Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 19, 2014, 12:13:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83718 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 232 233 [234] 235 236 ... 244
11651  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: July 12, 2007, 03:20:42 AM
Not a critique, just questions:

1. Stay in the fight.

Which fight? Against the terrorists? Against the insurgents? At this point can we tell the difference?

****Sure, in fact many Iraqis have turned against the foreign jihadists.****

It isn't over until we say it's over.

Does anyone actually see an Iraq that has the ability to fend for itself? At what point do we go from being attackers (anti-terrorist/insurgent) to defenders (backing up IDF only when absolutely necessary)? And when is the friggin' Iraqi government going to step up to the plate?

****I share your frustration. I don't have a good answer.****

2. Secure Kurdistan and the borders. No jihadis get in or out.

Is this realistic? We have problems securing our own border in peacetime. How do we protect the borders in a country ruled by chaos?

****We can secure our borders, we haven't chosen to do so. The Army and Marines can secure the border (Either ours or Iraq's).****

I guess I've just burned out from hearing rhetoric from politicians on both sides who are more interested in keeping their jobs than actually "getting the job done".

Sorry, I'm just frustrated by a perceived lack of progress... angry

****I think everyone feels the same, however our enemies understand that our culture is one of instant gratification while they plan on winning over the centuries.****
11652  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: July 10, 2007, 04:40:15 PM
1. Stay in the fight. It isn't over until we say it's over.

2. Secure Kurdistan and the borders. No jihadis get in or out.

There is no "Gordian knot" solution waiting, at least not that I can see, but giving a win to al qaeda and Iran isn't smart.
11653  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Communicating with the Muslim World on: July 07, 2007, 08:28:57 PM
To borrow from a leftist group "Silence=Death". This is especially true regarding the global jihad.
11654  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: July 07, 2007, 07:39:39 PM;jsessionid=CY5XJD01L5C0FQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/07/08/wiran108.xml&site=5&page=0

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad silences his critics

By Colin Freeman in Teheran, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:03am BST 08/07/2007

Ali Nikoo Nesbati glances carefully at the couple who have just sat down at the table next to him. Aged in their 20s and dressed in fashionable Western clothes, they seem like the kind of people who'd be natural supporters of the pro-democracy movement that he leads. Yet their decision to sit right next to him, when the rest of the café in the secluded Teheran alley is empty, is enough to make him suspicious.

"They were probably just ordinary customers," he whispered, as he ushered The Sunday Telegraph back on to the streets to continue the interview elsewhere. "But you never know. We were sat in that café for 45 minutes, which is long enough for the intelligence services to find out where we are."

Silenced: Abdullah Momeni, a prominent critic of the regime

A paranoia about who might be listening is an occupational hazard for activists like Mr Nesbati, whose campaigns for reform of Iran's theocratic government have led to constant run-ins with the secret police since the late Nineties.

But that sense of paranoia is now greater than ever, as a long-feared crackdown by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country's puritanical leader, finally appears to be coming into force.

In what activists claim is a "cultural revolution" reminiscent of the Islamic Republic's turbulent birth in 1979, the regime has turned on its critics in all walks of life, harassing pro-democracy activists, shutting down dissident publications and dismissing independent-minded government officials and academics.

The onslaught has confounded early impressions that Mr Ahmadinejad, despite his religious zealotry, threats against Israel and defiance over Iran's nuclear programme, was not proving as aggressive as feared when it came to dealing with his internal opposition.

When members of Mr Nesbati's pro-democracy group staged a demonstration at Teheran's Amir Kabir University last December, in which they held photos of the president upside-down and denounced him as a "fascist", Mr Ahmadinejad surprised the world by requesting that they should not be arrested. He later cited his move as proof of the "absolute, total freedom" Iranians enjoyed.

The presidential pardon appears to have been short-lived. Eight of those protesters have since been jailed, the victims of what Mr Nesbati claims was a state-sponsored plot.

"Ahmadinejad said nobody would touch them, but the intelligence agencies smeared them by printing a blasphemous publication which they blamed on the students," he said. "We believe that was Ahmadinejad's revenge. We don't know if he ordered it himself, but we are convinced it was his supporters."

The students, one of whom has now spent more than two months in jail, are among 70 to have been arrested since Mr Ahmadinejad came to power; nearly half of these were seized in the last four months. More than 500 others have been suspended or expelled from university because of political activities, while about 130 student publications and 40 student organisations have been closed.

The accusations levelled against them typically include "endangering national security", spreading "rumours and lies" and "having relations with foreign intelligence agencies", all charges that Mr Nesbati has faced in his years as an activist, during which he has been arrested three times.

"They're not really charges as such, they just assume you are guilty and then ask why you did it," he said. "It's stressful the first time you're arrested but after that it's not so bad, although it depends what they do to you.

"Sometimes people get put in a room where they're made to stand facing a wall for 48 hours at a time. If you fall asleep, they hit you."

Campaigners say the crackdown began in March, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Spiritual Leader and a man of similar hardline views to Mr Ahmadinejad, made a speech warning Iranians against the West's "psychological warfare". This was taken to be a reference to Washington's funding of opposition groups, pro-democracy movements and anti-regime satellite broadcasts.

The president, who is regarded by many as little more than a mouthpiece for Mr Khamenei, is thought to have taken this as a cue to move against any groups critical of the regime.

Women's rights groups and trade union leaders have reported being harassed, scholars have been put under pressure for refusing to sign anti-Israeli statements, and Iran's press has claimed to have received lists of banned topics, such as the effect of threatened United Nations sanctions. University professors have also been warned against attending conferences abroad, and several visiting Iranian-American academics remain in custody after being charged with espionage.

One Western diplomat in Iran said the situation was "uneasy". He said: "The crackdown has been more gradual than people expected, but over the last few months we have been getting a lot of stories of people being hassled."

Similar clampdowns took place under President Mohammad Khatami, Mr Ahmadinejad's reformist-minded predecessor, whose campaign to introduce a liberal regime was not always heeded by hardline elements in the security forces.

However, activists say that now there is no longer a voice in government to speak for them. "Back then people would get arrested, but then Khatami would use his influence to get them released," said Abdullah Momeni, the leader of Tahkim Vahdat, Iran's largest student organisation and a prominent critic of the regime. "Now those who are arrested are not even getting released."

The attacks on reformists come as they struggle to recover from the splits and apathy that led to them losing the 2005 elections to Mr Ahmadinejad. The movement is divided between more conservative elements, who prefer gradual change within the existing clerical system of government, and those who wish to replace the Islamic republic altogether with a Western-style, secular democracy.

Both sides have talked of forming an alliance to defeat Mr Ahmadinejad in the next presidential elections, but no mutually credible figure has emerged to head it.

The fact that many reformists were still at large to criticise the regime, meanwhile, was not grounds for optimism, said Mr Momeni. "Now the judiciary and parliament and president feel so powerful that they don't really see us as a threat any more. It shows that in a sense, we have lost our status and position in society."
11655  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: July 07, 2007, 07:33:18 PM

Al-Qaeda linked to operations from Iran
By Stephen Fidler in London
Published: July 6 2007 22:04 | Last updated: July 6 2007 22:04
Evidence that Iranian territory is being used as a base by al-Qaeda to help in terrorist operations in Iraq and elsewhere is growing, say western officials.

It is not clear how much the al-Qaeda operation, described by one official as a money and communications hub, is being tolerated or encouraged by the Iranian government, they said.

The group’s operatives, who link the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan with their disciples in Iraq, the Levant and North Africa, move with relative freedom in the country, they said.

The officials said the creation of some kind of al-Qaeda hub in Iran appears to be separate from the group of seven senior al-Qaeda figures, including Saad bin Laden, son of the group’s figurehead, that Iran is said to have detained since 2002.

A senior US official said the information had produced different assessments. “The most conservative, cautious intelligence assessment is that [the Iranian authorities] are turning a blind eye. But there are a lot of doubts about that,” he said.

“They are benefiting from the mayhem that AQ is carrying out. They don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda to benefit.”

Yet while Tehran might be content with the pressure al-Qaeda is placing on the US occupation in Iraq, Iran, as a state based on Shia Islam surrounded by mainly Sunni countries, has long been wary of al-Qaeda’s fierce brand of Sunni Islam.

A former Iranian official said Iran feared al-Qaeda and did not want to distract it from Iraq, dismissing any idea that Iran was supplying it with weapons. “Our relationship with al-Qaeda, at an intelligence level, can be said to be successful as long as they are at a distance,” he said.

Analysts say several Sunni extremist groups, some presumed linked to al-Qaeda and from various ethnic groups including Kurds, are in Iran. US-led military action in Iraq has led some to seek refuge over the border.

In the past, Tehran has also been a target of al-Qaeda attacks. A militant Sunni group based in Pakistan and possibly linked to al-Qaeda was suspected of the 1994 bombing of the shrine of the seventh Shia Imam, Reza, in Mashhad, killing 26 people.

Iran has also shown growing concern over Jundullah, a radical Sunni group from the restive south-east area of Balucestan that has carried out violent attacks in recent years.

Three years ago, Pakistani officials said members of al-Qaeda had begun leaving Pakistan’s border region close to Afghanistan and heading for Iraq. Of the routes used, going overland via Iran was the easiest. That traffic might have increased as links between al-Qaeda and its Iraq offshoot intensify.

Additional reporting by Gareth Smyth in Tehran and Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad
11656  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: July 07, 2007, 12:35:34 AM
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

****If the above is to be interpreted as a collective right of the state and not of the individual, then below is only a collective right as well.****

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

****So this only matters when the federal gov't is searching a state gov't? ****  wink
11657  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: July 4th on: July 06, 2007, 10:47:55 PM
I used to have a mohawk and wore punk rock t-shirts and waved around a tattered copy of the "Communist Manifesto" to offend my parents and other authority figures, of course I was 16, so that's my excuse. afro
11658  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: July 4th on: July 06, 2007, 11:36:44 AM

Rogt is just a product of his environment. See link above.
11659  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: July 04, 2007, 09:05:23 AM

Do you trust the government to regulate your speech?
11660  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: July 03, 2007, 06:38:16 PM
During that same debate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts also made a speech from the Senate floor, which included the following statements:
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia also delivered a floor speech on the Iraq resolution:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.

Americans will return to a situation like that we faced in the Cold War, waking each morning knowing we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy. Only, back then, our communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy; this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so.

The global community — in the form of the United Nations — has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people — and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.
During the simultaneous debate on the Iraq resolution in the House of Representatives, Congressman Henry Waxman of California issued a statement on a possible war with Iraq:
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.

And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam’s willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.

What Saddam has done in the interim is not known for certain - but there is every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister of Britain, to President Bush’s speech at the United Nations, that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary to produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more are on order. He traffics with other evil people in this world, intent on harming the United States, Israel, other nations in the Middle East, and our friends across the globe.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also spoke on the issue of the Iraq resolution:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Making a speech at Georgetown University on 23 January 2003, during the build-up to the war with Iraq, Senator John Kerry said:
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
Last updated:   2 October 2003
The URL for this page is
11661  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: July 03, 2007, 06:37:35 PM
On 16 December 1998, Nancy Pelosi, a Congressional representative from California and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement concerning a U.S.-led military strike against Iraq:
As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.
(In this statement Rep. Pelosi was not urging that action be taken against Iraq in order to destroy its WMD technology; she was expressing support for attacks that had already begun with that purpose as their stated objective.)

On 10 November 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright addressed another open meeting, this one held at the Chicago Hilton and Towers. Challenged to defend the Clinton administration's support of an economic and trade embargo against Iraq, Secretary Albright responded:
If you remember in 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded another country, he plagued it, he set fire to it, and he decided that he could control the region. Before that, he had gassed his own people.

Saddam Hussein had been acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We carried out, with the help of an alliance, a war in which we put Saddam Hussein back into his box. The United Nations voted on a set of resolutions which demanded Saddam Hussein live up to his obligations and get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations Security Council imposed a set of sanctions on Saddam Hussein until he did that. It also established an organization that is set up to monitor whether Hussein had gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.
In December 2001, nine members of Congress (a group which included both Democrats and Republicans) wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to step up support for the internal Iraqi opposition seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Included in that letter was the following paragraph:
This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Unless the version reproduced on the Department of State's web site is in error, however, Senator Bob Graham of Florida was not one of the signatories to that letter.

On 19 September 2002, Senator Carl Levin — by then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — addressed a committee hearing on U.S. policy on Iraq. His introductory remarks included the following:
The Armed Services Committee meets this afternoon to continue our hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq. The purpose of these hearings is to give the Administration an opportunity to present its position on Iraq, and to allow this Committee to examine the Administration's proposal with Administration witnesses and experts outside of the government.

We welcome Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers to the Committee. Next week the Committee will hear from former senior military commanders on Monday and from former national security officials on Wednesday.

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
On 23 September 2002, former Vice-President Al Gore addressed the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco on the subject of Iraq and the war on terrorism. Among the comments he offered there were the following:
Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. However, if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan — with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda than these widely dispersed supplies of weapons of mass destruction might well come into the hands of terrorist groups.

If we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."

[ . . .]

What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago, right here in this city by the bay.

[ . . .]

Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.
On 27 September 2002, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts delivered a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. An excerpt from that speech includes the following statements:
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war.
In October 2002, as the U.S. Senate debated Joint Resolution 46 authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia delivered remarks regarding his belief that the "rush to war" was "ignoring the U.S. Constitution" and that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. Among his remarks were the following statements:
The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it — we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.
11662  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: July 03, 2007, 06:36:08 PM
Claim:   Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Status:   True.

Example:   [Collected on the Internet, 2003]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Origins:   All

of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

In the section below where we highlight these quotes, we've tried to provide sufficient surrounding material to make clear the context in which the quotes were offered as well as include links to the full text from which they were derived wherever possible.

In February 1998, politicians debated the Clinton administration's plans to launch air attacks against Iraq in an effort to coerce Saddam Hussein into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. As the Washington Post noted at the time:
Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein.

Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did.

Instead, they argue, the United States should go beyond the objective of curtailing Iraqi weapons programs and adopt a far-reaching strategy aimed at replacing the Baghdad regime. Although they are far from consensus on what that strategy should be, a few openly advocate the possible use of U.S. ground forces, a much greater commitment than the options being pursued by the administration.

Many supporters of a more forceful strategy are conservative Republicans and longtime defense hard-liners, such as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage. But they also include former representative Stephen J. Solarz (N.Y.), a liberal Democrat who with former Pentagon official Richard Perle is circulating a letter in Congress and foreign policy circles seeking bipartisan support for a more ambitious policy.

In addition to a crushing bombing campaign or the possibility of ground troops, some advocates of tougher measures are suggesting seeking Iraq's expulsion from the United Nations, indicting Saddam Hussein as a war criminal, or blockading the port of Basra to halt illicit oil exports — an action that would infuriate Iran, which shares the Shatt al Arab waterway with Iraq.

Such moves, if made unilaterally, would almost certainly draw the ire of most of the United States's U.N. partners and frame the crisis even more starkly as a conflict between Washington and Baghdad. But public opinion polls may indicate support for such a route. A Los Angeles Times poll published on Monday showed that by 68 percent to 24 percent, Americans favor airstrikes provided they are designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power, not just force him to accept the commands of the U.N. Security Council.1
That same article also reported a statement made by President Clinton the previous day (4 February 1998):
Yesterday, Clinton reiterated that he would prefer a "diplomatic solution" to the standoff with Iraq but added, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Clinton met with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, just back from a trip to Europe and several Arab countries to outline the U.S. position, and is to discuss Iraq with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who arrived in Washington yesterday.1
On 17 February 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts from that speech include the following comments:
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.2
On 18 February 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared along with Defense Secretary William Cohen and White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at an internationally televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University. Protesters shouted from the stands throughout the meeting, and Secretary Albright attempted to quiet them by inviting some of them down to the floor to pose questions to her directly. As the Columbus Dispatch reported:
Few actually got the opportunity, but one — Jon Strange, a substitute teacher in Columbus — eventually took the microphone.

He repeatedly challenged Albright on whether Clinton policy is consistent or fair — attacking Saddam while acting favorably to American allies charged with atrocities against their own people, such as Indonesia and Turkey.

Albright said the United States had expressed its concerns in all of the occasions Strange mentioned. "What we ought to be thinking about is how to deal with Saddam Hussein," she added.

"You're not answering my question, Madam Albright!" Strange shouted, causing the secretary to momentarily back from the lectern.

At that point, Woodruff followed his question by asking why Iraq was branded an outlaw nation for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons that other nations also possess.

"It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them," Albright said. "Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."

Many who attended yesterday's town meeting, while supportive of the nation's position on Iraq, said they are uncertain whether a military attack is the proper response.

Before the forum, Rob Aiken, a North Side resident and student at Ohio State, said he wanted to know what other options had been considered.

"I don't think killing a lot of folks will change a regime," he said.

Leandra Kennedy, a political science major from Philadelphia, said her biggest concern is that an attack has not received congressional approval.

"Saddam needs to comply," she said. "But I'm not sure about the way we're going about it, not taking into consideration how it will affect the international community in the long run."

Calling Saddam a bully who has terrorized his Middle East neighbors and tortured his own people, the officials said the administration's aim is to reduce his capacity to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

"I am absolutely convinced that we could accomplish our mission," Berger said.

"The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face," Albright said.3
During that same meeting National Security Adviser Sandy Berger also spoke about how to make Saddam Hussein comply with United Nations weapons inspectors:
Berger won strong applause when he insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites. But Berger re-used a warning delivered Tuesday by President Bill Clinton: "The only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983."4
On 6 October 1998, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, addressed that committee at a hearing on the subject of worldwide threats facing the U.S. His comments on Iraq included mention of a letter to President Clinton which he and other senators were circulating:
As the Chairman has indicated, the situation in Iraq also poses a threat to international peace and security. Once again, Saddam Hussein has halted cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Without intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer as a result of international economic sanctions.

And that is why, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Hutchison, I am circulating among our Senate colleagues a letter to President Clinton, urging him, in consultation with Congress, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take effective actions, including if appropriate, the use of air strikes, to respond to the Iraqi threat.
(President Clinton did undertake the action urged in this statement a few months later by ordering the aforementioned Operation Desert Fox airstrikes.)

11663  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: July 03, 2007, 06:14:25 PM
I have limited time, so i'll respond in greater detail later, however here is a report issued from the US State Dept. in 1999 on terrorism (who was president then?)

The designation of state sponsors of terrorism by the United States--and the imposition of sanctions--is a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a means of political expression. US policy is intended to compel state sponsors to renounce the use of terrorism, end support to terrorists, and bring terrorists to justice for past crimes.

The United States is committed to holding terrorists and those who harbor them accountable for past attacks, regardless of when the acts occurred. The United States has a long memory and will not simply expunge a terrorist's record because time has passed. The states that choose to harbor terrorists are similar to accomplices who provide shelter for criminals--and the United States will hold them accountable for their "guests'" actions. International terrorists should know before they contemplate a crime that they cannot hunker down afterward in a safehaven and be absolved of their crimes.The United States is committed firmly to removing countries from the state sponsor list once they have taken necessary steps to end their link to terrorism. In fact, the Department of State is engaged in ongoing discussions with state sponsors interested in being removed from the list.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan remain the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran continued to support numerous terrorist groups-- including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)--in their efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process through terrorism. Although there were signs of political change in Iran in 1999, the actions of certain state institutions in support of terrorist groups made Iran the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist groups, some of which oppose the Middle East peace process. Libya had yet to fully comply with the requirements of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions related to the trial of those accused of downing Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. North Korea harbored several hijackers of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in the 1970s and maintained links to Usama Bin Ladin and his network. Cuba continued providing safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to other state sponsors and Latin American insurgents. Finally, Sudan continued to serve as a meeting place, safehaven, and training hub for members of Bin Ladin's al-Qaida, Lebanese Hizballah, al-Jihad, al-Gama'at, PIJ, HAMAS, and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO).

State sponsorship has decreased over the past several decades. As it decreases, it becomes increasingly important for all countries to adopt a "zero tolerance" for terrorist activity within their borders. Terrorists will seek safehaven in those areas where they are able to avoid the rule of law and to travel, prepare, raise funds, and operate. In 1999 the United States actively researched and gathered intelligence on other states that will be considered for designation as state sponsors. If the United States deems a country to "repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism," it is required by law to add that nation to the list.

In 1999 the United States increasingly was concerned about reports of Pakistani support for terrorist groups and elements active in Kashmir, as well as Pakistani relations with the Taliban, which continued to harbor terrorists such as Usama Bin Ladin. In the Middle East, the United States was concerned that a variety of terrorist groups operated and trained inside Lebanon with relative impunity. Lebanon also was unresponsive to U.S. requests to bring to justice terrorists who attacked U.S. citizens and property in Lebanon in previous years.

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the antiregime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups.

Press reports stated that, according to a defecting Iraqi intelligence agent, the Iraqi intelligence service had planned to bomb the offices of Radio Free Europe in Prague. Radio Free Europe offices include Radio Liberty, which began broadcasting news and information to Iraq in October 1998. The plot was foiled when it became public in early 1999.

The Iraqi opposition publicly stated its fears that the Baghdad regime was planning to assassinate those opposed to Saddam Hussein. A spokesman for the Iraqi National Accord in November said that the movement's security organs had obtained information about a plan to assassinate its secretary general, Dr. Iyad 'Allawi, and a member of the movement's political bureau, as well as another Iraqi opposition leader.

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. aircraft.

Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran's Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April."

"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Terrorism

In 1999 the possibility of another terrorist weapons of mass destruction (WMD) event--a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN), or large explosive weapon--continued to increase.

Although most terrorists continued to favor proven and conventional tactics, such as bombing, shooting, and kidnapping, some terrorist groups were attempting to obtain CBRN capabilities. For example, Usama Bin Ladin spoke publicly about acquiring such a capability and likened his pursuit of those weapons to a religious duty.

Some terrorist groups have demonstrated CBRN use and are actively pursuing CBRN capabilities for several reasons:

Increased publicity highlighted the vulnerability of civilian targets to CBRN attacks. Such attacks could cause lasting disruption and generate significant psychological impact on a population and its infrastructure. As of yearend, the largest attack involving chemical weapons against civilians was Aum Shinrikyo's sarin nerve agent attack on the Tokyo subway system in March 1995.

Some groups, especially those motivated by distorted religious and cultural ideologies, had demonstrated a willingness to inflict greater numbers of indiscriminate casualties. Other less predictable but potentially dangerous groups also had emerged. Those groups may not adhere to traditional targeting constraints.

CBRN materials, information, and technology became more widely available, especially from the Internet and the former Soviet Union."
11664  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Thank allah for bad jihadi driving and poorly built bombs..... on: July 03, 2007, 08:59:41 AM
I wonder if the lastest clowns,I mean Muslim fundis, still get to go to heaven and screw "virgins" even though their attacks failed and all they accomplished was burning up their vehicles and themselves.

Nope, no martyrdom, no 72 virgins. Allah doesn't reward paradise for effort, only results. This places a great deal of pressure on the western jihadis pre-attack preperations.
11665  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: July 02, 2007, 10:47:32 PM

I think the Scooter-pardon is covered well here.
11666  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: July 02, 2007, 09:34:12 PM

They've published lots of papers. What's the title of the one in question?

Do we still get to celebrate the 4th of July this year given our surrender to the UK?
11667  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Thank allah for bad jihadi driving and poorly built bombs..... on: July 02, 2007, 04:13:13 PM
AQ has always had multiple tiers of operatives in their attacks. Look at the first WTC attack, Ramzi Yousef jetted in, planned the attack, built the bomb then jetted out leaving the NYC/NJ local cell member to scramble after the bombing. That's why the FBI snagged the two at the rental place trying to get their deposit back on the Ryder truck, they need the money to flee.

The lower tiers are always expendible.
11668  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: July 01, 2007, 07:33:13 PM
Sheep Dog,

You mean the rest was rational?HuhHuh shocked
11669  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: July 01, 2007, 10:34:40 AM
Just got off duty. Stuck for hours working a death investigation. I'd like to type more but i've got to get to sleep because i've got to get back to work to finish the initial report. I would add that there is no evidence of Bilderburger, Trilateral commission or Illuminati involvement at this time, but I haven't consulted with Alex Jones yet either..... grin
11670  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: What is "Democracy"? on: June 30, 2007, 02:47:01 AM
In the modern language, when people say "democracy" they mean a "liberal democracy" as defined in SB Mig's post below, not the "mob rule" definition.
11671  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: June 30, 2007, 02:44:29 AM
So where from that do you get concentration camps for American citizens? News flash, correctional systems all over the US are over capacity and have been for years. Try getting an illegal alien arrested on a state charge picked up by ICE (Formerly INS). They'll tell you they don't have the space to put them.

"You lack the ability to read into things, GM."

****No, I grasp the difference between reality and internet bullshit.****

"You seem to have an image of our government that is completely infallible. "

****No, I know the reality of our government. Even if the USG wanted to pull off some 9/11 conspiracy it couldn't and 5 minutes after the first planning meeting it would have been leaked to the press. Nixon's "plumbers" couldn't pull off a simple black wiretapping job, Kennedy couldn't kill Castro, Regan's Iran-Contra mess was on tv for months, Slick Willie couldn't keep a blow job quiet but somehow 9/11 was the US Gov't shining moment of skill. Riiiiiight. I could tell hours of gov't waste and stupidity i've seen firsthand but for that one day in Sept. suddenly the USG has it's shit wired together. Suuuuure.

"That kind of attitude is more dangerous than anyone who would criticize, whether right or wrong."

****As usual you don't get it. I've spent my entire adult life working for one level or another of gov't. I have actual experience and life experience. I sort through truth and lies for a living, i've been places and done things. You found a worldview that makes you feel important and you just ignore everything that doesn't reaffirm this worldview, thus you claim all sorts of crackpot things even though I suspect at some level even you know it's bogus.****

****Post-9/11, Bush had 80-90% approval. Why did he piss it all away? What's the point of the "Reichtstag fire" if you don't use that moment to seize power? Let me guess, he's waiting until he hits 16% approval ratings before he moves? I used to be one of his biggest supporters, now i'm counting the months until we get a new president. Still he's smart enough to pull off 9/11 but too dumb to take advantage? Please explain.****
11672  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: June 29, 2007, 08:27:39 PM
So, according to the, the concentration camps were built in the 90's. 2001 came and went. Why did President Bush go to all the time and expense of staging 9/11 (Faking aircraft collisions when it was bombs, but wouldn't just say the towers were bombed, because who'd believe you could rig demolition charges in the WTC w/out anyone noticing? I guess he wanted the challenge?) Now his second term in office is almost over. So the "Richtstag fire" came and went and President Bush is just procrastinating?

Why are all you "patriots" still running free and posting your articles then? The concentration camps are waiting, the patriot act has been law for years now. Where is the roundup?
11673  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: June 29, 2007, 08:12:53 PM

"Detention Centers.....
and for locations of FEMA camps.... Not sure if that is the best source or not but your own research will lead you to the same conclusion."

I went to the site and came to the conclusion that anyone that takes that website seriously is a slack-jawed moron. Just my opinion, of course....
11674  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: June 29, 2007, 07:49:49 PM
****Wow, the amazing thing is the idea this administration would ever consider anything but amnesty for illegal aliens. This is supposed to be evidence of your conspiracy theory how exactly?****

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers

Published: February 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been criticized for overcharging the Pentagon for its work in Iraq.

KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space, company executives said. KBR, which announced the contract last month, had a similar contract with immigration agencies from 2000 to last year.

The contract with the Corps of Engineers runs one year, with four optional one-year extensions. Officials of the corps said that they had solicited bids and that KBR was the lone responder.

A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jamie Zuieback, said KBR would build the centers only in an emergency like the one when thousands of Cubans floated on rafts to the United States. She emphasized that the centers might never be built if such an emergency did not arise.

"It's the type of contract that could be used in some kind of mass migration," Ms. Zuieback said.

A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people.

"When there's a large influx of people into the United States, how are we going to feed, house and protect them?" Mr. Church asked. "That's why these kinds of contracts are there."

Mr. Church said that KBR did not end up creating immigration centers under its previous contract, but that it did build temporary shelters for Hurricane Katrina evacuees.

Federal auditors rebuked the company for unsubstantiated billing in its Iraq reconstruction contracts, and it has been criticized because of accusations that Halliburton, led by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, was aided by connections in obtaining contracts. Halliburton executives denied that they charged excessively for the work in Iraq.

Mr. Church said concerns about the Iraq contracts did not affect the awarding of the new contract.

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who has monitored the company, called the contract worrisome.

"With Halliburton's ever expanding track record of overcharging, it's hard to believe that the administration has decided to entrust Halliburton with even more taxpayer dollars," Mr. Waxman said. "With each new contract, the need for real oversight grows."

In recent months, the Homeland Security Department has promised to increase bed space in its detention centers to hold thousands of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. In the first quarter of the 2006 fiscal year, nearly 60 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico were released on their own recognizance.

Domestic security officials have promised to end the releases by increasing the number of detention beds. Last week, domestic security officials announced that they would expand detaining and swiftly deporting illegal immigrants to include those seized near the Canadian border.

Advocates for immigrants said they feared that the new contract was another indication that the government planned to expand the detention of illegal immigrants, including those seeking asylum.

"It's pretty obvious that the intent of the government is to detain more and more people and to expedite their removal," said Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center in Miami.

Ms. Zuieback said the KBR contract was not intended for that.

"It's not part of any day-to-day enforcement," she said.

She added that she could not provide additional information about the company's statement that the contract was also meant to support the rapid development of new programs.

Halliburton executives, who announced the contract last week, said they were pleased.

"We are especially gratified to be awarded this contract," an executive vice president, Bruce Stanski, said in a statement, "because it builds on our extremely strong track record in the arena of emergency management support."
11675  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: June 29, 2007, 07:06:10 PM
****Here is Brian's supporting document for his alleged presidential quote.****

"Goddamn Piece of Paper"
Washington, DC. Dec 14th, 2005 ---- There are multiple reports flying round DC that if true need to be addressed by both Houses of Congress in an Impeachment hearing. President Bush, who many believe is becoming more unstable every day is reported to have had the following exchanges during a meeting with Congressional leaders according to Doug Thompson, reporting in Capitol Hill Blue:

"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Doug Thompson wrote that he had talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper."

That conversation if it did take place deserves a groveling apology at least, and resignation if he had moral scruples. He needs to broadcast his apology to the American people immediately, without hundreds of military and flags as "Made for TV" backdrops.

This is not an isolated instance of instability. There are many reports of alcohol impaired bouts where the man responsible for the Nuclear Trigger couldn't even handle a Pretzel.

I sincerely hope these reports are not accurate, and that they were misquoted.

If not this is serious, and needs attention.

****Wow, that went without winning the Pulitzer. Shocking!!!****
11676  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: June 29, 2007, 07:00:41 PM
"The KKK was founded in the early 1830's by one of the Rothschilds.  At the time it was called The Knights of the Golden Circle which John Wilkes Boothe was a member.  The KGC later became the KKK.  You may be right that Albert Pike was not a founder.  But he is listed as Chief Judicial Officer in 1905.  His statue can be found in D.C.  He said this in 1871."

****Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Got more reality on your fantasy again.****
Ku Klux Klan
Encyclopedia Article

2 items
Article Outline
Introduction; Original Targets and Tactics; Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan; Recent Activity
Print this section
Ku Klux Klan, secret terrorist organization that originated in the Southern states during the period of Reconstruction following the American Civil War (1861-1865) and was reactivated on a wider geographic basis in the 20th century. The original Klan was organized in Pulaski, Tennessee, during the winter of 1865 to 1866, by six former Confederate army officers who gave their society a name adapted from the Greek word kuklos (“circle”). Although the Ku Klux Klan began as a prankish social organization, its activities soon were directed against the Republican Reconstruction governments and their leaders, both black and white, which came into power in the South in 1867. See also Terrorism.

Original Targets and Tactics
Print this section
The Klansmen regarded the Reconstruction governments as hostile and oppressive. They also generally believed in the innate inferiority of blacks and therefore mistrusted and resented the rise of former slaves to a status of civil equality and often to positions of political power. Thus, the Klan became an illegal organization committed to destroying the Reconstruction governments from the Carolinas to Arkansas. Attired in robes or sheets and wearing masks topped with pointed hoods, the Klansmen terrorized public officials in efforts to drive them from office and blacks in general to prevent them from voting, holding office, and otherwise exercising their newly acquired political rights. When such tactics failed to produce the desired effect, their victims might be flogged, mutilated, or murdered. These activities were justified by the Klan as necessary measures in defense of white supremacy and the inviolability of white womanhood.

A secret convention of Klansmen, held in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1867, adopted a declaration of principles expressing loyalty to the United States Constitution and its government and declaring the determination of the Klan to “protect the weak, the innocent and the defenseless ...; to relieve the injured and oppressed; [and] to succor the suffering ....” The convention designated the Klan as an Invisible Empire and provided for a supreme official, called Grand Wizard of the Empire, who wielded virtually autocratic power and who was assisted by ten Genii. Other principal officials of the Klan were the Grand Dragon of the Realm, who was assisted by eight Hydras; the Grand Titan of the Dominion, assisted by six Furies; and the Grand Cyclops of the Den, assisted by two Nighthawks.

From 1868 to 1870, while federal occupation troops were being withdrawn from the Southern states and radical regimes replaced with Democratic administrations, the Klan was increasingly dominated by the rougher elements in the population. The local organizations, called klaverns, became so uncontrollable and violent that the Grand Wizard, former Confederate general Nathan B. Forrest, officially disbanded the Klan in 1869. Klaverns, however, continued to operate on their own. In 1871 Congress passed the Force Bill to implement the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the rights of all citizens. In the same year President Ulysses S. Grant issued a proclamation calling on members of illegal organizations to disarm and disband; thereafter hundreds of Klansmen were arrested. The remaining klaverns gradually faded as the political and social subordination of blacks was reestablished.
11677  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Thank allah for bad jihadi driving and poorly built bombs..... on: June 29, 2007, 04:26:09 PM


Folks, I just spent three hours surfing the net and did I learn a lot! Did you know that most of the news we get is controlled by the Bu$hies? Let me enlighten you about today's so-called terrorist bombing attempt in London:

1. There is no proof that this was terrorism. With Blair gone, there IS no more terrorism in the UK. This was obviously just someone's car, probably belonging to a nail salesman, who kept a lot of samples in his car. He was on his way to a barbecue, of course, which explains the propane. And he needed the extra gas, too, because - hello! - he was driving a gas-guzzler (instead of a hybrid, which is really mean-spirited).

So in effect, this was some right-wing, global warming-enabling carpenter on his way to char little animals for his own gratification.

2. Are we not supposed to notice it's the first full day of Gordon Brown's administration? This is a very CONVENIENT time for George Bush to claim terrorism is continuing. Tony Blair, obviously knew about this in advance and in a cowardly fashion, and at the behest of his Bu$h Yankee overlords, left office this week.

3. Admirably, the alleged bombers chose England - so anyone injured would receive free health care. If a bomb would have gone off in, say, New York City, imagine all the performance artists and stand up comics who might have been injured. Surely, as Michael Moore would attest, they'd be turned away from the ER.

4. It's also good they chose a Mercedes instead of the subway. Bombing public transportation would have sent the wrong environmental message. Targeting a symbol of conspicuous consumption sends a chilling message to physicians everywhere.

5. The car was parked outside a bar called 'Tiger Tiger,' which highlights the near extinction of that species. That can't be a bad thing.

6. The fact that the bomb did not go off demonstrates the inequity in standards of science education for ethnic minorities.

7. Clearly these people responsible are angry at us and I am proposing a minute's silence and formation of steering committee for us all to consider what we as individuals can do to make these people less angry.

Your Friend,

11678  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Thank allah for bad jihadi driving and poorly built bombs..... on: June 29, 2007, 04:14:13 PM
Dog Brian,

Was this really just a CIA/Illuminati plot gone wrong?
11679  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Thank allah for bad jihadi driving and poorly built bombs..... on: June 29, 2007, 03:48:04 PM
Second car bomb discovered in London
Explosives-laden vehicles could have killed scores, authorities say
MSNBC and NBC News
Updated: 2:15 p.m. MT June 29, 2007
British authorities were seeking three men Friday after police defused two car bombs that they said could have caused “significant injury or loss of life” in London.

The three men are believed to be from the Birmingham area, a center of radical Islamic unrest in Britain, U.S. officials who had been briefed on the developments told NBC News.

Police said the two cars, a light green and a light blue Mercedes-Benz, were found early Friday morning in London’s theater district. The green Mercedes was defused at the site. The blue Mercedes was not discovered to be a threat until early Friday evening, after it had been issued a parking ticket and towed to an impoundment lot near Hyde Park.

“These vehicles are clearly linked,” said Peter Clarke, chief of Britain’s antiterrorism police. “The discovery of a second bomb is obviously troubling.”

The car bombs were similar to highly destructive explosives used in Iraq and could have killed scores of people, U.S. and British officials told NBC News. British officials warned that the country was facing a “serious and sustained” terrorist threat.

The first car, which was parked under a blue awning near the popular Tiger Tiger nightclub, just 50 yards from Trafalgar Square, was jammed with gasoline and 18 to 20 boxes of roofing nails. Six to eight tanks of propane, intended to mix with the gasoline in a mist to make a fuel-air explosion, were inside and around the car, counterterrorism officials told NBC News.

Clarke told reporters that the second car was similarly laden with explosives and nails.

U.S. officials told NBC that the devices appeared designed to create a highly explosive bomb of the type that had been seen in Iraq but not, until now, in the West.

Islamist terrorist suspects convicted in recent London cases have spoken of moving up to more deadly fuel-air explosives, authorities said. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said earlier this year that “vehicle-borne weaponry is the greatest danger that we can face.”

Authorities fear more devices
The two cars were left at the same place, but their discoveries were very dissimilar.

The first car was immediately recognized as a threat and disarmed at the scene. The second car, however, sat unrecognized for most of the day after it was hitched up to a tow truck and carted down London’s streets to a police impoundment lot.

The historic Fleet Street journalism district was also briefly shut as police examined a third suspicious vehicle before reopening the street.

Jacqui Smith, who was on her second day as Britain’s new home secretary, said the country was confronted with “the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism.”

Michael Chertoff, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said U.S. officials had no evidence of a threat to U.S. security.

With the approach of Independence Day, however, New York officials said they were ramping up security in light of the developments in London, where a New York police official was coordinating with local authorities.

“Some of you will notice, some of you won’t — but we have to be cognizant,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show.

Highly dangerous devices
It was clear that the devices, had they exploded, would have caused great damage and many casualties in the area, which is packed with restaurants, bars and theaters.

“This is a busy area that time of night,” the police official told NBC News. “There could have been a fireball that could have penetrated the club, and with the nails, it could have caused serious casualties.”

The attempted bombing comes just days after Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair as prime minister and a week before the second anniversary of the July 7 London bombings that killed 52 people. Brown echoed Smith’s observation that Britain faced a serious terrorist threat.

“I will stress to the Cabinet that the vigilance must be maintained over the next few days,” Brown said.

Security at the Wimbledon tennis tournament was increased in response to the thwarted attack, The Associated Press reported.

“We are a high-profile event, and the championships take security very seriously,” Roger Draper, Lawn Tennis Association chief executive, told Radio Five Live.

By Alex Johnson of and Stephanie Gosk of NBC News in London. NBC’s Robert Windrem in Washington and WNBC-TV’s Jonathan Dienst in New York contributed to this report.
11680  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 29, 2007, 02:06:41 PM
My biggest beef with the "Fairness Doctrine" is that gov't burecrats will be parsing speech and deciding "what's fair" in response. Political speech isn't binary code. It isn't as simple as a President's speech and the democrat's response.My favorite talk show commentator isn't nationally syndicated, he the closest i've found to representing my point of view so is that "unfair" that he doesn't have a nat'l show? (A Jewish conservative from New York)
11681  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 28, 2007, 07:19:00 PM

Fred discusses the Amnestias' loss today.
11682  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 28, 2007, 07:05:04 PM
****Phil Hendrie did the funniest stuff on radio i've ever heard. He'd get callers all the time that didn't know it was a joke a bait them into rage.****

Phil Hendrie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phil Hendrie
Philip Stephen Hendrie (born September 1, 1952, Arcadia, California) was the host of The Phil Hendrie Show, a comedy talk radio program that was syndicated throughout North America on Premiere Radio Networks and on XM Satellite Radio. While The Phil Hendrie Show became renowned for its unique and controversial guests, those guests were not real people at all—they were fictional characters created and voiced by Hendrie himself.
Hendrie has performed voices on the animated FOX sitcoms King of the Hill and Futurama, and in Team America: World Police. In Spring of 2006, he had a supporting role in the live-action NBC sitcom Teachers.
Hendrie was married in 1997 to radio talk show host Maria Sanchez. Their wedding was held at the Queen Mary and was broadcast live on KFI. Hendrie moved from Minneapolis and then to Miami where he further developed his show. The show then moved to KFI in Los Angeles and was nationally syndicated to approximately 100 radio stations. In February 2005, Hendrie was moved from his flagship station, KFI, to XTRA Sports 570 AM, a sports talk radio station also centered in Los Angeles.
In early 2006, Hendrie announced that he would be ending The Phil Hendrie Show, feeling he had reached the limits of what he could do in "terrestrial talk radio" and expressing a desire to shift his career focus toward acting. His last radio broadcast was June 23, 2006. [1] On December 4, 2006, in a radio interview, he mentioned that he may soon be returning to radio, but the show will not include his character skits. On June 4, 2007, it was announced that Phil Hendrie will return to radio June 25, 2007 from 10 PM to 1 AM PST on Talk Radio Network-FM, with shows airing weeknightly. However, the new show, while more lighthearted than most other talk radio shows about news and politics, does not have any comedic intent like his previous show, and Phil does not performs character voices in the new show.

Hendrie considers his views unique for modern talk radio: on one hand, he is a registered Democrat who vocally supported Bill Clinton, voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000, both Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale over Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and Michael Dukakis over George H.W. Bush (although Hendrie claims "I had to hold my nose when voting for Dukakis"). Hendrie is also adamantly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants. At the same time, he is extremely supportive of the Iraq War as well as the War on Terror. He voted for and supported President George W. Bush in the 2004 election, chiding Democrat John Kerry as trying to be "all things to all people" and cautioning listeners that Bush would in time be viewed as one of the greatest American presidents. These views caused a stir among some of his fans and tended to dominate his show throughout 2002 and 2003. Hendrie eventually started a blog, titled and located at (seemingly to incite those who felt he was moving too far to the right). The blog came down after a few weeks, partly because Phil was tired of squabbling with readers. Hendrie has since renounced using his radio program for political ranting, saying that he didn't want to be "another white man all mad and ready with the answers" in a 2006 live chat with fans.
[edit]New Direction

Phil Hendrie announced his retirement from radio in order to pursue an acting career. His last show aired on June 23, 2006, although his former flagship, KLAC in Los Angeles, continued to air reruns of Hendrie's programming in its original timeslot until November 2006. In addition, until February 2007, News/Talk 610 CKTB (AM), in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, continued to air a show of specially selected Hendrie bits - called 'Phil Hendrie By Demand' - four hours a week on Saturday evenings.
Hendrie played a starring role in NBC's short-lived midseason replacement sitcom, Teachers, in the spring of 2006. He has also completed pilots for 'Three Strikes', and 'Giants of Talk Radio'.
Hendrie has also completed a role in a Will Ferrel film.
Phil also guest starred in two episodes of The Unit that originally aired October 10th and October 31st, 2006. He played the part of a radio talk show host on a military base.
Phil has also guest stared in several episodes of Matt Groening's cartoon show Futurama voicing different members of a hippy family known as the Waterfalls.
The Phil Hendrie Show is downloadable in mp3 format, starting with his October 4, 1999 show, at Phil's official web site. [2]
[edit]Phil in the Blogosphere

Hendrie has maintained several blogs, including and, later, (named after one of his more infamous characters, a paroled child molester). Beginning on May 29, 2007, the blog featured an ad proclaiming Hendrie's return to the airwaves on June 25 on the Talk Radio Network. On June 26, 2007, the blog was removed for fear of negative publicity.
11683  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 28, 2007, 04:50:43 PM
I'm multi-tasking right now..... grin
11684  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 28, 2007, 04:47:56 PM
Sorry, I meant Beck. I'm assuming with Limbaugh, you're referring to his NFL quarterback statement, or is there something else?
11685  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 28, 2007, 04:35:45 PM
Imus wasn't/isn't anywhere near politically right. The "nappy headed ho's" comment was a joking hip-hop reference, so i'm not sure how you are putting him into the "right-wing wacko" grouping. I'm still curious what Sean Hannity has said that you consider racist.
11686  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 28, 2007, 03:17:56 PM
I can't stand "Savage" for more than 30 seconds. Don't catch Hannity that often. I take "Savage" to be something akin to Phil Hendrie rather than legitimate commentary. I'm curious what exactly Sean Hannity has said that you consider to be racist? I doubt very much the majority of talk radio listeners have the talk show hosts "doing their thinking for them". People who like talk radio tend to read and think and also trend upwards in income from the general population. Check the demos.
11687  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 28, 2007, 02:09:34 PM
I've never been a fan of Lott, even less so with his "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.” statement. I guess us uppity citizens should just shut up and let our betters in DC doing our thinking for us.

However, funny how those attacking Lott for his Strom Thurmond statement seem to give Robert "KKK" Byrd a pass.

11688  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 27, 2007, 10:43:33 PM
The dems have tried. Air America has gone bankrupt how many times now?
11689  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 27, 2007, 10:41:42 PM
Mexico has draconian laws against illegal immigration that they enforce. Remittances from Mexicans in Estados Unidos are a major part of Mexico's economy. Not only are they "hands off", the Mexican gov't has published comic book guides on how to illegally enter the US. What poverty problem, just outsource your poor to America....
11690  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 27, 2007, 05:51:18 PM
Kerry joins 'Fairness Doctrine' chorus
Also wants to bring back equal-time provisions

Posted: June 27, 2007
10:28 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (Photo: NBC 'Meet the Press')
John Kerry openly stated his support of the overturned "Fairness Doctrine" that required broadcasters in America to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."

The Federal Communications Commission overturned the rule in 1987 because it failed to accomplish its purpose of encouraging more discussion of controversial issues. More notably, concerns were raised over the constitutionality of the doctrine because many believed it violated First Amendment free speech rights.

"I think the fairness doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back," he said on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC.

Kerry's remarks can be heard in a recording posted by the Drudge Report.

"These are the people that wiped out … one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye," Kerry argued.

Kerry also favored reinstating the Equal Time Rule, which requires television and radio stations to allocate equal airtime to political candidates.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, recently introduced in Congress a plan to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said this week she is considering the possibility of bringing it back.

"Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact … because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side," said Feinstein in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. "And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."
11691  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cut and Run democrats....From Afghanistan on: June 27, 2007, 05:47:07 PM

Nuanced Cut and Run

The latest area from which Congressional Democrats want to cut and run is Afghanistan. Isn't that where there's widespread support and al Qaeda continues to operate on the border region in concert with the Taliban? So why are the usual suspects among Congressional Democrats calling for the US to get out?

A few congressional Democrats go so far as suggesting that the Pentagon should pull out of Afghanistan now, while others say that troop withdrawal will be addressed after the military is out of Iraq.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior defense authorizer, wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan immediately, calling operations there “futile” in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history.

Most other Democrats want to focus on Afghanistan, with the goal of withdrawing the military down the road after the country is stabilized and any new Taliban resurgence quashed.

With a few exceptions, congressional Democrats no longer show any hesitation about withdrawing the military from Iraq. But they are more circumspect about Afghanistan, saying that the Bush administration let the situation worsen by shifting attention onto a protracted conflict in Iraq.

“We should have never gone to Iraq, because we would have been out of Afghanistan [by now],” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) said in a brief interview.

Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said that by September, when he takes up the fiscal 2008 war supplemental funding, he would have a better sense of how to handle Afghanistan.

Yet making the argument that the U.S. needs to get out of Iraq and stay in Afghanistan can be politically challenging. While Democrats regularly note that the war in Iraq has now gone on longer than World War II, the U.S. has been in Afghanistan longer than it has been in Iraq. And arguments that Iraqis need to take control of their own country can be applied to Afghanistan as well.

The Afghanistan effort enjoys much more support among the American public, and Democratic leaders have sought to burnish their homeland security credentials by presenting an unwavering backing of the war there.
It's all about politics and seeking to game the situation to their advantage. It has nothing to do with national security or going after al Qaeda or even what's in the best interests of the troops.

This is a decision that is in the best interests of the partisan Democrats who think that this is going to win them seats in the next election.
11692  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 27, 2007, 05:41:50 PM

I'm sure he's a good journalist, what he does in his off time is his business.... rolleyes
11693  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 27, 2007, 05:37:54 PM
11694  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 27, 2007, 05:28:46 PM

More important is the fact that, in future years, Social Security benefits will be funded by both Social Security taxes and general revenue. What matters is not the small amount of Social Security taxes that would be paid by amnesty recipients but their overall fiscal balance—that is, the total federal state and local benefits received, minus all taxes paid. Because the total benefits taken by amnesty recipients and their families would exceed the Social Security and other taxes that they would pay, amnesty recipients would undermine, rather than strengthen, financial support for U.S. retirees, even before the amnesty recipients reach retirement age themselves.


The White House suggests that the retirement costs of amnesty recipients would not impose a significant tax burden on U.S. taxpayers.

The Senate bill would give amnesty recipients access not only to means-tested welfare, but also to government retirement benefits. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that the net fiscal costs of amnesty recipients during retirement would be $2.6 trillion. These particular costs would begin to impact the taxpayer about 30 years after enactment of the Senate legislation. The White House has made no specific refutation of this estimate.

The bulk of the net expenditure would be in the Social Security and Medicare programs; substantial costs would also occur in the means-tested Medicaid program (amnesty recipients would be fully eligible for Medicaid benefits long before they reach retirement). Contrary to any suggestions made by the White House, temporary restrictions on access to means-tested welfare by amnesty recipients is irrelevant to the estimated $2.6 trillion cost of amnesty.


The White House does point out that amnesty recipients will have paid Social Security taxes prior to retirement and thereby might be seen as having "earned" all the government benefits they would receive.[10] But, as noted above, the Social Security taxes paid by amnesty recipients would be modest. Even during working years, most amnesty recipients would be a drain on the taxpayer, and during retirement their fiscal cost would be dramatic.


The White House claims that the Senate immigration bill would benefit U.S. taxpayers by increasing the future flow of high skill immigrants (who would be strong net tax contributors) and decreasing the flow of low skill immigrants who are more likely to be a fiscal burden.


The White House claims that the Senate immigration bill would "sharply improve" the fiscal contributions of immigrants by increasing the share of future immigrants who are high skilled.[11] It asserts, "[T]he bill will end chain migration which allows legal immigrants to bring extended family members to the U.S" and replace it with a "new merit-based system to select future immigrants based on [their]…skills and attributes."[12]


In reality, the bill would triple the annual rate of family chain migration, raising the annual allotment for these immigrants from the current level of 147,000 to 440,000 and bringing up to 5.9 million such immigrants into the U.S. over the next decade. Family chain immigrants are predominately low skilled: 60 percent have only a high school degree or less and 38 percent lack a high school degree.[13]


What about the new merit-based system, ostensibly intended to bring in highly educated high tech workers? The core of this proposal is a point system to select future green card holders, but this point system is far from merit-based. For example, green card applicants would receive a high number of points if they are currently employed in "high demand" occupations, which include janitor, waitress, sales clerk, fast food worker, freight handler, laborer, grounds keeping worker, food preparation worker, maid, and house cleaner. Under the proposed point system, a high school dropout working in a fast food restaurant who has the recommendation of her employer would outscore an applicant with a Ph.D. trying to enter the country from abroad. The merit system is actually designed to confer citizenship on low skill "temporary guest workers" rather than bring in professionals from abroad.[14]


The bill would eliminate the current green card allocation for workers of "exceptional ability" but allocate 90,000 green cards per year for the next eight years to reduce the existing employment visa backlog of primarily low skill workers. Contrary to White House claims, it seems unlikely that S. 1348 would increase the number of green cards for high-skill workers, at least through the first eight years of operation.


The White House claims high school dropouts are a "very small part" of the immigrant population.


The Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers dismissed Heritage research on the negative fiscal impact of poorly educated immigrants as "relevant only to a very small part of the population" and therefore of little importance in assessing the Senate immigration bill.[15] In reality, a large and disproportionate share of current immigrants in the U.S. is poorly educated. One-third of all current immigrants lack a high school degree, compared to nine percent of native-born Americans. The families of immigrants without a high school degree now comprise 5 percent of the U.S. population. As noted, among the ten million adult illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty and citizenship under the Senate's immigration bill, some 50 to 60 percent lack a high school degree and many have only a high school degree.


The White House asserts that low skill immigrant families impose a substantially lesser burden on taxpayers than do low skill non-immigrant families.


The White House asserts, "[L]ow-skill immigrants are actually comparatively self-sufficient compared to low skill native households."[16] This assertion is false. Low skill immigrants and non-immigrants impose similar burdens on the taxpayer. Wages, tax payments, and receipt of welfare are quite similar for the two groups. Low skill non-immigrants differ from immigrants primarily because they are more likely to be elderly and therefore less likely to be employed.


The White House asserts that the children of low skill immigrants quickly become fiscal contributors (taxes paid exceed benefits and services received) and thereby compensate taxpayers for nearly all the fiscal losses generated by their parents.


The White House has suggested that while low skill immigrants may impose some initial taxpayer costs, these costs are "recovered quickly" by the net taxes paid by the immigrants' children.[17] This is not true. Low skill immigrants impose very heavy costs on U.S. taxpayers. As noted, on average, each low skill immigrant household receives three dollars in benefits for each one dollar of taxes paid; over a lifetime, each household costs the taxpayer more than $1 million.


The children of low skill immigrants do better than their parents. With higher levels of education, they will receive fewer welfare benefits and pay more taxes. Nonetheless, despite this upward progress, the children of immigrant dropouts are likely to remain a net drain on the taxpayers.[18]


The White House asserts that the "children of immigrant parents are 12 percent more likely to obtain a college degree than other natives."[19] It neglects to note that the relevant group, the children of low skill immigrant parents, have below-average educational attainment. For example, the children of Hispanic dropout parents are three times more likely to drop out of high school and 75 percent less likely to have a college degree than the general population.


With prevailing trends in upward mobility, the descendents of immigrant dropouts will not become net tax contributors until the third generation. This means that the net fiscal impact of low skill immigrants will remains negative for 50 to 60 years after the immigrants' arrival in the U.S.


The White House obscures the cost of low skill immigrants.


The White House report asserted that Heritage Foundation research on low skill immigrants is flawed because it lacks a "forward looking projection."[20] The Council of Economic Advisers stated that, from the 'long-run point of view," low skill immigrants are remarkably inexpensive: Each immigrant without a high school degree costs the taxpayer a mere $13,000 overall.[21] The CEA failed to note that its "long-run point of view" includes the estimated taxes paid by the low skill immigrants' descendents for the next 300 years.[22] In other words, the White House is asserting that taxpayers should not be concerned about the $89 billion annual cost generated by low skill immigrants because that cost would be largely offset by the taxes paid by the immigrants' descendents in the year 2407. In addition, the 300-year estimate cited by White House assumes very large tax increases and benefits reductions in the near future.




In its defense of the Senate immigration bill, the White House employs statistics about the fiscal contributions of college-educated immigrants, but the taxes paid by college-educated immigrants are almost completely irrelevant to a fiscal analysis of S. 1348. The main fiscal impact of S. 1348 will occur through two mechanisms: (1) the grant of amnesty, with accompanying access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, to 12 million illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly low skilled; and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, which will also be predominantly low skilled.


In this context, talking about the taxes paid by college-educated immigrants is a red herring and merely serves to obscure the obvious fiscal consequences of the legislation.


The bottom line is that high school dropouts are extremely expensive to U.S. taxpayers. It does not matter whether the dropout comes from Ohio, Tennessee, or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the future flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and grant amnesty and access to government benefits to millions of poorly educated illegal aliens already here. Such legislation would inevitably impose huge costs on U.S. taxpayers.



[1] The President's Council of Economic Advisers, "Immigration's Economic Impact," June 20, 2007.


[2] Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear, "Lead Weight or Gold Mine: What are the True Costs of Immigration?" RealClearPolitics, June 25, 2007.


[3] Robert Rector and Christine Kim, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer," Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 14, May 21, 2007.


[4] Robert Rector, "Amnesty will Cost the U.S. Taxpayers at least $2.6 Trillion," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1490, June 6, 2007, at


[5] Lori Montgomery, "Immigration Lifts Wages, Report Says," Washington Post, June 21, 2007, p. D3.


[6] "Response to False Claims That Illegal Immigrants Will Not Receive Welfare Under Senate Bill," Robert E. Rector, Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1509, June 18, 2007.


[7] Ibid.


[8] Zinsmeister and Lazear.


[9] Ibid.


[10] Ibid.


[11] Ibid.


[12] The White House, "Fact Sheet: Ending Chain Migration," May 29, 2007, at


[13] Robert Rector, "Merit-based Immigration under S. 1348: Bringing in the High Tech Waitresses," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1492, June 7, 2007.


[14] Tamar Jacoby, "'Temporary is Temporary' Won't Work for All Immigrants," Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2007, at,0,923297.story.


[15] Interview with Edward Lazear, "Washington Journal," C-SPAN, June 21, 2007.


[16] Zinsmeister and Lazear.


[17] Montgomery, "Immigration Lifts Wages, Report Says."


[18] This conclusion is based on forthcoming research by The Heritage Foundation that employs the fiscal methodology  of Rector and Kim, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer."


[19] Zinsmeister and Lazear.


[20] The President's Council of Economic Advisers, "Immigration's Economic Impact," p. 5


[21] Ibid.


[22] National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997), pp. 334, 342.
11695  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 27, 2007, 05:28:29 PM
Hiding the Cost of Amnesty  
By Robert Rector
Heritage Foundation | June 27, 2007

Last week, the White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report entitled "Immigration's Economic Impact" which defended the President's promotion of the Senate's "comprehensive" immigration legislation (S.1348).[1] On June 25, the White House issued a follow-up editorial elaborating on the points made in the CEA report.[2] These publications criticized Heritage Foundation research on the fiscal costs of low skill immigration and amnesty.


The Heritage research criticized by the White House made the following basic points about immigration and its costs:


Individuals without a high school degree impose significant net costs (the extent to which benefits and services received exceed taxes paid) on taxpayers.
The net fiscal cost of families of immigrants who lack a high school degree is not markedly different from the net fiscal cost of families of non-immigrants who lack a high school degree.
Immigrants are disproportionately low skilled; one-third of all immigrants and 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree.
Unlike low and moderate skill immigrants, immigrants with a college education will pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits; therefore. immigration policy should increase the number of high skill immigrants entering the country and sharply decrease the number of low skill, fiscally dependent immigrants.[3]
Heritage research has shown that low skill immigrants (those without a high school degree) receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits and services for each dollar of taxes they pay. This imbalance imposes a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime, the typical low skill immigrant household will cost taxpayers $1.2 million.[4]


Future taxpayer costs will be increased by policies which increase (1) the number of low skill immigrants entering the U.S., (2) the length of low skill immigrants' stays in the U.S., or (3) low skill immigrants' access to government benefits and services. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Senate immigration bill does:


The bill would triple the flow of low skill chain immigration into the U.S.
By granting amnesty to at least 12 million illegal immigrants, the bill would greatly lengthen their stay in the U.S., particularly during retirement years.
The bill would grant illegal immigrants access to Social Security and Medicare benefits and, over time, to more than 60 different federal welfare programs.
Although the bill does not currently permit Z visa holders to bring spouses and children in from abroad, this would likely be amended at some future point on humanitarian grounds, resulting in another 5 million predominantly low-skill immigrants entering the country.
Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion once the amnesty recipients reach retirement age.


In an effort to defend the Senate bill, the White has contested these conclusions. As described below, many of the assertions made by the White House are inaccurate or misleading.


The White House claims that, under the Senate immigration bill, amnesty recipients would receive little or no welfare.

CEA Chairman Edward Lazear charged that the Heritage claims concerning the cost of the Senate immigration bill were flawed because, under the bill, amnesty recipients would be barred from receiving "the vast majority of welfare benefits."[5] Like previous statements by White House spokesmen,[6] this assertion mischaracterizes the Senate bill and also shows a lack of understanding of the Heritage estimates of the bill's costs.

While provisions of the Senate bill would delay illegal immigrants' access to welfare for several years, over time, nearly all amnesty recipients would be offered legal permanent residence and access to more than 60 federal means-tested welfare programs. Specifically, Z visa holders would immediately be given Social Security numbers and would begin earning entitlement to Social Security and Medicare (which are not means-tested welfare programs). Some ten to thirteen years after enactment, amnesty recipients would begin to gain access to a wide variety of means-tested welfare programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, and Food Stamps.[7] Children born to illegal and legal immigrants in the U.S. have immediate, lifetime access to all welfare programs.

The initial limitation on the receipt of means-tested welfare will have only a small effect on governmental costs. Adult welfare comprises only a small part of the benefits received by immigrant families. Moreover, the average adult amnesty recipient can be expected to live more than 50 years after receiving his Z visa. While his eligibility for means-tested welfare would be constrained for the first 10 to 15 years, each amnesty recipient would be fully eligible for welfare during the last 30 to 40 years of his life. Use of welfare during these years will be heavy.


The White House claims that, to the extent that amnesty recipients receive welfare benefits, they would receive the same low levels of benefits as other poorly educated immigrants, who (in the White House's view) receive little welfare.


The White House reassures taxpayers that amnesty recipients and millions of future low skill immigrants will not generate welfare costs because they must "qualify for…government [welfare] transfers only the old fashioned way."[8] The implication is that those who must struggle to earn access to welfare "the old fashioned way" will, in the end, get very little welfare. Contrary to this claim, the average low skill immigrant family actually receives $10,500 per year in means-tested welfare, or about a half million dollars over the course of a lifetime. Amnesty recipients would indeed gain access to welfare "the old fashioned way," and the old fashioned way is extraordinarily expensive.


The brief delay in adult access to welfare under S. 1348 and current law would have only a tiny effect on the long-term welfare costs of low skill immigrants. Further, the White House's touting the delays on immigrants receiving welfare under existing law is hypocritical: The actual policy pursued by the White House up to this time has been to dismantle the barriers in current law and increase immigrant families' access to welfare.


The White House strongly suggests that, under the Senate immigration bill, amnesty recipients would be net tax contributors.


Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty under S. 1348 lack a high school degree. Another 25 percent have only a high school degree. Based on the example of current immigrants with similar levels of education, these individuals would be a net burden on the taxpayer over the entire course of their lives.


The White House claims that amnesty recipients would increase the net government revenue available to support Americans in retirement.


The White House trumpets that "immigrants improve the solvency of our retirement system."[9] One must assume that they believe that the same will be true of amnesty recipients, because otherwise the assertion would be irrelevant in the current debate. The White House does correctly point out that amnesty recipients would pay Social Security taxes during their working years. Amnesty recipients' low skill levels, however, mean that the Social Security tax payments they make would, on average, be quite modest.

11696  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 27, 2007, 05:17:28 PM
There is no need for new laws, just active enforcement of the law already in existance. The borders must be secured. Canada is a staging ground for all sorts of terror cells. Militarize the borders, take the BP agents and turn them over to ICE for internal enforcement. Start seizing assets of employers and the millions of illegals will self-deport.
11697  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 27, 2007, 05:13:15 PM

Pretty sure? I may have missed it, but i've never seen Fox News do this. Now the dems are pushing the "Fairness Doctrine". I guess talk radio and Fox News are overpowering CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, National Peoples' Radio, all the major newspapers and news magazines, requiring government intervention. cry
11698  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 27, 2007, 08:53:14 AM

AP Uses Democrat Talking Points in Fred Thompson Hit Piece
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 26, 2007 - 23:30.

As Democrats complain about conservative dominance on the radio, the hypocrisy is made crystal clear when America's leading wire service copies talking points directly from one of Howard Dean’s e-mail messages for a hit piece on looming Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

Such was identified by Steve Hill of Target Rich Environment who brilliantly outlined the similarities between an e-mail message he received Friday from the Democratic National Committee chairman (complete text with timestamp and e-mail address to follow) with an Associated Press article published Tuesday at (emphasis added throughout):

1. DNC talking point: “In his most recent stint in Washington, Thompson worked for a London company lobbying Congress to limit liability claims for asbestos-related illnesses. Over the past three years he’s made $760,000 fighting for the interests of his corporate clients.

“AP/CNN talking point: ”More recently, while Frist led the Senate, Thompson earned more than $750,000 lobbying for a British reinsurance company that wanted to limit its liability from asbestos lawsuits.

2. DNC Talking Point: “And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby’s legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would “absolutely” pardon him.”

AP/CNN Talking Point: “Thompson also helped run the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund Trust, an organization that set out to raise more than $5 million to help finance the legal defense of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, who was convicted in March of lying and obstructing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.”

3. DNC Talking Point: “For years, acting wasn’t the Law & Order star’s profession — it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist.”

AP/CNN Talking Point: “Republican Fred Thompson, who likes to cast himself in the role of Washington outsider, has a long history as a political insider who earned more than $1 million lobbying the federal government.”

4. DNC Talking Point: “Although the folksy-sounding Tennessean recently told USA TODAY that he would run an outsider, just as he did while campaigning as a “country lawyer” in a red pickup during his 1994 U.S. Senate race, his résumé is that of a longtime Washington operative who has crossed ideological lines to represent corporate and foreign clients.”

AP/CNN Talking Point: “That history as a Washington insider is at odds with the image Thompson has sought to convey to voters. When he first ran for the Senate in 1993, Thompson cast himself in the part of the gruff, plainspoken everyman, leased a red pickup truck and drove around Tennessee in his shirt sleeves.”

Amazing similarities, wouldn’t you agree? Now, check out the e-mail message that Steve received Friday for verification (his address has been removed for his privacy):

From: "Howard Dean" <>
Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "Steve Hill" < >
Subject: FW: The inside-outsider
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:56:59 -0500

Dear Steve,

I wanted to follow up on Tom's email from Tuesday.

As you probably know, we've got a big job here. Right
now it's up to us -- not the 2008 Democratic
candidates -- to take on Fred Thompson, John McCain,
Rudy Giuliani and the rest of the Republican
presidential hopefuls. And that's why we need your

Last year, the 50-state strategy put organizers on the
ground across the country to stand up to the lies and
failures of the GOP. Those organizers were the key to
our unprecedented victories up and down the ballot in

Unlike many campaigns, our organizers still had a job
when the election was over -- thanks to contributions
from Democrats like you. That sort of support is
crucial to build a party that will fight in every
state for many elections to come, and that support is
what allows us to continue to have organizers working
in your state today.

Just yesterday in Iowa, a DNC-funded organizer was on
the ground distributing facts to reporters after a big
speech by Rudy Giuliani. If we don't continue to
organize and research now, Election Day 2008 could be
one that we'd rather forget.

Don't let that happen -- support our efforts today:

November 2008 may seem like a long time from now, but
Democrats aren't waiting to take our country back.


Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.

P.S: If you didn't get a chance to read about the real
Fred Thompson, check out the email Tom sent a few days


From: Tom McMahon

Subject: The inside-outsider

Dear Howard,

Remember the Republican culture of corruption? The
revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and
out of top political offices and Washington D.C.
lobbying firms?

That's Republican presidential candidate Fred

For years, acting wasn't the Law & Order star's
profession -- it was a hobby. In the real world,
Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career
as a Washington lobbyist.

And just this month, as part of his role as the
ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host
yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby's
legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his
support of Libby, saying that he would "absolutely"
pardon him.

As he runs for president, he'll try his hardest to
hide the truth from the American people. And we need
to stop him.

Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred

Here's what the USA Today had to say about Lobbyist

"Although the folksy-sounding Tennessean recently told
USA TODAY that he would run an outsider, just as he
did while campaigning as a "country lawyer" in a red
pickup during his 1994 U.S. Senate race, his résumé is
that of a longtime Washington operative who has
crossed ideological lines to represent corporate and
foreign clients."

In his most recent stint in Washington, Thompson
worked for a London company lobbying Congress to limit
liability claims for asbestos-related illnesses. Over
the past three years he's made $760,000 fighting for
the interests of his corporate clients.

Now Fred Thompson wants the American people to believe
he's the next Ronald Reagan -- a Washington outsider
with Hollywood charisma and conservative appeal. But

Thompson just plays the role of straight-shooting outsider

on TV. In reality, he's as inside as you can get.

He's trying to get to the White House on slick lines
and good acting. Help us stop him:

As Fred Thompson tries to go from Washington's K Street

to Pennsylvania Avenue, the stakes of his
candidacy couldn't be higher. In an interview just
last week, for example, he claimed that the Roe v.
Wade decision "was fabricated out of whole cloth," and
that it was the worst court ruling in the past 40

We need to make sure that in 2008, Fred Thompson goes
back to doing his acting on Law & Order -- not in the
White House.

Make a contribution today:

While the Democratic presidential candidates hit the
campaign trail, we'll be hitting the Republicans. It's
our job to tell the American people the facts about
opponents like Fred Thompson and to hold them

We can't finish that job without you. I hope you'll
join us.


Tom McMahon
DNC Executive Director

Extraordinary similarities, yes?

In reality, we shouldn’t be too surprised, as the folks at Power Line identified some interesting information about this AP writer, Travis Loller (emphasis added):

Ms. Loller has a rather colorful past as a left-wing activist. Mother Jones described her as a "radical":

Three American citizens, along with nine other foreigners, were deported from Mexico on April 12, 1998 for alleged collusion with the Zapatista rebels (EZLN). The woman, Travis Loller, 26, and two men, Michael Sabato, 30, and Jeffrey Conant, 30, are part of an American relief group called Intercambio de Tecnologia Apropiada (ITA) or, in English, Appropriate Technology Exchange. The Mexican government accused the three of agitating for the rebel army that's been struggling in the southeastern state of Chiapas for over four years in an effort to win basic civil rights and gain land reform for the indigenous Indians in the region.


The three Americans have extensive activist histories, having worked for reproductive rights, the homeless and protests against the Gulf War, the Rodney King verdict and Propositions 187 and 209.

Now, Loller works for the Associated Press, apparently with assistance from the Democrat Party.

Anybody want to talk about the Fairness Doctrine?
11699  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7 on: June 26, 2007, 08:38:59 PM
The Purdue Study is not an independent investigation but was funded by the NSF or National Science Foundation which is a governmental organization that recently was granted an increase which doubled their annual budget to $6 billion.

The head of the NSF is Arden L. Bement, Jr. who worked for the DoD and on DARPA programs.

The director of the Purdue study is Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. who served on the ASCE team that studied the OKC bombing.

****So what? Do you know what "peer reviewed" means?****

**The burden of proof is on you. You're making the assertion. So, again, what happened on 9/11? It's a simple question.** 

Sure GM, it may be a simple question but would require a complicated answer.  And then of course you would want sources (and rightly so) for every detail, which would be exhaustive.  It is far more constructive for me to simply point out inconsistencies and lies within the official version.  I think your mind is made up in either case.  That doesn’t bother me at all.

****It would require you to give a coherent narrative of the events of 9/11 with corroborative evidence. Something you and the other "Truther" loons can't do. Here is a simple exercise, prove to me you weren't part of the 9/11 conspiracy. Have fun proving a negative..... evil

It seems like you are taking this a little too personally.  ** Let me guess, you're just much smarter than us.....**  This gave me flashbacks of fighting on a preschool playground!! 

****If you had a grasp of deductive logic, geopolitics and physics above that level of education, you couldn't be a truther.****

I’m not saying there aren’t jihadists.  Of course there is, but jihadists are not the real danger. 

****Ah, it's so much more comforting to imagine that "the real enemy" is a room full of rich white guys rather than millions of savages across the globe, isn't it?****

Funny how the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress without any legislators reading the bill. 

****Ever read legislation? Very few legislators ever do, they have employees who do that. The size and complexity of modern legislation is overwhelming. In the crisis post-9/11 are you surprised the patriot act was passed? BTW, I think it was good legislation.****

Strange how PNAC called for a catalyzing event like a “New Pearl Harbor” in 2000 to propel our military into the 21st century and was signed by neo-cons like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. 

****SO what?****

 .  Mohammed Atta’s passport fly’s unscathed through the burning wreckage and onto the streets of New York to be immediately identified as one of the hijackers. 

****It wasn't immediately identified, there were tons of debris scattered everywhere. Debris scattered from the impact WOULDN'T have burned due to it having been thrown clear. A TRAINED investigator knows this.****

The FBI already had names of hijackers within hours of the crash even though they were not listed on the flight manifests. 

****Cite your source.****

The government refuses to issue any meaningful video footage of the Pentagon crash.  The wreckage of Flight 93 being reduced to nothing larger than pieces the size of phonebooks spread out over 5 miles and no identifiable body parts yet they tell us it collided with the ground. 

****In your experience and training in the field of aviation accident investigation, what should the crash site look like?****

(BTW the wreckage of Flight 93 is being stored in a vault underground at Iron Mountain rather than being reconstructed by the hands of the FAA or TSA which is SOP for an airplane accident)

****The TSA has NOTHING to do with avaiation crash investigation, and as a matter of fact DID NOT EXIST on 9/11 so i'm not sure how they were supposed to investigate the crash. The FAA isn't the investigative agency either. Sorry, didn't mean to get any reality on your fantasy.****

Three Skyscrapers falling to the ground at free fall speed (no resistance by the lower floors or the 47 steel columns) in one day in which one of the towers was not hit by a plane. 

****Really? Who made the tv footage I watched? Lucasfims? How about all the New Yorkers that watch the planes impact firsthand? Part of the conspiracy too? I talked with a Manhattan resident who saw the whole thing firsthand. I guess he was a CIA plant, right?****

Never in the history of steel skyscrapers has this happened. 

****You mean there weren't other 9/11 attacks before 9/11? Wow, that's a brilliant insight! Very compelling arguement there!****

Our leaders telling us that they never conceived of such an attack even though there is ample proof otherwise. 

****How many elected leaders have any degree of training and background in anti-terrorism or counterterrorism? Pre-9/11, this wasn't a topic on anyone's mind outside of those specialists in those fields. The Clinton administration went through both terms without doing more than some token missile attacks on empty tents and a phamaceutical factory. The FIRST WTC attack was in 1993. Why then? Why didn't Clinton visit the site, even though he was in New Jersey at the time? Bojinka was hatched during the Clinton administration and Clinton let al qaeda spread it's tentacles around the world.  Conspiracy?Huh??****

 How much evidence does one need to smell a cover-up? 

****Words mean things, they have actual definitions. You are misusing the word "EVIDENCE".****

ev·i·dence      [ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
1.   that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.   something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.   Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4.   to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5.   to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
6.   in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME (n.) < MF < L évidentia. See evident, -ence]

—Synonyms 3. information, deposition, affidavit. Evidence, exhibit, testimony, proof refer to information furnished in a legal investigation to support a contention. Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source: Hearsay evidence is not admitted in a trial. An exhibit in law is a document or article that is presented in court as evidence: The signed contract is Exhibit A. Testimony is usually evidence given by witnesses under oath: The jury listened carefully to the testimony. Proof is evidence that is so complete and convincing as to put a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt: proof of the innocence of the accused. 4. demonstrate.

****Now, let's look at the word "ALLEGATION".****

al·le·ga·tion      [al-i-gey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
1.   the act of alleging; affirmation.
2.   an assertion made with little or no proof.
3.   an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.
4.   a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L allég?ti?n- (s. of allég?ti?), equiv. to allég?t(us), ptp. of allég?re to adduce in support of a plea (al- al- + -lég?re, deriv. of léx law; see legal) + -i?n- -ion]

—Synonyms 1, 2. charge, accusation; claim, contention.

****Do you understand the difference now?****

First they told us the passengers of Flight 93 were communicating via cell phone. 

****Who is "they"?****

When it was shown that cell phones do not normally work at those altitudes and at that speed, the government recanted their statement and said that onboard airphones, not cell phones, were being used even though one of the calls they say came from the bathroom. 

****Cite your source.****

First Larry Silverstein says “pull it, and we watched the tower collapse” and later issues a statement that he meant pull the firefighters out of the building even though there were no firefighters in the building before the collapse.  Who refers to firefighters as ‘it’ anyways?  Even John Kerry was confused whether WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition as shown in the link above.

****So, now John Kerry is part of the conspiracy too? So exactly how many people were involved in the "conspiracy"?****

I’m not saying anyone is smarter than anyone else, but we have got to pay attention to what is going on!! 

****Howabout paying attention to the websites i've posted that demolish all your bogus claims?****

How many times would you let your girlfriend or wife lie to you before you stopped believing anything she said?  This government lies to us all the time and is shrouded in secrecy. 

****Wow, that's a sophisticated analysis.  rolleyes If there is a nation with a greater degree of transparency in it's government i'd like to know about it. Please cite the nation or nations with a greater degree of open records laws.****

Have we lost our nerves as a free people?  After all the deceit, scandal, and corruption from D.C., do we still just turn our backs and trust our all-mighty government, controlled by career politicians and corporate lobbyists to take care of us? 

****Wow, chest thumping rhetoric! Aside from cutting and pasting from fringe websites, what have YOU done?****

Whenever they take a freedom away, we never get it back!! 

****Please explain in detail what freedom you don't have now that you did pre-9/11.****

The Bill of Rights has been shredded, the Constitution according to Bush is just a “goddamned piece of paper.” 

****Please cite your source. I really want to see this quote.****

The so-called conservative Bush administration is spending money like a drunken sailor yet Congress is supposed to control our budget.  Not only is our southern border wide open but we prosecute Border Patrol Agents and throw them in prison for 12 years when they were just doing their job!! 

****Destroying evidence of a shooting falls outside the job description of any law enforcement officer. That's what jammed up Ramos and Compean.****

We have become completely dependant on cheap Chinese trinkets built by slave labor yet we are told it is a free market.  Detention centers are being built all over the country just waiting for some disaster to fill them up.

****Really? Where? Show me.****

  We are using mercenaries like BlackWater (oil) security and calling them contractors. 

****Blackwater's name has nothing to do with oil. Can you tell me the actual origin? Crafty knows someone who was with Blackwater from the early days. Contractors do lots of jobs for the federal gov't because it's cheaper and easier in many cases. I've worked as a contract employee for the USG several times.****

Currently we have 120,000 BlackWater ‘contractors’ in Iraq. 

****What's the  your source for this number?****

We pay ‘contractors’ 6 times the amount a soldier receives and when a soldier comes home wounded, our Veterans Hospitals are not equipped nor receive the proper funding to handle them. 

****Contractor aren't covered by the USG's infastructure. If they are wounded or killed, they don't get a .mil retirement or benefits. They take the chances in exchange for the money. The USG does it because it's cheaper.****

This country is being destroyed on purpose in the name of globalization. 

****On purpose is again, your assertion.****

Our infrastructure paid by tax dollars is being sold to private foreign industries.  Our National Parks are being held as collateral for our debt under the UN as ‘World Heritage Sites.’  Yet as soon as someone says New World Order, everyone gasps and denies that such a thing exists, even though it says Norvo Ordo Seclorum on the back of our dollar bill!!! 



Novus means: new, young, novel.
Ordo means: row, series, order.
Seclorum means: of the ages, of the generations, of the centuries.
An accurate translation of Novus Ordo Seclorum is "A New Order of the Ages," but the meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original context.

NOTE: Novus ordo seclorum does not properly translate into "new world order," which is an English phrase that, if converted to Latin, would not be novus ordo seclorum. Seclorum is a plural form (new worlds order?), and Thomson specifically said the motto refers to "the new American era" commencing in 1776.

****We'll put down Latin as another thing you don't understand.****

But it could never happen to us in America!!!  It is happening right now and no one seems to notice.  We were built on self reliance and individualism yet over 53% of this population is receiving a government paycheck whether through labor or welfare. 

****But you don't like contractors either....****

And who would ever bite the hand that feeds them?  Our currency is no longer respected around the world and frankly neither is this country. 

****So the rich conspirators are trying to bankrupt themselves?****

This is no accident, it is not just a few mistakes or bad decision making, it is not liberalism or conservativism, it is the deliberate destruction of America from the inside.

You want to know what happened on 9-11?  It was the beginning of WWIII.  WWI they gave us the League of Nations, WWII they gave us the UN, WWIII they will give us a global government whether you like it or not.

****The UN couldn't organize a backyard picnic, the league of nations was even more worthless, so if the "one world gov't" is anything like those entities i'm not scared.****

Albert Pike was a Confederate General during the Civil War.  He was also the founder of the KKK yet he is the only Confederate General to have his statue in Washington D.C. 

****Albert Pike was NOT the founder of the KKK. The founders were: Confederate Civil War veterans Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, Frank O. McCord. It's well documented, look it up. ISN'T a good source of information.****

He said in 1870 that it would require three world wars in order to create a one world government.  The third war should be a religious war consisting of Christians and Jews fighting against Muslims.  People will become so sick of monotheistic religion that they will allow government to become their god.

****Again, let's see the source documents here.****

Conspiracy or Coincidence?  If you believe it is just coincidence, we will continue on a path toward internal suicide under the guise of democracy with no accountability rather than a constitutional republic as was originally intended by our founding fathers.

11700  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: June 25, 2007, 07:02:47 PM

Iranian forces crossed Iraqi border: report   

Jun 25 07:23 PM US/Eastern

Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.
Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".

An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.

In response to the report, a British defence ministry spokesman said: "There is evidence that explosive devices used against our troops in southern Iraq originated in Iran."

"Any Iranian link to armed militias in Iraq either through weapons supply, training or funding are unacceptable."

Britain has about 7,100 soldiers in Iraq, most of whom are based in the southern city of Basra and surrounding areas, though the government has pledged to reduce that to between 5,000 and 5,500 this year.
Pages: 1 ... 232 233 [234] 235 236 ... 244
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!