Dispatches From DC?

P RESIDENT DELIVERS "NATIONAL SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE DAY" STATEMENT TO ASSEMBLED AMERICA-HATING PROTESTERS




http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/011903.asp

neo, the daily news is owned by mort zuckerman
NEO,

the NY Daily News is owned by clinton-gore supporter Mort Zuckerman. Rupert Murdoch owns the NY Post and Fox News. Im not sure what you mean by right-wing media, the NY Post is the only right of center newspaper in the ny area, with the NY times, the ny Daily News and Newsday, all left of center - is it ok to have one right of center paper here? Also, Fox News is the only news outlet that isnt left of center, but instead is balanced. White House correspondent jim angle is a former NPR correspondent, there is the hannity-colmes show (right - left) , juan williams and mara liasson are on Brit Hume's special report as much as are fred barnes (conservative) and mort kondrake (moderate left). Is it ok to have one fair and balanced network, to counteract the leftist CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc?

Blacksmith, im not angry at all
Blacksmith,

im not angry at all, why would you paint that picture? and what questions do you want answered?

also, try to be a little more tolerant, comments like nonsensical and blathersome may disturb those who cant bear such words, and while trying to be civil, why not cut out the tired nickname for the president and call him by his proper name? remember the civility you crave?? you seem to be the one name calling?

if you dont trust hussen, why not protest his causing any potential bloodshed?

I think the objection might have to do with the notion of ensured bloodshed to prevent "potential bloodshed".

Gee, jimnass, sorry, I wasn't aware Shrub was a relative. As for the rest of your hypocritical little diatribe on civility, I'll just leave you to stew in your own bellicose juices. Hmm, maybe Shrub IS a relative of yours, after all.

Now for the third time, what possible actions at this point could Iraq take to avoid being invaded?

As for Saddam, I don't see him massing his armies on anyone's border, demanding a "regime change." A policy of containment has proved sufficient to hold him in check for over a decade. What's changed? Besides our own "regime," I mean.

Now, by my count, that's two questions. Courtesy demonstrably being beyond you, at least try to answer both without me having to ask again repeatedly.

Blacksmith, please grow up
Blacksmith, try to act like a mature adult and stop the liberal painting - you are the hypocrite, you pretend you want civility and than act like a child. the president doesn't have to be a relative to request you treat him with the minimum of respect, using his name, why not pretend he is the dictator of a middle eastern country that broke a treaty, disregards UN resolutions and has killed a million and a half of his own people. a guy who invaded a neighbor and cant be trusted - is that asking too much?? also, if anyone is bellicose it is you, you who cant stop calling names - i am still trying to find a happy liberal, but add another failure right here.

hussein can admit he has the weapons of mass destruction the UN knows he has and is looking for, he can leave his country along with his murdering sons, he can return the money he has stolen from iraq. hows that for starters?

containment isn't an option with a butcher who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, is supporting terrorists and who hasn't lived up to the treaty he signed when he lost the war after invading kuwait and who hasn't lived up to his agreement with the UN

jimnass, If the US were to invade every country that disregards UN resolutions, all I can say is "watch out!" My question to you is very simple: "How has Saddam taken away your security?" I'm not talking about what he did to his own people 12 years ago. If you want a history lesson on genocide by countries, I'm sure the participants of A2K can provide plenty of examples. c.i.

Folks, I want civility. Do I have to lock this thread for a day for that to be achieved?

Please, let's tone everything down.

Politics tends to stir up passions, but no one needs to rise to the bait. Telling me "he started it" is of no use - I'm deaf to such rationalizations.

If any of you, regardless of political persuasion, wants to post something mean-spirited and/or engage in ad hominen attacks, might I suggest that you step back and wait for a few minutes before hitting "Submit"? And, perhaps, that you think about what you're about to send out to the airwaves? And maybe, just maybe, change it to something less inflammatory? Everyone is entitled to courtesy. Just because you can't see a person's face does not mean you're exempt from courtesy. Behind every screen and keyboard is a person, with feelings just like your own. Kindly respect same. I am not suggesting that you cannot debate and argue. Of course you can - that's why we have this forum in the first place! But do so in a mature, rational, calm and civil manner. If you want to behave differently, there are plenty of places to do that, but this ain't one of 'em.

Thank you.

Jespah, from this sarcastic, shoot-from-the-hip, impulsive motormouth, I'd like to say...

whew! I'm glad you're here- I've been on forums where folks like me were left to our own devices, to the detriment of the whole forum forever.

Yes, thanks jespah. When the mud starts being flung, it's difficult to resist throwing some back.

Jimnass, so basically you believe that the only way to avoid bloodshed is for Iraq, despite acceding (albeit begrudgingly and under pressure) to the UN mandated inspections and well before the process is completed, to admit some yet to be proven wrongdoing and accept a US dictated "peace." In effect, negating the solution unanimously agreed to by the Security Council, based solely on some ethereal "belief"-- a hunch, if you will-- by this administration that these weapons (of which neither hide nor hair has been seen since the last round of inspections) in fact exist-- said negation being rendered palatable simply because, by gawd, we're big enough and bad enough to impose our will wherever we choose.

You might do well to review Thucydides' history of the Peloponessian War and reflect upon the hubris of the Athenians and what that got them.

The alternative, containment, which has worked for over a decade, is unacceptable to you now, as I understand it, because Saddam's just a bad guy, capable of doing bad things, as evidenced by his record of some ten years ago. Well, if he was a bad guy at the end of the Gulf War and containment has clearly limited his ability to do bad things, as evidenced by his record since then, what's changed? How exactly did he morph from what he was at the end of the Gulf War-- just another third-rate tinpot dictator with limited power belabored by stringent sanction-- into what is portrayed now as a horned demon with boundless capacity for evil?

The answer is, of course, that he really hasn't. He's still that same tinpot dictator. Except now Shrub's here with a post 9/11 mandate to, as he sees it, rid the world of "terra" (of which camp heretofore contained and neutralized Iraq is conveniently a member) and, coincidentally, wipe out a lingering blot on daddy's record, in the process obtaining access by right of conquest to a very large supply of Iraqi crude.

Nope, no ulterior motives there and plenty of reasons to send somebody else's sons to fight and die for.... Uh huh.

imposter, hussien isnt just disregarding UN resos
Imposter,

hussein is doing more than disregarding UN resolutions. He is violating the treaty that ended the gulf war, the war which started when he invaded defenseless kuwait. he is violating scores of UN resolutions. about three months ago the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution demanding iraq to disclose its weapons and to disarm - hussein has done everything he can to counter the Un , including submitting a false report to the UN. Yesterday hans blix said, yet again, that iraq isn't cooperating. add to this his backing of terrorists and his killing of a million and a half of his own people and we see hussein how he really is - it is a clear picture.

how is hussein harming world security - he has weapons of mass destruction, he has hidden them and he refuses to disarm, though promising to do so - add to that his past and present support of terrorists, and its clear he is a security threat. he can disarm, as others have done, or he can force the allied coalition to disarm him - its up to him as to whether there is bloodshed.

jespah, please give examples of lack of civility
jespah,

please give us examples of lack of civility you have seen in this thread - this way its clear. thank you

blacksmith, i see you cant control your lack of civility
blacksmith,

i see you cant control, or don't want to, your lack of civility or name calling - it was expected.

i see you did not choose to tell us why you treat hussein with more respect than the president - any reason why not?

you asked what hussein could do to stop the allied effort and i explained to you, but, naturally, it isn't good enough for you. instead you attempt to turn the security council resolution on its head. about three months ago the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution demanding iraq to disclose its weapons and to disarm - hussein has done everything he can to counter the UN , including submitting a false report to the UN. Yesterday hans blix said, yet again, that iraq isn't cooperating.

where are the weapons that you say the UN hasn't seen since the last round of inspections? did they disappear? it is clear he ahs them and is hiding them - he has failed to disarm, despite the UN resolution- there is no need to wait for him to use them - he is a terrorist and he can stop any bloodshed, or he can cause the bloodshed- it is in his hands.

jimnass says " see you did not choose to tell us why you treat hussein with more respect than the president - any reason why not?

and yet i have seen no comment made by anyone on this forum that in anyway indicated respect for Hussein.

jimnass
For some reason you can see Saddam defying the UN but you are blind when Bush does the same thing. Bush's entire premise for a preemptive strike is that Saddam is not adhering to UN resolutions. However if that same UN, who is allegedly is the wounded party, refuses to sanction the attack Bush intends to do the same thing. Defy the UN.
As for Saddam killing his own people, it's a little late in the game to complain about that. Where were we and the rest of the world when it was happening? Do you think he really cares?
It is time for Bush to get off that soapbox and tell the real reason he is so hot to trot. That is of course if his handlers have let him in on the secret.

AU, there is no comparison between hussain and the USA
AU,

there is nothing to compare between hussein and the US. The USA hasn't violated a treaty entered into after losing a war started by its invasion of a neighboring country. The USA hasn't violated the UN resolutions to disarm. Lets stay on point here - why do you oppose taking action against an outlaw nation, a terrorist state?

It is pretty clear to most of america why the action will take place - what about fighting terrorism don't you get?

jimnass "It is pretty clear to most of america why the action will take place - what about fighting terrorism don't you get?

i dont think so, most of america wants clear reason/justificaton.

Jim

Despite what Bush is trying to sell it is not clear nor has there been any evidence presented that Iraq has been involved in Al Qeada's terrorist activities. Don't you get it? As for it being pretty clear to most Americans why the action will take place, you are correct Bush wants it. The question that still remains is why the action should take place?That is a question more and more Americans and the people across the world are asking.

Au, do you deny that hussein supports terrorists?
AU,

put al queda aside, do you deny that hussein supports terrorists? terrorism and the state sponsors of same must be beaten for the world to be safe , it is that clear!

do you deny that hussein has weapons of mass destruction? the UN agrees they did a few years ago - if they dont have them , where are they and why wont they show what they did with them? why are they being obstructioninst to teh process - hans blix siad again yesterday that he and his group have not gotton teh cooleration requested.

jimnass, I'll repeat: My question to you is very simple: "How has Saddam taken away your security?" Why must we expose our military and the innocent people of Iraq to die - now? How will the overthrow of Saddam ensure our security? Please don't tell us about the "potential" threat. If you wish to discuss "potential" threat, there are many other countries in this world that posses a greater threat to American security. c.i.