Bush lies. Constantly. Apparently, some people can't handle the truth. Thank the goddess, Susie Madrak can, and, at Open Source Politics, she'll explain it all for you.
That's right. George Dubya Bush is a straight-up liar. Prevaricator. Fabricator. Forked-tongue person. He fibs, deceives, embellishes, tells tales, stretches the truth. HE LIES.…
Article comments
26 - Ralph Del Rio
Many of the people posting here are truly out of touch with mainstream society and that's OK. I am like that on some isues as well. But this whole thing about 'Bush Lies' is silly.
We are going to have to kill the terrorists "by any means necessary".
As a real moderate I understand that we do have some relationships abroad that need to be checked. Our troops are our heroes; many of them will die protecting us and our children. God Bless them and thank you. Saddam raped his people for 30 years, used WMD, threatened us and its neighbors and he's on the record supporting the 9/11 attacks. Which was more than enough justification for us to act as we are. The middle east is full of ancestors who missed out on the the beauties of the 18th century. It's very basic. You are either Pro-terrorism or Anti-Terrorism. This terrorism war will include Iran very shortly. It is the head of the snake and Hamas and the like must be dismantled which means Syria will feel alot of pressure as well.
...and the Valerie Plame brouhaha is all about anonymous sources and Joseph Wilson is an admitted left of center, supports Kerry and he probably has ambitions to run for office as well.
He published his wifes name in a Who's Who. And barked a diatribe at Rove in July. It smells. It's election year politics as usual and will fade away.
27 - brian
Yes, we would disagree on his status as "president." He is not my president, never was.
Really? When did you surrender your U.S. citizenship?
28 - san
Ralph Del Rio: If Benelux invades the United States and a faction of Americans forms to resist the occupation of this country, using violent attacks to discomfit and promote the expulsion of Benelux forces, and you support them, are you pro-terrorist or anti-terrorist?
When you do it, it's always resistance or defense or fighting a war; when they do it, it's terrorism. In a war, both sides break every rule in the book and then the winners get to prosecute the losers for war crimes.
Natalie's comment should be thoroughly considered: support this administration if you wish but don't be blind and swallow the rhetoric whole. Your statement that "you're either pro-terrorism or anti-terrorism" is such an oversimplification of the global issues before us that it's painfully obvious you're incapable of doing any critical thinking on this subject.
And you better hope we don't engage in full-scale military conflict with Iran. Their armed forces haven't been crippled by sanctions and inspections for over a decade. We go into Iran and this low-casualty ass-kicking parade will end right quick.
Head of the snake? What with that and the axis of evil, I feel like I'm living in a biblical metaphor instead of a civilized nation.
29 - Eric Olsen
San, the Benelux invasion analogy does not hold: Saddam 's Iraq was held together by terror, obviously was not supported by any but a tiny percentage of the population, was illegitimate in every way. We have no need to be "liberated" - Iraq had every need.
And some things really are that simple - such as the war on terror.
30 - san
My analogy is really an oversimpflication, too; but I had to put Ralph in the mind of his own country, his own culture, invaded by outsiders. There's no way -- right now, at least (wink) -- to make the U.S. a candidate for liberation without a hypothetical.
I think my point holds, though. I'm not suggesting that Iraq was fond of Saddam; I'm suggesting that post-invasion "terrorism" is not so easily defined. Perpetrating acts of "terror" in Iraq now, I suggest that there are Ba'ath loyalists, third-party (extranational) groups, common brigands, and Iraqi patriots defending their country against what they see as a foreign occupying military force. The latter group is hardly terrorist, even if you believe they are woefully misguided.
The problem behind the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric is in defining terrorism. Sure, objectively, we're all "anti-terrorist". But, subjectively, one man's terrorism is another man's revolution.
What is terrorism? Violence or threat of violence as coercion of a government or social system? Then many actions in wartime are terrorism. Likewise, Bush's threats to use force against Iraq were terrorism. But it's not that simple, is it?
Is terrorism better defined as threat of violence or violence against civilian targets in order to coerce that society or government of those civilians? Then the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima was terrorism. Again, not that simple.
What then *is* terrorism? But I don't care what you think. Because I have my own definition of terrorism and it's just as good as yours. Say we each choose to act on our own ethics: who's the terrorist? Well, of course, I am to you and you are to me.
Is Palestine terrorizing Israel? Is Israel terrorizing Palestine? Depends on whether or not you should have been a doctor. (And that's a gross oversimplification, too, because Israelis and Jews in general are far from unified behind the IDF's stance.)
It's much easier to define terrorism on the local front. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh probably did not think his actions were terroristic -- or if he did, he thought they were justified in his struggle against the American government. But McVeigh had a whole laundry list of avenues by which to register his discontent. Not so the patriotic Iraqi who hated Saddam but does not wish to be occupied by American military forces. It's illegal in Iraq to demonstrate against the occupation government or coalition military forces. You can get arrested for that.
Were the infamous attacks of 9/11 terrorism? In my opinion, yes. Justified? To some, I'm sure. Do we politically and economically oppress some cultures? Perhaps. To what extent? Hard to tell. Does our oppression of other cultures justify terrorism to break our hold on them? Depends on where you hang your hat.
"Terrorism" versus "acts of war or revolution" is so relative to one's own experience that it is a thoroughly worthless measure by which to establish foreign policy.
The word "terrorism" used to have a better-defined, though still subjective, meaning. I appropriate and mangle Dylan Thomas, "A terrorist is someone whom you don't like who does the same things you do."
31 - Eric Olsen
A terrorist is someone who purposely targets innocents - civilians - with violence in order to achieve political gain. As such i wouldn't necessarily label those who are attacking American forces in Iraq as terrorists, but they are certainly enemy combatants who need to be killed or otherwise neutralized.
We didn't invade Iraq - we drove a dangerous totalitarian dictator from power and are now in the process of helping to set up civil society and democracy. We don't "want" Iraq, have no intention of staying a moment longer than is necessary to ensure that a new government can succeed.
Empathy and the ability to understand where opposing players are coming from is fine, even noble, but we cannot be afraid to make moral judgments and to act upon them. We cannot allow sympathy or understanding of those who wish only our death and destruction to inhibit action required to stop them carrying out these wishes.
32 - san
"A terrorist is someone who purposely targets innocents - civilians - with violence in order to achieve political gain." That certainly calls Hiroshima into question.
"As such i wouldn't necessarily label those who are attacking American forces in Iraq as terrorists, but they are certainly enemy combatants who need to be killed or otherwise neutralized."
Whether or not I agree with the above is not relevant. Your logic is eminently sound.
"We didn't invade Iraq..." Oh yes we did. You can however say that we invaded Iraq to drive a dangerous totalitarian dictator from power. But we went outside the boundaries set by the UN; we went against the international community; we invaded. "Invade", like "liberal", is not necessarily a bad word.
33 - Eric Olsen
"liberal" is an excellent word - "Liberal" is more spotty
34 - Eric Olsen
San, also, I appreciate your civility, makes everything so much easier.
Re Hiroshima: I am not altogether comfortable with the fact that we killed tens of thousands of civilans, but it was a time of war, the Japanese refused to give up, vowed to fight to the last man. The key word here being "political" I think - we bombed not for political gain but to end a war the enemy refused to end.
Again, I am not without reservation about it, but I do believe it saved many American lives in time of war.
35 - san
Eric, I can argue that winning a war is ultimately for political gain; but I won't. Not about World War II, anyway.
Personally, I will stand against the bombing of Hiroshima. But I wouldn't classify it as terrorism, either. It was... something else. It could by a certain rule set be called terrorism -- that, however, is a stretch.
36 - Phillip Winn
San (#25), I'm amazed that you quoted the proof-text that Bush never claimed Iraq's threat was imminent in your attempt to demonstrate that Bush claimed Iraq's threat was imminent. It's like Bizarro-world or something! ;-)
Anyway, you quoted Bush as saying, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
You gave your own reading, let me give what I think is the more logical one, sentence by sentence.
1. Some say we must wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat.
2. Based on history, do we think that by the time Al Queda or Hussein is ready to strike, they're going to warn us by saying, "Hey! We're an imminent threat now?"
3. If we wait until Iraq has become an imminent threat, it will be too late.
4. Hussein is crazy, aggressive, and hates us, and we'd be crazy and stupid to think otherwise, or to wait until he became an imminent threat.
I don't know anyone who heard that speech and thought that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. The whole thrust of the speech was that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat but that we needed to act immediately anyway.
Agree or disagree, that's fine. But saying that Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat is simply mischaracterization.
On Hiroshima, I just can't possibly form an opinion. Mathematically speaking, experts and pundits generally seem to agree that fewer lives were lost as a result of those horrible events. But wow. I can't exactly say I would have supported it then, and I can't say I support it now, and I certainly wouldn't support anything like it again under any set of circumstances I can envision.
So I guess I'm against it, except that I keep thinking about how many more people, including civilians would have died otherwise.
What a great topic, san, very interesting!
37 - Natalie Davis
"When did you surrender your U.S. citizenship?"
I have renounced it publicly on many occasions. Any paperwork to that effect will be filed when I have the financial and occupational wherewithal to move to another country, which is the plan.
38 - Chris Arabia
What countries are under consideration? I am not endorsing your departure, though I suppose I'd lobby for it in exchange for pecuniary consideration.
39 - san
PW: "Agree or disagree, that's fine. But saying that Bush claimed Iraq was an imminent threat is simply mischaracterization."
I don't think so. I think Bush's implication was that Iraq by its very nature was an imminent threat -- just not an imminent threat in the way the term has heretofore been applied in national defense. Essentially, he redefined "imminent threat".
Indeed most newspaper headlines about the SOTU address ran "Bush Declares Iraq Imminent Threat." That was the weight and weft of the address. Yet he did not say quote Iraq is an imminent threat unquote, although by implication that is exactly the thought he put in American minds. Again, he did nothing to disabuse the American people of this notion. With headlines west and east reporting that he called Iraq an imminent threat, why did Bush not deny that interpretation in a timely manner? The answer is obvious: the desired effect was achieved.
I believe that the SOTU address was pointed to establishing Iraq as an imminent threat to the American public without providing a specific statement to that effect that could be held against the executive office.
Casualty figures for a land invasion of Japan vary wildly over the period before and after the bombings. 200,000 Japanese, most of them civilian, were put to death in two attacks. What justifies killing 200,000 people in a week? I don't know but apparently Truman thought he did.
40 - san
Natalie: what about America is so broken that it cannot be repaired?
41 - Mark Saleski
What justifies killing 200,000 people in a week? I don't know but apparently Truman thought he did.
this was definitely a very complex issue. if you read accounts of conflicts with the japanese during that war you will see that they would just not stop. some of the battles for islands, more or less piles of sand (or ash, as the case may be), were just brutal.
if the battle moved onto the island of japan proper, the number would have been insane.
that doesn't make me like the decision...just glad i didn't have to make it.
check out donald miller's The Story of World War II for some gruesome first-hand accounts.
42 - Eric Olsen
I went to Hiroshima on an academic trip to Japan and was terribly troubled by the reality of the bombing, its aftermath, which continues to this day as people exposed die of cancer and whatnot - the final casualty toll has yet to be taken.
But as everyone has said: it's a very difficult matter. By that time Japan appeared irrational: we were winning, there was no hope of them reaching their goals or even forcing a draw. They were going to lose and yet they - like an entire nation of kamikazes - repeatedly declared their intention to fight to the last man. Their entire culture was set up around militarism and a religious exaltation of the emperor. It takes one hell of a blow to shake a nation out of that kind of mass delusion. I still think we could have used the bomb on a relatively unpopulated area first as a demonstration of will, BUT they STILL didn't give up after Hiroshima and it took another bomb to finally get their attention. It's one of the most horrifying, difficult twists of fate in human history.
The other thing it accomplished, though, is that the world saw what the bomb was capable of, not that that helps the 200K.
43 - Chris Arabia
One other factor that doesnt always get enough attention: in keeping with its obligations, the USSR declared war on August 8 and quickly moved against the Empire (e.g. taking the Kurile Islands).
Fear of possible Red Army occupation and Soviet domination also contributed to the timing. As North Korea indicates, the avoidance of a Communist North and a partition was a pretty good outcome for the Japanese.
44 - san
"Their entire culture was set up around militarism and a religious exaltation of the emperor."
I'd suggest reading Black Rain by Ibuse for what may be a more insightful perspective of the common Japanese during the war years.
"BUT they STILL didn't give up after Hiroshima and it took another bomb to finally get their attention."
It's been suggested, and certainly can't be completely invalidated, that their failure to surrender after Hiroshima was because they were struck numb. At first they thought it was some kind of fuel-oil bomb. Then they figured there was no way we actually had *two* of those monster weapons.
45 - Phillip Winn
Wow, san, I'm amazed. In #39, you've managed to turn words Bush didn't say, that he actually deliberately contradicted, into something for which we can still blame Bush and claim that 'Bush lied.' All this even though if he had said it (which he didn't), it would have been a matter of opinion, neither a lie or a fact.
So now it isn't enough that we watch the words we say. It isn't enough that we deliberately say XYZ, which is opposite of ABC. If other people decide that ABC is true, we are response to go to each and every one of them to somehow change their opinion to XYZ, and shout loudly from the housetops that XYZ is true, just like we already said. If we don't, obviously we're lying abou ABC.
I'm glad I'm not in politics. The lies of the lying liars who twist politicians' words into the opposite of what they're saying just boggle my mind.
On the atom bomb: War sucks. Big bombs that kill lots of people suck. Having an entire nation of people mostly dedicated to the proposition that God Himself had commanded them to kill Americans sucks. Having too many people crammed into too small of a space and nowhere else to go but war sucks. Big bombs that kill lots of people really suck. War really sucks. There is no good resolution to any war, just resolutions that are less awful to contemplate than the possible alternatives.
46 - Natalie Davis
San: Many things, primary of which is it promises equality to all and does not deliver.
47 - Natalie Davis
Chris: Any country in which GLBT people can legally marry the person of their choice. Right now, it looks like Canada.
48 - san
Phil: I used the phrases "I believe" and "I think" liberally -- which I feel are quite adequate to establish my statements as my position and not an assertion of fact.
I would further argue that it is typical of politicians, including Bush, to issue statements of clarification when they are misinterpreted by the press. In this case, it is telling that he did not do that.
And he did not directly contradict the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat. Rather, he stated that Iraq by its very nature would not meet the traditional definition of an imminent threat because its actions would be "sudden". If an "imminent threat" isn't likely become critical "suddenly" then what, exactly, is it? Thus my conclusion that the paragraph in question proposes a new definition of "imminent threat", or the criteria by which we determine a first-strike is justified.
49 - brian
...when I have the financial and occupational wherewithal to move to another country, which is the plan.
"Financial and occupational wherewithal"? Bah. If you want to go, then go. The rest is just excuses.
If you'll just present yourself at 490 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, I'm certain a diplomatic officer there will be glad to accept your irrevocable oath of renunciation.
Well, what are you waiting for? Shoo! Shoo!
50 - Brian Flemming
When the U.S. commits terrorism: It's a difficult matter. You have to look at the situation we were in. We had to "end a war the enemy refused to end." You have to understand the position we were in. It's complicated, not easy.
When someone the U.S. disagrees with commits terrorism: Are you pro- or anti-terrorism? Violence against innocents is always wrong. There is nothing complicated about it. They deserve no sympathy nor consideration of their aims.
When it comes to our own country's violence, we are supposed to think, consider, weigh the pressures acting upon us, be open-minded, be realistic about the limited options.
But any entity declared an enemy of the U.S.: Don't think, don't consider, don't weigh the pressures acting upon that entitity, don't be open minded (you freakin' liberal!), don't be realistic about the limited options.
As far as I can tell, the reason that the U.S. does not (currently) commit terrorism is because the U.S. possesses technology that can target military targets and "shock and awe" (i.e. kill and maim) thousands of innocents only as an apparent side effect.
Because the real "terrorists" often lack that option to achieve their goals, they are terrorists.
51 - debbie
Don't be too quick to judge here is the latest news from HindustanTimes.com
Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq
Associated Press
Kuwait City, October 2
Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.
The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested.
The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when.
Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment.
Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Al-Badran met on Tuesday with Sheik Nawwaf and discussed cooperation between the two countries in security matters. His visit is the first by an Iraqi interior minister to Kuwait since 1990.
52 - TDavid
Natalie - for the life of me I cannot figure out where a better place would be to live than the USA. Obviously, I'm biased, but I too would love to hear what better place you think would be to live where you will enjoy more "equality"?
America is certainly not without problems, but where do you think would be better to live?
I don't even think outer space has equality.
53 - JR
Re: Hiroshima. In a speech from the White House on August 9, 1945, President Truman said:
"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction."
As it turns out, the Japanese Supreme War Council had held a meeting before the Emperor on June 20, 1945; Hirohito declared for peace. By July 13, the Americans had solid evidence of the Japanese desire to end the war. The sticking point was "unconditional surrender". The definition of that was unclear; it seems that the U.S. was in any case going to allow the Emperor retain his throne.
At Potsdam on July 17, Truman learned from Stalin that the Soviets would enter the war on Japan on August 15, which would surely finish the Japanese. Truman also heard from Churchill that the Japanese were seeking peace through the Soviets.
The Potsdam Declaration of July 26 called for Japan's unconditional surrender. The Japanese rejected this on July 28.
Truman clearly did not want the Soviets involved in the war at that point. On August 3, Truman received a new report that the Japanese were seeking peace; his concern was that they would sue for peace through the Soviet Union.
Back on July 21, Truman had approved the order to use the atomic bomb. In his diary, Truman claims to have ordered that the bomb be used on military targets, not cities. It's not clear the order made it down to the generals. Truman may not have known that Hiroshima was a city; a rather significant intelligence lapse if that's the case.
By the time of his speech, of course, the second bomb had already been dropped on Nagasaki. The Soviets had entered the war the previous day and began their offensive on Manchuria. The next day, the U.S. dropped warning leaflets on Nagasaki.
Mistakes were made.
Evidently, though, there was more at stake than the just invasion of Japan. There was a LOT of debate among military personel as well as the scientists (i.e. everybody who knew about the Bomb) over whether and how to use it. In fact, it's not clear that an invasion of Japan would have happened even without the A-bomb. However if an Allied landing did occur, the American POWs already in Japan would likely have been massacred immediately.
54 - Natalie Davis
TDavid: I already said that the destination looks like Canada, at this point.
55 - TDavid
Canada? My sister has lived there for 15 years, married to a nice Canadian gentleman. Canada is certainly not without problems either, politically or otherwise, and equality? Riiight.
Their dollar is weak, the socialized medical and insurance structure -- depending on who you talk to -- is badly in need of repair, and they have the controversial French-speaking part of the nation that most Canadians don't even like.
They do have hockey though.
56 - Natalie Davis
brian:
"'Financial and occupational wherewithal'? Bah. If you want to go, then go. The rest is just excuses."
Bull. It costs money to get there. It costs money to survive once there. Before one can present oneself at the border of another country, one must have a way to support oneself and one's family. Check the entrance standards for individual nations. Brian, I have two kids to support. Most immediately, my father died three weeks ago and I am helping my mother settle family affairs, a sad and time-consuming set of tasks. If I could have just upped and left, I would have done so long ago. I have responsibilities and obligations, whether you accept that or not. Believe me, I am more anxious to be gone than you are to have me gone.
57 - Phillip Winn
Natalie, 'twil be a shame to see you go, but fortunately you can still show up here at BC once you're settled in at your new digs. My wife is from the eastern part of the great frozen north, but my personal experience would make me lean toward the western half as being well, more hospitable and beautiful.
Brian, your comment is another example of something I said once before on another post, which is that <pick a label>s accuse conservatives of being overly simplistic by nature, while overly simplifying complex issues when it suits them. Both sides do it, so it seems pretty strange that only conservatives bear the mislabelling.
To the issue at hand, I would tend to think of terrorism as something that is done by non-governmental organizations or possibly covertly by governments themselves. When it is done by a government, it's war, not terrorism.
So in my view, individual suicide bombers are terrorists, the kamikaze pilots of Japan were not. Political groups that hijack planes and fly them into buildings are terrorists, a military response against those political groups is not. And so on. Whether or not civilians are the primary intended target may also be a factor, but generally I think that is a common correlation, not a condition of the label. That is, terrorist groups happen to often target civilians for whatever reason, while governments tend to target military groups for whatever reason, but not always in either case.
Here is why I think that the distinction is important: When a government will own up to sponsorship of war-like activities, a different set of options becomes available. The rules of war apply, and one can largely end the threat by striking decisively at the government or waging some sort of political compromise or plain-old surrendering. So when the Axis powers are at war with the Allied powers, we know who the enemies are, and it is war. We can fight both militarily politically and we can win or lose on a relatively predictable pattern.
When you are engaged against an NGO, whether they primarily target civilians or not, things are far more difficult. There is generally no single point of negotiation or contact, so you can't usually wage peace except by complete capitulation to all demands, which is not usually an option for what I hope are obvious reasons.
American's first real target in this "War on Terror (tm)" was almost straightforward, because the NGO had taken up residence as a government. That much was clearly documented and undeniable. However, it was still odd, because the government was there largely against the will of the Afghani people. It was almost a traditional war, except slightly more complex because of that factor.
Similarly, action against Iraq was only slightly less clear in that it was clearly documented and undeniable that the regime in Iraq was financing terrorism in Palestine, and since it was a government regime, it should have been straightforward war. Except that (1) some people missed Bush's point about the "War on Terror (tm)" encompassing all terrorism, not just terrorism directed against the U.S. and (2) again, the regime was in place largely against the will of the Iraqi people.
So in both cases, America waged wars as close to "normal" as war can even be (not very), and in both cases America won. Are the actions of those fighting against US troops in Iraq now terrorism, or guerilla warfare? I'd be inclined to use the latter label, since at least some of those involved are members of the former regime, though they have probably been joined and/or financed by foreign nationals.
I could go on, and might in other comments, but basically according to my definition, the only way that America or any other national government can commit terrorism is secretly. That doesn't mean war is good and terrorism is bad - they're both bad. It does, however, mean that one is more easily justified than the other.
People fight. Political groups commit terrorism. Governments wage war.
P.S. I've been posting a lot of long comments lately, I should be making these posts.
58 - Natalie Davis
Hi, Phillip. Whatever part of Canada (or whatever country) we choose depends on whether GLBT can marry legally there.
As to your bolded statement, I disagree as a pacifist. Violence is violence; it is all the same to me -- terrorism. I will not call what went on in Iraq "war." But whatever one chooses to call it, IMO, it is all good for absolutely nothing in the short term and, particularly, in the long term.
59 - Chris Arabia
Given the choice between the philosophies of Winston Churchill and Edwin Starr, I'll take the baby-faced Brit. Sorry, Ed.
60 - Phillip Winn
Nat, I understand what you're saying, but there is a difference between acts I consider repugnant. Rape is different from murder, both suck. War is different from terrorism, both suck. Fighting between two people is different from a riot, both suck.
I didn't say war was better or worse than terrorism, just that they're different. I'll let others provide relative values for them.
61 - san
Natalie: I *think* it's all of Canada by national law. If it's just a couple of provinces, the remaining Canadian provinces likely accept the legality of the marriages.
62 - Natalie Davis
I also think it is all of Canada, but there has been s quawking of late. I want to be sure before making an unequivocal statement.
63 - Ralph Del Rio
San thanks for your comments. If Benelux ever invaded the U.S. That is the Benelux that protects copyrights and trademarks. Now that would make a great Monthy Python movie. Armed with pocket protectors, petitions and applications to protect their ideas. The constituency that would be most upset would be the employees of Microsoft zapping them with their latest PDA winning the argument that email is a legitimate document.
Also, the Terrorism War is very biblical. It's all about religion to the terrorists so do not get too secular because eventually you would have to pick a side. And when the Iran chapter of ths Terrorism War unfolds it 'will' include a civil war as part of the mix.
64 - san
I'm afraid it's a lot about religion on the anti-terrorist side, too. I can't get too secular. On religion, I don't think you're right and they're wrong. I don't think they're right and you're wrong. I think you're both wrong.
65 - Ralph Del Rio
As the Beatles once said, "And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right where I belong I'm right where I belong. See the people standing there who disagree and never win and wonder why they don't get into my door."