And some bad news for those who don't like cops murdering innocent old ladies.
http://www.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=glKZLeMQIsG&b=1847069&ct=3829713
This story reminds me of the quote from attorney Cynthia Roseberry: "We, as criminal defense lawyers, are forced to deal with some of the lowest people on earth, people who have no sense of right and wrong, people who will lie in court to get what they want, people who do not care who gets hurt in the process. It is our job--our sworn duty--as criminal defense lawyers, to protect our clients from those people."
27th April 2007 07:25 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
Starin' at the boob tube, turnin' on the big knob
Tryin' to find some life in the waste land
Fin'ly found a program, gonna deal with Mary Jane
Ready for a trip into hate land
Obnoxious Joe comes on the screen
Along with his guest self-righteous Sam
And one more guy who doesn't count
His hair and clothes are too far out
While pushin' back his glasses Sam is sayin' casually
"I was elected by the masses"
And with that in mind he starts to unwind
A vicious attack on the finest of grasses
Well it's evil, wicked, mean and nasty
(Don't step on the grass, Sam)
And it will ruin our fair country
(Don't be such an ass, Sam)
Well, it will hook your Sue and Johnny
(You're so full of bull, Sam)
All will pay that disagree with me
(Please give up you already lost the fight, alright)
Misinformation Sam and Joe
Are feeding to the nation
But the one who didn't count counted them out
By exposing all their false quotations
Faced by a very awkward situation
This is all he'd say to save the day
Well it's evil, wicked, mean and nasty
(Don't step on the grass, Sam)
And it will ruin our fair country
(Don't be such an ass, Sam)
Well, it will hook your Sue and Johnny
(You're so full of bull, Sam)
All will pay that disagree with me
(Please give up you already lost the fight alright)
You waste my coin Sam, all you can
To jail my fellow man
For smoking all the noble weed
You need much more than him
You've been telling lies so long
Some believe they're true
So they close their eyes to things
You have no right to do
Just as soon as you are gone
Hope will start to climb
Please don't stay around too long
You're wasting precious time
Repeat Chorus
27th April 2007 08:43 PM
Taptrick
I love Don't Step On THe Grass Sam ! ! ! ! Awesome tune. I love me some early Steppenwolf. Classic stuff both lyrically and musically. Since we are also discussing religion checks out Steppenwolf's From Here To There Eventually:
Words and music by John Kay, Jerry Edmonton and Goldie McJohn
You've filled his house with things of gold
While handing crumbs to the old and poor
And then you preach about being pure
And wonder why we're laughing
In your old way you're trying to find us
But we can't follow what's behind us
Too much blind faith, it will blind us
Though sometimes it's a blessing
But I remember when I still embraced you
A little prayer would ease my mind
'Til I saw that you hide from the misery outside so I left you behind
But all the other teachings
That I've tried were 'bout the same
One grain of truth mixed with confusion caused by man
But since you're around anyway
May as well get you back on your feet again
Get right back up on your feet
Don't ya know we need somebody to
Do some work down in the street
You might just touch somebody
Start to think about today
Throw your robe and staff away
And break away from yesterday
Ah, tell me can we reach you
I don't know, still we got to go
From here to there eventually
While others die up against the wall
You take the time to tell us all
'Bout how we're not supposed to ball
You really are a riot
It's got nothin' to do with heaven or hell
What I do in bed, I'm not gonna tell
What I'm talking about you know damn well
You really ought to try it
Or how about Monster. Ahead of it's time song that can actually make since to the right or left if you think about it:
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our a homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog
And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey
(Suicide)
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'
Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching
(America)
America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster
27th April 2007 10:09 PM
Brainbell Jangler
Monster was the first album I owned.
27th April 2007 10:11 PM
Riffhard
As most sane people have known for years now the Dipshitacrats are the terrorists' heros! Most rational thinking real Americans have always known that the Dumbocrats will immediatley do the bidding of the terrorists that want us all dead. That never stopped the idiot liberals from fully supporting these unAmerican fuckheads in the Dem party. To them the real enemy is Bush/Rove/Chenney/Rumsfeld/Rice. They can't be bothered with silly little things like motherfucking god damned facts!!!!
So anyway,here ya go libs lap it up! The terrorists are rallying around your cause! Be proud! Be very proud! The sheer stupidity of liberals is stunning. Find a way of excusing this shit guys! Find a way to blame this shit on the Bush team! Afterall they are the ones that you idiots want to see hang. Foolish shortsighted morons.
TEL AVIV – Democratic presidential hopefuls flashing their anti-war credentials last night at a national debate by stating they would immediately withdraw from Iraq, encouraged Palestinian terrorist leaders here, who labeled the debate a victory for Iraqi insurgents and "resistance movements" throughout the world.
The debate was widely covered today by the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.
"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.
I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power," he said.
28th April 2007 01:56 AM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:Riffhard wrote:
As most sane people have known for years now the Dipshitacrats are the terrorists' heros! Most rational thinking real Americans have always known that the Dumbocrats will immediatley do the bidding of the terrorists that want us all dead. That never stopped the idiot liberals from fully supporting these unAmerican fuckheads in the Dem party. To them the real enemy is Bush/Rove/Chenney/Rumsfeld/Rice. They can't be bothered with silly little things like motherfucking god damned facts!!!!
Riffy
From you we get a lecture on facts?
[Edited by Brainbell Jangler]
28th April 2007 10:03 AM
MrPleasant
Proof that God exists!!!!
28th April 2007 11:42 AM
Riffhard
quote:Altamont wrote:
Riffy, can you ever make your point without resorting to childish name calling? Just wondering..
I NEVER resort top "childish name calling" Altamont! However,in light of recent events such as the Dem debate,I have now lost any and all respect that I ever had for Dems or their supporters. Did you watch the debate?! When asked about the war on terror every single candidate blamed Bush!!! They offered NO answers at all! Not one! They just played the blame game!! I mean take a look at Pelosi! This idiotic woman goes half way around the world to visit with our enemies yet she can not be bothered to meet with General Petreus!!!!! This is a general that was voted for unanimously be both the Dems and Republicans and the Dems refuse to listen to him now!!! Why?! Because they do not want to hear him say what they know he will say. He made it very clear that pulling troops out of Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster. Even reporters on the ground inside Iraq that hate Bush say the same exact thing. Hello Michael Ware of CNN. That guy hates Bush and does not really like America all that much,yet he states flat out that we would rue the day that we handed Iraq over to al Queda.
The latest reports from a bipartisan investigative team makes the case very clear that it is Iran and Syria through al Queda that is fomenting 95% of all violence taking place inside Iraq right now. What do the blind shortsighted Bush haters do?!?! They ignore the reality knowing full well that they can then turn around and blame the failure to act on Bush and his admin. It's called playing politics while at a time of war,and it's pathetic!!!! There was a time when this nation would come together and fight against an enemy that wants us all dead. That time,sadly,is long gone. Today we get the politics of personal destruction. The hatred of Bush outweighs any consideration of the consequences that an Iraq loss would mean to the country. Every single military adviser says the same thing! Yet the Dems,in their desire to appease MoveOn.org,Soros,and the Cindy Sheehan's of the radical left bury their collective heads in the sand and ridicule Bush some more. You want these kinds of pathetic idiots to lead our country?!?!?!?!
They want their glory days of Vietnam back! They keep saying that Iraq is another Vietnam. Well it sure as hell will be should we leave. The losers of the Dem party chased us out of Vietnam and that retreat was followed by mass genocide not seen since the days of Hitler! Iraq will make that the Khmer Rouge's rein look like a walk in the park!! Do the Democraps care?! Fuck no!! They can blame it all on Bush!! Bravo!!
Shortsighted,blind to reality,partisan fuckheads!
I have no problem calling these morons childish names! They are acting like impudent little spoiled brats lashing out at their perceived enemies while ignoring the real enemy in Iraq. They are ready to hand Iraq over to these people and everyone is screaming at them not to do it! Yet their hatred of Bush trumps any and all common sense on this issue. Do you even know the name of the al Queda terrorist that was caught yesterday inside Iraq? He was responsible for planning the London attacks of 7/7. Do you know his name? No you don't! Because the real enemy is big bad Karl Rove!! Stupidity abounds on the left and some people just lap it up in the name of hating Bush. Who's being childish again?!
Riffy
28th April 2007 12:00 PM
Chuck
April 16, 2007
Bush's Base
The Party of Brownshirts
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04162007.html
Neoconservatives have turned the Republican Party into a Brownshirt Party.
Look at the evidence. While real patriots flee the party, the remaining supporters cling to power by asserting dictatorial dominance for President Bush. The Republican Attorney General denies that the US Constitution provides habeas corpus protection to American citizens. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential campaign, believe the president has the power to imprison US citizens indefinitely without warrants or trials. The "conservative" Federalist Society favors concentrating more power in the executive. Neoconservative ideologues claim the right to impose American hegemony over all others--especially over Muslims.
All of these Republican tyrants and budding tyrants claim to be protecting liberty and democracy.
Polls show that the percentage of Americans who tilt Republican has declined to 35 percent. Republican recruits are refusing to run for Congress. Ken Mehlman, until recently the party's chairman, says many voters have lost confidence in Republicans. To win back people's confidence, Mehlman says the party will have to become less reliant on white males and expand its support among Hispanics and blacks.
Decency and intelligence have departed Republican ranks. The party's shrunken base consists of ignorant and fearful people who believe Muslim jihadists are going to murder them in their beds, rapture evangelicals who believe that war in the Middle East is the prelude to their being wafted up to heaven, the military-security complex reveling in power and fortune, and resentful and frustrated people who can freely vent their anger and hate on "terrorists."
This collection of fear, delusion, greed, and resentment comprises the 30 percent of Americans who constitute Bush's base. The Republican Party has made itself so unattractive that Democrats believe that it is now possible for a woman or a black to win the presidency.
The Republican Party lost its majority for the following reasons:
Greedy transnational corporations offshored US manufacturing jobs and destroyed the hopes and livelihoods of blue-collar Reagan Democrats. The gains from offshoring are diffused, but the costs are concentrated.
The same greedy and short-sighted corporations have spent the first years of the 21st century destroying the prospects of American middle class university graduates by offshoring jobs in professional services and by importing foreigners on work visas who work for less.
Neoconservatives captured conservative philanthropies, cut off funding to true conservatives, and used the captured conservative foundations to entrench themselves as advisors to the Republican party. The same neoconsertives that Reagan fired as a result of the Iran-Contra scandal occupy important policy positions in the Bush administration and dominate the National Security Council.
Republican "law and order" apathy to civil liberties easily transferred to the "war on terror." Republicans regard civil liberties as protective devices for criminals and terrorists. Republicans mistakenly believe that the law can be cut down selectively so that only certain despised groups are deprived of its protection.
The Bush administration lied to the American people and invaded two countries on false pretenses for indefensible reasons that the administration has never acknowledged. The war has had catastrophic consequences that are now apparent to a majority of Americans, but the Republican Party still supports the continuation of the war.
The Bush administration has destroyed American prestige and moral aura with torture scandals and disregard for Iraqi, Afghani, Palestinian and Lebanese civilian lives.
The Bush administration's budget and trade deficits have undermined the dollar. The Bush administration is calling for currency realignments that will lower the real incomes of import-dependent Americans.
The Bush administration's determination to exercise American hegemony through warfare, and its assaults on civil liberties, the separation of powers, American prestige and on good American jobs and the value of the dollar have destroyed the party's support.
America's virtue is its Constitution. An administration that attacks the Constitution attacks America's virtue. The true dangers that Americans face come from George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and their neoconservative Brownshirt Party.
Paul Craig Roberts held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University and was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He served as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Reagan administration.
28th April 2007 02:40 PM
Taptrick
Yeah that's all great but it's only a matter of months and the left will actually have to produce ideas beyond Bush is the devil and every American and illegal immigrant can only suceed with government assistance.
28th April 2007 02:45 PM
Riffhard
ROTFLMAO!!! Gee Chucky thanks so much for proving my point! You link these articles from some radical leftist sites that once again try and make a comparison to Bush's Admin and Hitler. Oh hum...same ol' shit from the lefty freaks! You stupid simpleton! Gee your a limpwristed panty waste communist! Does that kind of talk get us anywhere?! You call me a Nazi and I call you a Stalinist! The difference is that I know who the real enemy is! It's not the idiots like you on the left either! As stupid as most of your types are at least you don't want to behead all Americans.
All you,and your type,want to do is find fault with Bush. Your blind rage and insane hatred is so unhinged that you can not get beyond it. You're locked into a mind set that can only find fault with Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rice etc. Yet just exactly like today's horrible Democrats you have zero solutions for fighting the terrorists. John Edwards refused to even acknowledge a war on terror! You guys are all alike. Blame,blame,blame,but offer nothing to the argument about actually ridding the world of this cancerous scourge of radical Islam. No. You reserve your misplaced anger for your political enemies. Rove! Boo hiss!!! Cheney! Booo hiissss!!! Bush! Ahhhhh booooooo hiiiissssss!!!! You're a joke frankly speaking. A hate filled blind joke at that.
Wake up and smell the global jihad Chucky! They want you dead too!
Riffy
28th April 2007 02:48 PM
Taptrick
useful idiots ?
28th April 2007 02:56 PM
pdog
In the battle of who is the more ruthless dictator, Stalin beats Hitler. They both kiled millions of jews, but when Stalin ran out of Jews, he started killing his own people.
28th April 2007 03:30 PM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:Riffhard wrote:
They want their glory days of Vietnam back! They keep saying that Iraq is another Vietnam. Well it sure as hell will be should we leave. The losers of the Dem party chased us out of Vietnam and that retreat was followed by mass genocide not seen since the days of Hitler! Iraq will make that the Khmer Rouge's rein look like a walk in the park!! Do the Democraps care?! Fuck no!! They can blame it all on Bush!! Bravo!!
Shortsighted,blind to reality,partisan fuckheads!
Riffy
You just don't know a fuck of a lot about the history of the Vietnam War, do you, Riffy? Let's start with the central premise of the hawks and the repeated justification for the war: the Domino Theory. Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Burma, India, Japan, Australia; they were all going to fall like dominoes to the Communists if we lost in Vietnam. It was never going to happen and, with the exception of Cambodia, it never did happen.
Are you geographically challenged (a common American malady) or did you not know that the Khmer Rouge bloodbath occurred in Cambodia, not Vietnam? The U.S. war was never about control of Cambodia; our incursions there were solely intended to interrupt supply lines between the northern and southern sections of Vietnam (which was always one country, not two; I'll get to that). American withdrawal from Vietnam had nothing to do with the rise of Pol Pot (the Khmer Rouge leader, as it would appear you're as weak in history as in geography). And who do you suppose ended the killing fields by invading Cambodia? Oh yeah, it was the "Communist" Vietnamese.
As for a Hitlerian or Stalinist slaughter in Vietnam, those exaggerated fears played out about the same way as the Domino Theory: some people went to "re-education camps," some peasants probably took revenge on those who collaborated with the American (and prior French) occupation, but there was no wholesale massacre.
To understand how the Vietnam War ended, you need to know something about how it started. Some would say you should look back over a thousand years at the Vietnamese fights against Chinese control. You have to go back it least to the nationalist struggle to end French colonial occupation; perhaps to the end of World War I, when the peace negotiators at Versailles refused to hear a plea for independence from a young Ho Chi Minh. You would certainly need to know about the ambivalent American policy toward restoration of French colonial rule at the end of World War II. Did you know that Japanese occupation troops were left in control of Vietnam after Japan's surrender to prevent native Vietnamese from ruling their own country until the French could get back into position there? I didn't think so. Did you realize that Ho Chi Minh sought American support for an independent Vietnam and would have been our ally if we had let him? Why do I bother to ask?
So, without American help and even against American assistance to the French colonialists (where's your fight for freedom, democracy and self-determination there, Riffy?), the poorly-armed, poorly-trained,Vietnamese peasants manage to liberate their country from the white man. Remember Dien Bien Phu? That's OK, apparently the U.S. government and military forgot about it, too.
So, it's 1954, there's a peace conference at Geneva, a temporary truce line (not a national border, remember?) is established, elections are scheduled for 1956, and everyone settles to their respective temporary zone in for a democratic resolution to the problem. But something happens between 1954 and 1956. Eisenhower and his red-baiting Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, start counting the Vietnamese votes. And it looks like Ho in a landslide. So, what do they do? They cancel the 1956 election, install a puppet government in the southern sector under Ngo Dinh Diem, and start sending military assistance to this faux nation. Nationalist Viet Minh fighters from the southern sector who had moved north temporarily in 1954 to await the election returned home, which the puppet Diem government called an "invasion." The rest, as they say, is history.
Pal, we could still be in Vietnam and we wouldn't have the sort of victory you and your historical revisionist friends at Fox Noise Channel bleat about. Either we would still be killing, fighting and dying for worse than nothing, as the classic protest sign from the legless Nam vet so eloquently stated, or that tiny, beautiful country would be utterly destroyed. Is that what you mean by "protecting" them from Communism? That's the kind of "protection" Tony Soprano's boys provide.
Next time you want to offer a historical parallel to something someone might actually know something about, get yourself some better source material than Rush Limbaugh and other "shortsighted, blind to reality, partisan fuckheads." You're going to have to be "Studyhard" if you want to play the game at this level.
28th April 2007 03:36 PM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:Riffhard wrote:
ROTFLMAO!!! Gee Chucky thanks so much for proving my point! You link these articles from some radical leftist sites that once again try and make a comparison to Bush's Admin and Hitler.
Riffy
So, a guy who worked for the Hoover Institution and Reagan's cabinet is a radical leftist? Blank friggin' stare.
28th April 2007 04:24 PM
Riffhard
Huh BJ I lived in Thailand from 1967 through 1973!!! I know exactly where Cambodia is! The fact is that the Khmer Rouge would have never gotten it's foothold had we succeeded inside Vietnam. We were winning that war too btw! That is just a fact. The guy that calls the Bush Admin brownshirts is a god damned freakish leftist! That kind of comparison just reeks of partisan bullshit. If you agree with him then that just proves my point about liberals. They cannot see the forest for the Bush hatred! There is no reason to even try to defeat the terrorists if you can always slam Bush and Co. Let's just pretend that there is no reason to fear al Queda shall we? I mean forget the very real fact that Bin Laden himself has stated that Iraq is the central front of the war on terror. Or in his words,"the front for the global jihad against the infidels!" But you and yours can just pretend that that threat does not exist! No,no,no let's just keep slamming a president that will be out of office in 18 months! If,God forbid,a Democrat gets into the WH we are all in much more danger than we are now! Every security analysis says that should we pull up stakes and retreat back into the typical Dem defensive mode that we will be hit again sooner rather than later.
Riffy
28th April 2007 04:57 PM
Taptrick
What level is this game at?
28th April 2007 05:02 PM
Brainbell Jangler
Wow, Thailand during the golden years. Cool. One of my best buddies was there during that period; his dad was an MD with the air force. Hope you were old enough to enjoy the sticks.
I suppose the destabilization of the Sihanouk government, caused in large part by the U.S. war, helped open the door for the Khmer Rouge. But it was the Vietnamese who ousted them. And I'm not sure what you mean by "winning." Do you really think that the "two Vietnams" fiction would have lasted? Wouldn't we have eventually gotten what we have today: a unified Vietnam that's an active U.S. trading partner? Couldn't we have gotten that in 1945 or 1954 if we had had an intelligent foreign policy based on national interest rather than ideological prejudice and political fear of right-wing reaction at home? If you're unsure of the answer to these questions, review the section on the Vietnam War in Barbara Tuchman's "The march of Folly." It's a marvelous study of government pursuit of policies contrary to self-interest, from the Trojan War through the British loss of America to Vietnam. It was published in 1984 and Tuchman died in 1989, or you could be sure there would be another chapter written.
The real parallel with Vietnam here is that the U.S. embarked on a misguided and wholely unnecessary military adventure (Vietnam was never of any strategic importance), thousands of Americans (and many more foreigners) were killed for nothing, a Democratic Congress finally developed the balls to put a stop to it, and years later (here's my prediction) things looked exactly as they would have if the war had never been started.
As for the "Brownshirt" article, I find those sorts of labels an unproductive distraction. But the fact that the author worked for the Hoover Institution, a well-known (notorious?) conservative think tank, as well as the Reagan Administration, and was a professor at Georgetown, makes me a little dubious of the "left wing nutjob" (or whatever it was) label.
And "Dumbocrat"? That didn't even seem that clever back in third grade.
28th April 2007 05:03 PM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:Taptrick wrote:
What level is this game at?
About 300 to 400 level.
28th April 2007 05:16 PM
pdog
If we pulled out of Iraq, what becomes of the mercenaries, the 100k plus people being paid to be in Iraq? Those who make way more than our troops, are paid by US money, and who have no accountabilty or legal restrictions? This is unique, unlike viet nam... There we left... In Iraq we've basically outsourced a large part of this action.
The way Bush went into this, and the way it's run has weakened the US, more than people care to admit... The Dems trying to unfund this war will alos, like Bush's plan or lack thereoff, also weaken us...
Iraq is not the war on terror, never was... A war against no country or army, is not a war... terror is a tactic, not a place.
The Democrats are wasting time, by putting on this show in Congress. What they really should be doing, is going through the books, and boring as it may be, showing us how much we spend, and where it goes... This war is already unpopular, but people need to know one truth. what we spend and what we get for that money...
Brown, Kellog & Root charge us a few million dollars, to have a truck driven in Iraq, by a guy that they give about $250k a year too.
IMO, this is why we are losing... It's not that we can't build a Democracy in the middle of crazyland, it's that we can't afford to do it, with a system in place that runs contrary to building a free country!
To steal Bill Maher's question.... If every prediction of the Iraq war supporters has not come true, why should we beleive them, when they say, if we leave, it will be worse than it is now?
[Edited by pdog]
28th April 2007 06:45 PM
Ronnie Richards
quote:Riffhard wrote:
The American people deserve and will have victory. The hardships, suffering and sacrifices that are faced with exemplary courage and dignity by the American people will have their day of compensation when all the enemy forces are crushed on the battlefields by the heroism of our soldiers and a triple, immense cry will cross the mountains and oceans like lightning and light new hopes and give new certainties to spirit multitudes: Victory, America, peace with justice among peoples!
The hunt is on once again for war criminals, with ongoing trials of accused Serbs in The Hague, NATO raids seizing and killing other accused Serbs, and much discussion and enthusiasm in the media for bringing Pol Pot to trial, which the editors of the New York Times assure us would be "an extraordinary triumph for law and civilization" (June 24).
The Politics of War Criminality
There are, however, large numbers of mass murderers floating around the world. How are the choices made on who will be pursued and who will be granted impunity? The answer can be found by following the lines of dominant interest and power and watching how the mainstream politicians, media, and intellectuals reflect these demands. Media attention and indignation "follows the flag," and the flag follows the money (i.e., the demands of the corporate community), with some eccentricity based on domestic political calculations. This sometimes yields droll twists and turns, as in the case of Saddam Hussein, consistently supported through the 1980s in his war with Iran and chemical warfare attacks on Iraqi Kurds, until his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, transformed him overnight into "another Hitler." Similarly, Pol Pot, "worse than Hitler" until his ouster by Vietnam in 1979, then quietly supported for over a decade by the United States and its western allies (along with China) as an aid in "bleeding Vietnam," but now no longer serviceable to western policy and once again a suitable target for a war crimes trial.
Another way of looking at our targeting of war criminals is by analogy to domestic policy choices on budget cuts and incarceration, where the pattern is to attack the relatively weak and ignore and protect those with political and economic muscle. Pol Pot is now isolated and politically expendable, so an obvious choice for villainization. By contrast, Indonesian leader Suharto, the butcher of perhaps a million people (mainly landless peasants) in 1965-66, and the invader, occupier, and mass murderer of East Timor from 1975 to today, is courted and protected by the Great Powers, and was referred to by an official of the Clinton administration in 1996 as "our kind of guy." Pinochet, the torturer and killer of many thousands, is treated kindly in the United States as the Godfather of the wonderful new neoliberal Chile. President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger, who gave the go ahead to Suharto’s invasion of East Timor and subsequent massive war crimes there, and the same Kissinger, who helped President Nixon engineer and then protect the Pinochet coup and regime of torture and murder and directed the first phase of the holocaust in Cambodia (1969-75), remain honored citizens. The media have never suggested that these men should be brought to trial in the interest of justice, law, and "civilization."
U.S./Western Embrace of Pol Pot
The Times editorial of June 24 recognizes a small problem in pursuing Pol Pot, arising from the fact that after he was forced out of Cambodia by Vietnam, "From 1979 to 1991, Washington indirectly backed the Khmer Rouge, then a component of the guerrilla coalition fighting the Vietnamese installed Government [in Phnom Penh]." This does seem awkward: the United States and its allies giving economic, military, and political support to Pol Pot, and voting for over a decade to have his government retain Cambodia’s UN seat, but now urging his trial for war crimes. The Times misstates and understates the case: the United States gave direct as well as indirect aid to Pol Pot—in one estimate, $85 million in direct support—and it "pressured UN agencies to supply the Khmer Rouge," which "rapidly improved" the health and capability of Pol Pot’s forces after 1979 (Ben Kiernan, "Cambodia’s Missed Chance," Indochina Newsletter, Nov.-Dec. 1991). U.S. ally China was a very large arms supplier to Pol Pot, with no penalty from the U.S. and in fact U.S. connivance—Carter’s National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that in 1979 "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot...Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him but China could."
In 1988-89 Vietnam withdrew its army from Cambodia, hoping that this would produce a normalization of relationships. Thailand and other nations in the region were interested in a settlement, but none took place for several more years "because of Chinese and U.S. rejection of any...move to exclude the Khmer Rouge. The great powers...continued to offer the Khmer Rouge a veto," which the Khmer Rouge used, with Chinese aid, "to paralyze the peace process and...advance their war aims." The Bush administration threatened to punish Thailand for "its defection from the aggressive U.S.-Chinese position," and George Shultz and then James Baker fought strenously to sabotage any concessions to Vietnam, the most important of which was exclusion of Pol Pot from political negotiations and a place in any interim government of Cambodia. The persistent work of the Reagan-Bush team on behalf of Pol Pot has been very much downplayed, if not entirely suppressed, in the mainstream media.
The Times has a solution to the awkwardness of the post-1978 Western support of Pol Pot: "All Security Council members...might spare themselves embarrassment by restricting the scope of prosecution to those crimes committed inside Cambodia during the four horrific years of Khmer Rouge rule." We must give the Times credit for semi-honesty in admitting that this is to avoid embarrassing the Great Powers. It is interesting, though, that the Times finds no real problem in the "dirty hands," and hypocrisy, so apparent in the lengthy support of war criminals, and that it offers no reflections on how "law and civilization" are served if the criminals were protected and supported for more than a decade by the forces of law and order.
Two Phases of Cambodian "Genocide"
The Times, along with everybody else in the mainstream media, also fails to mention that before Pol Pot came to power in 1975, the United States had devastated Cambodia for the first half of what a Finnish government’s study referred to as a "decade" of genocide (not just the four years of Pol Pot’s rule, 1975-78). The "secret bombing" of Cambodia by the Nixon-Kissinger gang may have killed as many Cambodians as were executed by the Khmer Rouge and surely contributed to the ferocity of Khmer Rouge behavior toward the urban elite and citizenry whose leaders had allied themselves with the foreign terrorists.
The U.S.-imposed holocaust was a "sideshow" to the Vietnam War, the United States bombing Cambodia heavily by 1969, helping organize the overthrow of Sihanouk in 1970, and in collaboration with its puppet Saigon government making period incursions into Cambodia in the 1960s and later. "U.S. B-52s pounded Cambodia for 160 consecutive days [in 1973], dropping more than 240,000 short tons of bombs on rice fields, water buffalo, villages (particularly along the Mekong River) and on such troop positions as the guerrillas might maintain," a tonnage that "represents 50 percent more than the conventional explosives dropped on Japan during World War II". This "constant indiscriminate bombing" was of course carried out against a peasant society with no airforce or ground defenses. The Finnish government study estimates that 600,000 people died in this first phase, with 2 million refugees produced. Michael Vickerey estimated 500,000 killed in phase one.
At the end of the first half of the decade of genocide, with the Khmer Rouge victorious and occupying Phnom Penh in April 1975, Cambodia was a shattered, embittered society, on the verge of mass starvation with crops unsowed and vast numbers of refugees in and around Phnom Penh suddenly cut off from the U.S. aid that had kept them alive. High U.S. officials were estimating a million deaths from starvation before the Khmer Rouge takeover. The Khmer Rouge forced a mass exodus from Phnom Penh, whose population they were in no position to feed, an action interpreted in the West as simply a completely unjustified exercise in vengeance.
There is no question but that the Khmer Rouge were brutal and killed large numbers. Michael Vickerey estimated 150-300,000 executed and an excess of deaths in the four years of Pol Pot rule of 750,000. David Chandler estimates up to 100,000 executions (Newsweek, June 30, 1997). The Finnish study estimated the total deaths in the Pol Pot years at a million, encompassing both executions and deaths from disease, starvation and overwork. Other serious studies of Cambodia yield comparable numbers.
Genocide in the Propaganda System
Throughout the "decade of genocide" the media’s performance fitted perfectly the propaganda model Noam Chomsky and I advanced in Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988). As the first phase was U.S.-sponsored, the Cambodian victims were "unworthy," and the hundreds of thousands killed and several million refugees were almost entirely ignored—the existence of "killing fields" was only discovered in phase two. Of 45 columns by Sydney Schanberg, who reported for the New York Times from Phnom Penh at the peak of the 1973 bombing, only three granted first phase refugee victims a few phrases to describe what was happening, and in not a single article did he interview at length one of their vast numbers in the nearby refugee camps.
Scholars uniformly pointed to the important contribution the first phase made to Khmer Rouge behavior in phase two: by destroying the fabric of society and providing the victors "with the psychological ingredients of a violent, vengeful, and unrelenting social revolution" (David Chandler). But for the mainstream media, phase one did not exist; Cambodian history began with Khmer Rouge genocide starting in April 1975. Now we had "worthy" victims in a "gentle land" undergoing terror based on Parisian intellectual/maoist theory, and reporters rushed to interview refugees in Thailand. Jean Lacouture, in a well-publicized book review in the New York Review of Books, claimed that the book, Cambodia: Year Zero, cited Pol Pot officials "boasting" that they had "eliminated" two million people. This claim was withdrawn by Lacouture after it was shown to be a fabrication (one of a number he advanced), but the two million figure remained authoritative, and it and other forgeries and fabrications have proved impossible to dislodge.
These convenient views prevail today: there is no phase one, although it is sometimes admitted in passing that the United States dropped some bombs on Cambodia before 1975 and aligned itself with the "resistance" (including Pol Pot) after 1978. All deaths in phase two are attributed to Pol Pot and his fanatical beliefs, so that it is reasonable to identify him as the unique villain deserving a war crimes trial. It can be suggested in the Canadian media that maybe Nixon and Kissinger are war criminals also (Thomas Walkum, "Let’s try Kissinger along with Pol Pot," Toronto Star, June 30, 1997), but not in the mainstream U.S. press. Even a scholar like Ben Kiernan, who wrote eloquently about the U.S. support of Pol Pot in the Reagan-Bush years, now places an op ed column in the New York Times (June 20, 1997) denouncing Pol Pot and calling for his trial, without even mentioning phase one or suggesting any compromising of the case by the aggressive post-1978 U.S. and Western support of the war criminal. Kiernan had been subjected to a furious red-baiting campaign by the right-wing fanatic Stephen Morris and Wall Street Journal editors, and in an excellent illustration of the working of "flak" is now busily proving his anti-Pol Pot credentials.
Anthony Lewis: Lying With Impunity
Another feature of the U.S. propaganda system is that contesting propaganda campaigns is not permissible, and results in a blackout and/or gross misrepresentation and vilification. As soon as Chomsky and I criticized media coverage of Cambodia, in 1977, we, and especially Chomsky, were accused of being apologists for Pol Pot. William Shawcross eventually (and ludicrously) blamed Chomsky for having paralyzed Western policy responses to genocide by his (and my) single review article in the Nation.
Those who attack alleged "defenders of Pol Pot" can lie with impunity. On June 23, Anthony Lewis jumped into the fray, boldly denouncing Pol Pot and urging his prosecution for war crimes. Lewis did mention the "bombing inflicted on the peasant society by President Nixon and Henry Kissinger," but only as an introduction to the fact that Pol Pot outdid our leaders. No suggestion of any causal relation between the bombing (etc.) and the "one million Cambodians [who] lost their lives" in phase two. Lewis also does not discuss whether, even if Pol Pot was worse, the toll under Nixon and Kissinger wasn’t high enough to be worthy of a war crimes trial.
Lewis then goes on: "A few Western intellectuals, notably Prof. Noam Chomsky, refused to believe what was going on in Cambodia. At first, at least, they put the reports of killing down to a conspiratorial effort by American politicians and press to destroy the Cambodian revolution." This is a multiple lie: First, we did not disbelieve the reports in general and were very clear that "gruesome" atrocities were being carried out. We did contest some blatant lies, like those of Lacouture, and media gullibility, which in this case, where points were being scored against an enemy. reached remarkable levels. Second, we never believed or said that there was any conspiracy going on, and regularly cited State Department experts as sources of plausible information. Third, we weren’t defending the "Cambodian revolution," and never believed that the propaganda campaign was designed to destroy it; in fact, we stressed that its spokespersons didn’t do, or even propose doing, anything to help Cambodians. We saw the propaganda campaign as aimed at Americans, to help reconstruct an imperial ideology that had been badly damaged by the Vietnam War.
Lewis goes on to speak of "explaining away reports of rights violations as a Western way of interfering in other countries," ignoring the fact that a vast stream of human rights reports on El Salvador, Guatemala, Turkey, Colombia, Peru, etc., have involved human rights violators funded and protected by the United States. In our writings on Cambodia, Chomsky and I often point out that the Indonesian invasion and genocidal actions in East Timor began in the same year that Pol Pot took power in Cambodia; and we stressed that in the case of East Timor, in contrast to Cambodia, the United States as the primary weapons supplier and with extensive economic relationships to Indonesia could have effectively protected human rights. But that genocide was carried out by an ally, was approved by U.S. officials, and silence prevailed in the U.S. media. The sanctimonious Anthony Lewis does not address this anomaly.
Lewis can lie and mouth his cliches about the need to bring his country’s preferred war criminals to trial without fear of reply because his newspaper gives him impunity from criticism. A letter from Chomsky answering Lewis’s lies, and several other letters doing the same, were refused publication in the New York Times.
The Collapsing Left
The left is so weak in the United States that establishment propaganda themes and untruths often become part of the left’s own intellectual apparatus. One critic of Manufacturing Consent, noting that even the antiwar leaders didn’t refer to U.S. policy in Vietnam as "aggression" or an "invasion," asked why we should expect more from the mainstream media? It didn’t occur to him that if the establishment view is so powerful as to define the discourse boundaries even for dissidents, that this shows an overwhelmingly potent propaganda system.
With the U.S. left today, the conventional wisdom on Cambodia, as on many other issues, frequently predominates. In an article in In These Times for July 29, Adam Fifield finds only Pol Pot guilty of genocide, plays down the U.S. role, and gives the conventional lie about Chomsky, who allegedly "disparaged the [news] accounts as fabrications aimed at demonizing Pol Pot’s noble revolution." As in the case of Anthony Lewis it is unlikely that the author ever bothered to look at any of Chomsky’s writings on Cambodia. The mainstream lie about Chomsky is reported without question in this left journal, just as in the New York Times, although in this case there is a right of reply.
A July 1997 piece on Cambodia by Philip S. Robertson Jr., in the Foreign Policy in Focus series issued by the supposedly left Institute for Policy Studies and Interhemispheric Resource Center, literally starts Cambodian history in 1975, gives a death toll of the Khmer Rouge period as 1.5-2 million, without mentioning any earlier events that might have contributed to the toll, expresses regret at the "impunity" of Cambodian civil servants, but nobody else, and urges that the United States "must continue the vital work of bringing Pol Pot and the remaining KR leaders to trial for genocide..."
With a left like this who needs a right?
Power as Justice
In one famous formulation, "the bigger the crime the smaller the penalty" (Friedrich Schiller). This is not unreasonable for single countries, but in international affairs we need a refinement: the bigger the crime the smaller the penalty only if you are the dominant power, servant of that power, or military victor. Though Germany was powerful, some Nazi leaders were executed for war crimes after the German defeat; Pol Pot may be tried because he is weak, a loser, and no longer useful to the Great Powers as he was from 1979 to the mid 1990s.
On the other hand, Suharto services U.S., Japanese, and other global interests, is protected by the hegemonic power, and is therefore a "moderate" rather than war criminal for Western elites and mainstream media. Henry Kissinger’s role in the Cambodian genocide, Chile, and East Timor, makes him a first class war criminal, arguably at least in the class of Hitler’s Foreign Minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop, hanged in 1946. But Kissinger has the impunity flowing naturally to the leaders and agents of the victorious and dominant power. He gets a Nobel Peace prize, is an honored member of national commissions, and is a favored media guru and guest at public gatherings.
Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and a regular contributor to Z Magazine.
28th April 2007 08:27 PM
Chuck
April 24, 2007
The War Goes Ever On
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://antiwar.com/roberts/
Is the Iraq war to become a permanent feature?
The war persists despite the opposition of a majority of Americans and Iraqis.
The war persists despite warnings from U.S. generals that the stress is breaking the U.S. Army.
The war persists despite its enormous costs in red ink and dependence on foreign loans.
The war persists despite its total failure.
The war persists despite the known fact that it was based on Bush administration lies and deception.
President Bush's latest delusion – the surge – has not increased security. The surge has been accompanied by new records of daily Iraqi civilian casualties, such as the 312 Iraqis killed and 302 wounded on April 18. Recently, U.S. commanding Gen. David Petraeus said that Iraqis would just have to learn to live with daily bombing attacks. Petraeus promises Iraqis decades of violence when he says that "Iraq is going to have to learn – as did Northern Ireland – to live with some degree of sensational attacks."
For the past two years polls of the U.S. public have shown that a majority of Americans believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
Polls of Iraqis show that large majorities support attacks on U.S. troops and want U.S. forces withdrawn from their country.
The Iraqi Ministry of Health has concluded that 70 percent of primary-school students in Baghdad suffer from trauma-related stress from passing dead bodies in the streets, from witnessing relatives being killed, and from being injured in attacks.
President Bush and his dwindling band of apologists allege that the U.S. cannot withdraw from Iraq without a bloodbath between Sunnis and Shi'ites. This bloodbath is already occurring. Indeed, the bloodbath was caused by the U.S. invasion, which took political power from Sunnis and gave it to Shi'ites in the form of a U.S. protectorate or colony.
Bush's invasion of Iraq had no justification. Continuing the war has no positive effects. Each day that the war continues produces more pointless casualties, more red ink and dependence on foreign creditors, more trauma, and more hatreds.
The Bush administration is continuing the war without a realizable or defensible goal. Although the Iraqi government is supposedly a democratically elected majority-Shi'ite government, in reality it is a creature of the U.S. occupation without real power and without public support. The "Iraqi government" exists only within the heavily fortified and U.S.-guarded "Green Zone" in Baghdad. Even this protected zone is subject to attacks. Just last week the parliament was bombed.
As a colony or protectorate, Iraq is too costly to maintain. The U.S. has already incurred out-of-pocket and future costs of $1 trillion or more. The total gains from oil exploitation and military-security complex profits do not approach this massive figure imposed on U.S. taxpayers, which is growing by the day.
As bad as it is, the situation could suddenly become much worse. Those in charge of U.S. policy want to expand their targets from Sunni insurgents to Shi'ite militias. U.S. forces have been unable to prevail over a lightly armed insurgency drawn from 20 percent of the population. The Shi'ite population is three times larger. Moreover, Shi'ites control southern Iraq, the territory through which U.S. supplies must pass from Kuwait to Baghdad. If the Bush administration manages to get itself at war with 80 percent of the Iraqi population, U.S. troops could be cut off and destroyed.
How would an unstable egomaniac such as President Bush deal with the humiliation?
The U.S. dollar has lost much of its value to the Bush administration's dependence on foreign borrowing to finance its war. With foreigners accumulating huge annual sums in U.S.-denominated assets, the U.S. dollar's reserve currency role is jeopardized. If the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreigners will not finance our wars or our trade and budget deficits.
The risks of Bush's war both to Iraqis and Americans is out of proportion to any conceivable gains. The war is all cost and no benefit. Iraqis have been made massively insecure, and their country has undergone tremendous destruction and turned into a training ground for terrorists.
The entire Middle East has been put at risk of Sunni-Shi'ite conflict. Muslim hostility to U.S. puppet regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan is rising. The Saudis have warned Washington that the Iraq war is causing the ground to shake beneath their feet.
Bush claims that he invaded Iraq because he so highly values democracy that he desired to establish one in Iraq as an example for other Middle Eastern countries to follow. However, what Bush has demonstrated to Muslims is that American democracy is unresponsive to citizens and voters. Bush has demonstrated to the world that the U.S. government is controlled by a small oligopoly of vested interests, the public be damned. Democracy means a government that follows the will of the people. Bush is ignoring public opinion and has made it clear that he will continue the practice.
Bush has shown the world that the only difference between American dictatorship and other dictatorships is that, for now, Americans are permitted to remove their dictator after his term is served.
28th April 2007 08:33 PM
Maxlugar
I love our terrorist killing president, George W. Bush.
Long may he keep killing.
Maxy!
28th April 2007 08:36 PM
Chuck
"Decency and intelligence have departed Republican ranks. The party's shrunken base consists of ignorant and fearful people who believe Muslim jihadists are going to murder them in their beds, rapture evangelicals who believe that war in the Middle East is the prelude to their being wafted up to heaven, the military-security complex reveling in power and fortune, and resentful and frustrated people who can freely vent their anger and hate on "terrorists."
This collection of fear, delusion, greed, and resentment comprises the 30 percent of Americans who constitute Bush's base."
======================
Talking John Birch Paranoid Blues
(R. Zimmerman)
Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .
So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!
Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.
Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .
I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .
Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.
Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .
Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.
Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.
Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!
28th April 2007 08:53 PM
Maxlugar
quote:Chuck wrote:
"Decency and intelligence have departed Republican ranks. The party's shrunken base consists of ignorant and fearful people who believe Muslim jihadists are going to murder them in their beds, rapture evangelicals who believe that war in the Middle East is the prelude to their being wafted up to heaven, the military-security complex reveling in power and fortune, and resentful and frustrated people who can freely vent their anger and hate on "terrorists."
This collection of fear, delusion, greed, and resentment comprises the 30 percent of Americans who constitute Bush's base."
======================
Talking John Birch Paranoid Blues
(R. Zimmerman)
Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .
So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!
Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.
Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .
I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .
Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.
Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .
Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.
Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.
Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!
Yes, 9/11 was all in our imaginations.
28th April 2007 09:25 PM
lotsajizz
quote:Brainbell Jangler wrote:
You just don't know a fuck of a lot about the history of the Vietnam War, do you, Riffy?
Riffy has shown consistently that he don't know a fuck of a lot about anything. And the more that is made clear, the more shrill he whines....
28th April 2007 09:48 PM
Chuck
Neo-conned into an illegitimate war....against a sovereign nation that didn't attack us, didn't pose any real threat, had no connection to 911 whatsoever, and had no WMD's.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7e6_1177636498
A look back at how the administration used the "in the beltway" washington press corp to sell their propaganda on the war to the american public.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=681_1177636998
29th April 2007 12:23 AM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:Maxlugar wrote:
Yes, 9/11 was all in our imaginations.
Not all of it, just the direct connection to Saddam Hussein part.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
