Ever heard what Jimmy Carter has to say on this issue -
Posted By: ? on 2008-12-29
In Reply to: The O does not think so... - sm
Obama has not said much of anything in light of this recent development. Looks like he may be keeping an open mind and may be exercising alternative options once he takes office.
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
Yes, but they are and it's the left that's doing it. Jimmy Carter even said so. nm
.
Does anyone know what happened to Jimmy Carter's eye?
I'm just wondering, I'm watching the democratic convention and it looks really bad! Is it an infection or something??
Falling for O's promises, just like Jimmy Carter
nm
Jimmy Carter tries to rewrite history...
December 1, 2006 by Lee Green
Jimmy Carter Distorts Facts, Demonizes Israel in New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has written an egregiously biased book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and is currently doing numerous interviews to sell the book and its ideas. Carter is attempting to rewrite history, and in his alternate universe, Arabs parties are blameless and Israel is at fault for almost all the conflicts in the world. One gets the feeling after reading just a few pages that if he could have blamed Hurricane Katrina on Israel, he would have. His main messages are that Israel is badly mistreating the Palestinians and that the cause of the conflict is Israel's refusal to return to what he calls its "legal borders" (sic), the pre-67 armistice lines.
Because the Palestinian Arabs have been offered a viable state of their own numerous times, including with the same borders that Carter desires, but turned it down since it meant recognizing Israel's legitimacy and permanence and ending the conflict, Carter either ignores or mischaracterizes the offers. He never lets the facts get in the way of his "must blame Israel" theories. In Carter's twisted universe, it is the Arabs who have always been eager for peace, with Israel opposing it at every turn.
Almost every page of Carter's book contains errors, distortions or glaring omissions. The following list is just a small portion of the many problems in the book:
• Carter claims Israel has been the primary obstacle to peace, that Arab leaders have long sought peace while Israel preferred holding on to "Palestinian land" over peace, and that if only Israel would "[withdraw] to the 1967 border as specified in the U.N. Resolution 242...", there would be peace.
Aside from his obviously questionable opinions, Carter is factually wrong when he asserts that U.N. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice line that was in place until 1967. He has repeated this serious falsehood in many interviews, such as on the November 28 PBS NewsHour:
"The demand is for them to give back all the land. The United Nations resolutions that apply, the agreements that have been made at Camp David under me and later at Oslo for which the Israeli leaders received the Nobel Peace Prizes, was [sic] based on Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories."
He mischaracterizes UN resolutions and apparently has forgotten what he himself signed as a witness to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which states in Section A1c: "The negotiations [concerning the West Bank and Gaza] shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements."
To claim now that the very agreement he witnessed and signed specifies withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines is outrageous. [While the 1979 Camp David document again mentions UN Resolution 242, it makes no further mention of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. It instead deals with Israeli-Egyptian relations, and includes a map of the Israel-Egypt International Boundary (Annex II). Tellingly, no maps demarcating any boundary between Israel and the Palestinians are appended to the Camp David documents, Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords, or the "road map".]
UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all the land to the "1967 border", since there is no such border. The "green line" is merely the 1949 armistice line and the drafters of 242 explicitly stated that this line was not a "secure border" -- which 242 calls for.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The American UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
For more details on the meaning of 242, click here.
- Many media outlets have corrected erroneous characterizations of 242 (prompted by CAMERA), including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The corrections clarify that 242 does not require Israel to give all the land acquired in the 67 War to the Palestinians. For example:
Correction (New York Times, 9/8/00): An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.
Correction (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/04): United Nations Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but doesn't specify that the withdrawal should be from all such territories. An International page article Friday incorrectly stated that Security Council resolutions call for Israel to withdraw from all land captured in the 1967 war.
• Similarly, Carter repeatedly errs when he asserts that the West Bank is "Palestinian land," rather than disputed land whose (likely) division and designation will be decided through negotiations (as per Resolution 242).
For example, Carter said on the Nov 28 Newshour:
"And I chose this title very carefully. It's Palestine, first of all. This is the Palestinians' territory, not Israel."
• In his book, Carter almost always presents Israeli leaders in a negative light, and they are frequently described as trying to impede the peace process. In contrast, Carter describes despotic Arab leaders in glowing terms, quotes them at length, without any comments about the accuracy of their statements. He writes, for instance,
"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1990, he stated 'The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.' "
Carter fails to note that Arafat and the PLO have frequently called for the destruction of Israel and that the destruction of Israel is a key part of the PLO Charter (most explicitly in Articles 15 and 22):
"Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence..." (from Article 22).
Arafat regularly called for violence against Israel. In a speech to Palestinian Arab leaders from Hebron, broadcast on official PA Television on January 26, 2002, Arafat urged:
"Jihad, jihad, jihad, jihad!"
Carter follows up the absurd quotation from Arafat by describing the PLO in admiring language, without mentioning the terror so central to their agenda.
• Carter spends much of the book conveying Arab grievances against Israel, while rarely providing any context from the Israeli perspective. When he does, it is perfunctory and brief. While terror against Israel is mentioned, it is rare and sharply minimized.
• The vicious incitement against Israel and Jews by the Arabs is treated as a trivial complaint rather than as the fuel that keeps the flame of bigotry and violence alive. The only time Carter mentions incitement is to complain that the Israelis insisted on cessation of incitement against Israel, "but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
Since there is no state-sponsored anti-Arab incitement in Israel, and incitement against Arabs is actually a crime in Israel, it would have been misleading to include a proscription against it in the Roadmap. That would have made it seem that incitement in Israel was comparable to the massive, systemic incitement in Palestinian society.
As for his reference to "Israel must cease violence...against the Palestinians," he appears to morally equate Israeli counter-terror measures with Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians.
• In describing what led to the conflicts this year between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Hezbollah, Carter continues his pattern of minimizing Arab violence, thereby placing Israel's military responses into question due to the lack of context. Carter mentions the abduction of the Israeli soldiers, but fails to inform his readers about the rockets from Gaza that were being fired daily at Israeli civilians in southwest Israel and omits that Hezbollah did much more than abduct 2 soldiers; before the abduction, they fired missiles at Israeli communities in northern Israel.
• Carter obfuscates important aspects of history. Here's how he describes the British giving almost all of Mandate Palestine—78 percent—to Emir Abdullah after World War I to create Transjordan (later renamed Jordan): "Another throne was needed, so an emirate called Transjordan was created out of some remote desert regions of the Palestine Mandate ..." [emphasis added]
• He writes of various Arab leaders accepting the two-state solution, and sometimes mentions that they also require the so-called right of return (of the millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel, as opposed to the future state of Palestine). But Carter doesn't explain that due to the high Arab birthrate, the so-called right of return would quickly turn Israel into another Arab state, transforming the two-state (Arab and Jewish) solution into a two-Arab states solution. While he writes of the many items he feels are unreasonable deal-breakers demanded by Israel, he never addresses the Arab demands that are deal-breakers for Israel.
• In his conclusion, Carter accuses the American government of being "submissive," claiming that due to "powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Israel dominate in our media ..."
Carter's claim that "voices from Israel dominate in our media" is especially ironic at a time when Carter himself is all over the media spreading his anti-Israel message. And since Carter is prone to demonizing Israel, it likely never occurred to him that perhaps our politicians don't frequently criticize Israeli government decisions because Israel shares our values of democracy, pluralism and the sanctity of life, and its decisions are, on the whole, fair and just.
• Apparently admiringly, Carter writes: "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan." That Carter apparently feels this is a more realistic, helpful worldview is revealing.
In general, Carter holds Israel to an unreasonably high standard of almost pacifist behavior, while holding the Arabs to no standard at all. In his world, the terror against Israel has been minimal, hardly worth mentioning and certainly not important enough for Israelis to respond to or for the world community to condemn. The Arabs should suffer no consequences for continuing to attack and terrorize Israel, for continuing to indoctrinate their population to see Jews as sub-humans who deserve to be murdered. Carter advocates having the Arabs' maximalist demands rewarded. It is Israel who must make all the concessions and sacrifices. The Arabs' bigotry and supremacist attitudes regarding non-Muslims and the west - attitudes central to the conflict -- are entirely ignored by Carter.
Since Carter is a former president, and because he is well known for his work on Habitat for Humanity, interviewers are for the most part being entirely deferential to him, while rarely pointing out that his book and statements are filled with inaccuracies and distortions. But Carter should not be allowed to rewrite history and erase decades of Arab bigotry, rejectionism and terror, while inventing Israeli intransigence and opposition to peace.
Yeah and #2 is Jimmy Carter and #3 Michael Moore. So what? SM
Wow, you are easily amused.
Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
I think that it was Jimmy Swaggert that
the poster was referring to. He indeed did seek out prostitutes for awhile there; however, he admitted it and apologized to his congregation which I thought was commendable, even though his personal delivery of **the good news** is a bit too theatrical for me. You can't be forgiven if you show no remorse.
So Jimmy Buffet does a benefit concert for Obama.
How is this a division of the races? There are all different races in this country ya' know.
The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!
Carter and Clinton snooped on you too
I bet you weren't screaming about this..
Drudgereport.com
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Unemployment isnt even down to the Carter
nm
Clinton & Carter DID NOT ORDER any such things.
Do you lie on purpose to emulate your God Bush or are you just so lacking in common sense and intelligence that you unquestioning believe everything ANY neocon says?
Either way, YOU'RE SPREADING LIES. In case you haven't noticed lately, AMERICANS ARE GETTING FED UP WITH LIARS....especially UNDEREDUCATED, ILLITERATE, HATEFUL, JUDGMENTAL liars.
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
- the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- and there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. Translation: You can't search American citizens.
- Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. Physical searches, as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to electronic surveillance, rather than physical searches like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:
- the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
- there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.
It's called check and balance!
No, I think Carter was the worst president in history.
nm
Carter = worst president ever...yes, I agree with you.
Nixon = Carter; Bush = Obama
It looks as though both of these democrats were handed a huge bag of flaming s*it that they were/are expected to clean up in a nanosecond. No, I'm not a democrat, either. But I am fed up with the label "liberal" being used like an expletive. Liberal means "free thinking," and I am honored to be a liberal. I don't need to walk in lockstep so others can do my thinking for me. I want our country to prosper and survive and I'm placing my trust in Obama's hands. I pray he succeeds.
What about Roger Clinton, Bill's drug addict brother. Or Billy Bob Carter, sm
Jimmy's alcoholic brother. Man, we could do this all day. You know you posted that article to make the Bush's look bad. If you judge people by their families, that says a lot about you.
No issue is no issue. Denying that
nm
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
There is no issue here.
0
What was the issue again?
nm
For it - should not be an issue
It should not be an issue period. It does not affect me (or anyone else) if Joe & John or Mary & Sara want to get married. As human beings we all have that right.
Civil Union is not the same thing. Talk about discrimination big time. Yes, you love each other but sorry, your of the wrong sex?????
What's next you can only be white to be married or a black and white, hispanic and black or any other combination won't be able to marry.
This is one more issue that should not be political. People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to and tell everyone else to mind their own business.
this is not a big issue
Your point of view has been expressed. Constant repetition only weakens your case. If you felt strongly that this was true, you would be confident that you would be proved right and not have to beat a dead horse. Be a member of polite society and consider others' time and interests before you attempt to monopolize a free forum with only your one point over and over.
This is a big issue to some of us...
and we are not just repeating ourselves. We are posting new info for others WHO CARE to read it. If you are not interested and do not care, DON'T READ IT.
Interesting post by someone on another site:
ladyplumber10:35AMDec 3rd 2008
When you have 4 different citizenships in question, American, British, Indonesian, and Kenyan, and multiple different names :Barack Obama, aka, Barry Soreto, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham...you folks who think this is a piece of cake to wade through are nuts. It's like untangling a badly knotted necklace.
There is a great interview with Alan Keyes on why he is suing Mr Obama in the CA Sumpreme Court in Essence magazine...
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/alankeyesobama
also it is known that Mr Obama's passport in 1981 at the age of 20 was Indonesian. Ever wonder WHY he has sealed all of his college records @ Columbia and Harvard...likely because he came in under Indonesian
citizenship and qulaified for foreign student grants.
For those of you who think that the certificate shown on his web site is sufficient:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931
PART 1
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's LONG LEGAL original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
(From Alan Keyes suite against the Sec of State of CA and demanding they hold back the 55 electoral votes)
For those of you who think that even if he was born to an American overseas..he is still a US Citizen...
NOT SO. for the law from 1952-1986 (Obama was born in 1961) states that to an American Citizen and one alien parent in wedlock, the American parent must have resided in the US for 5 years beyond the age of 14 (or the age of 19)Mr Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so he wouldn't qualify.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
For those of you who think that he has to have been checked out this far into the game...think again. I met with my DC House REP face to face who said that officials voted into office by the public, don't get checked out...my own rep never had been nor do US senators. The FBI doesn't get involved in political matters, and there is NO PRIOR legal precedent for a prez candidate that wants to keep his life "private". Remember Hillary was the first to challenge his citizenship...but took his short cert of live birth as his long legal birth certificate. This document is not offical enough to get him a passport. So whose job is it to approve a candidate...the candidates own party according to the FBI agent that I interviewed...can you say conflict of interest?! It is also the job of each individual sec of state. Personally, for the prez national election, I think it should be the job of the US Sec of State. Each state sec of state can certify state candidates. FOLKS-this has not resurfaced...it has never left.. but the Obama loving main stream media won't cover it, because they will wind up with egg all over their face. I think a few things are cool: one, that Alan Keyes is the one in CA suing, but no one can call the race card as he is black. Justice Clarence Thomas took the supreme court case, and again no one can call a race card. My DC rep feels that every court in the nation will find a loop hole to dismiss for fear of rioting. I told him that men are fighting and dying overseas to protect our freedoms and our constitution..why should they if we won't protect it from within? Also if the courts were afraid of rioting in the 1950s&1960s SEGREGATION might still be alive today! I would love to see a black man as prez, but not one who had to speak deceit and lies to get there. Let's NOT be in such a hurry to make history, that we are doing nothing to protect history...and to protect our constitution....
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/197#comments
That's not the issue and you know it.
Constitution baby, constitution!
Well, now that's another issue...(sm)
I would argue that the New Deal actually did help the economy, but it wasn't large enough. During the New Deal the GDP steadily grew with the exception of one period where FDR actually slacked off with his programs and instead did tax cuts. Unemployment also went down during this period. I know Fox is saying the New Deal didn't work, but the numbers don't support that theory.
See charts below:
EXACTLY!! This isn't a pub/dem issue.........
this is a BIG GOVERNMENT issue. The kind of government that thinks they own the citizens. Of course, Obama's spend spend spend plan is the most outrageous in U.S. history and that's an understatement, but both sides should be ashamed of themselves. I get so sick of seeing the democrats on this board sit idly by as if they are in the right and just point fingers at anyone they perceive as republicans. They forget.......WE ARE THE CITIZENS. I don't give a rat's butt WHO is in office.....NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY MONEY AND TAX THE CRAP OUT OF ITS CITIZENS. The government works for us but unfortunately too many in this country have become ignorant to that fact, either by choice or lack of proper education as to their history, constitution, and what that entails of its citizens. They feels no loyalty to this country and do not understand the government is not there to be their leader and caregiver. The government is supposed to work for us and us only, not the United Nations, not some stupid foreign country who has us in their pocket, the Americans of this country....... NOT ILLEGALS EITHER!
We have gotten so far away from the meaning of our constitution; it's not taught in our schools....should we be surprised. After all,our schools are bought and paid for by the government you pay for without any say in the school system, and a bunch of one-sided thinking lamebrains decide the curriculum, so what better than to destroy the constitution so the children never understand anything about loyalty or pride for their country. Instead, they grow up thinking their government is the be all and end all of their lives and without that, we would be nobodies. PLEEZE!!!!
For all those that continue to point at Bush.....HE'S GONE FOLKS!! GET OVER IT! NOW YOU CAN START POINTING FINGERS AT OBAMA!! He's spending and making fake money as fast as he can light up another cigarette.
Obama has no excuse for this disaster he is putting us in.
The reason the majority do not speak up against their tyranical government is because they have become so complacent and when you think about all those who stand or think they stand to come out ahead with this government, they have no problem with sitting back and letting it happen. The day we stop letting illegals vote and special interest groups run this country, we might actually get our country back but that's won't happen until our complacent LEGAL citizens get off their duffs and actually stand up for their country.
Most don't even care and that's what the government is betting on......everyone's lack of education (government schools!) or interest.
The issue is
that men shouldn't be marrying men and women shouldn't be marrying women. The parts don't fit together and it's immoral. Giving them that special "right" will take away the rights of those who believe this behavior is immoral and the right to say so. They should have NEVER been given such a ludicrous "right." And the religious community will keep fighting to right wrongs. :-)
The Rove issue
From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue.
(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)
|
from the July 15, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html
Rove leak is just part of larger scandalBy Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.
In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."
Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.
No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.
One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.
The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
• Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio. |
Why won't you debate the issue
because you can't back up what you are saying, I assume. You just point fingers and call names like that's winning a debate.
It is really a much larger issue than you think. sm
There are 12,000 New York City resident signatures, as well as 15 NY legislators on this petion alone:
Preamble to the Complaint and Petition
We, the complainant signatories below, petition the Attorney General of New York, on behalf of millions of New Yorkers who also call for a fearless independent inquiry; for the sake of residents, workers, and business owners in New York—most particularly in and near Ground Zero; and also on behalf of other Americans who have lost employees, friends, and family members as well as health, business, and personal assets and civil, privacy, and other rights in the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.
We approach your office as concerned citizens desiring to bring to light the truth about the events of 9/11. And where fault and liability may be found through your investigative action (by whatever means), we seek the recovery of billions of dollars of damages that have been sustained and continue to accrue, and a process by which the true perpetrators and aiders and abettors of the 9/11 attacks may speedily be brought to justice.
As we reported previously to your office, a representative poll published by Zogby International on August 30 of this year found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New Yorkers overall believe there was official foreknowledge and conscious acceptance of the 9/11 attacks, and that 66 percent of city residents and 56 percent overall want a new investigation. These findings are stunning and we believe they provide conclusive evidence that the people of New York are not satisfied that official investigations and mainstream news media have adequately addressed the truth of the events of that fateful day.
These Zogby Poll findings point to the immediate consituency for our Complaint and Petition; but we also note here that a burgeoning nationwide movement also holds to the same belief about 9/11 as do these native New Yorkers. Fifteen legislators who are members from New York in the US House of Representatives, New York State Senate and Assembly, and New York City Council have responded to these results by also expressing support for a new investigation by the Attorney General or Congress.
If this belief of millions of citizens is borne out by a legitimate investigation, then it may follow that the responsible officials are guilty of both mass murder and treason, as well as conspiring to inflict untold suffering upon the people of New York and violating a host of New York State laws, in addition to federal terrorist, treason, and other laws.
Clearly, this Complaint and Petition concerns a supremely serious matter. Yet we the complainants contend that no independent official investigation into these alarming yet plausible allegations, for which we present compelling evidence herein, has ever been held or is now contemplated.
When citizens of New York widely suspect appalling criminal activity within our government and by bad actors doing business in the State of New York—activity that has caused us grievous harm—we believe we are well within our rights as sovereign citizens to demand the legal and investigative means to address these concerns. If indeed there exists such a widespread belief that our own government intentionally allowed such a catastrophe to occur on our own shores, then we submit that this is prima facie evidence of a deep crisis of trust in government. We were therefore inspired to read the Attorney General‘s 2002 Law Day address in regard to this issue of restoring public trust in our institutions. You focused then on financial markets, charities, and churches, but we believe your words aptly address the collapse of faith in government that the 9/11 Zogby Poll reveals today:
It is important that we understand that this crisis exists, that it has already damaged important institutions, and that we must take immediate action to restore the faith of a betrayed public…The process of restoring a shattered trust is a lengthy one. Unfortunately, we do not have time to wait…Too much will be lost during the time that this process naturally unfolds; the skepticism and distrust that exists will continue to exact a tremendous cost…Our system of law can provide—indeed, can itself be—the solution to the crisis created by the betrayal of their trust. [2]
And it is precisely in this same spirit—that of invoking the legitimacy of a lawful solution to the issue of 9/11—that we request your intervention in order to swiftly address the grave concerns outlined below, enforce accountability, and restore the public trust.
As Attorney General, you hold ultimate responsibility for enforcing public safety, criminal, and investor protection laws in the State of New York. As indicated in the Zogby Poll, a clear majority of your constituents desires a full investigation of still unanswered questions either by Congress or your office. We provide herein evidence to prove that Congress and the 9/11 Commission have shown themselves incapable of such an inquiry. We are left with no alternative but to turn to you to take up the case we have put forth in this Complaint and Petition.
We therefore respectfully request that you immediately invoke your powers to open one or more urgent investigations into apparent crimes before, during, and after September 11, 2001. This could be accomplished by your office alone or in conjunction with other state and local legal and enforcement offices with jurisdiction (which might include, for example, other state attorneys general and the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau).
We firmly believe that we are able to show probable cause for convening a grand jury and that we present herein the necessary facts and lines of inquiry that would lead reasonable persons to believe that numerous still-unsolved crimes have taken place.
In this Complaint and Petition, we submit compelling evidence constituting probable cause that some or all of the following crimes and possible additional crimes have been committed and that you have jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes: murder, criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; assault; reckless endangerment; official misconduct; criminal offenses relating to public safety; enterprise corruption; obstruction of justice and the infliction of emotional distress, including causing untold suffering and billions of dollars in damages on the citizens, businesses, and institutions of and upon the State of New York itself and cities, counties, and other jurisdictions within New York; and the criminal facilitation or solicitation thereof and conspiracy or accessorial conduct in connection therewith.
In summary, we submit that available evidence demonstrates that the requisite state of mind exists, pointing to (1) negligence as would be appropriate for assigning civil liability, and (2) an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as would be required for assigning criminal liability.
You are making it an issue
You are trying to defend Merv Griffin when no one said anything bad about him or that he was not a conservative. All that was stated was what he commented about the vote, nothing more or less. You are reading much more into it than I ever intended. Dont waste your time looking up more information about Merv, who cares? His comment is what his comment was. Goodness, LOL. Dustin Hoffman also made a comment on Letterman that the democrats taking over the House and Senate was a historic day. It was a comment nothing more. I must state, though, that the audience also clapped, whistled, cheered when Dustin said that.
We will never agree on this issue.
I think all children deserve free or at least affordable health care right now. I think that should be this country's #1 priority, and sadly, it is not. I don't care what facts you throw at me, the truth is many children are going without health insurance because many families have to choose between buying groceries and paying the enormous premiums, and sometimes you just have to choose what is most important to survive right now.
I'm disgusted every time someone has to have a fundraiser when their kid gets cancer just to pay the medical bills. I'm disgusted that families lose their houses every day because they have to sell them to pay off medical bills. This bill may not have solved all of those problems, but it would have been a step in the right direction.
So go ahead and spout your pro-life "every baby deserves a chance to live" speeches, and then when that same child gets diabetes and can't afford healthcare, go ahead and look away and act like that child no longer matters.
Why is gay marriage an issue?
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks.
You are the one making an issue (sm)
out of his middle name. So what if someone posts his middle name? What do YOU have to be worried about? It appears that she cut and pasted an article written by someone else. Had you not written a huge post about the name *Hussein,* many would not have even given it a second thought.
It would not be an issue if he had not made it one. nm
nm
Experience issue will not go away soon.
Whether or not a candidate is "ready" to lead is the voter's prerogative to investigate...or not. I hate nasty politics too and often will turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, checking into it from time to time does give one a better perspective on just how divided our country has become and what issues flames the fires of discontent the most. Voters also decide whether malcontents should be left to stew in their own juices or if they are addressing legitimate, common concerns in an inappropriate manner that require attention from our highest leadership.
Beyond that, judgments must be made as to which candidate, party, issues, policies, etc. best represent not only the individual's best interests and their vision of what America is or is not, but also the best interest of the nation as a whole...another purely subjective and biased concept, depending on who you talk to. It's the nature of the beast.
What I believe about research is that it is much more valuable as a process, rather than a final destination. If one is able to come out of their comfort zone and expose themselves to many sides of the same issue, it is their own reactions and gut instincts that will help them better identify, define, prioritize, express and embody their own personal political beliefs. If the objective of research is a drive-by pot shot, the insight gained will be as fleeting and as memorable as chat room archives.
I see you did not issue the same warning for ...
BDayes...but then, why would you? Hitch up your skirt, your double standard is showing.
character issue
McSame was unfairly attacked by Bush machine when they ran in primaries together. Bush people insinuated he had a black child out of wedlock. They even claimed he was mentally unstable due to his time as a POW. McSame was deeply wounded by the attacks. But now he is willing to use same diversion techniques against Obama. That, my friends, speaks of the character of the man.
Both sides of this issue.....sm
The emotional part of me, that loves wildlife, absolutely and completely hates this practice. The governor before Gov. Palin did this, as well.
Intellectually, however, my husband and I talked about this last night. I have to realize that things are different in the state of Alaska, and we down here in the lower 48 can't judge them for this, as we don't understand all the facts. Sam posted them down below. It's a different mindset, when it comes to predator control versus the herd availability for the people of Alaska who are subsistence hunters, and need that caribou to make it through the winter.
I would much rather to let nature take its course, and let the predator and prey take each other out, the way nature intended it. However, throw humans in the mix, and it does change things.
All that taken into account, I still don't have to like it. But I can respect Alaska's decision to do this, even if I disagree.
how about the honesty issue?
Just like SP and the Bush Doctrine. Why can't either of them say, I don't know what you mean, or I am confused about what we talking about here, can you clarify? I bet the FOLKS would be a lot kinder to them if they would. I do not want someone bluffing because they are afraid to show vulnerability. Its a dangerous trait to have in world leaders.
Important issue
Dealing with our enemies - I read an article and was going to post the link, but the article is positioned on the page odd and I had to scroll down to the bottom and words went off the screen so I cut and pasted some of it here. If you still wish to see the article let me know and I'll provide a link..
Obama is described as “eloquent and dazzling. In writing, he sounds like the candidate for class president pledging no more homework and free pizza”. – (pretty good description I'd say)
His position on Iran – “If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation”. – That, that’ll show them.
While other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because “the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons”. Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. “This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear material”. – Does he really believe the most vicious people will be thwarted that easily?
People should remember that no matter how eloquently offered it is not always for the better.
Socialism IS an issue. nm
nm
On this issue, maybe....but they are diametrically....
different in every other way.
I certainly think maybe it should have been done a different way...however, it has gone so far I think they have to do something or the economy will indeed tank and we will pass recession and go right into depression. Even if they pass it, we are still going into a recession.
Here's the link for the first issue
This one should work.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78309
The most important issue.....
this election is freedom. On November fourth we will determine which path our government will take, liberty or Marxism. I will choose liberty.
McCain/Palin 2008 
Well, like it or not......race is an issue with some
@
about the abortion issue
At least that explains why u are for McCain. What I don't understand is pro choice people voting for McCain. Nobody said it's murder or not murder. I personally think it isn't and you personally think it is. Why are there no funerals for fetuses of miscarriages? yes, it is a moral issue but I will not dictate to someone that if they are raped OR whatever the reason is.. that they cannot have an abortion. That said, it does explain why you vote for McCain. The other people are a mystery.
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
Ummm....they do, actually, just as they take issue with
and ran with it.
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
|
