Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
Posted By: gt on 2005-11-14
In Reply to:
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
By Jennifer Schultz
UPI
Thursday 10 November 2005
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
 |
 |
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
(Photo: spacewar.com) |
|
|
The United States created the myth around Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and reality followed, terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni said.
Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.
Napoleoni, the author of Insurgent Iraq, told reporters last week that Powell's argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi's status, influence and connections the myth became the reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists, Napoleoni said.
Iraq's most notorious insurgent, Napoleoni argues, accomplished what bin Laden could not: spread the message of jihad into Iraq.
In an article of Napoleoni's in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary - his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures - that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more 'al-Zarqawis' capable of filling his place.
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
Al-Zarqawi became the icon of a new generation of anti-imperialist jihadists, she said.
The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war's start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi - similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members -rebuffed bin Laden's anti-American brand of jihad.
He did not have a global vision like Osama, said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.
A former member of al-Zarqawi's camp in Herat told her, I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab's character. He never followed anyone.
Al-Zarqawi's scope before the Iraq war, she continued, did not extend past corrupt Arab regimes, particularly Jordan's. Between 2000 and early 2002, he operated the training camp in Herat with Taliban funds; the fighters bound for Jordan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan and set up shop.
In 2001, Kurdish officials enlightened the United States about the uninvited Jordanian, said Napoleoni. Jordanian officials, who had still unsolved terrorist attacks, were eager to implicate al-Zarqawi, she claimed. The little-known militant instantly had fingerprints on most major terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. He was depicted in Powell's speech as a key player in the al-Qaida network.
By perpetuating a terrifying myth of al-Zarqawi, the author said, The United States, Kurds, and Jordanians all won ... but jihad gained momentum, after in-group dissension and U.S. coalition operations had left the core of al-Qaida crippled.
In her article, Napoleoni says, [Zarqawi] had finally managed to grasp bin Laden's definition of the faraway enemy, the United States. Adding that, Its presence in Iraq as an occupying power made it clear to him that the United States was as important a target as any of the Arab regimes he had grown to hate.
... The myth constructed around him is at the root of his transformation into a political leader. With bin Laden trapped somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Zarqawi fast became the new symbolic leader in the fight against America and a manager for whoever was looking to be part of that struggle, she wrote.
The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.
In late December 2004 - shortly after the fall of Fallujah - the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden's first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.
... We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us ... and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq], bin Laden declared.
Napoleoni believes that al-Zarqawi, however, is still largely driven by the romantic vision of a restored Caliphate, and that his motives still are less political than some other factions participating in the Iraq resistance.
She questions whether he has actually devised a plan for what he will do, if and when, he wins.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
People who condone Bin Ladin and Al Zarqawi...sm
on this board. I can only speak for myself, but I don't think so.
Also, Ann is much worse than Moore in my book. Ann's intent is to turn citizens against citizens. Moore wants to turn people on the conservative government. Different thought processes. Like comparing apples to oranges.
The fact he described Zarqawi's death is *murder*
is a big clue that he supported what Zarqawi.
Posters on THIS board condone what Zarqawi and Bin Laden did?
Why? Because they don't all agree with your highness?
Point out one post on this board that condones what they did.
You're pathetic.
So much for that myth...sm
I can only speak for my interpretation, but I'm for gay equality, i.e. in housing, employment, etc.
I don't love the gay way of life, but to each his own.
Did anybody every tell you that urban myth
su
The Myth of Foreign Fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq feed the myth that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.
The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent). CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.
The CSIS report says: The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.
The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology.
The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.
The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not Saddam Hussein loyalists but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are wary of a Shiite-led government.
TheLos Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals.
Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].
Extremists in Iraq are exposed to international networks from around the world, said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play.
Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and in establishing a politically viable state.
Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border – a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.
Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make, Bush said. 'They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.
The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. I doubt he would last a day, al-Faisal said.
Finally, The Guardian reports that ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along, the source said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
Yes. That the media liberal is a myth.sm
We have a state media and they speak for the corporations who pay them who are ______ (fill in the blank).
The so-called faces of the liberal media:
The Beltway Boys: Your daily dose of liberalism out of Washington, DC.
Sean Hannity: A progressive Christian who likes to speak his mind.
Chris Matthews: A Clinton apologist.
Robert Novak: Champion of the poor and spokesman for social justice.
Tony Snow: Cutting through the GOP spin.
Paul Zahn: On the edge of progressive journalism.
John Stossel: Holding corporations accountable for greed and exploitation and pollution.
Bill O'Reilly: Notorious left-wing muckracker.
Brit Hume: Always fair and balanced.
Rush Limbaugh: The Master of Extreme Left Talk Radio.
Pat Buchanan: Pro choice, gay rights activist, part-time CNN pundit.
MSNBCs Alan Keyes: They do not come anymore liberal than Alan Keyes.
Larry King: Progressive intellectual feared by conservatives for tough follow-up questions.
Tim Russert: Never one to let Republicans get away with softball questions.
Coulter/Malkin: Not worth commenting on, they belong in a cage together.
Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
You and Myth make sense
I had forgotten to look at it that way, but on reflecting on it, that does make sense. Heck, I even voted for Jimmy Carter when I was a young wild-child. I, too, have grown a bit more conservative, but I'm somewhere in the middle. It also does make sense about the celebs. Much like back during the red scare when McCarthy had anyone with suspected communist sympathies blacklisted, the pendulum has swung to where anyone with a conservative viewpoint would probably have a hard time finding work.
Thanks for 'splaining, Lucy!
The myth of the Clinton surplus - been disproved -sm
A lot of democrats keep pushing this bogus claim that there was a surplus when in fact there never was. This has been discussed on this board, so by this message I'm assuming you never saw the message or went the the US Treasury website to check it out. Below is a link to it and explains what really happened.
The US National Debt proves there was never a surplus, and the article explains why people claim otherwise for political reasons. - good read. Even my most conservatives friends bought into this surplus craze, and said they were glad their eyes were opened.
I'll credit another poster for origianlly posting this (it's been so long I forget who now).
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Huh? You think Fox created the Federal
Heaven help us, I certainly hope and pray they wanted to make the government SMALL. I cannot believe you just said what you did and do not even understand the point you made, which is government is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BIG. That is the problem!!!!!! I definitely want my government as small as possible, small enough we can drown it in the bathtub!!!!
Are you daft poster? Don't you see where BIG government has us now? They are DROWNING US!!!!!!! That's the entire point of small government, not regulating the h@ll out of me and my family.
I realize generations of people think that is what government is supposed to do....tell you how to think, what to read, how to raise our children (give them another pill if that's what the government says too),who to associate with, take away our civil rights one by one until we have nothing left of the country this was supposed to be.
Of course you want the government small. Did you think it was SUPPOSED to be big! That's what Obama wants.....MORE GOVERNMENT, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, more control of YOUR life. No thanks!!!!!!!! My life has been invaded enough by our out of control government.
This has created quite a conundrum.
It also may set up officially recognized causation for a war crime tribunal for members of the current administration.
As far as setting them free, in some of the instances so far where they have found a detainee to be innocent of claims that landed them in Gitmo in the first place they have not been able to send them home because the government of the country they were living in at the time will not take them back and no other country will accept them either. I read something regarding attempting to work out a deal with some European countries to take some the detainees who are to be released but only if we take a percentage of them also. (I can't remember where I read that and will have to do some searching.)
But...........he created homosexuals, too.
X
what a mess bush has created
Iraq's Fig Leaf Constitution
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 30 August 2005
Who lost Iraq? Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.
The crucial question will be why a preemptive American invasion - which has led to the deaths of nearly 2,000 Americans, roughly 10 times as many Iraqis, the expenditure of about $200 billion and incalculable damage to the United States' global reputation - has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors. No amount of crowing over a fig leaf Iraqi constitution by President Bush can hide the fact that the hand of the region's autocrats, theocrats and terrorists is stronger than ever.
The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state, said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable.
Think this is an exaggeration? Consider that arguably the most powerful Shiite political party and militia in today's Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its affiliated paramilitary force, the Badr Brigade, was not only based in Iran but was set up by Washington's old arch-foe, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was recognized by Tehran as the government in exile of Iraq.
Or that former exile Ahmad Chalabi is now one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers. The consummate political operator managed to maintain ties to Iran while gaining the devoted support of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, charming and manipulating Beltway policymakers and leading U.S. journalists into believing that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Chalabi is thrilled with the draft constitution, which, if passed, will probably exponentially increase tension and violence between Sunnis and Shiites. It is an excellent document, said Chalabi, who has been accused by U.S. intelligence of being a spy for Iran, where he keeps a vacation home.
What an absurd outcome for a war designed to create a compliant, unified and stable client state that would be pro-American, laissez-faire capitalist and unallied with the hated Iran. Of course, Bush tells us again, this is progress and an inspiration. Yet his relentless spinning of manure into silk has worn thin on the American public and sent his approval ratings tumbling.
Even supporters of the war are starting to realize that rather than strengthening the United States' position in the world, the invasion and occupation have led to abject humiliation: from the Abu Ghraib scandal, to the guerrilla insurgency exposing the limits of military power, to an election in which our guy - Iyad Allawi - was defeated by radicals and religious extremists.
In a new low, the U.S. president felt obliged to call and plead with the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, Abdelaziz Hakim, to make concessions to gain Sunni support. Even worse, he was summarily rebuffed. Nevertheless, Bush had no choice but to eat crow and like it.
This is a document of which the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can be proud, he said Sunday, through what must have been gritted teeth. After all, this document includes such democratic gems as Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation, and No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam, as well as socialist-style pronouncements that work and a decent standard of living are a right guaranteed by the state. But the fact is, it could establish Khomeini's ghost as the patron saint of Iraq and Bush would have little choice but to endorse it.
Even many in his own party are rebelling. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur, said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel last week, one of a growing number of Republicans who get that we should start figuring out how we get out of there.
Not that our what-me-worry? president is the least bit troubled by all this adverse blowback from the huge, unnecessary gamble he took in invading the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds. What is important is that the Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of a gun, Bush said.
Wrong again, George. It was the barrel of your gun that midwifed the new Iraq, which threatens to combine the instability of Lebanon with the religious fanaticism of Iran.
A pile of ca-ca created by Palin! (nm)
:)
Bush Created The Deficit
You should at least give the new president the opportunity to try to change things. He has to take a radical approach as the "business-as-usual" attitude in Washington would rather sit around and watch our economy and nation crumble than come up with any real, workable solutions.
Bush was handed a surplus when he took office and look how he managed to get us deep into debt. He left this legacy to the current administration to try to straighten out.
Republicans should put partisanship behind them and do what is right for this country - not themselves. When they were elected, they were supposed to represent all the people...
The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
It is an agency created by Congress, but is privately owned. sm
The stocks are owned by member banks, and they are private corporations. Every penny of income tax collected goes to private lenders for interest only on the national debt.
Quote from the Grace Commission report: "100% of what is collected is absorbed
solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
He has never produced the original, just one that he created on a computer and is not the real COLB
It has been found out that the document he created and submitted is not the actual birth record. The original is a typewritten birth certificate. The ones we type on a typewriter to submit to the state office (and back in 1961 there were not computers like there are today to create documents like the one Obama's camp created and put on display). Even so, at the hospital it is still a requirement this COLB be typewritten. They did find the actual typewritten birth certificate and the Obama camp has had it sealed so that nobody can see it. Has to make you wonder. And that is what the law suit is about (there is more than one lawsuit trying to get this document released).
Question that is on a lot of people's mind is - If you are a legal American born citizen, then just show the blooming original birth certificate and get on with it. Why have you taken legal measures to hide it and then create a false one and posted it on your website. Then on top of that a group (Annenberg foundation) who is supporting and doing everything they can to get Obama elected are the ones Obama chose to come out and say its real. Give me a break! Anyone with sense can see this is a cover up. An independent judge needs to sign an order that the original birth certificate to released. If we the people are voting for him then we the people have the right to see what his original type written birth certificate says. I'll give you a hint - the birth place is not going to be Hawaii.
Nazi Germany was created during a long cold winter
when unemployment was high. People was literally starving and freezing. Leadership had failed to keep the citizens fed and sheltered. Rogue leadership, Hitler, arrives announcing he will bring an end to the suffering. War employs. When there are no jobs, war is the alternative for a country. And pillaging, which is what basically happened, and the attempt at extinctousing an undesirable (to Hitler) nationality. Desperation in a country is a ticket to the empowerment of leadership which could potentially change the course of history. Or maybe we know that as it has just happened to us.
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.
The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.
And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!
I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!
Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).
I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
I don't claim to no everything about him.
I have never claimed that. Did I vote for him....no. Have I given him a chance? What chance is there to give him? Look at what he has done in this short time. I don't want to wait another term in office before I see the huge mistakes that are happening now. And please correct me if I am wrong but I do recall many of you putting Bush down for every little thing that he ever did. I didn't vote for Bush either and I do believe he made some huge mistakes as well. You people have no problem cutting people down and not giving them a chance unless we are talking about Obama and then all of a sudden we are all horrible for opposing government spending MORE of our money. That makes us instantly prejudice.
You ridicule Bush for the war in Iraq and Obama said he would pull our troops out ASAP. We are still there and Obama has pushed back the time line to pull them out. Now we are in Afgan fighting the Taliban....which are the same terrorist freaks we ran out of Iraq. Gitmo is still open with no plan of where to put these terrorists. The usual rules in bankrupcty were changed in Chrysler's dealings so that the unions came out top dog....which is not supposed to happen like that. Obama has spent more money than Bush ever did and he wants to spend more. He promised no taxes of any kind to 95% of Americans and yet he wants to institute cap and trade which will tax everyone. The jobs that he claims will be created with the spendulous package are not sustainable jobs. Only 1 out of 10 green jobs are sustainable long term. He is capping what CEOs can make. He has done nothing but apologize for the US wherever he goes and yet he fails to comment on all the good things that we have done for other countries or how much we gave relief to people after natural disasters. A man who gives abortion rights but takes away the rights of doctors and hospitals to deny performing a procedure they don't believe in when those patients could easily go elsewhere for that particular procedure. Our government is getting bigger and taking over too much. What right does our government have to cap pay for anyone? What right does our goverment have to okay bonuses for AIG and then turn around and demand the bonuses be taken away. I don't agree that they should get bonuses but congress approved it in the first place. Did you sleep through all of this? They are talking about taxing health care benefits to help pay for universal health care when Obama ridiculed McCain during the campaign stating how ridiculous it is for McCain to want to tax someone's benefits.....hello?
ARE YOU LISTENING? How much more time should I give him because I can say that he sucks?
You did not claim to have a right to
smoke anywhere but you did mention nonsmokers not being content with banning you from smoking in public places and this is a constant argument I had with my dad for many years. A lot of smokers are very inconsiderate. More often than not you see them smoking at ball parks that have no smoking signs just because they think it is their right to smoke no matter how many children are around them at the time. I've been in my car at a stoplight and my car filled with a smell of smoke and I looked over to see the person in the car next to me smoking. Smokers just do not realize how far their smoke carries and how really harmful it is to nonsmokers. Parents who continually take their kids to the doctors for ear infections or respiratory problems and yet continue to smoke around them. My dad used to smoke in the car with all three of us kids in the back but he thought we would be fine because the window was cracked. All that did was blow unwanted ashes back towards us. Amazingly none of us three kids smoke. We all vowed never to pick up the habit and none of us married a smoker either.
I wasn't trying to be rude.....but smoking is a very sore subject with me. Not only did I lose one grandpa to lung cancer and another grandpa to emphysema but I lost my dad 2 years ago to emphysema and I just absolutely HATE cigarettes. To think of the years those stupid things robbed me of my 2 grandpas and my dad.....I just loathe cigarettes.
uranium claim
This morning I was thinking this Rove thing over and the main issue is the deception by this administration over the wanting to buy uranium claim. When Wilson went to check it out and reported back that the claim was incorrect, it still was included in the State of the Union address, to scare the American people into war. That is the main issue, the lies for going to war.
This is getting better every minute, MT. You claim to know who's AGAINST you when you can't
even figure out who's WITH you, as evidenced by the little hissy fit above between you and another CON!!!
Please keep posting. You're getting whackier with each post and revealing yourself for the nut case you truly are!!!
Plus, I'm intrigued by all the different voices in your head who surface at different times. I guess tonight TM is doing the talking, and TM seems to be even more rude and angry and hateful than you usually are.
Why so angry, MT? Roberts was confirmed today. Why aren't you happy? Or do you just have a terminal case of chronic bitterness, no matter what? Have you ever been nice to ANYONE?
PLEASE keep posting. You're quite entertaining, even if in a pathetic sort of way.
One way to claim innocence
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_22/b3986068.htm
Every bit as substantiated as your claim that
xoxoxo
and would you be 1 of those people that claim the
nm
when you claim you are so smart
it gives quite the opposite impression. When you brought up your intelligence, claiming to have an abundance, you opened it up for discussion, and my fellow MT, i take issue with you lording it over me and others.
socialists won't claim him -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28645
turned down claim
My husband went through that too, what you need to get is an attorney who only gets paid, if he gets disability. We did and finally thank God, we finally got it and boy did we ever need it. You also get a retroactive amount from the first time you applied, so there was some money involved and now every month it goes into his account by direct deposit and each year it goes up a little more.
Just think about it, his claim to fame sm
is that he did all this damage in just a little over two months! What a guy! NOT!!!!!!!!!!
Especially the ones who claim they can read...
...your mind, claim to know how well you "scan," etc. They're the scariest of all.
Have fun, kids. I need another break from the board for a while.
I wonder how Gourd Painter is doing. Looks like she was chased away by the bullies. Too bad. I enjoyed her perspectives. 
Please provide substantiation for your claim.
After all, you are not GW who can manipulate the truth as he pleases. But anyway, please provide the "burn in hell for eternity" quote that seems to appear over and over. I notice that this "quote" also changes slightly each time it is "quoted."
Saying it don't make it so. Back up your claim
Put up or shut up.
Fact check on Sam's claim that
For those who can read and decide for themselves. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html
well richard morris would claim
that made her well rounded!!!
Reply to pub claim that O's accomplishments
When a senator sponsor a bill, he originates the concept, surveys the landscape for support or lack thereof, identifies targets for persuasion, and works for bipartisan consensus. This would involve extensive research on the content of the bill, assessment of benefits versus cost, knowledge of past voting records of constituents and fashioning persuasive arguments using pros and cons, according to who his individual target is and where he or she is coming from. He determines constitutionality, legality and any possible conflict of interests. He authors the bill. He introduces the bill, debates the bill in the chambers, takes and answers criticism, compromises, rewrites and so forth until passage is achieved. He then turns around and goes through much the same process to promote the bill in the house. Then he holds his breath and hopes the president from his opposition party does not wipe out all his hard work with the stroke of a veto pen. When he cosponsors a bill, he does much the same thing with a partner or partners.
The accomplishments I listed under the state experience section actually were Obama's initiatives. The US senate list does not just reflect legislation. It also demonstrates varied committee membership, which reflects a completely different type of experience, much along the lines of study groups and research focused on strategy building of national and internation consequence.
Two final observations. Every single item listed under O's experience indicates the issues he takes most seriously and aligns consistently with the platform he now proposes on a national level in the presidential campaign. Thus, this addresses the trust issue so often raised by his detractors. O obviously has been a quick study, or he would not have been able to successfully seize the nomination of his party.
I do not understand how SP's so-called executive experiences trumps this record. In fact, my question would be where then DID she get her consensus-building experience from if she was so totally in charge of people she expected to simply fall in line. Lastly, I am still wondering exactly how SP's record is comparable in this regard...or in words of one syllable...how does she stack up?
Apparently NOT. Your claim. Your citation.
no credibility. Got it? Just wondering what other verifiable examples you can come up with to support you claim of "Christian discrimination."
The math is based on Sam's claim
If Sam is talking 80% approval rating in Alaska, that would imply that she is talking about people who actually are familiar with her policies, programs, credibility, how she conducts herself and soforth...in other words, approval rating among those who actually know her/voted for her. That is what a governor's approval rating is.
The math shows us how much of an overall approval rating of these same factors she has nationwide. SP was only in the governor's office for 20 months. She is still an unknown quantity here and will remain so. The only people who can rate her job performance are the one from her state, since she is not known in the lower 48. The math merely points out exactly what that means within the context of a national approval rating of job performance, since the rest of the 49 cannot possibly be included in that figure. Thus on a national level, that 0.182% means next to nothing.
Al Qaeda did claim responsibility for 9-11 sm
and I believe they were. However, AL Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded. Rather, they were in the mountains of Afganistan and Pakistan. Invasion of Iraq gave them a venue to distract from where Islama Bin Ladin was and keep him safe.
Those who claim to have 'come to Jesus' as
Or else brainwashed.
Or both.
Yeah! Could I rob and bank and claim to be
nm
That claim is SO old. Anyone playing that old record
.
Still looking for legitimate source on the OP claim.
No comment on the inconsistency between NM, Saks and the hypocritical Joe the Plumber message?
Care to go toe-to-toe on that bogus claim?
and watch the old farts bury you in the sand, along with your heads, with their hands tied behind their backs. Smut and smears don't qualify as ligitimate debate. It has to be a current campaign issue....you do remember what they look like, right?
Oh, right! You guys are the hypocrites if you claim
nm
I agree with that - but you can't claim illegalities yet - nm
x
|
