Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

From point #1: "Anyone who believes otherwise is a tin-foil hat fringe conspiracist."

Posted By: see article - Starcat on 2006-08-14
In Reply to: Beggars Can Be Choosers article on the MSM...sm - LVMT

Ah, those pinko lefty Presbyterians!!! They hate America,are unpatriotic, traitorous, out-of-touch, terrorists....did I forget anything?

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060814&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=608140369&SectionCat=&Template=printart



Monday, August 14, 2006

9/11 book from church publishing house causes uproar
Author claims U.S. orchestrated attacks
By Peter Smith
psmith@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal


By Peter Smith
psmith@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal



The official publishing house of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has printed a new book about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that has outraged conservatives in the church and elsewhere.

The book, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, written by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology in California, accuses the Bush administration of carrying out the attacks as a pretext for expanding America's demonic imperial power.

Griffin argues, among other things, that the World Trade Center towers collapsed because of secretly planted explosives -- he quotes eyewitnesses who claim that's what it looked and sounded like -- and not because airliners crashed into the buildings, causing fires.

Writers on conservative Presbyterian Web sites have been responding by saying officials of the Louisville-based denomination are out of touch with members and by calling for a boycott of Presbyterian Publishing Corp.

The corporation funds itself from book sales and has editorial independence in deciding what to publish, although its board is elected by the denomination's legislative General Assembly.

But as word of the book spreads, some Presbyterians lament that it comes as the 2.3 million-member denomination struggles with financial troubles, declining membership and a controversial General Assembly vote to open the door to ordaining gays.

It is sad that at this time in the life of our denomination, yet another silly and inflammatory step would be taken by the church's bureaucracy, said the Rev. Michael Walker, executive director of Presbyterians for Renewal, a conservative group based in Louisville.

The Rev. Parker Williamson of the North Carolina-based Presbyterian Lay Committee asked how these wild accusations make it through the editorial process.

Davis Perkins, president of the publishing company, said the book's stances are not those of the corporation or of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

But in recent written statements, he defended the decision to publish the book, saying it is not an off-the-wall polemic but rather a considered work with 49 pages of extensive scholarly notes.

Perkins said Griffin's claims will not be universally accepted by his readers, but the arguments supporting those claims merit careful consideration by serious-minded Christians and Americans concerned with truth and the meaning of their faith.

The publisher would not say how many of the 7,500 copies of the book have been sold since its publication last month.

The book was published under the corporation's prestigious Westminster John Knox imprint, which produces works on theology and popular spirituality from a range of scholars, including liberal and evangelical Christians and also Jews. It also produces popular works such as The Gospel According to The Simpsons.

But Perkins said such works haven't stirred controversy over whether they reflect the church's official position.

Publishing a range of views is what academic/trade publishers do, he said. The corporation publishes specifically Presbyterian works under a separate imprint, Geneva Press.

Griffin is part of a wider movement whose books and Web sites challenge the official version of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Similar claims by University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor Kevin Barrett have brought calls for him to be fired.

In his book, Griffin claims that the U.S. military could have intercepted the four hijacked jets if it had wanted to and that the hijacker accused of slamming an airliner into the Pentagon lacked the flying skills to do so.

Griffin calls on Christians to oppose the Bush administration's foreign policy, just as ancient Christians opposed the Roman Empire. He said that although he doesn't believe in literal evil spirits, such empires have demonic power to do great harm.

Our first allegiance must be to God, he writes. … If we believe that our political and military leaders are acting on the basis of policies that are diametrically opposed to divine purposes, it is incumbent upon us to say so.

Griffin is a member of another Protestant denomination, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The Presbyterian Publishing Corp. has published several of his books on theology.

Griffin said in an interview last week that for the first year and a half after Sept. 11, he believed the attacks simply were carried out by Arab terrorists angry about American foreign policy. I didn't think … even the Bush administration would do such a thing, he said.

But skeptics of the widely accepted accounts convinced him that the attacks were an inside job used to justify the administration's expansion of military powers and the adoption of the doctrine of pre-emptive war, the basis of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Griffin has written two previous books on this theme under different publishers. The third book seeks to rally church groups into challenging the official accounts.

Griffin said he's heard the recent criticisms from Presbyterians but not from anybody who's actually read the book.

It's remarkable how certain people can be that this idea is wrong, he said.

Reporter Peter Smith can be reached at (502) 582-4469.



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

Take the tin foil hat off.........
I live and see the complete opposite of what you are spewing (hate). I have noticed how much happier and confident people are. You need to tune into the real world - I don't see anything of what you say in my city or on my freaking TV. You need to remove the tin foil hat, get some cable and try to purge that seed of hate that is eating your brain.
Talk about your tin-foil hats............sm
That's probably the craziest thing I have heard here, GP, and quite frankly, I'm surprised at you. That would be like me saying that the Probamas here are not actually MTs but agents sent by the government to overtake dissenters, track down their IP addresses and have them arrested as potential traitors. Give me a BREAK!

Like I said before and will say again, there is a much larger force at work here and it involves more than most folks can probably even imagine. The only "darker agenda" at work is that of Obama and his puppeteers.
Don't forget to stock up on those tin foil hats!
x
I hope you are wearing a hat lined with tin foil
 so the rays do not penetrate your brain.  I'm convinced that people who can sit through one of his speeches have already been 'assimilated.'  (Oh, and remember to blink occasionally too.) 
Oh, I laughed at the first 10,000 "tin foil hat" posts I read.
Then it got to be sort of, what's the word I want - morose? No. Moose? No. Masonry? No. Oh yeah, now I got it - MORONIC.
The fringe............ sm
seems pretty large on the internet. "Mainstream media" won't cover this because they have been told not to. Hawaiian authorities are proud of the fact that Barack is the first POTUS supposedly from their state, so of course they are not going to rock the boat. Californian electorates are parties to the suits against Obama. Judges in the lower courts have either been bought or are afraid of what ruling in favor of the plantiffs might do in terms of civil unrest in this country. Like I said, this is bigger than you can even imagine in your wildest dreams and probably bigger than even the mountains of stuff I have seen unearthed.
Lunatic fringe. sm

The Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 was disrupted by Democrats. So what?  Events of newsworthy importance have always drawn the lunatic fringe. How do you know the people chanting were Republicans?  Did they wear a sign?  Did they say they were Republicans?  Did they not pass the sniff test to prove they were leftists?  What?  Do you NOT THINK there are Democrats who don't approve of Cindy Sheehan?  My, what a narrow world you live in.


Only the fringiest of the fringe could seriously
nm
Fringe or not, he'll get attacked for it...
He is pro-life and doesn't condone prostitution, but he'll take contribution money from them? Huh....seems that he is doing now exactly what he said he wouldn't which was taking contributions from special interest groups.

And he aligned himself with Tucker.

I believe he just put the noose around his own neck. :o)
A no brainer for the right-wing fringe.
nm
Right wing fringe endorsements. Ask the
nm
More clueless brain death from fringe.
x
Good grief! If you are not a fringe-element
this report does not pertain to you. If you are a conservative, a Republican, or just don't like this administrations policies, the report has NOTHING to do with you! The report is specifically discussing extremist activity. And do not tell me that does not exist. I lost family members in OKC, and I sincerely hope that we never again have a domestic terrorism tragedy.

I think government agencies should be monitoring the activities of extremist groups and those that promote extremist ideology, no matter if they are far right-wing, far lef-twing, Islamic, or Martian. We pay our taxes, in part, so that our government can keep us safe when we drop our children off at daycare and head to work.

I think it is very sad that this is being turned into political fodder by partisan people with agendas to promote. This is a report done to help inform law enforcement agencies so that other peoples' sisters and nephews do have to die.
More musing from the fringe's outhouse magazine rack.
This incredible spew of smoke and mirrors does not effectively argue anything except that it's time for your medications. Let's make this a bit simpler. Go here. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+clinton+wiki&aq=f&oq= Conduct Find search and press next a time or two until you get to the surpluse statement that clearly indicates at the end of the Clinton years, the surplus was $559 billion dollars.
More delusions of grandeur from the NCFC (Neocon/femocon) fringe.
su
Here we have a fringe flock constituent accusing Colin Powell
with a straight face and seriously expecting us to buy into this psycho-babble. The only people you are scaring with this trash is each other.
Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link
I am not into solving prevarication puzzles. Further comment might be forthcoming if you spit out precisely what you are trying to say here.
If he believes what you just said, then no
The Federal Reserve IS the reason for this problem and has been the same problem each and every time this country has seen economic downfall, all because of banks and reserves. Please take the time to watch this and it will help you understand.......this is a wake up call for why government SHOULD NOT EVER be this big

Have you EVER known the government to do anything worthwhile with your money, and now this????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553





If he believes that, then YUP.... his is
... that the U.S. is turning into an armpit. Makes me wonder which other country in the world will eventually take us over. (If anyone would even WANT TO, that is.)
So anyone that believes in God does not have
xx
Uh huh. Like anyone here believes you -
And yes, you ARE wasting your time here.
LOL! She believes she can do anything ugly she wants because she

wraps herself up in the Bible and Jesus is her *special friend* and just gives her a wink and a nod every time she does something heinous.  At least that's what she herself said in a post not long ago.  (Aggressive denial by her to follow, I'm sure, like she lies about everything else.)


It's obvious that none of these people have Jesus in their hearts because there's no room for love and peace and truth in those jaded, hateful, dishonest, angry people.  I wonder if they even have a hint of how laughable they really are!  LOL! 


Okay...if he really believes this "stuff" why does he not...
lead by example and conserve...he lives in a house the size of a small town in some countries. He uses more electricity than 4 or 5 households. I don't know what he drives, but I do know that every time he flies coast to coast he puts more emissions in the atmosphere than someone driving a HUMMER for TWO YEARS. And he does that how many times a month??? Geez. I am sure you mean well, but...if he is really so interested in saving this beautiful planet...he should be the FIRST to conserve. THis is his job now. It is all about the money.
I realize that not everyone believes the same

And sorry to offend you but in fact the poster is a fanatic, in my opinion.


Also, it's not a FACT that Palin is a fanatic; she is a Christian.  You call her a fanatic, your opinion.


Well, I happen to be one who believes
God has a sense of humor.  After all He created us didn't He?  Yeah, I "profess" to be a Christian but I take a pretty dim view of self-righteous "Christians" who question other's opinions and thoughts that don't fit into their definition of "Christian."  Christian = "one who follows Christ" or tries to in my case.  I am not perfect but I'm not the one to tell you that you "profess" to be a Christian.  Maybe you are,  maybe you aren't, I don't know.
Don't give a fig who believes it or not.
x
He believes in abortion. NM below
x
but I'm sure the vast majority believes
that life begins at conception, however, I know I'm not going to change your mind, so I'll leave it at that.
Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD
Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Sun Aug 6, 7:43 PM ET

Do you believe in Iraqi WMD? Did
Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?


Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in
Iraq.

People tend to become independent of reality in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

I'm flabbergasted, said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.

This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence, Massing said.
I don't see where anyone believes Bush has done no wrong
It's the fact that several of us don't believe he is the cause of all the suffering in the world like many of you here do. Some of us are not blinded by Bush hatred nor are we Bush loyalists to the point where we think he's done everything right. I believe several of the *crashers* on this board have said that, but you refused to either read the body of their posts or believe what they say.
Oops! Don't say Amen - not everyone believes the same!
=)
She used the quote because she believes the words....
This Pegler fellow used it when Harry Truman was elected: When Truman came into the Presidency, Pegler welcomed him "We grow good people in our towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity." But earlier, Pegler had told his readers the man from Missouri was someone to watch out for "This Truman", he wrote, when Harry was nominated for Vice President "is thin-lipped, a hater, and not above offering you his hand to yank you off balance and work you over with a chair leg, a pool cue or something out of his pocket."

Sounds like politics to me. However, the sentiments are true. We DO grow good people in our towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity.
The poster probably believes what Hollywood says
nm
Well anyone who believes that garbage deserves
And the greatest majority of those come with NO NAME....false names, names they can't even identify the source. Wanna guess where they really are coming from?
Maybe Senator Obama believes in following the

"First Admendment" to the Constitution of the United States.


My sister believes this stuff
My sister's church tells her this stuff to scare her and get her tithe. Let me tell you in the 80s she was no saint. It makes me feel bad for her that her church makes her so afraid and discourages her from thinking for herself.
Michael Steele..Does he even know what he believes? (sm)
Michael "Zelig" Steele


In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.


Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here's the portion of the interview:



How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?


Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.


Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.


Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.


You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.


So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion -- by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:



Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.


Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.


Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!


So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from "individual choice" meaning "women have the right to choose an abortion" to it meaning that states have an "individual choice" about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn't be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.  


In December, when he was under fire during the RNC race for being a member of Christine Todd Whitman's moderate Republican Leadership Council, he portrayed himself as emphatically pro-life to CBN's David Brody, barbing, "I was a monk for goodness sakes ok?" Appearing on Fox News Sunday after his election to serve as RNC chair, Steele declared, "I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."


In a debate moderated by Tim Russert during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland, Steele was all over the place on Roe. Check out the following exchange:



MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?


LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.


MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?


LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.


MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?


LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that


should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.


MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?


LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.


Huh?


The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit.


http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele


Obama truly believes he is "the one". McCain would
nm
I am interested why any of us should know his personal reasons for EVERYTHING he believes in? sm
It does seem that President Obama is now under a microscope and every tiny minute aspect of his life, any beliefs he holds, are scrutinize for a NEFARIOUS HIDDEN MEANING? yes, perhaps it is a religious belief, I have a close girlfriend who was born Catholic and has been a Jehovah Witness for several years, but is that wrong? The focus of their lives, their spending, etc., is around Our Savior and they minimize celebrations of self, as I understand. Would that be bad or evil in some way? I have been silently reading this board since the primaries first started, and it seems that ever since Mr. Obama became a frontrunner, candidate, and finally president, people are picking apart EVERY SINGLE area of his life. Why? Would anyone want to live under this scrutiny? Why not just pray for him he has a HUGE job ahead of him that I personally would never want, judge him by his policies, his intentions for this country, the way he represents our country, for his proposals and hard work, but not his personal beliefs which should be private, as my religion is to me. What's next, analyzing his favorite color for hidden meaning? I am really praying hard for a successful and safe presidency.
Palin believes teaching abstinence only is the thing to do - nm
x
What makes you think that everyone who believes in Jesus grew up in the church?
I most definitely did not, and it is an absolute MIRACLE that I even came to the Lord. My parents are as far from Christ as can be. I literally came to Christ "kicking and screaming". I did not want to believe in him. Mostly because I did not want to have to follow HIS rules. But I am here, and I am saved, and I thank God that I am! It is the best thing to ever happen to my SOUL.


And half the country believes this....good grief....nm

McCain BELIEVES IN GLOBAL WARMING - GASP, BOY IS HE STUPID

He also terms global warming "a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge" and adds that "the problem isn't a Hollywood invention," according to excerpts of planned remarks his campaign made available Sunday.







http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18269994/


 


Russian Professor of Economics Believes U.S. Will Split into Six States

I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.

Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming my world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction. They are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.

Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming a world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not exactly have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction they employ in order to "secure" themselves.

The Palestinians are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say? This might just account for the lop-sided fatalities/injuries ratios between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In closing, it is worth noting that even with the advantage of all those terrorist toys and tools our tax dollars have bestowed upon them, security and peace of mind just seem to be further and further beyond their reach. Wonder why that is?
If your point is that it was 7 years ago, that's not much of a point is it? sm
Not long ago at all in the scope of things. The point is that the same thing could and probably would happen here. 9-11 happened 7 years ago too....I guess that couldn't happen again, huh?
I get your point, but my main point is -
why should the government be allowed to tell people what they can and can't eat? Everyone says the government is too involved in our business anyway, so if they should stay out of one part of our lives, they should stay out of all parts of our lives!
and your point is??

Your point is??  Bush is the one who waged this immoral illegal wrong war, not all the democrats you have posted quotes on.  It is BUSH, the chimp boy, who waged the war and used every kind of excuse possible, flip flopping back and forth over the reasons.  Now that we know there are no WMD and we have gotten Saddam, what is the excuse for being there and not setting a time plan to leave??  Of course the reason has always been the murderous foreign policy of the US, to have its bloody hands in every country it possibly can.  They are just salivating in DC over the fact that we will have control over the Middle East and OIL.  Bush and his group are war criminals, just as bad as Saddam.