Through A Glass Darkly

[ABlairican Pie]

Through A Glass Darkly
An Interpretation of Bush's Character


By: John Chuckman

05/28/03: While I find those images on the Internet of a blunt little mustache digitally-scribbled onto Bush's upper lip feeble and unhelpful, still there are parts of Bush's character and behavior that strikingly resemble at least one major biographer's interpretation of Hitler. Ian Kershaw's two-volume life of Hitler puts great emphasis on his being a driving high-stakes gambler--with innate, animal-cunning about human psychology, few gifts of statesmanship or strategy, and little systematic--attributing most of his success and all of his failure to his compulsive quality.

When, for example, Bush waged his ferocious post-election pursuit of legitimacy through threats and court actions, finally securing appointment to office by America's Supreme Court, it resembled the way Hitler, never actually elected, worked ferociously behind the scenes and on the streets at a time of great political instability to secure appointment as Chancellor by President von Hindenburg.

Several observers have commented that Bush's recent stunt of flying to the deck of an aircraft carrier in order to make a televised speech might have well been copied directly from Hitler's flight to the gigantic Nuremburg rally, his plane dramatically circling in descent towards a million people gathered in barbarian tribute, his purpose being to make a filmed speech. Whether Bush's crowd consciously followed the script set down by Hitler nearly seventy years ago matters less than that the thinking is so similar, with the manipulation of dramatic, militaristic props for propaganda being identical.

Bush never goes anywhere where his stage crew has not first assembled giant flags as background. He always wears a sizeable American-flag pin on his label. This kind of totemic, obsessive use of flags was absolutely characteristic of Hitler.

Hitler was a troubled, difficult person, but there is no evidence of any genuine insanity or psychosis (see Dr. Fritz Redlich's excellent study, "Hitler, Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet"). It is precisely this fact that made him, and made those like him, all the more dangerous. It is easy to dismiss a genuine lunatic.

Given any circumstances other than those of the unique and troubled period in which he embraced German politics, Hitler would have been an utter failure, likely to have been laughed off the stage with his sputtering, eye-bulging speech and fantasy claims. He had never, except for extremely brief and intermittent times, before entering politics in the revolutionary ruin that was post-war Germany, made an honest living.

(continued)

[Jem]

Interesting.

[ABlairican Pie]

There is a close parallel here with Bush. Except when friends of his powerful father made attractive, low-risk, undemanding opportunties available to him, young Bush was a failure. He demonstrated no business acumen, no academic application, and he did a lot of aimless drifting, much like Hitler's time in Vienna before the First World War. There are totally unexplained periods in Bush's earlier adult, an extraordinary thing for an American national public figure.

Even as governer of Texas, Bush showed no skill other than the animal cunning one associates with some of the nation's shabbiest politics. Many do not realize that the office of governor of Texas, despite sounding important, is a relatively weak office, so the people putting Bush forward at the time took a small risk of his doing any serious damage.

Bush was not a national figure when he was put up for the Republican presidential nomination. Yet, suddenly, he appeared on the national stage, pockets bulging with $77 million in campaign contributions, an amount that could even render Kermit the Frog a formidable opponent in America's phony, advertising-and marketing-drenched politics. Of course, as quickly as these were depleted, they were topped up again.

The support of German industrial was an important part of Hitler's being able to sustain his slow rise to power. Many of these business people thought they would heavily profit from the success of the odd, theatrical little man they bankrolled. The one absolute certainty was that Germany under Hitler would rearm, massively and quickly, with lots of profitable contracts coming available. Bush's measure for defense and security after 9/11, almost instantly swelled to tumor-like masses, offer and unprecedented opportunity for well-positioned people to make new fortunes.

Bush's apparent ability to charming face-to-face has been publicized by insiders wishing to humanize his public image. Well, that is a characteristic Hitler possessed in abundance: on the one hand, he could intimidate people with fits of horrifying anger, and yet, as many attested, he could be utterly charming. He could order wholesale murder and yet have a gracious, polite tea with his hardworking secretaries.

Of course, the sense of charm assumed you did not have to spend great periods of time with Hitler as did the captive members of his immediate party entourage. For them, Hitler was reduced to a boring, repetitive, self-proclaimed expert on everything who insisted on discussing everything, endlessly. One can only imagine the tedious conversations of a Bush comfortable
with his cronies over a charred cow down in Crawford. We actually got an unintended glimpse of this private world when the BBC "accidentally" ran some television shots of Bush before a big speech sharing the kind of gestures and comments to smiling flunkies one might expect expect from a small-town, grade-school basketball coach.

Bush has demonstrated his capacity for vicious anger a number of times, despite his handlers working very hard to hide this from the public. His response to the nomination challenge of the John McCain was manic. His response to the rightful and fitting challenges of France or Germany to his Iraqi policies has ben ugly, with pathetic factotum, Colin Powell, given the job of announcing various gibes, slights, and threats in the aftermath (Harry Belafonte's description of Powell, I regret to say, has proved devastatingly accurate).

[Kitt]

June 1st 2003
--Mickey Z

Top Gun Dubya is at it again. In a visit to Poland, President Bush compared the Nazi invasion of Poland and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to 9/11...and managed to use these examples to bolster his case for "pre-emptive strikes." He said: "Aggression and evil intent must not be ignored or appeased. They must be opposed early and decisively."

Speechwriters for the Fuhrer and Emperor are surely consulting copyright lawyers.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
Top Gun Dubya is at it again. In a visit to Poland, President Bush compared the Nazi invasion of Poland and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to 9/11...

The Nazi invasion of Poland, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks were all acts of war.

[ABlairican Pie]

The closest parallel to Hitler's behavior was in Bush's approach to Iraq. It is clear that he was determined--to all facts contrary to his claims, despite the heroic efforts of weapons inspectors, despite the voice of most of the world's diplomatic community, and despite demonstrations by millions--to invade Iraq. The litany of false and even irrelevant claims made over and over combined with his lack of shame or embarrassment when found out time and again, closely mimics a behavior patter of Hitler who more or less invented the "big lie" technique.

Even more closely resembling Hitler was Bush's insane rush toward a huge, high-stakes gamble on quick success in Iraq. He displayed not an ounce of statesmanship. It mattered not at all that he put the UN, NATO, and the EU through a crisis and embarrassed longstanding allies to get what he wanted. Had the invasion bogged down into bloody street-fights and large numbers of Americans been killed, Bush could not have survived the political results. This was the purest obsessive, go-for-broke gamble.

What we witnessed leading up to the invasion bore uncanny similarities to the Munich crisis of 1938, but not the ones so many American commentators point to about a weak-willed Chamberlain
appeasing a brutal dictator. People seem to forget Bush was making the threats, not Hussein.

Hitler was going to invade the Czechs, and that was that, but he was willing to toy with war-weary Western statesmen, to gain a bit of time or psychological advantage, and to appear open to argument before hurling his divisions over the border. So, too, Bush paused in invading Iraq, allowing Western statesmen to argue their case a bit and make various proposals, but he never listened to them only hoping he might gain a few more allies, a shred of legitimacy, or a bit of psychological advantage.

This provides a very good example of how we do not learn from history. We are most of us always looking for exactly the same lesson from a vaguely similar historical situation, much as generals are said always prepared to fight the last war. But history, as has been accurately observed, is a flowing river which is not the same when touched a second time. Current events are never quite parallel with those of an earlier time despite superficial similarities. However, human character, patterns of behavior, and human interactions are things that may be profitably studied, being constant enough to make valid comparisons over time.

Here, too, is an example of how history can be manipulated to abuse political opponents. Critics on the left, in opposing the invasion of Iraq, have been accused of supporting a dictator. This is nonsense, of course, but like many bits of propaganda that become lodged into day-to-day understanding through endless repetition on television and in newspapers, it is nevertheless a powerful nonsense.

Too many people do not understand that the preponderance of forces in Germany before the Second World War were for peace. Hitler sometimes spoke of peace eloquently, but, as we now know, he had a rather odd definition of the word. When it looked like Germany was on the brink of war, great waves of despair went through Germany. All the bands and panoply of Nazi propaganda could not cover up people's sullen reaction displayed even under dictatorship.

But when Hitler quickly defeated Poland and then quickly defeated France, the mood in Germany immediately changed. Hitler had achieved a relatively bloodless victory of stunning proportions. He became a hero, a national savior. And so with Bush's massive, high-tech assault on pathetic little Iraq. Anti-war feelings and demonstrations did not rise so suddenly at the start of the much greater conflict in Vietnam, but with a quick, safe victory (safe for Americans, that is), Bush has become something of a shining figure. So much so, that at a recent dinner, a single dinner, Bush raised $18 million in campaign funds.

Hitler's manipulation of the idea of peace is paralleled in Bush's manipulation of the idea of justice. Both are complete distortions.
Bush's genuine feeling for justice was perhaps best captured during the election campaign with his smug, joking response to a question about a soul on death row in Texas. For those with acute perceptions, still not dulled on a steady diet of synthetic emotions and cardboard ideas from television and Hollywood, there could no surer sign of how potentially dangerous this man is.

[Three'sCompanyrules]

I'm getting sick and tired of liberals comparing Bush to Hitler, Bush is not trying to take over the world as some liberals would like to believe, Bush isn't hurting or torturing Americans at all, like Hitler did in Germany. President Bush had to do what he had to do, with Iraq before something major happend, because if we left Saddam alone and do nothing he would have attacked possible the US or US intrests overseas, and what makes me even more angry at liberals is when they say couldn't we find a more peaceful way, rather then go to war, what in the heck else are we supposed to do hmm, tell me, Saddam wasn't going to leave on his own and would have planned some destruction of some kind towars another country, US intrests overseas, or perhaps somewhere in North America, Saddam also appeared to be in ecxellent health, before we went to Iraq, so we weren't going to wait until he died. They have also found terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq, which Saddam was most likley contrbuting to, also they have found chemical weapons labs, I have seen them on the news, liberals don't seem to get it, that Saddam wouldn't have just gone away, he wouldn't have negociated something with the United States, or any other country to leave Iraq, Saddam is a lier and a very evil person he had to be removed. Yes nobody wanted war, but in certain situations its nescessery, and in this case it was, because Saddam wouldn't have gone peacefully, and most liberals for some reason just can't understand that. People who compare President Bush to Hitler just makes me sick and those people who think Bush and Hitler are close enough to compare to do that then they can have a free pass out of this country. That is very disrespectful to man in charge of the country. Now I dislike Clinton with a passion, and I hated him being in office, but he was in office and I put up with it for long 8 years, so liberals should do the same. Its amazing to see what liberals say, they are trying to find everything wrong with Bush and try to make up things as they go, comaparing Bush to Hitler is very sickening to me, and to me those people who say that have very very little class as far as I'm concerned. :mad: :mad:

[ABlairican Pie]

Two words: GUANTANAMO BAY.

How do you know the author of this article is a "liberal"? Anyone who opposes Bush and his policies is a liberal? Read the article again, he is making very valid comparisons of Bush to Hitler. He's not saying that Bush is trying to take over the world. He is saying there are parallels with what Bush is doing that Hitler did. Very telling things that he has in common with Der Fuhrer. How much do you know of Hitler? How much do you know about the history of Germany? How much do you know about Bush?

[bandito]

Comparing George W to Hitler?... :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Man, I needed a good laugh today!

[Three'sCompanyrules]

Originally posted by bandito
Comparing George W to Hitler?... :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Man, I needed a good laugh today!


Same here, Like I said before anybody comparing Bush to Hitler such as the fellow who wrote this article is a sad sad individual. Saying Bush is a dangerous man is flat out ridiculas.

I can already see the democrats crying when they lose the 2004 election.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Three'sCompanyrules



Saying Bush is a dangerous man is flat out ridiculas.


He is.

[bandito]

Yeah, another Adolf Hitler. :lol:

[ABlairican Pie]

Okay, it seems pretty preposterous on the face of it for a guy with
an obvious axe to grind to say that Bush is comparable to Hitler, right? But I don't think some of you have been reading this thing all the way through. The author makes comparisons by showing what Hitler had done, and what Bush has done. The one thing that strikes me is that Bush has been completely un-diplomatic in dealing with the rest of the world on how to handle the situation with Iraq. Same with Hitler. Do I think that Bush is on the level of Hitler? I don't think I would compare the two, it's a little too early to tell. But think of this: Germany has boasted of a magnificent culture, rich in art, literature, music and philosophy. It even gave us the Protestant Reformation, one of the most powerful and influential religous movements in the Western world. But what happened in the first third of the 20th century? A "perfect" society and culture succumbed to barbarism and fascism. Look at the parallel today: We as America boast of a great heritage of freedom. Our ideals have been traded for fear, paranoia, and belligerence toward enemies, real and imagined. We have been told we love freedom, and our enemies who torched the Twin Towers "hate and fear" freedom. We don't hate freedom, "we just feel it's just not a good idea at the time." Well, we've apparently won both wars, so why are we afraid to criticize or question our president? Is he THAT much of a wimp?

One of the hallmarks of a free society is the ability not to capitulate to fear and to retain our humanity and individuality in the face of national emergency. And may I ask this: Where were you guys BEFORE Bush made his decision final to go to Iraq? Were you a big supporter of him BEFORE 9/11? (Of course he had already decided to go to Baghdad anyway...) Has everyone ALWAYS been big supporters of him?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
I don't think some of you have been reading this thing all the way through. :doh: :bonk: :lol:

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally posted by Kitt
:doh: :bonk: :lol:

Except for perhaps Kitt!!:lol:

What I meant to say to some of these people who are in a mad rush to sing the praises of Bush and blow off comparisons to Hitler in this article, is that this author is not just saying whatever so he can blow off steam about Bush. He is looking at Bush's background and comparing with Hitler's, and how they both had a warped sense of mission and righteousness. I can imagine how Bush has acted with the rest of the leaders of the Free World is going to set a dangerous precedent for future leaders of America who want to think that the rest of the world "just doesn't get it" and feel that the only way to peace is to "do it OUR way, or prepare to get your asses kicked." I have said before that we have a weird way of holding other countries to international law that we are not ourselves about to abide by.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
Okay, it seems pretty preposterous on the face of it for a guy with
an obvious axe to grind to say that Bush is comparable to Hitler, right? But I don't think some of you have been reading this thing all the way through. The author makes comparisons by showing what Hitler had done, and what Bush has done. The one thing that strikes me is that Bush has been completely un-diplomatic in dealing with the rest of the world on how to handle the situation with Iraq. Same with Hitler. Do I think that Bush is on the level of Hitler? I don't think I would compare the two, it's a little too early to tell. But think of this: Germany has boasted of a magnificent culture, rich in art, literature, music and philosophy. It even gave us the Protestant Reformation, one of the most powerful and influential religous movements in the Western world. But what happened in the first third of the 20th century? A "perfect" society and culture succumbed to barbarism and fascism. Look at the parallel today: We as America boast of a great heritage of freedom. Our ideals have been traded for fear, paranoia, and belligerence toward enemies, real and imagined. We have been told we love freedom, and our enemies who torched the Twin Towers "hate and fear" freedom. We don't hate freedom, "we just feel it's just not a good idea at the time." Well, we've apparently won both wars, so why are we afraid to criticize or question our president? Is he THAT much of a wimp?

One of the hallmarks of a free society is the ability not to capitulate to fear and to retain our humanity and individuality in the face of national emergency. And may I ask this: Where were you guys BEFORE Bush made his decision final to go to Iraq? Were you a big supporter of him BEFORE 9/11? (Of course he had already decided to go to Baghdad anyway...) Has everyone ALWAYS been big supporters of him?
:clap:
I can't agree with you more!


And you are all fooling yourselves if you think that the United States Government can not stoop so low as Nazi Germany. Bigotry and hate have been simmering beneath the surface of this country for over a century, just waiting for the oportunity to rise and create chaos.
I only hope the rest of the world will be strong enough to resist it when that happens.

I'm not necessarily conviced that Bush could suddenly morph into Hitler. From what I've seen he has little hate toward any race. If he does, time will tell.
But Bush has set us up for a deadly fall. He has alienated us from many important and long-time Allies. He has idiotically created this stupid pre-emptive strike policy that can be used by some future madman President to wage war on much of the world.

[Three'sCompanyrules]

I did see today on the news that Bush and the French president met today at a sumit meeting, and they have appeared to make amends, they were discussing on what do do with Iraq and the rest of the middle East among other things, so Bush and Chirac seem to be working things out just fine.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally posted by Three'sCompanyrules
I did see today on the news that Bush and the French president met today at a sumit meeting, and they have appeared to make amends, they were discussing on what do do with Iraq and the rest of the middle East among other things, so Bush and Chirac seem to be working things out just fine.

Well, that's good news. :)

Are we gonna get to go back to calling them French Fries again?:D

[Three'sCompanyrules]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica


Well, that's good news. :)

Are we gonna get to go back to calling them French Fries again?:D

Yes its good news, and even better news they were both smiling to, and some guy I'm not sure exactaly where he was from, I know he was from an Arab country, was pleased with Bush in strongly trying to get peace in the middle East, which I'm sure we can all agree past presidents had trouble fixing the problem, Bush is trying all he can to to help, and I would have to say I pleased with his efforts over there.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Three'sCompanyrules
They have also found terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq, which Saddam was most likley contrbuting to, also they have found chemical weapons labs, I have seen them on the news,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The camps aren't connected to Hussein. That's a long know fact. And there is still absolutely no evidence of any connection of Hussein to al Qaeda.

Then this quote about your trailer trash evidence:

Dr. Glen Rangwala is a lecturer in Politics at Newham College, Cambridge, UK. He works with the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq

The extent of the collapse of the US and UK case on Iraq's weapons is most clear in how the search for weapons has so far been fruitless. Few biological weapons experts agree that the trucks presented by the Pentagon as being mobile biological production facilities were anything of the sort. The Iraqi scientists who used the trucks claimed that they were used for the production of hydrogen, an explanation that would fit with what is known about the trucks. The photograph of these trailers released by the Pentagon showed vehicles whose sides were sheets of canvas that was simply pinned down. If such vehicles had been used for containing anthrax fermenters, a downwind footprint of anthrax contamination would have been detected fairly readily. A UN inspector previously engaged in the search for mobile production facilities inside Iraq has informed me that the chances that such a vehicle could have been used for biological agents are minimal.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker

And you are all fooling yourselves if you think that the United States Government can not stoop so low as Nazi Germany.


He has idiotically created this stupid pre-emptive strike policy that can be used by some future madman President to wage war on much of the world.
As for your first sentence, completely ridiculous and uncalled for. How dare you say that the U.S. gov't can stoop as low as Nazi Germany. Forgive me for saying so, but you are a bad American for saying the above statement. You are certainly no patriot.
The U.S. does the exact oppsite of Nazi Germany.... welcoming immigrants (some even illegally), having the chance for anyone to succeed here, endless welfare and unemployment for anyone who qualifies, helping other countries in many ways, etc.
Even hinting at Nazism is pure stupidity!

This was not a pre-emptive strike. Iraq signed the cease-fire agreement in '91. Knowing very well that we can resume hostilities if the resolutions were broken (which they were, 17 of them).

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

As for your first sentence, completely ridiculous and uncalled for. How dare you say that the U.S. gov't can stoop as low as Nazi Germany. Forgive me for saying so, but you are a bad American for saying the above statement. You are certainly no patriot.
The U.S. does the exact oppsite of Nazi Germany.... welcoming immigrants (some even illegally), having the chance for anyone to succeed here, endless welfare and unemployment for anyone who qualifies, helping other countries in many ways, etc.
Even hinting at Nazism is pure stupidity!

This was not a pre-emptive strike. Iraq signed the cease-fire agreement in '91. Knowing very well that we can resume hostilities if the resolutions were broken (which they were, 17 of them).

That's the problem. As long as people fool themselves into thinking "It can never happen here", They will remain complacent; and it can happen here.


I forgive you for calling me a bad American. You don't know me well enough to make such a judgement. I can, however assure you that I am a patriot. I am worried about some future president useing these times and actions to justify invading the world. We do have people with the guts to do something like that; all they need are the means. President Bush has provided for much of those means.


The pre-emptic policy was signed by congress. The president, whoever he may be, now has full power to declare war without congressional approval. Bush may be a good man, but we have no guarantee of future presidents.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
This was not a pre-emptive strike. Iraq signed the cease-fire agreement in '91. Knowing very well that we can resume hostilities if the resolutions were broken (which they were, 17 of them). United Nations Security Council Resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than the former Iraqi regime: 91!
Most of those are being violated by US allies. If violations of SC resolutions are your excuse for conducting what you don't like to refer to as pre-emtive strikes, then the US and it''s allies are in deep, deep doo doo.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
United Nations Security Council Resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than the former Iraqi regime: 91!
Most of those are being violated by US allies. If violations of SC resolutions are your excuse for conducting what you don't like to refer to as pre-emtive strikes, then the US and it''s allies are in deep, deep doo doo.
Those other countries you refer to did not have Saddam as a dictator, were not building weapons as was Saddam, were not refusing to give up WMD, and so on. If the U.N. actually did their job, perhaps it would confront the 91 nations and ask for their accountability!

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker


That's the problem. As long as people fool themselves into thinking "It can never happen here", They will remain complacent; and it can happen here.


I forgive you for calling me a bad American. You don't know me well enough to make such a judgement. I can, however assure you that I am a patriot. I am worried about some future president useing these times and actions to justify invading the world. We do have people with the guts to do something like that; all they need are the means. President Bush has provided for much of those means.


The pre-emptic policy was signed by congress. The president, whoever he may be, now has full power to declare war without congressional approval. Bush may be a good man, but we have no guarantee of future presidents.
Oh, come on. It can't happen here. This is not 1939 Germany. You really think the U.S. is going to turn Nazi and "conquer" the world?:crazy: The U.S. citizens would never let that happen. And, I know of no one in the government who wants world domination.

Patriots do not say idiotic things like "the U.S. can stoop as low as Nazi Germany." The U.S. does the opposite- sends men and women to foreign countries to risk their lives so that other countries can be free (or have a chance of freedom). This is similar to Nazism? You don't really need to worry about some future president... of all the past 42 presidents, none has shown any interest in world domination. All have helped countries in need. The U.S. still does what she has done in the past- send aid to countries and then pull out. For this to somehow change is flawed reasoning. As I have said before, after WWII, the U.S. was so strong, we could have practically taken over the world. We certainly could have taken over Japan, the South Pacific and most of Europe. What did happen? We pulled back our troops and converted back to a peacetime nation. There was no talk of world domination then and there should not be now.

If you remember, Clinton also sent out troops to fight (and kill) in Bosnia, Kosovo and several other countries without Congressional approval.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

Oh, come on. It can't happen here. This is not 1939 Germany. You really think the U.S. is going to turn Nazi and "conquer" the world?:crazy: The U.S. citizens would never let that happen. And, I know of no one in the government who wants world domination.

Patriots do not say idiotic things like "the U.S. can stoop as low as Nazi Germany." The U.S. does the opposite- sends men and women to foreign countries to risk their lives so that other countries can be free (or have a chance of freedom). This is similar to Nazism? You don't really need to worry about some future president... of all the past 42 presidents, none has shown any interest in world domination. All have helped countries in need. The U.S. still does what she has done in the past- send aid to countries and then pull out. For this to somehow change is flawed reasoning. As I have said before, after WWII, the U.S. was so strong, we could have practically taken over the world. We certainly could have taken over Japan, the South Pacific and most of Europe. What did happen? We pulled back our troops and converted back to a peacetime nation. There was no talk of world domination then and there should not be now.

If you remember, Clinton also sent out troops to fight (and kill) in Bosnia, Kosovo and several other countries without Congressional approval.

Don't you think the Germans thought it could never happen? Don't you think if they knew what a monster he was, they would have stopped him at all cost?
Time and time again people say "It can never happen here" or "It can never happen to me". Then, when it does happen, they say,"I never thought it would happen to me". Haven't you seen that?
You ask why we didn't conquer the world after WWII. Because we had different leaders. They were good people who didn't want world domination. You are right, all our previous leaders have shown no interest in world domination. But eah leader was different. And each leader will be different. We've got bad people in our country. Those bad people can, if rich enough go as high as the presidency.
You speak as if you know that we will always be the care giving democracy we are today. You don't know. All it takes is one man.

It's time you get off your high horse and acknowledge that our government in not infallible and the system is very capable of being played with. Otherwise, you will be unprepared if it ever does happen. We could stop it if we watch for it.


Pre-emption is pre-emption. Regardless of who implemented it, it is wrong. Signing it into law id just reckless!

[Kitt]

Not to be picky, picky, picky but the plight of the American Indian was genocide promoted and played out by the United States government. To call it anything less than that would be history revision. So, it has happened here. Also, we wanted the Phillipines so we took the Phillipines by waging, again, genocidal war. Those are two examples. The jews before and during WWII is another if you want to consider the fact that our goverment was aware of what was going on and did nothing to stop it. We turned a ship of full of European Jews away, so the Germans had every reason to believe that they could exterminate their Jewish population with impunity, and they did.

[ABlairican Pie]

....what's the difference between "Pre-emptive strikes" and being the AGGRESSOR NATION?????:confused:

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
....what's the difference between "Pre-emptive strikes" and being the AGGRESSOR NATION?????:confused:

No difference. That's why I'm concerned.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Kitt
Not to be picky, picky, picky but the plight of the American Indian was genocide promoted and played out by the United States government. To call it anything less than that would be history revision. So, it has happened here. Also, we wanted the Phillipines so we took the Phillipines by waging, again, genocidal war. Those are two examples. The jews before and during WWII is another if you want to consider the fact that our goverment was aware of what was going on and did nothing to stop it. We turned a ship of full of European Jews away, so the Germans had every reason to believe that they could exterminate their Jewish population with impunity, and they did.

I guess I got so rapped up in what might happen I forgot about what has happened.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
Don't you think the Germans thought it could never happen? Don't you think if they knew what a monster he was, they would have stopped him at all cost?
Time and time again people say "It can never happen here" or "It can never happen to me". Then, when it does happen, they say,"I never thought it would happen to me". Haven't you seen that?
You ask why we didn't conquer the world after WWII. Because we had different leaders. They were good people who didn't want world domination. You are right, all our previous leaders have shown no interest in world domination. But eah leader was different. And each leader will be different. We've got bad people in our country. Those bad people can, if rich enough go as high as the presidency.
You speak as if you know that we will always be the care giving democracy we are today. You don't know. All it takes is one man.
How can you compare 1939 Germany with 2003 United States?
The U.S. has a four- or eight- year president; Germany had a dictator.
The U.S. is a Republic; Germany was a dictatorship.
The U.S. has a Constitution; Germany did not.

Are you saying there are not good people today. That some in the White House or Congress are planning on taking over the world. Completely absurd.
If, as you say, a bad man rose up to presidency, if he broke the laws of the Constitution, he would be removed from office. The U.S. government (who are actually the people; the government is just another word for the people) have the power to remove a corrupt president (unless it's Clinton).

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

How can you compare 1939 Germany with 2003 United States?
The U.S. has a four- or eight- year president; Germany had a dictator.
The U.S. is a Republic; Germany was a dictatorship.
The U.S. has a Constitution; Germany did not.

Are you saying there are not good people today. That some in the White House or Congress are planning on taking over the world. Completely absurd.
If, as you say, a bad man rose up to presidency, if he broke the laws of the Constitution, he would be removed from office. The U.S. government (who are actually the people; the government is just another word for the people) have the power to remove a corrupt president (unless it's Clinton).

History repeats itself. or, if you prefer: History doesn't repeat itself, people do.


You are an expert at twisting peoples words around. Kudos. I said there are bad people in America. Bad people who may have or achieve a little more power and authority. Most Americans are good decent human beings. Arrogant, but that can't be helped as long as we have an arrogant President.

If Clinton could not be removed, it could happen again. If a man blatently and openly breaks the Constitution, yes he will be out of there quiter than you can say God Bless America. But if bush can break International law and not be prosecuted, in a few years it may be the same with the United States law. Especially with Ashcroft tossing out more of our rights in the name of freedom. Who knows? In a few decades the constitution may be nothing more than a piece of paper. Sad, huh? Is that why you never want to think about it? Too sad?

I find it insulting to be called the government. That would imply that I am arrogant and believe I am the greatest in the world. It would imply that I've killed many millions. It would imply that I don't care about the environment.
The government does not listen to the people anymore.

But if we acknowledge that something so horrible as Nazi Germany can occur here in America, we may be better prepared to fight it if it should ever happen. You don't have to say "it will without a doubt happen and we're all doomed to a thousand years of hell". No, all that needs be said is "it can happen, we aren't perfect. We're human. We can slip up. But if it does happen, I will be the first in the line of defense against the peril".

[Fleet]

History for Germany may repeat itself, but Germany's history happening in America will never happen.

Calling a president arrogant because he stands up to terrorism makes no sense at all. Bush did not international law, because the U.N. does not have the final say on what the U.S. does. We can (and should) withdraw from the U.N. anytime we want and they can't do a thing about it. If we feel we need to remove Saddam (which we did) we can overrule the U.N. As I said, how can the U.N. be effective if they don't even enforce the resolutions they institute on other countries?
What rights has Ashcroft "thrown out." Since 9/11, I have not seen any difference in me exercising my rights.

Like it or not, the gov't is essentially the people.

As I've also said, no true patriot thinks that America can become something similar to Nazi Germany. Your lack of faith for the United States of America is appalling.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet
History for Germany may repeat itself, but Germany's history happening in America will never happen.

Calling a president arrogant because he stands up to terrorism makes no sense at all. Bush did not international law, because the U.N. does not have the final say on what the U.S. does. We can (and should) withdraw from the U.N. anytime we want and they can't do a thing about it. If we feel we need to remove Saddam (which we did) we can overrule the U.N. As I said, how can the U.N. be effective if they don't even enforce the resolutions they institute on other countries?
What rights has Ashcroft "thrown out." Since 9/11, I have not seen any difference in me exercising my rights.

Like it or not, the gov't is essentially the people.

As I've also said, no true patriot thinks that America can become something similar to Nazi Germany. Your lack of faith for the United States of America is appalling.


I call the president arrogant because he is. He said that the United States of America was the greatest nation on Earth. Thats arrogant. There are other countries that could be called that by it's leaders. But if they were, the learders would be arrogant also. No nation is the greatest.

I believe the patriots act gives the FBI the right to spy on American citizens. That is not a right given to the US Government through the constitution.


I'm a people right? All those war protesters were people. If we really had any say in government, we would not have go to war. Right or wrong, we would have stayed out. Museums around the world warned the troops to protect the Iraqi museums. They were ignored.
We have every right to overrule the UN. Does the president have the right to overrule public opinion?


Fair enough, if you won't acknowledge our vulnerability to hate and fear I can't make you. There are others would will. There are others who learn from history. If it ever happens, we won't let them get away with it.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

Those other countries you refer to did not have Saddam as a dictator, were not building weapons as was Saddam, were not refusing to give up WMD, and so on. If the U.N. actually did their job, perhaps it would confront the 91 nations and ask for their accountability! You really don't pay attention, do you? It isn't 91 nations it's 91 resolutions. How do you know that those countries weren't doing this, or weren't doing that? You don't know what countries are disregarding resolution or what the resolutions are about.

And at this juncture Saddam Hussein apparently wasn't building WMD. You can't go on forever declaring that when there is no evidence of it, and lots of evidence to the contrary.

[M82A1]

And at this juncture Saddam Hussein apparently wasn't building WMD. You can't go on forever declaring that when there is no evidence of it, and lots of evidence to the contrary.

The fact is; He had them, he admits that, He has given us NO evidence that he has gotten rid of them, That means: HE STILL HAS THEM!!!!

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1


The fact is; He had them, he admits that, He has given us NO evidence that he has gotten rid of them, That means: HE STILL HAS THEM!!!! Evidence that they don't exist:TONS
Evidence that they do exist: ZERO

[Leave it to a Marine to be blunt. When Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, was asked Friday why his Marines failed to encounter or uncover any of the weapons of mass destruction that U.S. intelligence had warned them about, his honesty put the White House to shame.
"We were simply wrong," Conway said. "It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered [nuclear, chemical or biological] weapons" in Iraq. And, he added, "believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwait border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there." ]

[M82A1]

Evidence that they don't exist:TONS Evidence that they do exist: ZERO

Saddam HIMSELF admited that he had an NBC program (nuclear, biological, chemical), He used them against the Kurds in northern Iraq. So, Like I said before:
The fact is; He had them, he admits that, He has given us NO evidence that he has gotten rid of them, That means: HE STILL HAS THEM!!!!

[Kitt]

Bios and chemos have a shelf life The defense department knows this to be true and they know that anything he had in 88 is nothing now. And you can totally forget about any nuclear capability you like to think he had. He had none and he had nothing on the table to build a program We all know that he had bios and chemos as late as 95. That's not relevant to what he didnt' have, which is apparently nothing, in 2003. You've been lied to by the president of the United States and you choose to deny it.

[M82A1]

If Saddam didn't have a nuclear program then why did the Isrealis bomb Iraqs Nuclear reactor?:confused:

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
I call the president arrogant because he is. He said that the United States of America was the greatest nation on Earth. Thats arrogant. There are other countries that could be called that by it's leaders. But if they were, the learders would be arrogant also. No nation is the greatest.

I believe the patriots act gives the FBI the right to spy on American citizens. That is not a right given to the US Government through the constitution.

I'm a people right? All those war protesters were people. If we really had any say in government, we would not have go to war. Right or wrong, we would have stayed out. Museums around the world warned the troops to protect the Iraqi museums. They were ignored.
We have every right to overrule the UN. Does the president have the right to overrule public opinion?

Fair enough, if you won't acknowledge our vulnerability to hate and fear I can't make you. There are others would will. There are others who learn from history. If it ever happens, we won't let them get away with it.
- The president can say that the United States is the greatest country on Earth. It's called freedom of speech. Does that mean anyone who says that is arrogant? Besides, it just so happens it's true. I have a feeling that if Clinton said it, you would not complain.

I wasn't talking about the FBI, I was talking about how the U.S. can overrule the U.N.

Public opinion was IN FAVOR of the war. I don't know what you're talking about! When asked "should the U.S. go to war with Iraq," the response was 70-75% YES. Got it? YES, for 75% of U.S. citizens.

The small minority who "hate" would never even have a chance to start anything remotely like Nazi Germany. Of course, the majority of Americans are peace-loving. Always have been. Worrying about the U.S. becoming similar to Nazism is just plain ridiculous and a waste of time. There is more of a chance of a golf course opening up on the planet Pluto than the U.S. becoming another Nazism-type country. Where in the world did you get that idea, anyway?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
We all know that he had bios and chemos as late as 95. That's not relevant to what he didnt' have, which is apparently nothing, in 2003. You've been lied to by the president of the United States and you choose to deny it.
The U.S. government is going to release info (sometime next week) that Iraq did have WMD just before the (2003) war. So we will soon know. We will also realize that Bush did not lie. Instead of prematurely criticizing this administration, it might just be a good idea to see what the end result is, don't you think?

I, myself, believe that Saddam still did have WMD. Why would he risk being defeated and removed as pres. if he didn't have any? Rulers like Saddam live to rule a country. It was his life. If he really had no WMD, he probably would have done anything to prove it and continue as pres. (and murderer) of Iraq.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

The U.S. government is going to release info (sometime next week) that Iraq did have WMD just before the (2003) war. So we will soon know. We will also realize that Bush did not lie. Instead of prematurely criticizing this administration, it might just be a good idea to see what the end result is, don't you think?

I, myself, believe that Saddam still did have WMD. Why would he risk being defeated and removed as pres. if he didn't have any? Rulers like Saddam live to rule a country. It was his life. If he really had no WMD, he probably would have done anything to prove it and continue as pres. (and murderer) of Iraq. No matter what they come up with there will be no turning back on Bush's and his administration's lies. They lied again and again. However they try to spin this new "let's just wait and see till next week or the week after..." the lies aren't reversed. They're already on the record.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

- The president can say that the United States is the greatest country on Earth. It's called freedom of speech. Does that mean anyone who says that is arrogant? Besides, it just so happens it's true. I have a feeling that if Clinton said it, you would not complain.

I wasn't talking about the FBI, I was talking about how the U.S. can overrule the U.N.

Public opinion was IN FAVOR of the war. I don't know what you're talking about! When asked "should the U.S. go to war with Iraq," the response was 70-75% YES. Got it? YES, for 75% of U.S. citizens.

The small minority who "hate" would never even have a chance to start anything remotely like Nazi Germany. Of course, the majority of Americans are peace-loving. Always have been. Worrying about the U.S. becoming similar to Nazism is just plain ridiculous and a waste of time. There is more of a chance of a golf course opening up on the planet Pluto than the U.S. becoming another Nazism-type country. Where in the world did you get that idea, anyway?

Arrogance is arrogance. It doesn't matter who says it. A statement so arrogant should never be said in front of the world.

We have the right to overrule the UN. But how do you feel about the government spying on you?

Show me one poll that has 100% accuracy. There is none. They ask a bunch of people in the streets or online what they think and gather the answers for the poll. That does not reflect the view of the American public. It only reflects the views of the few people who happen to come across the pollers.
Regardless, the majority of Americans were in favor of the war only if we got UN approval. I know you don't like that concept, but that's what the poll said.


You are underestimating the power of fear and hate.
I got the idea from pre-emption. If we use it as a policy we are asking for trouble.

I wonder, what is your definition of a true patriot?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
No matter what they come up with there will be no turning back on Bush's and his administration's lies. They lied again and again. However they try to spin this new "let's just wait and see till next week or the week after..." the lies aren't reversed. They're already on the record.
You should phrase it this way
Kitt:
"No matter what they come up with, I shall refuse to believe it because I am a very biased liberal who will criticize the Bush administration on anything I can."
How will it be lies if there indeed is proof that there were WMD before the war?
Remember, too, that much of the info of WMD info the Bush administration got was from the U.N. and also from investigations from the former Clinton administration. You would be more accurate to say "the U.N. and former Clinton administration lied."

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
Arrogance is arrogance. It doesn't matter who says it. A statement so arrogant should never be said in front of the world.

We have the right to overrule the UN. But how do you feel about the government spying on you?

Show me one poll that has 100% accuracy. There is none. They ask a bunch of people in the streets or online what they think and gather the answers for the poll. That does not reflect the view of the American public. It only reflects the views of the few people who happen to come across the pollers.
Regardless, the majority of Americans were in favor of the war only if we got UN approval. I know you don't like that concept, but that's what the poll said.


You are underestimating the power of fear and hate.
I got the idea from pre-emption. If we use it as a policy we are asking for trouble.

I wonder, what is your definition of a true patriot?
I would wager that many past presidents have also said that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world. Were they arrogant, too?

Re: the government spying on me... let them. I have nothing to hide. No illegal drugs at my house, no drunk driving, no cheating on taxes, etc. What would they find? Nothing.
I'm glad you admit that the U.S. can overrule the U.N. and do what's right. The #1 priority of the U.S. government is to protect her people, with or without the U.N.

Those polls have a 3-5% margin of error. You will just not admit that most Americans (approximately 3 out of 4) approved of this war. Don't forget polls by telephone; that method is still used. We tried to get U.N. approval, which was a waste of time since France would never have voted with us. So what's the use of trying for U.N. approval? Maybe we should have told the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were to be murdered, "sorry, we can't help you. We don't have U.N. approval!"

Re: power and hate. You are worrying unnecessarily.

What is a true patriot? Someone who backs up the president during a war they darn well know is justified. Supporting action against a country who broke 17 resolutions in the cease-fire agreement.
Someone who knows that the U.S. will never become a Nazi country. :lol:

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

I would wager that many past presidents have also said that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world. Were they arrogant, too?

Re: the government spying on me... let them. I have nothing to hide. No illegal drugs at my house, no drunk driving, no cheating on taxes, etc. What would they find? Nothing.
I'm glad you admit that the U.S. can overrule the U.N. and do what's right. The #1 priority of the U.S. government is to protect her people, with or without the U.N.

Those polls have a 3-5% margin of error. You will just not admit that most Americans (approximately 3 out of 4) approved of this war. Don't forget polls by telephone; that method is still used. We tried to get U.N. approval, which was a waste of time since France would never have voted with us. So what's the use of trying for U.N. approval? Maybe we should have told the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were to be murdered, "sorry, we can't help you. We don't have U.N. approval!"

Re: power and hate. You are worrying unnecessarily.

What is a true patriot? Someone who backs up the president during a war they darn well know is justified. Supporting action against a country who broke 17 resolutions in the cease-fire agreement.
Someone who knows that the U.S. will never become a Nazi country. :lol:

Anyone who believes that they or their country are better than any who came before them is nothing short of arrogant. Humility is something the US should study.

I have nothing to hide either. But something about the fact that my government has every right to spy on me and my family and not tell us they are doing so really angers me! How can it not anger you.


You grew up in the 60's, didn't you? You must have seen the power of fear and hate firsthand. How can you underestimate it?



This war has not been justified in my eyes just yet.

[ABlairican Pie]

I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone saying the U.S.A. is the greatest country in the world. It's a bunch of feel-good stuff any president or politico will make at a Fourth of July picnic speech. Everyone pretty much feels like their country is "the best." Up until a year and a half ago, we had a pretty good claim on being "the greatest country" because of our heritage of liberty. We still have freedom of speech all right, even though if some of us had our way, we'd make sure that Natalie Maines might have a moment to think about a thing or two before submitting that job app to Freedom Fries 'R' Us...:rolleyes:

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone saying the U.S.A. is the greatest country in the world. It's a bunch of feel-good stuff any president or politico will make at a Fourth of July picnic speech. Everyone pretty much feels like their country is "the best." Up until a year and a half ago, we had a pretty good claim on being "the greatest country" because of our heritage of liberty. We still have freedom of speech all right, even though if some of us had our way, we'd make sure that Natalie Maines might have a moment to think about a thing or two before submitting that job app to Freedom Fries 'R' Us...:rolleyes:

I understand how one can be medicated with the statement. There were times when I needed to to hear it myself. To me, though, it seems like blatant arrogance. Nobody is better than anyone else.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
Re: the government spying on me... let them. I have nothing to hide. No illegal drugs at my house, no drunk driving, no cheating on taxes, etc. What would they find? Nothing.
Good Man patriot:
But Fleet, do you confine yourself to the missionary position only? If so call 555-HELL. You'll learn all the latest spying and surveilance methods. You'll be busting deviants and miscreants in their own bedrooms performing their illegal behavior. You can help Johnny Ashcroft nail deviants and miscreants. Put them where they belong...HELL .
JOIN
D eviants
A nd
M iscreants
N ailed

[ABlairican Pie]

But Fleet, if you have nothing to hide, why do need the government to watch you?:confused:

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
But Fleet, if you have nothing to hide, why do need the government to watch you?:confused:
How IS the government watching me?
You seem to be somewhat paranoid about about this. Just go right ahead and live your life... the government will not parachute down and arrest you at your house!

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker

I understand how one can be medicated with the statement. There were times when I needed to to hear it myself. To me, though, it seems like blatant arrogance. Nobody is better than anyone else.
It's not arrogance. It's "patriotism." Something you can use a little of (or a lot). ;)

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
Anyone who believes that they or their country are better than any who came before them is nothing short of arrogant. Humility is something the US should study.

I have nothing to hide either. But something about the fact that my government has every right to spy on me and my family and not tell us they are doing so really angers me! How can it not anger you.

You grew up in the 60's, didn't you? You must have seen the power of fear and hate firsthand. How can you underestimate it?

This war has not been justified in my eyes just yet.
- Again, it is called "patriotism."
- Don't worry about it.
- Yes, I grew up in the '60s, and the threat of the U.S. turning to Nazism back then is the same as today- zero.
- I have a feeling that you will never think this war was justified, even when evidence of WMD is plainly laid out before your eyes (not to mention all of those mass graves).

Quotes:

"In 1991 Saddam killed 500,000 people when they rose up against him. Nobody demonstrated against him then. But now that the United States wants to get rid of the dictator, people are demonstrating against it."

- One of the Iraqi liberation soldiers the U.S. is training at "Camp Freedom" in Hungary.

"We are praying you will stick to your resolve to liberate our country from a dictatorial tyranny over 30 years which has caused the deaths of nearly 2 million men and women, sons and daughters."

- Letter to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair from Iraqi exiles.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet

- Again, it is called "patriotism."
- Don't worry about it.
- Yes, I grew up in the '60s, and the threat of the U.S. turning to Nazism back then is the same as today- zero.
- I have a feeling that you will never think this war was justified, even when evidence of WMD is plainly laid out before your eyes (not to mention all of those mass graves).

Quotes:

"In 1991 Saddam killed 500,000 people when they rose up against him. Nobody demonstrated against him then. But now that the United States wants to get rid of the dictator, people are demonstrating against it."

- One of the Iraqi liberation soldiers the U.S. is training at "Camp Freedom" in Hungary.

"We are praying you will stick to your resolve to liberate our country from a dictatorial tyranny over 30 years which has caused the deaths of nearly 2 million men and women, sons and daughters."

- Letter to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair from Iraqi exiles.

If thats what patriotism is then you can have it! If I have to sell my character to be your version of a patriot forget it! Pride comes before a fall! And we're headed for a big one!

Who cares about WMDs? Maybe everyone--except me! I have some opinions about it but you don't want to hear them.
What will ultimately justify the war to me is when the avarage day in Iraq didn't involve constant danger, disease, war, violence.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker

Who cares about WMDs? Maybe everyone--except me!

If we would have went to war with the Taliban & Al-Qaeda before 9/11, Millions of people would have protested against it, but the lives of about 3000 INNOCENT Americans would have been saved (do you see what I am getting at?). Why do we have to wait to be attacked? Why sould we have to suffer though an N.B.C. 9/11???

If Jim Jong Il used a nuke against S. Korea I don't think people in America would protest against it. But all you protesters see is the image of the biggest superpower in the world, "Bullying" a small arab country.

Saddam brought it on himself!! He had 12 years to disarm. And on 03/17, Bush gave him 24 hours to leave or face war, he did not do so. But has anyone, ever, protested against Saddam in the U.S? NO!!! Why is that:confused: I'm curious, please tell me why.

[Kitt]

You're leaning quite heavily on the disarm Saddamn excuse. It looks as though Saddarmn had disarmed before we went in and killed several thousand Iraqis and before our soldiers died in the process. Soldiers are dying over there everyday. They were told to give up their lives so Saddamn wouldn't drop a mushroom cloud on us or anyone else. Looks like they were fooled into giving up their lives for reasons that no one can as yet explain.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Kitt
You're leaning quite heavily on the disarm Saddamn excuse. It looks as though Saddarmn had disarmed before we went in and killed several thousand Iraqis and before our soldiers died in the process. Soldiers are dying over there everyday. They were told to give up their lives so Saddamn wouldn't drop a mushroom cloud on us or anyone else. Looks like they were fooled into giving up their lives for reasons that no one can as yet explain.

If Saddam would have given us EVIDENCE that he disarmed we wouldn't have HAD to lose about 150 of our brave soldiers.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
I have nothing to hide either. But something about the fact that my government has every right to spy on me and my family and not tell us they are doing so really angers me! How can it not anger you.

Why does it anger you? If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be angered. If national security is on the line, they should be able to spy on whomever they please.

[-*Leah*-]

Originally posted by Three'sCompanyrules
I'm getting sick and tired of liberals comparing Bush to Hitler, Bush is not trying to take over the world as some liberals would like to believe, Bush isn't hurting or torturing Americans at all, like Hitler did in Germany. President Bush had to do what he had to do, with Iraq before something major happend, because if we left Saddam alone and do nothing he would have attacked possible the US or US intrests overseas, and what makes me even more angry at liberals is when they say couldn't we find a more peaceful way, rather then go to war, what in the heck else are we supposed to do hmm, tell me, Saddam wasn't going to leave on his own and would have planned some destruction of some kind towars another country, US intrests overseas, or perhaps somewhere in North America, Saddam also appeared to be in ecxellent health, before we went to Iraq, so we weren't going to wait until he died. They have also found terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq, which Saddam was most likley contrbuting to, also they have found chemical weapons labs, I have seen them on the news, liberals don't seem to get it, that Saddam wouldn't have just gone away, he wouldn't have negociated something with the United States, or any other country to leave Iraq, Saddam is a lier and a very evil person he had to be removed. Yes nobody wanted war, but in certain situations its nescessery, and in this case it was, because Saddam wouldn't have gone peacefully, and most liberals for some reason just can't understand that. People who compare President Bush to Hitler just makes me sick and those people who think Bush and Hitler are close enough to compare to do that then they can have a free pass out of this country. That is very disrespectful to man in charge of the country. Now I dislike Clinton with a passion, and I hated him being in office, but he was in office and I put up with it for long 8 years, so liberals should do the same. Its amazing to see what liberals say, they are trying to find everything wrong with Bush and try to make up things as they go, comaparing Bush to Hitler is very sickening to me, and to me those people who say that have very very little class as far as I'm concerned. :mad: :mad:

I agree. President Bush has did everything that he knew to do to keep American's safe, and maybe going to war with Iraq wasn't the best thing to do at the time, but he did what he thought was best.

[Kitt]

I thought you all had decided that Saddamn was beyond believing about anything. I know that I had. So if Saddamn had "given you evidence" would you have believed him? I was counting on our American intelligence. But unfortunatlely the Bush administration took over our American intellingence and turned it into a propaganda scheme. Now what are we going to do? American and British soldiers have been killed in combat because our government lied to us. How will we know what to believe from here on out if they are willing to lie to the point of committing soldies to risk death?

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Kitt
I thought you all had decided that Saddamn was beyond believing about anything. I know that I had. So if Saddamn had "given you evidence" would you have believed him? I was counting on our American intelligence. But unfortunatlely the Bush administration took over our American intellingence and turned it into a propaganda scheme. Now what are we going to do? American and British soldiers have been killed in combat because our government lied to us. How will we know what to believe from here on out if they are willing to lie to the point of committing soldies to risk death?

If Saddam had given me UNDENIABLE PROOF that he had destroyed all of his WMDs, yes, I would have believed him. But that did not happen, apparently.

The soldiers serving in the U.S. and U.K. military are trained to follow orders, that is what they did (and they did a superb job, I might add!), and that is what they will continue to do until a new, self sufficient government is in place.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1


If Saddam had given me UNDENIABLE PROOF that he had destroyed all of his WMDs, yes, I would have believed him. But that did not happen, apparently.

The soldiers serving in the U.S. and U.K. military are trained to follow orders, that is what they did (and they did a superb job, I might add!), and that is what they will continue to do until a new, self sufficient government is in place. So it's okay with you if I tell your son to jump off a cliff so I can be elected commisoner of baseball? I mean you are justifying lying to the troops. Arent you?

Saddamn could not have given you "undeniable proof". Who the hell do you think you're kidding? Not me!

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Kitt
So it's okay with you if I tell your son to jump off a cliff so I can be elected commisoner of baseball? I mean you are justifying lying to the troops. Arent you?

how did we "Lie" to the troops??

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
If thats what patriotism is then you can have it! If I have to sell my character to be your version of a patriot forget it! Pride comes before a fall! And we're headed for a big one!

Okay, I'll take it! I criticized Clinton back in the '90s, but I was still a patriot. It is possible to have character and still be a patriot (I would think you would know this by now). Anyway, I'll continue to be a patriot and you can continue to be whatever you are (anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-liberating Iraq, or whatever you are).

[Kitt]

I'm curious Fleet. You might not admit that Bush is the biggest liar in the history of presidents of the United States. But he is and he did lie us into war, no matter if you admit that or not, he did. That's the ultimate sin of a government or a president. So, let's say for the sake of argument that you finally find no way around not admitting to that fact. Never mind your justifications about whatever concerinig Iraq or Hussein. I don't want to rehash any of that with you in this inquirery. Don't waste our time with any comments about that. We've all heard it all before. All I want to know is... if it comes to the point where even you have to admit that Bush lied to us all, and the rest of the world, will you still defend him?

[Fleet]

Without a doubt, Clinton is the all-time champ when it comes to lying. Clinton is for sure the biggest liar in the history of presidents. (And the most corrupt.)
Bush did not "lie" us into war. There was no need to "lie" about it. Iraq broke the cease-fire agreement, Bush had every right to resume hostilities. This would have been taken care of in the mid-to-late '90s if we had a pres. who did something about it.
Did Clinton "lie" us into military action against Bosnia, Kosovo and other countries?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet
Without a doubt, Clinton is the all-time champ when it comes to lying. Clinton is for sure the biggest liar in the history of presidents. (And the most corrupt.)
Bush did not "lie" us into war. There was no need to "lie" about it. Iraq broke the cease-fire agreement, Bush had every right to resume hostilities. This would have been taken care of in the mid-to-late '90s if we had a pres. who did something about it.
Did Clinton "lie" us into military action against Bosnia, Kosovo and other countries? You didn't answer the question.

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet
Okay, I'll take it! I criticized Clinton back in the '90s, but I was still a patriot. It is possible to have character and still be a patriot (I would think you would know this by now). Anyway, I'll continue to be a patriot and you can continue to be whatever you are (anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-liberating Iraq, or whatever you are).

I always thought my character made me a patriot. Now I'm told by someone who is, obviously an expert on being a patriot that I am no patriot. I have revealed a lot about myself and my beliefs/opinions to you, so I guess you should know.

Still, I wonder if you actually took note of anything I have said. Your goals seem to be the same as mine: the prosperity of America. Our ideas of exactly what might advance that cause certainly differ. And because of that, you view me as, not only un-American but also, anti-American. I can't help it if thats the way it seems.


Yes, you can continue to look down on anybody who's opinions differ from your own. If it's working for you, you'll do it anyway.


My posts say it all. If you cared enough to listen to what they were saying, you'd know me to be a patriot for Iraqi liberation.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally posted by Fleet
Without a doubt, Clinton is the all-time champ when it comes to lying. Clinton is for sure the biggest liar in the history of presidents. (And the most corrupt.)
Bush did not "lie" us into war. There was no need to "lie" about it. Iraq broke the cease-fire agreement, Bush had every right to resume hostilities. This would have been taken care of in the mid-to-late '90s if we had a pres. who did something about it.
Did Clinton "lie" us into military action against Bosnia, Kosovo and other countries?

Uhhh, we went to war over Saddam breaking a cease-fire agreement?? First I heard about this. First it was about the (now-overhyped/LIED-ABOUT) WMDs, then it was about Iraqi liberation, now it's about violating a cease-fire agreement. When was this???:confused:

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
Uhhh, we went to war over Saddam breaking a cease-fire agreement?? First I heard about this. First it was about the (now-overhyped/LIED-ABOUT) WMDs, then it was about Iraqi liberation, now it's about violating a cease-fire agreement. When was this???:confused:
It's been happening since 1991, In the cease-fire agreement, the iraqi's agreed that they would not fire at U.S. planes patrolling the "No-Fly" zone. But everytime we were patrolling, they would fire at us.

(And if you don't know, the "No-Fly" zone was established to protect the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds in the north.)

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
It's been happening since 1991, In the cease-fire agreement, the iraqi's agreed that they would not fire at U.S. planes patrolling the "No-Fly" zone.) No they didn't. If you read the cease fire the no fly is just a trumped piece of asterick added on with no approval by anyone.
But that isn''t the question anyway. The question is why did we, I said why did we, I said why did we go to war with Iraq? You didn't reply to my other post. Have you run out of answers already. Not that you ever had any, mind you, but I was just wondering.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Kitt
No they didn't. If you read the cease fire the no fly is just a trumped piece of asterick added on with no approval by anyone
Are you fuçking blind? Don't you watch the news? I'm sick of hearing your anti-war anti-american propaganda.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
You didn't answer the question.
If the question is why did we go to war with Iraq...

1. Because they broke 17 U.N. resolutions, which shows they were not co-operating under the cease-fire agreement.
2. Because Iraq (Saddam) did not offer proof that he destroyed weapons he agreed to destroy when the cease-fire agreement was signed.
3. To liberate the Iraqis and end the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who were being tortured and murdered.

Now, answer my question:
Did Clinton "lie" us into Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Captain ABlairica
Uhhh, we went to war over Saddam breaking a cease-fire agreement?? First I heard about this. First it was about the (now-overhyped/LIED-ABOUT) WMDs, then it was about Iraqi liberation, now it's about violating a cease-fire agreement. When was this???:confused:
Maybe if you stopped hibernating during the winter months, you would know what was going on since the early '90s!

[Fleet]

Originally posted by M82A1
I'm sick of hearing your anti-war anti-american propaganda.
:lol:

An accurate description.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
I always thought my character made me a patriot. Now I'm told by someone who is, obviously an expert on being a patriot that I am no patriot. I have revealed a lot about myself and my beliefs/opinions to you, so I guess you should know.

Still, I wonder if you actually took note of anything I have said. Your goals seem to be the same as mine: the prosperity of America. Our ideas of exactly what might advance that cause certainly differ. And because of that, you view me as, not only un-American but also, anti-American. I can't help it if thats the way it seems.

My posts say it all. If you cared enough to listen to what they were saying, you'd know me to be a patriot for Iraqi liberation.
Yeah, your posts says it all alright!

Quote by Max Whittaker...

"And you are all fooling yourselves if you think that the U.S. cannot stoop so low as Nazi Germany."

A completely ridiculous statement. I'll say it again- you are not a patriot and have very little faith in the United States of America.

"Patriot"---

A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
Are you fuçking blind? Don't you watch the news? I'm sick of hearing your anti-war anti-american propaganda. I don't know who you think you are talking to me in that way. It's disgusting. No, I'm not blind and I do you one better than watching the news. I read. Try it some time. You just might find that what I said is exactly correct.
Now, in the future, might you be capable of not saying things to me that would, in person, warrant a repononse from me that could well leave you sorry you'd said it?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Fleet

"Patriot"---

A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country. So then you would have supported the genocidal policies of the United States in regards to the Ameican Indians? And you would have supported the policy of the United States, slavery, in regards to the Africans? And you would have considered yourself a patriot for lending your support to these policies? Are you a man without a concience? Do you have a mind of your own? Do just believe in whatever you are told by your version of the United States Government? And for that shockingly lazy way of going through life, you label yourself a patriot? And anyone who disagrees with you,you can not possibly consider them to be a patriot? Is that what you are saying when you so confidentlally and arrogantly label Max as someone who is below your station? That arrogance, by the way, was how this or some other thread -- i don't remember which -- got started. You've convinced me that arrongance is on the loose in the United States. If you can tell Max that he is not a patriot based on your mindless version of it, then your overblown rhetoric is classic arrogance.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Kitt
I don't know who you think you are talking to me in that way. It's disgusting. No, I'm not blind and I do you one better than watching the news. I read. Try it some time. You just might find that what I said is exactly correct.
Now, in the future, might you be capable of not saying things to me that would, in person, warrant a repononse from me that could well leave you sorry you'd said it?
Oooo, a petty threat. listen, I can talk to whom-ever I want, any way I want, because, last time I checked, this IS America, and there is a little thing in the constitution called: "The Freedom Of Speech" act, and I choose to express my right.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Kitt
So then you would have supported the genocidal policies of the United States in regards to the Ameican Indians? And you would have supported the policy of the United States, slavery, in regards to the Africans? And you would have considered yourself a patriot for lending your support to these policies? Are you a man without a concience? Do you have a mind of your own? Do just believe in whatever you are told by your version of the United States Government? And for that shockingly lazy way of going through life, you label yourself a patriot? And anyone who disagrees with you,you can not possibly consider them to be a patriot? Is that what you are saying when you so confidentlally and arrogantly label Max as someone who is below your station? That arrogance, by the way, was how this or some other thread -- i don't remember which -- got started. You've convinced me that arrongance is on the loose in the United States. If you can tell Max that he is not a patriot based on your mindless version of it, then your overblown rhetoric is classic arrogance.
"genocidal policies of the United States in regards to the Ameican Indians"??? If I remember correctly, it was the british who first gave smallpox infected blankets to the american indians.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
Oooo, a petty threat. listen, I can talk to whom-ever I want, any way I want, because, last time I checked, this IS America, and there is a little thing in the constitution called: "The Freedom Of Speech" act, and I choose to express my right. On a side note: That cliche "and there is a little thing...insert point here... is about as original as your saying to me "****ing..." There is nothiing I could say to you that would do you more of a disservice to you than what you yourself post. You undermine any possibily that one could think that you have any semblance of integrity.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
"genocidal policies of the United States in regards to the Ameican Indians"??? If I remember correctly, it was the british who first gave smallpox infected blankets to the american indians. If you don't know that the US planned and peformed genocide on the American Indians in the mid 1800's then your ignorance is beyond the time I have, or whoud take, to inform you. Your statment puts an end to any possibility that you have a clue about American history.

[M82A1]

let me ask you a serious question: how old are you, because your insults make you sound like a 5 year old.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
let me ask you a serious question: how old are you, because your insults make you sound like a 5 year old. They're not insults, they're facts, borne out by most everything you post.

[M82A1]

No, I was actually asking: how old are you?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
No, I was actually asking: how old are you? Yes, and I was ansering as I saw fit. There is no reason for me to placate you.

[BrandonS]

Originally posted by M82A1
"genocidal policies of the United States in regards to the Ameican Indians"??? If I remember correctly, it was the british who first gave smallpox infected blankets to the american indians.
Look, no one was more for the war in Iraq that I was and am, but here you are just inaccurate. The U.S. policy towards the Indians was very genocidal. One of the Indian chiefs who tried the hardest to be our friend was Black Kettle. Black Kettle and his wife were shot in the back by Custer's troops as they fled an unprovoked dawn attack on their sleeping village on government granted Indian land. This is one of thousands of similar stories of Indians being exterminated as they tried to comply with U.S. government orders.

[M82A1]

I'm not even going to waste my time with you anymore, I not eveh going to stoop to your low-brow level and insult you personally.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by BrandonS
Look, no one was more for the war in Iraq that I was and am, but here you are just inaccurate. The U.S. policy towards the Indians was very genocidal. One of the Indian chiefs who tried the hardest to be our friend was Black Kettle. Black Kettle and his wife were shot in the back by Custer's troops as they fled an unprovoked dawn attack on their sleeping village on government granted Indian land. This is one of thousands of similar stories of Indians being exterminated as they tried to comply with U.S. government orders.

Look, I'm not saying the that the Americans never waged a genocidal war againts the indians, but what I said was, that the British were the first to do so.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
Look, I'm not saying the that the Americans never waged a genocidal war againts the indians, but what I said was, that the British were the first to do so. Posted by M82A1:
"genocidal policies of the United States in regards to the Ameican Indians"???

Was that a rhetorical question or were you actually asking if the United States had policies of genocide regarding the Ameican Indians? I would say the answer is you honest to goodness thought you knew what you were talking about. You didn't though.

That's some commically serious backpeddling.

[M82A1]

I you would take that joint out of your mouth and read it again, you would note that I was quoting your previous post.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by M82A1
I you would take that joint out of your mouth and read it again, you would note that I was quoting your previous post. I know what you were doing. The pont you were trying to make, with your added on question marks, was that I was wrong about the United States having a genocidal policy. You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole with each comment you make.

[M82A1]

You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole with each comment you make.
Do you really think I give a ****? That's an obvious difference between you and I: You seem to care what people think, I don't.:D

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by Fleet
Yeah, your posts says it all alright!

Quote by Max Whittaker...

"And you are all fooling yourselves if you think that the U.S. cannot stoop so low as Nazi Germany."

A completely ridiculous statement. I'll say it again- you are not a patriot and have very little faith in the United States of America.

"Patriot"---

A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country.

I love, support and will defend my country. My criticism of the US government is born out of my love for my country. Their conduct over the last several administrations does not give it the right to represent the the good people of America in the way it has.

I support the good American people, who are my country. I believe in them to do what is right, not what their gov't tells them is right.

I shall protect these people if the need arises. I'll die for them; not the government.


Kitt is correct. You are arrogant. I'm sorry you refuse to grow.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally posted by M82A1
Do you really think I give a ****? That's an obvious difference between you and I: You seem to care what people think, I don't.:D

Well, THAT says something about you right there!!!!:lol:

[Max Whittaker]

Originally posted by M82A1
Do you really think I give a ****?


You might want to step back and take a few deep breaths before you respond to a post that angers or offends you. Eliminating words such as the one you used from your vocaulary couldn't hurt either.

[M82A1]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
You might want to step back and take a few deep breaths before you respond to a post that angers or offends you. Eliminating words such as the one you used from your vocaulary couldn't hurt either.
I know you're right, but I can't just let someone insult me like that, I can't just walk away. It's just not who I am.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Max Whittaker
I love, support and will defend my country. My criticism of the US government is born out of my love for my country. Their conduct over the last several administrations does not give it the right to represent the the good people of America in the way it has.

Kitt is correct. You are arrogant. I'm sorry you refuse to grow.
If you love and support your country, why would think it's possible that the U.S. can be another Nazi Germany when there is no indication whatsoever that will happen.

Look who is talking about arrogance. You will never hear me say that I'm worried the U.S. will become Nazi! Maybe when you realize that, you will grow.

[dlemond]

All these Nazi analogies are absolute crap from bitter deluded people who are blinded by their own liberal fanatacism. If you think any comparison to Nazi Germany is viable in regard to the US future, I suggest you take your ignorant self out of this country and get your f-ed up head examined before returning.

You've got issues when you let your political leanings distort the way you look at everything.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by dlemond
All these Nazi analogies are absolute crap from bitter deluded people who are blinded by their own liberal fanatacism. If you think any comparison to Nazi Germany is viable in regard to the US future, I suggest you take your ignorant self out of this country and get your f-ed up head examined before returning.

You've got issues when you let your political leanings distort the way you look at everything.
Exactly!
This "fear" that the U.S. is going to "take over" the world or become "Nazi-like" is, to put it bluntly, the height of stupidity.
The U.S. has, and will continue to, help the rest of the world in many ways (many times at the cost of our people's- soldiers'- lives).
Becoming a "Nazi" nation would mean we would no longer be a free country and hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to keep our freedom. And, our freedom will continue, at a cost of future American lives, if necessary.

[Max Whittaker]

It's merely a warning. Never let your guard down. Never stop questioning in you mind what's right and wrong. I you do, anything can happen. We're only human. You missed what I was tring to say because you are frightened of the idea. I don't blame you. Nevertheless, the idea stands as a worse case scenario for what could happen if we all fall into the government's place and stop thinking for ourselves.

I don't see any plainer way of saying it. If you can misinterpret it now, I'll never be able to convince you. But what I've been trying to say is what people have said before.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally posted by dlemond
All these Nazi analogies are absolute crap from bitter deluded people who are blinded by their own liberal fanatacism. If you think any comparison to Nazi Germany is viable in regard to the US future, I suggest you take your ignorant self out of this country and get your f-ed up head examined before returning.

You've got issues when you let your political leanings distort the way you look at everything.

Right back atcha there!!!:rolleyes: Famous last words.

Obviously you guys have barely any clue about history or about the psychology of dictatorships. The author is drawing ANALOGIES about Bush and Hitler. It's NOT about Dubya making human lampshades or any gruesome things like that, it's about comparing two lives and their similarities which have caused our country to renounce any vestige of liberty in the name of "National security." I'm sure Hitler's followers felt the same way when they thought he was God's gift to Germany. It's only AFTER the fact that we know how dangerous he was.

We seem to forget or ignore that the draconian measures directed at persons of Middle Eastern descent after 9/11 will come back to get US. It's like the verse that goes:

When they came for the socialists, I did not speak up, because I was not a socialist.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew.
When they came for the gays, I did not speak up, because I was not gay.
They then came for me, but by that time, there was no one to speak up for me.

In other words, don't be too suprised when the Patriot/Homeland Security Acts come to bite YOU on the ass.

[Fleet]

Please tell us when you come back to the real world.

I'll say it again... America will remain a free country (the U.S. citizens will see to that). The U.S. government does not have the power to take our freedom. You are confusing the Patriot/Homeland Security Act with Nazism. They are both light-years apart. Someone should really teach you that.

[Kitt]

What do you specifically know about the Patriot Act, Fleet?

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Kitt
What do you specifically know about the Patriot Act, Fleet?
I know it won't turn this country in a Nazi-like Germany.

[Kitt]

Mega Yikes! Wouldn't you say?

Making it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping of U.S. citizens under the authority of the shadowy, top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Sections 101, 102 and 107)
Permitting the government, under certain circumstances, to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court altogether and conduct warrantless wiretaps and searches. (Sections 103 and 104)
Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)
Creating a new category of “domestic security surveillance” that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance under Title III. (Section 122)
Using an overbroad definition of terrorism that could cover some protest tactics such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico as a new predicate for criminal wiretapping and other electronic surveillance. (Sections 120 and 121)
Providing for general surveillance orders covering multiple functions of high tech devices, and by further expanding pen register and trap and trace authority for intelligence surveillance of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. (Sections 107 and 124)
Creating a new, separate crime of using encryption technology that could add five years to any sentence for crimes committed with a computer. (Section 404)
Expanding nationwide search warrants so they do not have to meet even the broad definition of terrorism in the USA PATRIOT Act. (Section 125)
Giving the government secret access to credit reports without consent and without judicial process. (Section 126)
Enhancing the government’s ability to obtain sensitive information without prior judicial approval by creating administrative subpoenas and providing new penalties for failure to comply with written demands for records. (Sections 128 and 129)
Allowing for the sampling and cataloguing of innocent Americans’ genetic information without court order and without consent. (Sections 301-306)
Permitting, without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens to be shared with local and state law enforcement. (Section 311)
Terminating court-approved limits on police spying, which were initially put in place to prevent McCarthy-style law enforcement persecution based on political or religious affiliation. (Section 312)
Permitting searches, wiretaps and surveillance of United States citizens on behalf of foreign governments – including dictatorships and human rights abusers – in the absence of Senate-approved treaties. (Sections 321-22)
Diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy; specifically, by

Authorizing secret arrests in immigration and other cases, such as material witness warrants, where the detained person is not criminally charged. (Section 201)
Threatening public health by severely restricting access to crucial information about environmental health risks posed by facilities that use dangerous chemicals. (Section 202)
Harming fair trial rights for American citizens and other defendants by limiting defense attorneys from challenging the use of secret evidence in criminal cases. (Section 204)
Gagging grand jury witnesses in terrorism cases to bar them from discussing their testimony with the media or the general public, thus preventing them from defending themselves against rumor-mongering and denying the public information it has a right to receive under the First Amendment. (Section 206)
Diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically, by

Granting immunity to businesses that provide information to the government in terrorism investigations, even if their actions are taken with disregard for their customers’ privacy or other rights and show reckless disregard for the truth. Such immunity could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft’s “Operation TIPS.” (Section 313)
Undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overbroad definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext; specifically by

Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)
Creating 15 new death penalties, including a new death penalty for “terrorism” under a definition which could cover acts of protest such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, if death results. (Section 411)
Further criminalizing association – without any intent to commit specific terrorism crimes – by broadening the crime of providing material support to terrorism, even if support is not given to any organization listed as a terrorist organization by the government. (Section 402)
Permitting arrests and extraditions of Americans to any foreign country – including those whose governments do not respect the rule of law or human rights – in the absence of a Senate-approved treaty and without allowing an American judge to consider the extraditing country’s legal system or human rights record. (Section 322)
Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically by

Undercutting trust between police departments and immigrant communities by opening sensitive visa files to local police for the enforcement of complex immigration laws. (Section 311)
Targeting undocumented workers with extended jail terms for common immigration offenses. (Section 502)
Providing for summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism, even of lawful permanent residents, whom the Attorney General says are a threat to national security. (Section 503)
Completely abolishing fair hearings for lawful permanent residents convicted of even minor criminal offenses through a retroactive “expedited removal” procedure, and preventing any court from questioning the government’s unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War. (Section 504)
Allowing the Attorney General to deport an immigrant to any country in the world, even if there is no effective government in such a country. (Section 506)
Given the bipartisan controversy

[ABlairican Pie]

I am suprised people in this country have so little regard for the Patriot Act and what it will do to them. See, it's "other people" that will be victims of it, we like to believe, people of Middle Eastern descent, activists, etc. I suppose we'd all like it we all complied with our Friendly Neighborhood(watch) Government and lived out our boring complacent lives with nary a peep. Never have to question it about everything because the government knows what's better for us than we do. It's for our own good, and besides we (s)elected Dubya anyway.

People, the whole "terrorist" thing is bogus. When Bush said over a year and a half ago that "the war on terrorism will go on for a long time, we don't know how long," the whole thing was a ruse to justify installing his Orwellian police state that has sweeping powers of surveillance and intimidation. Isn't this worse than the things we fear??