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"No, I would consider your numoerous attempts in this thread to revisit the past almost on par with karensisson's bizarre conspiracy theory."
_______________________________________________________________
Wow. Looking back at the wording of my posts, seems like I focused more on the present, and the future. I mean, what's the point of focusing on the past--like in the web site http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com for example--when we all know that we can't change the past? :)
That's why I've asked you opinion: Who should be responsible for finding and capturing Osama bin Laden in 2007, 2008, even 2009? To what degree should they reap the rewards of success, and/or shoulder the burdens of failure if bin Laden is not captured? :)
I mean, I *thought* that's what I'd been talking about... anyone else here read differently? :)
Thanks! :)
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"I'm more concerned by the multiple attempts of several users here to guess my actual name."
Who's guessing, Kevin?
Stain (anonymous) says…
lawrencechick (Anonymous) says:
While things are definitely not ideal in Iraq, no one can deny that we have NOT had a terrorist attack since Sept. 11th in this country.
"definitely not ideal in Iraq" - understatement of the century.
We haven't had an earthquake, a train wreck, a major airline crash or a tsunami on American soil, either. Do you give Bush's warmongering credit for that, too?
Somehow I don't think Bush's warmongering and occupation of Iraq is the reason for no terrorist attack. The U.S. is filled with people capable of doing this. Anyone could load themselves with explosives, walk in and blow up a football stadium. When they are willing to give their life in the attack, it's ridiculously easy.
Bush has done nothing but make more enemies of America - even among people who used to be our friends. After 9/11 we got sympathy and support from the world. We wouldn't get that, now.
Stain (anonymous) says…
30 U.S. troops died in Iraq last week. I guess God brought those home "only in our hearts."
I don't care if the writer is ten years old (which the Journal-World should have identified, they should hint at the writer's age if they are under 18 by identifying their school level or something). The writer wrote lies and apparently with the support of her parents. She included factual errors about Bush's approval rating and repeated the Bush administration's implicit lie stringing together Saddam and 9/11. If this writer is not called on her (innocent or deliberate? I don't know) errors, she will grow up to write even bigger lies.
Stain (anonymous) says…
ferdinandlanghoff:
If you think the White House and Karl Rove are not choosing what information to release to you based on political considerations, you are naive.
Go stick your head back in the sand if it's more comfortable for you there. There are many others paying attention who will do the work of democracy, which requires having the truth and filtering the spin.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Go stick your head back in the sand if it's more comfortable for you there."
Kevin never leaves the comfort of neck-deep sand.
Stain (anonymous) says…
oleg512 (Anonymous) says:
It is interesting to me that there are so many people out there who are getting worked up over a letter written by a fifth grade, 10 year old girl. Bridget is a brave girl who loves her country and her cousin. She is also a very good writer, which must be why so many of you think she is a grown up.
Sincerely, Her proud parents
-------------------------------------
Her parents seem to have registered just to make this comment, as it is the only one.
Interesting how the writer, in 2 paragraphs, slickly pulls the Bush administration bait and switch: first, we attacked Iraq because we were "forced" (somehow 9/11 was involved) - but then no, wait, we can't bring the troops home until Iraq has democracy.
Someone tell Bridget that Iraq has democracy, and remind her of the purple ink Republicans wore on their index fingers to Bush's SOTU address to brag about that election. Another phony mission accomplished touted for political gain?
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
ferdinand says:
This intelligent girl got it right (although I think she meant to refer to Bush's approval rating AFTER 9/11).
She got it right, although she stated a lie.
This is the sort of disrespect for the truth that allows you to continue to love the Bush administration.
You are a fool.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
ferdinandlanghoff (Anonymous) says:
stain:
"If you think the White House and Karl Rove are not choosing what information to release to you based on political considerations, you are naive."
That's not what was suggested above. Read it again more carefully.
That is exactly what I suggested. And if you don't believe they let you know what they want you to know when they want you to know it, and spin it the way they want it, and exaggerate what they think will help them politically or provide headlines for a week, you're a complete fool.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Agnostick:
"You seems to have an obsession with the web site you have linked to several times in this thread."
__________________________________________________________________
I'm sorry, I didn't know it was causing you such distress.
I understand, though, why some of my other questions *would* cause you distress. The inevitability of getting exactly what you want would force you to confront some rather unsettling truths about yourself... and the nature of your hatred of all things "Clinton."
I apologize for scaring you like that. :)
--Ag
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Oh, and karensisson: Love your work! :)
--Ag
karensisson (anonymous) says…
ferdinand says:
A democratic Iraq is the goal because such a country would not pose a threat to its neighbors or the world.
1. That is not the goal the Bush administration used to convince the nation to support him in attacking Iraq.
2. Iraq has a democracy now. That's what Bush said. I recall an election where people left the polls with purple-stained fingers, and voted in droves, according to the Bush administration. He gloated over that in the press for weeks.Bush bragged up the new democracy ad nauseum. Great. Another mission accomplished. Can we bring the troops home now?
karensisson (anonymous) says…
What was on Fox news this week? Whatever it was - Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole even though she's been cold for weeks, whatever - kept everybody entertained so they didn't ever get to the news that 30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week. Did you hear about that, on Fox? On any television station? In any newspapers?
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
30 American soldiers died in Iraq last week.
You see? The media is in Karl Rove's pocket. What they put on the front page, or on the 7 a.m. talk shows, is what people know. Nothing more. And if a terrorist plot foiled helps Bush politically, that will be the top story - even though the FBI is working constantly to nip these things in the bud.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Good grief, is this thread still going? Weishenme, weishenme? Does it seem like you're any closer to consensus, or getting the opposites to admit the faults in their arguments? I ask only out of curiousity.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
Agnostik:
You too, sweetie. I'm sure we'll both get the "hippie" label soon, if it hasn't already been mentioned. Oh, and we're both on welfare, and want to take their money. (If only they knew my hourly consulting rate. I would love to charge them that, and see them pay it.)
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
jonas (Anonymous) says:
Good grief, is this thread still going? Weishenme, weishenme? Does it seem like you're any closer to consensus, or getting the opposites to admit the faults in their arguments?
It seems important to point out lies, and Bush administration propaganda. This 10 year old has already been fed the propaganda and is repeating lies, which is frightening.
Stain (anonymous) says…
I wonder if Bridget Cary's parents let her see news articles like this one:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jun...
If she wants to have opinions about grown-up things, and participate in a grown-up forum, she should have grown-up facts.
My guess is she gets the sanitized version of facts - probably from her pastor.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
ferdinand:
I see you bought that talking point too - a lame attempt to intimidate people into not talking about the sacrifices in Iraq. It doesn't work anymore. Find another tactic to suppress the truth.
It doesn't honor the troops' sacrifice to pretend it doesn't exist. You and others hope America doesn't wake up and realize this war has cost something, and continues to cost something. You can do it because you have not been asked to sacrifice one thing. Oh wait - you paid $2 for a Support the Troops magnet. That counts as sacrifice in your book, I guess.
Go ahead and act like the troops are invisible. There are those of us who acknowledge, appreciate and mourn their sacrifice.
karensisson (anonymous) says…
ferdinand/Kevin says:
You only see the deaths of our troops as club to beat the Bush administration over the head with.
Actually, we see the deaths of our troops as further justification for bringing them home, in light of the fact that the death rate is increasing. The rational conclusion would be that this should stop.
And I'm now done with this thread that only grew so long because people thought this letter was posted by an adult. It would have died instantly had people realized the letter was written by a brainwashed ten-year-old who could parrot Bush propaganda (filtered through her parents and preacher, I assume) in a sincere manner. Poor kid.
Done with you too, ferdinand. I've heard the same accusations (channeling Rush Limbaugh today, or Ann Coulter?) too often and they are boring.
Sporg (anonymous) says…
Check out Article 43... http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/law...
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"Bin Laden told CNN in 1997 that he would send Clinton "messages with no words." We then had our embassies bombed in 1998, the USS Cole bombed in 2000, and 9/11. So when bin Laden says that al Qaeda played a role in killing our troops in Somalia, I think it's foolish to scoff at his words."
___________________________________________________________________
So why do you not advocate a stronger stance against bin Laden in 2007? 2008?
Why do *YOU* keep bringing up Clinton? :)
Can we change the past?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http:/www.uscentrist.org
jonas (anonymous) says…
Ferdinand: I'm not expert, but I think it could be because you're having too different discussions.
Not that I've read any of this, but I can't imagine how it would differ from any of the other conversations the opposing wings have on, well, pretty much everything.
leftist: "Well, there's A and B."
rightist: "Well, there's C and D"
leftist: "Well, did I tell you there's A and B?!"
rightist: "Hey, did you know about C and D, and what about F?!"
leftist: "OMGWTF haven't you heard about H?"
etc. ad infinitum
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
How sad that this child has repeated several Bush lies with such earnestness. Is she learning this stuff at home, or in school?
Sometimes when I hear young people talk I have great hope for the future. This letter fills me with dread.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"Maybe your haven't read the news lately, but we've been fighting al Qaeda since the fall of 2001."
No, but bin Laden is still free. Hhhhhhmmmmm....
"We should have had that stronger stance a decade ago. Perhaps we coud have prevented 9/11."
But we didn't... and 9/11 happened, didn't it?
Or, maybe we no amount of "strength" in our "stance" could've prevented 9/11...??
But this isn't a decade ago, is it?
Keep dodging the question all you want, "ferd." I won't be going away anytime soon. :)
Do you think George W. Bush, our current president, should be "retroactively impeached" if bin Laden isn't captured by the end of this administration? I mean, "fair is fair" and all, right? :))))
--Ag
preebo (anonymous) says…
Here are the latest poll numbers regarding waivering support for the Iraq occupation.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpol...