# Project for the New American Century



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

From ABCnews.com, March 10, 2003
link for text below

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: *Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. *

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam. 

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, *the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." *

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon. 

*The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," *according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War. 

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy. 


Links to Bush Administration

Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination." 

The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power," they wrote, foreshadowing the debate currently under way in the United Nations. 

*Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. * As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board. 

According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that defended American security and American interests. And understanding that American leadership was key to not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world." 


Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy

After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in position as a potential threat, Kristol told Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of terrible things were really being loosed upon the world because America was being too timid, and too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era." In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S. interests around the globe. 

Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but through the rest of his presidency and the beginning of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam lay dormant — until September 2001. 

*"Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the president to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required," *said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the president. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House." 

Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the president feel that he has to live up to their definitions of manliness, their definitions of success and fear, their definitions of failure." 

Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get its message out. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he said. 


Predicting Vindication

Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq, *Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost human lives.* But, he said, he would also feel responsible if "something terrible" happened because of U.S. inaction. 

Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's traditional allies oppose military action against Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I think what we've learned over the last 10 years is that America has to lead. Other countries won't act. They will follow us, but they won't do it on their own," he said. 

Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq. 

This report originally aired on Nightline on March 5, 2003.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, a very distressing insight into how the "underside" of American politics can suddenly come to light in the form of military action (aka "vindication"). I did not see the item on ABC news (if I watch US news, it is on CBS, but I tend to watch CBC to keep a Canadian perspective in the news), but I checked out the hyperlink to the ABC web site. 

Did you see the MacDonald (sp?) item on last night's CBC news about this form of "committee" behind the Bush foreign policies?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G. typed out on his Dell:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Did you see the MacDonald (sp?) item on last night's CBC news about this form of "committee" behind the Bush foreign policies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I did. I even called and left a message with the transcript service to order a transcript of last night's "The National", but strangely enough, have yet to receive a return call.

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia."


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia."*

I think you and Dr. G have been quoting from the wrong book lately. Might I suggest a different one?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JP - umm I think Michael has it right that should be from Orwell's "1984" .
••••
Sure sounds like fascism to me - It walks like a duck, talks like a duck............
Towing the Statue of Liberty home seems like an appropriate thing for France to do.

See the sign at the airports in the US " All vehicles subject to search" Think that won't be abused.  
I mean the US has always had real police state tendencies and this terrorism situation has just given that element a reason to be abusive. Far more people will be and are being killed on the highways of the US and that has been "acceptable".
Thousands die from poor health access IN THE US - that's "acceptable".
Ingrained racism, huge numbers of minorities in jails..that's "acceptable.
But 100 billion on a remote threat...GIVE ME A BREAK  
Hey this isn't "1984" ....it's Dr. Strangelove, I just wish Bush would ride one of the bombs down


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*Sure sounds like fascism to me*

You might be interested in this book, then.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole,
So ABC News doesn't sit well with you?
Orwell was an idiot?

Hard to stomach? Fascism is always painful going down and causes gastric distress.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfp, "Chicken Little" may have been wrong, but this is NOT a children's game being played, nor a personified story being told. Now, might I suggest "Animal Farm" if you like personified stories about barnyard characters?

FYI, being "lumped in" with Macspectrum and Macdoc is not problematic for me (although I cannot speak for the two of them).


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*Orwell was an idiot?*

I don't think Orwell was an idiot, I just think that you and Dr. G are wrong claiming that we've entered an era of NewSpeak, and in doing so you're diluting the value of Orwell's work (since, should such a thing ever actually happen, the two of you would be like the little boy who cried wolf).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Chicken Little wrong? Never !! He was a misunderstood genius !! 

Dr. G.,
I don't mind you being lumped in with me although I cannot speak for MacDoc.

 

As Tom Freidman, of the NY Times, said today on Oprah. "Israel won a war in 6 days and has been fighting the 7th day ever since."
Kinda' biblical, eh?

I fear history, as a bad hamburger, may repeat itself.

PS - Lawrence Eagleburger, former Sec. of State under Bush 1,upon reviewing a list of 7 senior White House "players", (including Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz,...) said today on CNN's Crossfiire,* "that 3 or 4 of them were happy diplomacy failed."*

Read that again; * "that 3 or 4 of them were happy diplomacy failed."*

So can anyone honestly believe that this administration doesn't deserve the moniker of "war monger?"

I got to give him credit for being honest, but it scared the **** out of me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfp, I fear that if "The Brotherhood and Big Brother" ever came into being, Macspectrum and I would be among the first to be imprisoned (or worse). There would be no woodcutters to save us, we would not pass "Go" and collect $200, and the time for playing innocent children's games would be over for both of us.

If the truth be known, since you are an educated person with the conviction of his beliefs, then you too, eventually, would be "taken away" to room 101. People like you are as dangerous to Big Brother as Macspectrum and me, in that while we may not agree on certain issues, you have at least thought through these situations and have arrived at your own opinion. This is, in my opinion and understanding of "1984" not Brotherhood material.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

jfp - happy with the US? - then move there, hey taxes are lower...land of the free, home of brave...go for it....your attitude here speaks well for your success there.

I prefer the company of Canadians such as Dr. G and Michael anyway.....quite happy to be "lumped in".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc/Macspectrum/Dr.G. (aka Marc) -- the three aMigoes ride at dawn for "truth justice and the Canadian way" (that is our part in reclaiming Superman, originated by a Canadian, back to Canada). 

I would like to say one thing -- while I disagree with much of what jfp says, he DOES have a right to freely express his views. Some of the posts are getting a bit vindictive and I feel that in the interest of an honest and open debate, we should try to "tone down" the possible insults and focus upon the purpose of our discussions. I don't want to stiffle debate, but I would like to see it carried forth in a manner which is respectful of all views.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*jfp - happy with the US? - then move there, hey taxes are lower...land of the free, home of brave...go for it....*

Where did I claim that I was happy with the US? While I think the US is right to invade Iraq (and I'm disgusted that Canada isn't taking part, but at the same time I'm not surprised), that doesn't mean I prefer the US over Canada.

Your comment that I should move there, though, reeks of the grade school taunt "if you like it so much, why don't you marry it?" Surely you can do better?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G. typed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...in the interest of an honest and open debate, we should try to "tone down" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dire situations sometimes fuel people's feelings, thoughts and writings. We are in a dire situation.

War is a very messy business.

There should be heated debate. I for one don't mind if my ego gets bruised. It is a miniscule price compared to the ultimate price others will pay.

People will die. Parents will lose children. Children will lose parents. Siblings will never see each other, nor know the joy of growing up with a brother or sister.

A little verbal jousting or jostling does not worry me in the least. I have my convictions to protect and comfort me. I am sure others have theirs.

Although I understand and appreciate your peace keeping role, Dr. G., I would far prefer a war of words than what we are about to witness in less than a day.

I ask that all ehMac members make their views known, no matter what their views are. This is part of being in a democracy (I realise that the Mayor does have final say over posts) and in a democracy one should NEVER feel the need to edit one's self. How else can we learn if not through debate?

In some very small way, by expressing our thoughts, we honour those that paid the ultimate price for the freedom we enjoy today. Otherwise they died in vain.

"No quarter asked for. None given."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep you nailed it perfectly - "grade school taunt" as that's exactly the attitude your "link" implied...I'm always happy to respond in kind. You don't like sarcasm and being belittled or told to go move to the US ?? .....then don't invite it.
If you want to argue and provide some useful information that the US is not moving to fascism and a police state be my guest.

This regime in the US is NOT representative of the historical ideals of the "Great Experiment" but is representative of certain tendencies in US foriegn policy that goes through cycles between imperialism and isolationism.
Until now there were offsetting "empires" to keep the US in check - right now there is a vacuum and the PNAC headspace is being implemented without the geo-political checks that the cold war provided.
Indeed one of the good things I see in the current situation is that Europe is becoming an offset to the US.
This is seen in the growth in "wars" of farm subsidies, software standards, bio-tech crops and cultural imperialism issues.

Tony Blair made a good case for the war in parliament today in Britain...what was remarkable was how close the US IS to the condition Blair defined as "lack of freedom". Supression of dissent in particular.
I'm not the only one that feels there are extremely worrying parallels with Nazi Germany....there is lots to consider in the posts about that. It's hardly crying wolf in discussing ominous trends in the world's only superpower....that we happen to dwell next to.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole's logic:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> macspectrum missed:
I've yet to see any compelling evidence that there's widespread suppression of dissent in the US. If that were the case, would there be protests in the streets? Numerous web sites devoted to stating the position of the anti-war movement? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah now I see. Alleged lack of widspread supression of dissent in the U.S. justifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Very good jfpoole.
Go directly to 16000 PA Avenue. A job is waiting for you in the Dept. of Truth.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*Ah now I see. Alleged lack of widspread supression of dissent in the U.S. justifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq.*

Where did I say this was the case? Do you deliberately miscontrue what people say when you can't back up your position, or are you just trying to annoy people?

You still haven't pointed out any sort of widespread supression of dissent, which leads me to belive that there isn't any, and the lot of you are acting like chicken little.

Of course, you'd have less material to bash the US with, but I'm sure you'd find some other imaginary problem to whine about.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

I hope the Americans remove a dictator that has suppressed his people for years, but has never really been seen on the news due to his control on his country.

I hope one of those Smart Bombs gets Saddam Hussein right up the ying yang and his family along with it. 

Most of the US actions are published in the media, they are seen and then "people" seem to form opinions based on what a military analyst from CNN or MSNBC are paid to provide. They want ratings, and they don't give a crap about the truth...

I think if you are against the war, you should really take a good look at Saddam Hussein, the man, and his actions....I don't agree that the people of IRAQ should suffer form this war, but several individuals want to protect him, well, fine, you get a bullet too...

Time to get rid of this dictator, and I publically hope that he is killed by Friday morning....

Cheers,

RtC


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

And I forgot, most of you in here need to take a debating class or two, a good debate does not attack the individual or their ideas, but tries to reach a conclusion based on the testimony and arguments of the group.

Telling one dude to F$#% off or that he is wrong, is not the way to cultivate a good community, it just forms resentment between the parties.. several individuals on this forum are thinking about jumping ship, thought I'd warn everyone... I think ehMac has gone from being a constructive, and helpful resource to a cheap argument hall....

Cheers,

RtC


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

www.google.ca 

type in "Iraq anti-war"

Let me know when you finish reading the 806 hits.

Then let me know how many of these sites you saw on CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*Then let me know how many of these sites you saw on CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC.*

Let's see.

There's this link, and this link, and this link, and this link, all within the first few pages.

Remind me what point you were trying to prove again?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Now compare the coverage of the "protest events" to the coverage of the "Showdown: Iraq"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Can we all just stop and take a breath here? One of the reasons that I haven't been checking in here as often as I used to is because of the deep scorn I seem to be getting from people whom I consider to be my friends. 

All for expressing a dissenting opinion to the leftish sentiments of so many here at ehmac.

I think that the US is fighting the good fight, that Canada is currently being run by a moron who has abdicated all resonsibility to the truth (while filling his own pockets with our tax dollars and living like the Kings of old), that Saddam is a murderous psychopath who will not respond to any sort of "negotiations" or UN resolutions and who poses a real and imminent threat to everyone on the planet unless he is removed. ASAP. 

I also firmly believe that we, here in Canada, will suffer in the coming days and years because of Jean Cretiens ill-advised political decisions at this crucial juncture. Both historically, and in real terms.

Big time.

But when I express these opinions freely and openly, I am told...by people I like and respect...to "go join the US military" or am told that I am some sort of raving far-right-wing lunatic.

Jfpoole is also told to "move to the US" for expressing a similar opinion. One that is shared by more than half of the people on this continent, by the way.   

Is this fair? Is it reality?

Is ehmac in danger of devolving into a forum of failed leftist ideals while shouting down any dissenting voice? Will these same loud voices, that try desperately to drown out all opposing opinions, actually admit that they were terribly, horribly wrong a few months from now, when the real truths are apparent to all of us?

Stay tuned.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt missed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Dr. G. typed:

quote:
...in the interest of an honest and open debate, we should try to "tone down" 

macspectrum wrote:

Dire situations sometimes fuel people's feelings, thoughts and writings. We are in a dire situation.

War is a very messy business.

There should be heated debate. I for one don't mind if my ego gets bruised. It is a miniscule price compared to the ultimate price others will pay.

People will die. Parents will lose children. Children will lose parents. Siblings will never see each other, nor know the joy of growing up with a brother or sister.

A little verbal jousting or jostling does not worry me in the least. I have my convictions to protect and comfort me. I am sure others have theirs.

Although I understand and appreciate your peace keeping role, Dr. G., I would far prefer a war of words than what we are about to witness in less than a day.

I ask that all ehMac members make their views known, no matter what their views are. This is part of being in a democracy (I realise that the Mayor does have final say over posts) and in a democracy one should NEVER feel the need to edit one's self. How else can we learn if not through debate?

In some very small way, by expressing our thoughts, we honour those that paid the ultimate price for the freedom we enjoy today. Otherwise they died in vain.

"No quarter asked for. None given." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I have never meant to scorn anyone, and if I have then I'd like to apologise right now. As I have stated a few times now, my biggest issue with the whole thing is not the war itself, but what may happen after the war.

Will the US stop after Iraq, or move on to [insert another bad guy here (Kim Jong Il springs to mind)]? Will they leave a peace keeping force? Will the region become incredibly unstable and will we slip into WW3?

Also, remembering that being Anti war is not the same as being Pro Saddam by any stretch.

--PB


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*Now compare the coverage of the "protest events" to the coverage of the "Showdown: Iraq"*

How does this amount to suppression? The websites are up, and are easily accessed. As you yourself have demonstrated, simply typing "anti-war iraq" into Google returns a plethora of links talking about the anti-war movement, both here and abroad.

Just because the media has moved on from the big protests that occured a month ago to the war that's about to break out doesn't mean they're trying to suppress the anti-war movement. It just means the anti-war movement hasn't done anything noteworthy lately (a sentiment that I'd tend to agree with).

Oh, and if you're trying to claim that the US is becoming a facist state, then it's generally the _government_ that has to do the suppressing.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*macnutt missed:*

Did you ever think that macnutt read that and that that it wasn't sufficient justification for treating other people here on the forum poorly?

Once again I see you trying to drown out other people by posting the same thing over and over again. Perhaps it's time to stop?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

How much can we believe in the news campaign? 
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4276879,00.html 

Jay Rayner tells how the war of words opens another

War on Terrorism: Observer special
War in Afghanistan: Observer special

Sunday October 14, 2001
The Observer

Tayseer Allouni knew exactly what to do when the first bombs started dropping on the Afghan capital last Sunday night. As Kabul correspondent for al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic news station and the only television network with a presence in the city, he would have to be the eyes of the world. 

He turned the bureau's news camera on the night sky to record the tracer fire now arcing impotently towards the incoming missiles. The pictures were uploaded, via al-Jazeera's 24-hour satellite link, to the channel's headquarters in Qatar, 1,200 miles away. From there they were picked up by broadcasters across the world.

In London, the BBC's news producers saw the pictures and immediately called the three correspondents they had managed to station in northern Afghanistan with the opposition Northern Alliance on their satellite phones. The BBC's journalists on the ground knew nothing of the attacks. They had no way of knowing - Kabul is miles away across a country with no modern communications network.

The correspondents, including John Simpson, had to be told by London that the attack had started so that, a few minutes later, they could repeat the news back to the viewers in Britain. 'It was all window-dressing,' one BBC producer said last week. 'The reporters in Afghanistan didn't have a clue what was going on.'

Richard Sambrook, head of news for the BBC, put it more delicately. 'Of course, we told our correspondents what we knew in London,' he said, 'But you don't just look to someone like John Simpson for a report on what happened where they are 10 minutes ago. You want analysis.' 

If ever there was a symbol of the challenges the media are facing in covering the conflict, it is the distance the echo from those falling bombs had to travel before it could be reported. There is a vast hunger for information and the mass media with which to deliver it. 

And yet this is a war without a frontline upon which to station reporters. Unlike the Gulf War, when Peter Arnett of CNN was stationed in Baghdad, and the Kosovo crisis, when Simpson was in Belgrade, the Western media have no independent sources inside the battle zone. 

'This will be a particularly difficult war for us to cover,' says the BBC's defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan, now in Pakistan. 'Most of the action will be invisible and there are no independent reporters able to challenge the official version of events.' 

As things stand, incidents such as the bombing of a refugee column during the Kosovo crisis - first denied by Nato, and only admitted to when journalists arrived at the scene - will this time round remain unchallenged. 

There is, simply, an aching information vacuum at the centre of this war on terrorism, which sources on both sides of the conflict - both governments and terrorists - are trying to fill. The result is an increasingly difficult relationship between the US and British governments on one side and Western journalists, who are not used to being brought to heel, on the other. This weekend's announcement that the Blair Government is to follow President Bush's lead by calling on UK broadcasters to think carefully before allowing video-taped messages from Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network on to the air, is proof of how tense that relationship has become. In this conflict the mass media has become as much of a weapon as the Tomahawk missiles launched from the Arabian sea last weekend, only one that's less easily targeted. 



The first of those contentious videos aired on Sunday night, as the bombs were dropping. One of Osama bin Laden's couriers emerged in Kabul to deliver a video-taped message for the world from his leader to the al-Jazeera bureau. It was broadcast live to Qatar. 

'From a journalistic point of view, the mere fact that the tape included bin Laden's face for the first time since 11 September made it important,' says Yosri Fouda, deputy executive director of al-Jazeera's London bureau. 'And he expressed joy at what had happened, which was also important.' 

The next day, Tony Blair, dismayed at bin Laden's assertion that the West was mounting a war on Islam, appeared on the same channel to rebut the allegation. 

By the end of the week, however, following al-Jazeera's decision to screen another al-Qaeda message, this time promising more terrorist attacks, the news channel was no longer a route to hostile Arabic public opinion for the Western alliance. Now it was interpreted as a part of the hostile public opinion. 

According to Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser to President Bush, the tapes could contain coded messages to terrorist cells, spurring them into action. In a telephone conference call last Wednesday morning with the presidents of the big five US networks, she called on them to stop broadcasting the messages. 

Afterwards, the US broadcasters, carefully walking the line between being seen to serve both journalistic freedom and the US national interest, said they had taken on board what had been said. 'After hearing Dr Rice we're not going to step on any of the landmines she was talking about,' said Walter Isaacson of CNN. 

Richard Sambrook of the BBC, speaking before this weekend's announcement from Downing Street, says no such pressure had yet been brought to bear. Nor would the BBC be swift to oblige if it were. 'This idea that the tapes may contain hidden messages is very hard to prove or disprove,' Sambrook says. 'I think it's up to governments to show this is a serious issue rather than merely raise the possibility.' 

Certainly, it seems unlikely there were hidden messages within that second tape. Unlike the bin Laden tape, the second was heavily edited before being shown and there was no way its creators could have known which parts would be cut. 'They really go on and on in rhetoric,' says Yosri Fouda of al-Jazeera. 'We left just enough of it for them to make their point.' 

However, the BBC has been the focus of other complaints from the Government. Last Wednesday morning, the BBC's Kate Adie inadvertently revealed Tony Blair's travel plans during his diplomatic mission to the Middle East, which Downing Street had asked the media to keep secret. 

The next morning Sambrook went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to discuss the row and again revealed something of the Prime Minister's movements. 'It would have been better for everybody had I not named the cities,' he said afterwards. 'I should just have referred to the Middle East. But I didn't actually give the itinerary and in any case the information was already available on the international wire services.' 

Sambrook's point, that the modern media are not linear, with information going in one end and coming out the other, but far more complex and less controllable, is a factor with which Western governments are still trying to wrestle. 

Last week, President Bush expressed outrage that a CIA report indicating it was '100 per cent certain' there would be further terrorist attacks in the US, had found its way to the press. 'Officials are really dismayed about how much information is getting out here both on the terrorist investigation and the military preparations,' says Kevin Whitelaw, a reporter covering security matters in Washington DC for the American magazine US News and World Report.

Bush said the information supplied to Congress, whose members he believed to be the source of the leaks, would be limited. He was swiftly forced into a U-turn by Senators and Representatives from both sides of the political divide. The irony is that the US media have already proved willing to comply with military orders when it matters. Seventeen news organisations knew three days before that the bombing of Afghanistan was to start on Sunday, and said nothing.

In London, attempts to control the media have been equally clumsy. 'Initially, the Ministry of Defence told us they would like us to clear our stories with them,' says war correspondent Robert Fox, now with the Evening Standard, who has covered conflicts from the Falklands war to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the wars in Bosnia. 'We told them that was not the game at all. They also discouraged us from going to other sources. Someone like me, who has many contacts within the military, is simply a complete pain to them.' The Ministry of Defence denies trying to control coverage. 

The real problem for Western politicians trying to hold together a fragile international coalition is that the media have great power to magnify. Footage of Palestinians on the West Bank celebrating the 11 September attacks was hugely damaging to a Palestinian Authority desperate not to enrage the US, even though the crowd numbered no more than 15 to 20. 

Those numbers were irrelevant. The images still went about the world. (It led to claims that the footage was a fake, recycled from the Allied invasion of Kuwait; the claim has been investigated by the BBC and firmly rebutted.) By last Friday, the authorities in the Gaza Strip were banning reporters from the area, and arresting newspaper editors, to prevent them covering a rally by Islamic militants. 

But it is not only the tiny Palestinian Authority that is falling foul of the media's reach. James Rubin, former Assistant Secretary of State in the State Department during the Clinton administration who regularly briefed the press during the Kosovo crisis, says the same is happening to the Bush administration. And this has contributed to hostile Arab public opinion. 

'Perhaps because they're new to the job, some of the officials are not realising their every word is going around the world due to the global nature of television,' Rubin says. 'The secret to a good briefing is to have both a domestic and a foreign element. But because the original attack was on New York and the USA there's now a very America-centric flavour to the briefings.' 

The White House press spokesman, Ari Fleischer, formerly Bush's campaign spokesman, has come under particular attack. In one infamous briefing, shortly after 11 September, he warned Americans to 'watch what they say' and was immediately accused of trying to smother dissent, especially in the media. The language was a mistake - Fleischer later admitted as much - but he had pointed up the clear conflict between a country trying to wage war and the modern media trying to report it. The age of deference has gone. 

And yet, as Tony Blair said last Thursday, there is still a propaganda war to be won; one that may be even more important than the shooting war. 'One thing becoming increasingly clear to me is the need to upgrade our media and public opinion operations in the Arab and Muslim world,' Blair told reporters on his plane from Oman. 'There is a need for us to communicate effectively.' 

The truth is, however, that neither he nor President Bush controls the media. As each complicated day of this conflict passes, that is becoming ever clearer. 

Related article: A decade of flak for war reporting


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole typed:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Once again I see you trying to drown out other people by posting the same thing over and over again. Perhaps it's time to stop? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please indicate my repetitions.

Are you now trying to supress me?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum wrote:
*Are you now trying to supress me?*

I think ehMac would be a better place if you'd shut up, yes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Right back at ya.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

macspectrum, with all due respect, your posts tend to be a little on the reactionary side. Really, don't you believe that folks like jfpoole would be less hostile if you were a little less hostile?

This is just the tone/feeling I get from the bulk of your posts, so please tell us if you are not meaning to come accross this way.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Although I tend to agree with jfpoole on most things political, I have to digress with him on asking macspectrum to shut up (in order to make ehmac a better place).

All opinions should be openly expressed here, at all times. 

But, having said that, I would hope that those who heap scorn upon others for their opinions and try to drown out same with a flurry of posts (yes, that's you Michael...among others) would stop and consider what they are doing once in a while. Are you following some sort of ideology, or do you really believe what you say?

And I can absoloutely guarantee that you will be taken to task for any and all of your strongly-voiced opinions and judgements once we know all that there is to know about Saddam and his murderous and illegitimate rule of Iraq.

That time is almost upon us. Are you ready for the truth?

I am.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macnutt:
*And I can absoloutely guarantee that you will be taken to task for any and all of your strongly-voiced opinions and judgements once we know all that there is to know about Saddam and his murderous and illegitimate rule of Iraq.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick note, I sincerely doubt that we will ever know "All there is to know" about Iraq, Saddam, or any of this entire mess.

We will probably know more than we do now though.

--PB


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Once the people of Iraq are free to express their opinions and tell their stories in public, then we will know most of what there is to know about this evil man and his tyrannical rule. They will be fighting to tell us of the horrors, and will point out the evidence of them for all of us to see.

It was thusly with Nazi Germany, post war Japan, and the whole of the Soviet Union once the dictators had been deposed and the threats were gone.

We will know the truth, trust me.

And, at that point, some among us will have to answer some very hard questions. Questions that will make them feel quite uncomfortable, I'd think.

Questions like "Why the heck did you spend so much time trying to delay this action...and so little time and effort protesting this horrible man and his murderous rule?"

Some of these questions might come from the protesters own children or grandchildren someday.

I hope, for their sake, that they have some very good answers. 

They'll need them.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, a simple request, please. You might have provided the full context of my statement, which read --

"Some of the posts are getting a bit vindictive and I feel that in the interest of an honest and open debate, we should try to "tone down" the possible insults and focus upon the purpose of our
discussions. I don't want to stiffle debate, but I would like to see it carried forth in
a manner which is respectful of all views." 

Thus, "tone down" is linked with discussions the are "...carried forth in a manner which is respectful of all views."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt - arguments and discourses can have a variety of "tone".
I've been critical of a number of posters on both sides of various arguments to keep the discourse going without the polemics like "moron" and belittling comments and sarcasm.
jfp was simply responded to in a way that got under his skin - he didn't like it - good - because his own approach to discussion was inherently juvenile and dismissive and he got his own back.
Don't pull his particular problem in expressing himself in an adult manner into a defense of your point of view. You've toned down a lot and have thereby earned the respect of others including myself and you bring up valid points, are now willing to defend them and listen to opposing views, responding in a civil manner . When you descend to polemics and harsh rhetoric however you lose credibility and respect.
Much of this issue revolves around "vigilanteism" and the world being "constructed" to meet US goals. Many of us view US imperialism as the greater danger.
Cops being judge and executioner is generally accepted as oppressive and dangerous - democracies divide the roles for good reason.
When the "cops", in this case the US, also have a laid out agenda like Michael detailed above, then discussions of the dangers that agenda holds for other nations is warranted.
The UN and/or an offsetting superpower is a desirable situation. Just as the US has in place checks and balances upon executive power the world needs it too.
The US would not wait upon the UN and did not have the support to get another resolution of it's liking.
Canada made a good a valid attempt to reach a compromise that the US simply ignored.
The US has historically stepped around the UN and that "might is right" attitude is what is of great concern to most Canadians and the rest of the world.
Macnutt, you don't like Chretien exercising his "almost dictatorial powers" just because he can. I agree that there need to be more checks upon the PMO/party line voting in the Canadian system. I may happen to agree with some of Chretiens moves and you don't, but we both agree his power needs limiting.
Can you not see that the same argument applies to the US exercising it's power "because it can".
 That the same checks on power you would like to see in Canada are needed world wide.
You said you'd like to see a strong effective senate - so would I.
Think of the UN in those terms and the US as the Chretien of the world and you'll maybe see where we are coming from.
It's not support for Saddam we are expressing but concern over the principles of world governance which we see as being at risk.
I'd be interested in having you respond to my "Due process" post positing the possibility that if Iraq uses WMD after denying having them, how that changes the equation.
Does it justify a"vigilante" approach??


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well put, Macdoc (you must be up REALLY early, since it's 735AM here in St.John's). Free and open discussions can be "heated" but kept focused without the use of devisive terms and taunts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rick - they're not listening - you are absolutely correct about the nature of useful debate.

jfp - if you honestly assess the tone of your posts you'll see why you are not getting respect. It takes a LOT to get chided by Dr. G and even then he was gentle and diplomatic in his response.

Michael you are just feeding the fire in this case. IMNSHO.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt why do you continually think that those of us who oppose the method the US takes of dealing with Saddam is somehow blinding us to the horrible experince Iraqis have had to endure.
No one is condoning Saddam BUT many are not condoning a vigilante approach either. No "revealing of truth" changes the dismay of many in the world that the US is attacking a sovereign nation with the stated goal of deposing it's head of state.
Support for a UN process is not condoning Saddam.
Removal of Saddam is not justification for interference in another soveriegn state in the manner in which the US is doing.
They are distinct issues.
The obvious question arises, "who is next"?? That is a very valid question.
The original coalition was based on removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait - that's what it was predicated on and that goal was achieved.
It would nver have achieved the coalition had the goal been regime change.
Why is it so hard to disassociate in your mind helping Iraq deal with a dictator and limiting his potential for harm outside his borders while maintaining a check on the unilateral projection of US power.
They are two distinct issues and no amount of "see he was a bad man" rhetoric will help deal with the latter problem and no "winning" by the US will justify it's methods in the eyes of the world.
Cops need oversight. Who is overseeing the US??
Not one of us needs convincing that Saddam abuses his people terribly. It's the method of dealing with him that is under scrutiny. Many feel in this case that war is neither the best option or the only option.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, early morning posts suit you well. Thank you for the compliment ("...It takes a LOT to get chided by Dr. G and even then he was gentle and diplomatic in his response."). I fear that this is such an important topic, in that it has taken up various threads in a Hydra-like Monster Thread, but the discussions are becoming too heated. The points of views need expressing and debating, but personal insults are not effective communication/debating tactics.

I think that it was Teddy Roosevelt (who was a police officer in NYC), and who coined the phrase "speak softly but carry a big stick", first discussed the role of "policeman of the world" for the US. This was prior to WWI, and the US was not the dominant power at the time, but when TR said this, he also suggested that certain "checks" be placed on those who were "policing the world" at the time (e.g., England and France mainly). I would love to find this citation, but I recall reading about it back during in undergrad history major days in the mid-60's.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Dr.G,
I get a whiff of fake altruism that you attach to Teddy R's "Big Soft Stick". Please let's not delude ourselves in this manner. Before WW1, the US had already acquired colonies in the Pacific, East Asia, China proper, Alaska and the Caribbean.
US colonial power has always been and is today driven by commercial interest only. Period. No different from British colonialism.
I will otherwise need evidence of the groovy feelings
that the American colonialists of today might have toward the less white peoples of the world. After Florida and the US Supreme Court arrest, we can forget about the spreading of democracy sincerity.

On a sadder note, let's hear from a real American living in the far east today. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak04.html 

Now we're all ugly Americans 
By Gary LaMoshi 

DENPASAR, Bali - For US citizens living overseas, President George W Bush's unilateral ultimatum to Iraq makes us all ugly Americans. We were potential targets for terror and abuse, like our fellow citizens back home; now we are representatives of the world's leading bully. Our flag, which stood for the hopes of humankind now stands for disdain for diplomacy in favor of military intimidation. 

As they say in the cartoons, "Thanks a lot, George, thanks a lot." 

It remains an incredible feat that the United States has forfeited all of the world's goodwill it won after the September 11, 2001, attacks, barely 18 months ago, and legitimized the view that Bush, not Saddam Hussein, not Osama bin Laden, not Kim Jong-il, is the greatest threat to world peace. It's hard to imagine a term for a US attack on Iraq, as threatened by Bush, except for "terrorism". 

Speechless; if only he was, too 
When our friends ask us why the US wants to attack Iraq, we don't have any better answers than the weak, shifting case the Bush administration offers. Its arguments lack credibility, just like the president himself and his policies. 

I used to think that Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa had the worst ear for public relations of any leader on the world stage. But Bush topped him easily with Monday night's naked threat with the same sensitivity shown when he declared his war on terrorism a "crusade". 

First, Bush demanded, "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours." Only an idiot would have included the reference to "sons" given the perception that this President Bush is finishing Poppy's war. Moreover, Dubya owes his presidency largely to the Florida governorship of his brother Jeb, the supposedly more clever son of a Bush. Jeb didn't have the popularity or political skills to ensure his brother could win the vote in Florida, but his control of the administrative processes guaranteed that the votes in Florida wouldn't get counted properly. The US Supreme Court, packed with Poppy Bush's acolytes, endorsed Jeb's subterfuge. 

Then, Bush warned Iraqi troops, "Do not blow up oil wells", even before he admonished them not to deploy weapons of mass destruction, ostensibly what this war is about. He added that the wells are "a source of wealth for the Iraqi people". Let's see how that statement plays downstream as US oil companies swoop in to drill with equipment from Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer. 

If there were two terms that Bush shouldn't have evoked in his speech, they were "sons" and "oil". Naturally, he did. As an American, I'm filled with pride. Indeed, a numbskull can grow up (provided he's in the right family) to become president. 

Putting the dip in diplomacy 
If there was a third word Bush should have avoided, it was "diplomacy". Bush's ultimatum is the result of the failure of US diplomacy, not just in gaining support for its wrong-headed attack on Iraq, but for its overall goals. Rather than using the United States' unique position as the world's only superpower to create a better world, the Bush administration's goal centers on world domination. "You're either with us or against us" is its mantra. To expect the rest of the world to help the US pick up the pieces of the mess it makes in Iraq is a dream. 

No matter how much lipstick the White House's right-wing ideologues put on this pig, there is no denying that the administration has short-circuited an inspection process that renders Iraq militarily impotent and unable to threaten its neighbors. The war clique has failed to demonstrate a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda or to find a smoking gun regarding weapons of mass destruction, at least any developed without the complicity of the US during the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld were pals. 

While the French have proved to be nearly as much of a caricature as the US leadership has, they make an important point, as have the millions of protesters around the globe: vigorous inspections would accomplish the goal of disarmament. 

Instead, the US has opted for a military attack, underscoring the point that the Bush people don't want to disarm Iraq (this time, they stopped the process, not Saddam Hussein), they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The argument, echoed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that US troops have gone too far to turn back, is ridiculous on the face of it. Restraint from strength wins respect while bullying wins approbation. 

If the US can demand "regime change" in Iraq, why shouldn't other countries insist on deposing an illegitimately seated leader who unleashes war on innocent people in defiance of diplomacy and world opinion, based on radical religious beliefs and ideology? In short, why shouldn't regime change begin at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? 

History lesson 
The vision of re-creating Iraq as model of Middle Eastern democracy is a pipe dream, either an exercise in cynicism or self-delusion, qualities the Bush administration has shown in vast quantities with its economic policy that has turned a comfortable budget surplus into a huge deficit, all the time denying that US$1 trillion in tax cuts tilted heavily toward the wealthy have anything to do with the fiscal reversal. 

The White House, which pledged to rebuild Afghanistan after bombing it out of the Stone Age a year and a half ago, neglected to put a dime for that nation's reconstruction into its budget for this year. There is no reason to believe that the Bush people will show any greater interest and staying power in the equally difficult and more dangerous business of rebuilding Iraq. 

Moreover, a quick browse through US history shows that no Republican administration has ever found the right way to end a war. We don't know what Abraham Lincoln would have done after the US Civil War, but his successors failed to reunify the nation effectively and, except for a brief interlude, secessionist racial politics held sway in the former Confederacy for the next 100 years. Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo-Japanese War, but he couldn't stop the insurrection in the Philippines; indeed, it took a Japanese invasion to get the US out of its bush war there. Dwight Eisenhower's Korean War armistice, without a real peace, set the stage for Kim Jong-il's nuclear blackmail today. Despite their war crimes, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger couldn't win the Vietnam War, leaving it to Gerald Ford to strike the colors on the US Embassy in Saigon as communist forces marched in. President Bush I shied away from finishing off the Iraqi regime in the first Gulf War, leaving the uneasy situation that has persisted for the past dozen years. The current Bush people have neither the diplomatic savvy nor the experience of their failed predecessors. 

An attack on Iraq without any credible threat to US security will make the world a more dangerous place for Americans at home and overseas. It is already the best recruiting tool al-Qaeda could wish for, and it will make it far more difficult for the United States to advance its legitimate interests diplomatically in the foreseeable future. The Bush administration has forfeited the high ground in foreign policy for generations for reasons it still cannot articulate convincingly. 

As an expatriate, I often feel compelled to wave the American flag and defend our core values. But this decision to attack Iraq undermines those values of democracy, responsibility and working for a peaceful and just world. I hang on the thin reed that someone with some sense will stop this madness before the US betrays everything it should stand for and proves its worst critics absolutely correct. 

More immediately, I hope that my neighbors will make the distinction between American values and the outlaw administration currently running the country. That would take subtlety of thought and degrees of wisdom that the people in the White House lack. 

(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [email protected] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*jfp was simply responded to in a way that got under his skin - he didn't like it - good - because his own approach to discussion was inherently juvenile and dismissive and he got his own back.*

Funny, I've tried to carry on discussions here in an "adult" manner, but most here don't seem willing to actually engage in a civil discussion (especially when it comes to the upcoming war), especially macspectrum.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*You don't like sarcasm and being belittled or told to go move to the US ?? .....then don't invite it.*

I'm sorry I'm getting fed up for being treated like a moron here because I think the war is a good idea and that the sooner Saddam Hussein and his goverment are removed from Iraq (if not the earth itself), the sooner the world will be a better place.

*If you want to argue and provide some useful information that the US is not moving to fascism and a police state be my guest.

...

Supression of dissent in particular.*

FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Argh.

I'm rapidly losing respect for a lot of people on this forum due to assertions like this. It reeks of "chicken little" and "the boy who cried wolf". I thought the people here were smarter than that, but apparently I was wrong.

I've yet to see any compelling evidence that there's widespread suppression of dissent in the US. If that were the case, would there be protests in the streets? Numerous web sites devoted to stating the position of the anti-war movement?

Of course, I've seen those involved in the anti-war movement supress the opinions of those who are pro-war. I've posted several instances of that in the Community Center. 

Funny how none of you have commented on it. I guess it didn't fit into your world view.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

jfpoole,
how about some proof/evidence that Hussein does have and continues to have WOMD? I guess the U.S. would know. They still have the PAID invoices from the ones they sold to Iraq to fight the Iranians.

What about a little inspection of the U.S. WOMD? Let me count how many countries have used nuclear weapons... hmnmmmm let's see.. one... then there's... nope... ummmmm nope... Oh yeah, just ONE.

The U.S. says that they have the evidence. They just can't show us.

Did you not read the first post in this thread?

Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine?" It's a little primer course in U.S. foreign/domestic policy.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macspectrum missed:
*I've yet to see any compelling evidence that there's widespread suppression of dissent in the US. If that were the case, would there be protests in the streets? Numerous web sites devoted to stating the position of the anti-war movement?*


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There's a line in the Asia Times piece - that "Bush has forfeited the high ground in pushing for a military solution" that rings true. 

No matter what happens, the US will be seen to have crossed a line by invading. The US cards have been shown for the foreseeable future. The mantra to "attack or be attacked" is inherently flawed. It's a very dangerous precedent by a dangerous President.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

History will be the judge here. George W. may be seen as a reckless cowboy or a committed leader trying to end a murderous regime by future students of history.

Only time and truth will tell.

And I'm betting on the latter, BTW.

As for macdoc's assertion that this is a "Soveriegn Nation" I would tend to agree with him. However...I would beg to differ as to wether Saddam has any sort of legitimate claim to ownership or leadership of the country of Iraq. He siezed power two decades ago and holds the people of that country at gunpoint.

This is hardly a "legitimate Head of State".

Witness the fact that more than four million Iraqis have fled their homeland during the last two decades. Almost a million have been killed by Saddam, according to some informed estimates.

A Soveriegn Nation? Absoloutely. A legitimate Head of State? Not a chance.

I have lived in a lot of dictatorships during my lifetime and one thing they all had in common was the fact that ONE man (or a very small group of men) held total power over the whole country. They called the shots, and the people who lived there had no recourse or input in any of the decisions made in their name. There were no legitimate elections and serious consequences for anyone who protested this tyrannical rule. You will never see open anti-government protests in any of these countries...only pro-government demonstrations.

Does that seem real to you?

And the UN has a large number of member nations that are currently being run by a single unelected leader. A dictator, who doesn't give a hoot what his people think about anything, as long as he gets what he wants.

When any of the Arab states, Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola, Zimbabwe et al, actually vote on a resolutuion...do you think that this vote is the will of the people of these countries? Or is it the thoughts of one unelected and illegitimate tyrant?

And, do you suppose that this might be one of the reasons that the UN seems to be somewhat glacial when it comes to actually enforcing the many resolutions it makes against the worst of the world dictators?

More than a million innocent people died in Rwanda due to the inability of the UN to actually enforce the decisions that this body had made. The UN security council were told, well in advance, exactly what would happen if no action was authorised. They still did NOTHING!

And more than a million people suffered horrible deaths because the UN was unwilling to actually enforce the rules that they had all agreed were necessary to prevent just such a catastrophe.

The same situation exists today with Saddam. The UN has drawn seventeen different lines in the sand...and Saddam has happily called their bluff and stepped over every one of them. He has continued to build horrible weapons systems and has tortured and killed his own people while we looked on and called for more negotiations and more time.

I guess we all hope he'll just change his ways, eh? Good luck on that one.

It's high time that somebody had the resolve to actually DO something about him. And it's high time that some of the other despots in the world were given a wake-up call. One that will give them pause....and perhaps even get them to start looking for a quick exit.

This is a good thing.

Once they're gone, the world will be a far better place. For everyone.

And maybe the UN will start to function the way we all want it to. The way it was MEANT to. It certainly isn't doing that now.

We can only hope.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

It seems that McNut's aping posts over time have not veered even slightly from the Bush administration's press releases. Like a relay station it's like there's nobody home ..... which is sad to me as I know otherwise that his concern is sincere.
Such sincerity I do not get from those who handle G.W.Bush.
As I now am listening Fleischer's press briefing which is identical to that of the Pentagon's of an hour ago except that there is at the end added material obviously written by the ghostly Karen Hughes who was brought back from Texas a week ago after her recent resignation as an advisor to Bush. This copy gives us the total population and GDP of the "willing to be paid".
From her ghost written autobiography: "As we head into the twenty-first century, we should have one big box: American."

I do sympathise with those who wish that Chretien would simply comply with the Pentagon's orders and take the money but this just SO ain't gonna happen ....sorry, it's just not that kind of country.


----------

