Tarsha Moore stands as tall as her 4-foot 8-inch frame will allow. Staring straight ahead, she yells out an order to a squad of peers lined up in three perfect columns next to her. Having been in the military program for six years, Tarsha has earned the rank of captain and is in charge of the 28 boys and girls in… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (112)Page 1 of 1 pagesSort of makes you wonder if the elitist class is simply prepping for the next big “liberation” in the next few years. “Turning out” these people at a young age works, with anything, and now the United States will truly have a solid base, a “pool” per-se, for the giant claw to pick out those and place them on the military conveyor belt, slave-labour belt, or simply, into a prison. Sad, sad, sad.
Posted by jbennett on Jun 3, 2005 at 1:25 PM No. What’s sad is the lack of outrage.
We’ll just sit in front of our T.Vs and watch Michael Jackson and Fear Factor and think the world ends at our front door.
As long as I behave, the police won’t come for me. I’m happy. Civil Rights? Hey, I can go to work. No problem. We need to protect ourselves from all those terrorists that keep driving down my street.
We’re Americans in name only. We no longer know the MEANING of the word.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Jun 3, 2005 at 2:33 PM These kinds of programs would not be in schools if there weren’t kids who wanted it, parents who supported it and administrators who facilitated it,”
If this ever was made mandatory, I’d be outraged too.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 3, 2005 at 2:55 PM My son has been in the Army for 20 years. I am a veteran and his father is retired Army. He was in high school JROTC. He and his fellow cadets learned very little about the military. The only ones who could march were those on the drill team. He did learn to wash windows and mop floors in class. Nothing that I saw in the 3-1/2 years he was in JROTC showed me that the class was of any value. Any military knowledge he had he learned from his parents.
He dropped it in his senior year after being harassed for not accepting a ROTC scholarship. He graduated in the bottom 1/3 of his class after almost failing all classes because of the pressure he received to go to college instead of enlisting. I later learned that bonuses were paid to the officers in charge of the program for each scholarship accepted regardless of qualification for college.
Former military personnel who run these programs are guaranteed a wage equal to their military pay and even receive raises and bonuses on top of that. Where else can a Lt. Colonel with a degree in music and no experience find a job that pays so well?
Posted by Ann Pulliza on Jun 3, 2005 at 5:04 PM Hmm, President Bush is obviously planning on spending a very long time in his conquest of the Middle East if he is needing to prepare pre-teens for the military.
Posted by Todd on Jun 3, 2005 at 8:18 PM The Chicago program just further illustrates the depths of deception to which our government will go to develop the next round of “cannon fodder”. I had been aware for quite some time that one of the main perks of the NCLB Act for the government was access to the personal information of their future soldiers.
While I understand that our nation must have a military (it would certainly be beyond naive to imagine otherwise, especially in today’s world), I am tired of meeting high school students who have recently enlisted because they were told that if they signed up, they were guaranteed not to serve in Iraq. Several boys I know personally were told this, I and their teacher warned them, but they signed up anyway and now will go to Iraq at the end of bootcamp.
Also, do you notice that such programs are aimed almost exclusively at “minority” schools? In a documentary I saw about a year ago, an Hispanic boy transferred (because of fighting) to a mostly white school in a higher economic level area nearby. The first question he asked as he walked out of the building after his first day at the new school was, “Where are the recruiters?” Very telling. Yes, the GOP is interested in serving the african-american and latino communities, like the Twilight Zone’s “To Serve Man”, is how.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 3, 2005 at 10:19 PM “If this ever was made mandatory, I’d be outraged too.”
Yeah, and I suppose that if you’re ever mistakenly thrown in jail or Guantanamo because of the Patriot Act you’ll be outraged then too. Problem is, it’ll be TOO FUCKING LATE.
Posted by Matt H. on Jun 4, 2005 at 3:00 AM I didn’t sign up with JROTC in my high school to join the military…no it’s far from that, I did because I wanted to have fun and meet new people….ever since I started JROTC I’ve made a lot more friends…..I don’t get pressured into joining the military at all.
Posted by Freddy on Jun 4, 2005 at 4:33 PM “If this ever was made mandatory, I’d be outraged too.”
Yeah, and I suppose that if you’re ever mistakenly thrown in jail or Guantanamo because of the Patriot Act you’ll be outraged then too. Problem is, it’ll be TOO FUCKING LATE.
Posted by Matt H. on June 3, 2005 at 10:00 PM
Straight-line logical connection there.
Completely voluntary JROTC programs have been in high schools all over the country for 50 years or so. I had friends in high school 40 years ago that took it. Reading this article you would never know that. Wedekind makes this sound like a recently hatched government plot to militarize the youth of America. Now Matt H. tries to link it to the Patriot Act.
If high school kids want to stay after school to dress up and play soldier with no service committment, let them. How’s that any worse than open gym basketball to keep kids off the street and out of trouble? Isn’t there enough real bad stuff out there to work on without wasting time on trivia like this? Especially based on a poorly written article that leaves out all historical context to try to score rhetorical points.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 4, 2005 at 11:51 PM Maybe you all come from a different part of the country than I do, but when I was in Junior High/Middle School in the 70’s, there was no ROTC until High School. Does anyone know when it became available to 12-14 year olds?
Campesino, your point really is disengenuous. To become any profession, you usually start a loose affiliation with the skills needed for it in your youth. While certainly the majority of soldiers serving today were not ROTC, I would think it logical that the majority of ROTC participants would go on for some sort of military involvement.
I would assume that the author, like myself, is very against the war in Iraq. It is frightening to see Rumsfeld and Bush lie day after day about our involvement and progress. while you may not agree, I think it’s pretty obvious that the best way to fill declining enlistment quotas is to build a culture in which military is “cool”. Lots of non-rich kids find it a place to feel good about themselves, since they have so little at home. I think to not be able to see the MO of the Bush Admin. at work here is really willful blindness.
Just so ya’ll know, where I live, ROTC kids are considered to be the social equivalent of booger-eaters.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 5, 2005 at 12:16 AM Jennifer in my opinion is operating from a false premise. She evidently thinks that there is something wrong with trying to get kids to consider a career in the military, and taking a long term approach to keeping it strong.
I doubt she would support a draft. Why is that she and so many like her have such disdain for doing what needs to be done to maintain a voluntary force? Does she think it’s something that’s going to just magically happen? Would she start a business and expect customers to come flocking to her door without doing any advertising, promotion, or enticement?
Just like in business, the military obviously shouldn’t make false or misleading claims. I’m sure that happens, but I’m also sure that when it does, anti-military types blow it out of all reasonable proportion.
It’s understandable that enlistment rates may be down somewhat. I couldn’t blame anyone watching the media’s negative coverage of Iraq for being apprehensive about joining up. But the best indicators of the feelings of the people who are actually in the military and involved in the conflict are better than expected re-enlistment rates, and overwhelming support and enthusiasm for their commander-in-chief.
“What is perhaps most significant is that they continue to volunteer. In a normal year, the Army National Guard expects 18 percent of its soldiers to leave because of retirement, injury, and death, or because they do not reenlist. This year, the attrition rate is only 18.9 percent. Meanwhile, reenlistment rates for the Army and Marines are either exceeding goals or are within a few percentage points of them. Some data even show that reenlistment rates are higher for units deployed overseas than for those that have remained at home.”
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=722366
Nobody’s forcing anybody to do anything here. The vast majority of people who join the military are proud of and happy with their decision. The only problem is when people try to project their own IMHO misguided opinions on them, and refer to them not as people wanting to learn about discipline, loyalty and teamwork. Not as people who love their country and are interested in defending it. But as manipulated fools or “booger-eaters”.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 5, 2005 at 1:31 AM I’m sorry you thought I was being disingenuous but as always Margaret, you are entitled to your opinion.
I think if there is any disingenuousness going on here it is on the part of Wedekind. I admit, this is an opinion piece in an opinion journal, but you must admit she is quite selective in what she tells and doesn’t tell and how she frames her piece. And you also must admit, the whole tone of the article assumes there is something “wrong” about the military.
If I was a Martian with no experience of this planet in for a visit, and was reading this article using my magic decoder ring, I would be left with the impression:
- That JROTC was an invention of this administration in its desperation to get manpower for the military
- That JROTC is targeted only at schools with large minority enrollments
- That it was developed in conjunction with the NCLB provision that provides mailing lists and access for recruiters to lie and pressure poor kids into enlisting
- That there is something basically unseemly and evil in serving in the military
Those of us who have been here on Earth a while know that:
- JROTC has been on school campuses nation-wide for something like 3 generations - during administrations of both political parties, in time of war and time of peace
- JROTC is targeted at schools that want to have it. Where I grew up it was in all the public high schools and some of the parochial
- The NCLB provision is a response to school administrations with a political agenda that is anti-military, hampering recruiters. Parents can opt out of having their kids contacted (I was sent the form for my son)and they can just say no to recruiters
- Do you think there is something unseemly or evil about military service? I don’t
Again, why all this concern about a totally voluntary after school program with no service committment? Isn’t there someting seriously wrong she could have written about? What a waste.
Margaret, I am glad that you and yours hang out with the “cool kids” and stay away from the “booger-eaters”. I just hope you appreciate it if one of those “booger-eaters” gets hurt in service trying to protect you.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 5, 2005 at 2:37 AM “I just hope you appreciate it if one of those “booger-eaters” gets hurt in service trying to protect you.
#1 It was a joke,
#2 NOBODY IS PROTECTING ME IN IRAQ, IDIOT! IN FACT, THEY’RE MAKING US ALL LESS SAFE! THIS IS YOUR WAKE-UP CALL! GO FORTH AND try to understand this side of the iraq war. I understand you think that Saddam was going to come over here and kill us. I can understand that. But really, this is kind of NOT GONNA HAPPEN NOW! can we p. bring the troops home now? why do i write this…
Posted by tw on Jun 5, 2005 at 4:12 AM Maybe the recruitment of young children is best understood as a sign of desperation.
That’s what I argue on my blog: http://www.documentedlife.com/log/?p=52
Posted by Miles on Jun 5, 2005 at 4:48 AM TW, you are absolutely correct. Natalie and Campesino, pay attention to this line of thought.
I have no disrespect for the military. They are soldiers under the command of a Commander-in-Chief. Unfortunately, this CIC is a crook and a liar. We now have rock solid proof that he commited a “high crime” and lied to Congress. He also continues to attempt to perpetuate those lies, but the public is beginning to wake up. At a festival near me this weekend, over 80,000 signatures demanding an investigation were achieved. 110,000 signatures have been collected and verified by Rep. Conyers.
Our soldiers are being lied to and misused in Iraq. Natalie and Campesino, they are NOT keeping us safer, they are inadvertently drawing a bullseye on the good ol’ USA. Our freedom was NEVER threatened by Iraq. That is BS GOP propaganda. You can’t defend my freedom if it was never under threat.
I employ two Iraq/Gulf War vets. They said the attitude this time around is disgusting. They’ve told me of soldiers whacking civilians in the head (kids, women, old people) with bottles as they drive by in their Humvees. Tapes were released that Seymour Hersch listened to before he wrote his article about Abu Graib and they will be released to the public shortly in which you can hear the sounds of our soldiers raping children. I guess that’s what we want to teach middle schoolers, right?
The reason enlistment is down so far and, by the way, you are wrong on the enlistment figures, Natalie. I will have to dig it up, but I read two weeks ago that all the branches were below recruitment goals.
If a kid wants to go into the military, fine. But a 12 year old kid does not have a good idea what that means. I agree with Miles that corraling young, naive kids seems like a real act of desperation. If they do not fit in well, have them get together with kids who do tutoring for littler kids, help coach little league teams, help with Meals on Wheels, etc. Leave ROTC for college and high school, when kids begin to have a real idea of the world around them and can make an informed decision.
I thank God that we have brave soldiers to defend us against very real threats in this world, but it angers me to rage that they have been lied to and misused—sent without body armor, without enough munitions, without tank armor on Humvees, just to mention a few gifts from GWB. That’s the GOP idea of “supporting the troops”. It takes more than a stinkin little yellow ribbon on the back of your car to really support the troops.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 5, 2005 at 5:38 AM Margaret wrote:
“The Chicago program just further illustrates the depths of deception to which our government will go to develop the next round of “cannon fodder”.
I just want to point out what I think is a ubiquitous and regretable practice liberals constantly engage in - assigning blame to the government, or worse Americans for the crimes of republicans.
When you say “the government” you impliedly agree with the republican lie that all things “government” are bad. Worse, is when liberals take the blame for the crimes of republicans by referring to their actions as “America” or “we.” It is not American or we or the government, it is republicans who are the criminals. It is republicans who are hated, not Americans and certainly not we.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 5, 2005 at 6:09 AM For Pete’s sake, cut out all the conspiracy baloney. JROTC has been a valued program for generations. I joined it as a high school sophomore (the soonest possible in 1954) because after WW2 and the Korean War I was sure I would one day be in a war and wanted to know as much as possible to survive. We had real .30 cal. rifles, minus firing pins, (today they would be called “assault weapons”) for drill and familiarization and gov. provided .22s for marksmanship training. The rifle team could BRING THEIR OWN to and from school each day. It is the deterioration of moral values which make this impossible today. The ROTC program was taught by the active duty military personnel who secured our freedoms on the battle fields in Europe and Asia, including your right to voice your suspicions and fears.
Posted by Dean Munson on Jun 5, 2005 at 11:35 AM From its inception the USA government has been a racist oligarchy, never a true democracy. As the iron-clad grip of the arrogant ruling class tightens over the political economy, more citizens are being forced to realize why the top elite can run circles around the middle class and the underclass while simultaneously violating both the U.S. Consitution and international law.
As America falls politically, economically and spiritually, the top one percent (which owns 46% of all private wealth) intensifies its exploitation of the classes beneath it, especially the long-suffering slave descendants upon whom the government has long imposed ethnocide and forced assimilation.
As long as the USA imposes these vile practices upon Afrodescendants, and rejects our just demands for Human Rights and Reparations, we as a people should be exempt both from taxation and military service.
Sincerely,
Malik Al-Arkam
www.AllForReparations.org
Posted by Malik Al-Arkam on Jun 5, 2005 at 12:46 PM With respect, Malik, victims and the descendants of victims are everywhere, there’s no paying us all back. Maybe there’s a bare hope of a departure from our brutal history, if people could ever get alert to that possibility.
War is about killing as many people and wrecking as many towns as necessary, until their leaders submit to ours. Anyone can admire heroes, in uniform or not, but when it all gets done that’s what war is.
Posted by Kuya on Jun 5, 2005 at 2:54 PM The issue here is autonomy and choice. Middle school and high school ROTC is a specific kind of militarist indoctrination of minors. It is a kind of religion, and it has no place in the neutral forum that schools should be (but obviously are very far from being.)
Schools should foster growth, intellectual and moral autonomy, the capacity to be a human being - ROTC values are the very opposite of everything an education should be in a free society.
Children do not have the capacity to make an autonomous choice about their participation as soldiers in service of a violent empire, and the earlier they join the militarist system the higher the likelihood that they will not gain that capacity by the time they do have the legal and moral capacity to choose.
Dean, there is no doubt that it is sometimes necessary to take up the gun, that the war against Germany and Japan was more justified than not and served many positive ends. The question is not about 1941 however. The question involves the empire we have become in 2005.
You have to consider the balance. To what extent is the empire engagd in legitimate self defense and to what extent is it simply an agressive imperial project?
The balance is pretty clear, nothwithstanding the legitimatcy of going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. To recruit underage adults who really do not have the ability to judge the project that they are participating in is simply immoral. We’re not talking about involuntary participation in a church group or the boy scouts… we’re talking about indoctrinating 11 year olds to be imperial soldiers in project of world domination.
Don’t wave the flag at me about the great and noble project of the second world war. That was a long time ago, and frankly a grand exception in the sorry imperialist history of the United States.
TODAY, there is nothing honorable about service in the military. TODAY the military has been utterly abused and removed from legitimate defensive purposes. Recruting children for this enterprise, “grooming” them is a word that has the right insidious connotations I think, is obscene , a kind of predation that there should be laws against.
I retain my faith that this attack on children will backfire.
Posted by Miles on Jun 5, 2005 at 3:32 PM “I thank God that we have brave soldiers to defend us against very real threats in this world”
So maybe you should refrain from calling kids interested in the military booger eaters
Posted by Campesino on Jun 5, 2005 at 5:11 PM Again, other than Mr. Munson, no one addresses the facts of how deceptive this article is. Wedekind wants to leave the impression that JROTC is a Bush administration sinister plot. You swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The fact is JROTC has been in existence since 1916 and will be with us long after Iraq is over and Mr. Bush is gone.
Can’t you think for yourselves for once.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 5, 2005 at 5:23 PM “If a kid wants to go into the military, fine. But a 12 year old kid does not have a good idea what that means. I agree with Miles that corraling young, naive kids seems like a real act of desperation.”
A 12 year old kid can’t go into the military, so it really doesn’t matter if he has a good idea or not. He’s got six years or more to figure it out.
So was it a sign of desperation for every administration since Wilson’s to support JROTC? That’s 16 desperate presidents all right!
Posted by Campesino on Jun 5, 2005 at 5:40 PM Campensino,
The JROTC will not prepare children to critically evaluate their participation in the US military from an independent point of view.
With Middle School Cadet Corps (MSCC) the child now has got a full six years during which he has virtually no chance to develop such a perspective.
It puts the child inside the military world view from a young age, and teaches all the values of obedience to authority that should be anathema to “freedom loving Americans.”
—-
I think the article is saying that the Middle School Cadet Corps (MSCC) program at the K-8 level is new, not JROTC.
But the case against the JROTC doesn’t get weaker just because it’s been around for a long time. After all so has US imperialism, by which I mean the illegitimate use of military force not for defense but to build an economic and military empire.
Antiquity is no guarantor of wisdom.
Posted by Miles on Jun 5, 2005 at 9:29 PM Campesino,
The point you repeatedly miss here is that pre-teen kids do not have the perspective to understand what a military life is, especially in war time. My complaint is with the drive to force kids who cannot blend well socially with other kids into a camp that will form them into tomorrow’s bodies in Bush’s war on the world.
Those kids, I knew plenty of them in high school, were socially awkward and didn’t have a sense of inclusion. My point is that there are many other ways of building self-esteem and social inclusion that do not foster future “Terminators” for the government.
In fact, the kids that did join up with ROTC were some of the most “out of it” kids at my school. That is why I made that comment and it is still true in my experience of ROTC’ers.
I tell veterans of any war that I am glad that they “defended our freedom”. This war has nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with defending our freedom. My employees (2 ex-Marines) are very aware of my feeling that they have been lied to and misused, though I still thank them for their hard work and sacrifice. But they understand my anger at Bush’s lies. They also, now, feel that this war was a lie and they are pissed.
So, sorry if the truth upsets you, but you really should stop backing an unjust and illegal war. And more than that, middle school aged children should not have programs like that. They are too young, and it should be saved for high school and college. When there is a real war that is justified and that we didn’t start out of political and economic reasons, I will be the first one to say “Hoorah for our soldiers and their brave mission”. Just not for this one.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 5, 2005 at 10:10 PM Actually, I haven’t said anything about the war - you are making assumptions.
The truth is, which none of you want to address, is this article deals in half-truths to paint a picture that insinuates that the current administration in desperation has come up with JROTC programs to dragoon kids into fighting this war. When in actuality the program was started in 1916 and has had bi-partisan support by 16 presidents during war and peace for 89 years.
It was intended to provoke a reaction of condemnation for this administration for something it didn’t do.
Dr. Pavlov rang the bell and you all started barking. So predictable.
Look at facts and think for yourself.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 5, 2005 at 11:47 PM I’m just wondering why we don’t start the program earlier. See, here’s my idea. Ya know how funding has been cut for lots of preschool programs because of the huge deficits we’re running. Well, what about we start up BROTC (b is baby) training programs at 6 weeks of age. Solve 2 problems at once.
Think about it. Kids will grow up wanting to be military heros instead of doctors, teachers, and engineers. Just think how much ass we (the US)could kick when these kids hit 18. Hell with that early start we might have these kids ready to go when they are 14 or 15. Well, at least for the non-driving jobs. Ya know like artillery, prison guards, stuff like that.
I tell ya, it’s a seller. Label the program something like “No Child Left Behind”. You know kind of a play on the military slogan “No soldier left behind”.
And we need it. Have you seen the Military Recruiting number lately? They suck. For some reason the kids (well, the 18 year-olds, not really kids now are they) aren’t rushing off to fight to defend our nation from imminent threat of WMDs, err um terrorists, I mean Freedom (isn’t that a kind of fries now). Well, whatever reason that we’re selling this week (hey, what about OIL), they just aren’t rushing off to fight for it.
Part of the reason for that though, is that the Iraq war plan has also been at times non-existant and at all other times delusional. Alas, BROTC will fix that too. Kids brought up in this program will have been there for 59.75 years of their 60 year life when they become Secretary of the Defense. They will have some kind of a plan complete with exit strategy before any and all pre-emptive wars, you better believe it.
I’m dead satirically, serious, the time for BROTC is now.
Posted by Matt H. on Jun 6, 2005 at 1:28 AM Campesino,
The article is very clearly about both MSSC for K through 8 and JROTC for older kids.
All the arguments against JROTC apply that much more strongly to MSSC.
The relationship between the military’s recruitment problem and the expansion of MSSC is an inference, a very reasonable one.
The article presents a fact… the new reach of JROTC type programs to coopt younger and younger children in MSSC.
The explanations for that fact? Well that’s for you to decide.
Nothing in the article suggests that JROTC is a specific policy response to this war. Show me where it even remotely suggests it!
The article does join the criique of MSSC to a broader critique of JROTC, as well it should.
Do some reading for yourself first.
You’ve set up a straw man and burned it to the ground. Nice work, but your straw man was irrelevant to the argument.
Posted by Miles on Jun 6, 2005 at 1:36 AM Upon re-reading the article by Ms. Wedekind, I find it to actually be somewhat more fair and balanced, to borrow a slogan, than at first glance. It’s actually more a praising of, than it is an indictment against, these youth programs. However, she does try to make associations where none exist, and leaves out key information in order to fit her agenda. But don’t we all?
“Staring straight ahead, she yells out an order to a squad of peers lined up in three perfect columns next to her. Having been in the military program for six years, Tarsha has earned the rank of captain and is in charge of the 28 boys and girls in her squad. This is Lavizzo Elementary School. Tarsha is 14.”
What an incredible accomplishment for a 14 year old. While most of her classmates are probably wasting their precious formative years worrying about what to watch on “Teen Disney”, this girl is learning about leadership and self-esteem. She’ll be light years ahead of the pack when she gets her first job at Burger King or baby-sitting. I know I’d be much more likely to trust her to look after my child than one of her ditzy friends, knowing that she’s learned a few things about leadership and responsibility. If she decides to go into the military, so what? It’s her choice. It’s not a bad choice, like Wedekind and so many here quite wrongly and bitterly imply.
“Tarsha, however, has already signed up. While she wants to be a lawyer and is not planning on joining the armed forces when she graduates, the 14-year-old says, “If I were to join the military, I would be ready for it.”
So Tarsha is apparently pleased with what she’s gained from the program, but doesn’t feel roped in by it. Hardly an indictment of the MSCC or the JROTC. She seems perfectly cognizant that she has a choice of whether or not to join the military. She comes across to me as someone empowered, not victimized. Take notice, N.O.W.
BTW, she doesn’t look like a “booger-eater” or “out of it” to me. But that’s subjective, I guess. The next guy in line, well, never mind.
O.K., so there’s some voluntary programs offered in middle schools that have a military component. As if there’s something wrong with the military, that awful organization that is without question the greatest force for democracy and freedom the planet has ever known. (No, sorry Sy Hersch, you and other “journalists” of like mind don’t hold a candle. You’re not doing us any favors, but you are doing our enimies plenty)“But they use guns in school, don’t you see? That’s just not allowed, someone could get the wrong idea. That damn 2nd amendment is so unconstitutional”. My god, I’m sure glad we had a chance to defeat the nazis and the fascists and the communists before this mindset started to creep into our society. Unfortunately, we still have a few shall we say “rationally challenged” ideologies that may only respond to the use of or the credible threat of the use of these politically incorrect instruments.
Next we make a quantum leap to the NCLB act. Wedekind leaves out a key portion:
(2) CONSENT- The local educational agency or private school SHALL NOTIFY parents of the option to make a request and SHALL COMPLY with any request.
Hard to believe, as Wedekind states, that so few are aware of the ability to opt out. Unless the schools are violating a provision of the act. And even IF the recruiters called you, are you REQUIRED to join? Are you unable at this time to discuss the subject with parents? It’s voluntary, and as better-than-expected RE-enlistment rates suggest, soldiers are not clamoring to escape the military or Iraq, as much as our liberal friends wish they were.
All these attacks on the motives and methods of the military are quite nonsensical. People who did, or people who would have burned their draft cards in the 60’s are now doing everything possible to insure that we are forced to reinstitute a non-voluntary force.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 6, 2005 at 2:48 AM What kind of fool would volunteer to offer themselves up to today’s US military - to be a battery in the matrix whose only purpose is to be consumed for the benefit of the enrichment of the Bush family? Only a poor, hungry, desperate one.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 6, 2005 at 10:49 AM Natalie, You are an inveterate liar. Virtually every word that comes out of your stinking pie hole is a lie. You are so full of s**t your eyes are brown.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 6, 2005 at 10:53 AM “People who did, or people who would have burned their draft cards in the 60’s are now doing everything possible to insure that we are forced to reinstitute a non-voluntary force.”
Natalie,
You are so off-track it’s laughable. The people who protested Vietnam are now, by and large, mostly Republicans in my life’s experience. They “sold out” long ago.
Also, they have no power to make the non-volunteer army anything other than what it is. Who has the power is that jerkwad of a president you, for some unknown reason, seem to admire. He and his cronies are the ones setting us up to reinstate the draft. When Army and Marine recruitment goals are significantly below acceptable levels, to invade Iran (as he signed off on last October, or didn’t you know that?) will force our country back into the draft. Now there is a buzz about us taking on Syria as well, maybe N. Korea? Who knows. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that if we are currently using stop-loss tactics to keep military personnel, we are going to have to do something to shore up our personnel.
I don’t disagree that the military does give good training for life beyond the active service period. You all just keep missing the point that junior high is too young to make such decisions. When you still can’t differentiate between the threat levels of Darth Vader and
Kim Il Jong, you are not ready to start preparing for a military career.So tell me, Natalie, do you have your children enrolled in this program? Are you going to join up soon and serve in Iraq?
What about you, Campesino? Ready to re-enlist or send your kids or grandkids over to die for Bush and Halliburton? Maybe Bush didn’t design this program, but he and his admin. certainly have set up the fascist-nationalistic fervor that has even caused most of the nation’s Christians to give over to the idea that God is America and to do right by America/God is to do Bush’s will. Wake up.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 6, 2005 at 3:54 PM Years ago,I watched a Pee-Wee Herman special.On that special,he read letters,supposedly sent to him from children all over the world.One letter went like this:
“Dear Pee-Wee,
My name is Shalom.I live in Israel.I am seven years old and have been in the army for two years now.”Big laugh from the audience.
With Bush’s never-ending war on"terror"that could soon be us.
Big laugh from the audience.
Margaret,
No need to get upset.Just sit back and wait for the draft.When that happens,it will be sheer ambrosia to watch Republicans flip-flop and try to redefine patriotism to suit their self-interest.
Natalie,
What does the Second Amendment have to do with attempting to impose militarism in our schools?Nothing.
Might I suggest that you peddle your red herrings at the fish market instead of here.
Posted by wbysea on Jun 6, 2005 at 5:07 PM why anyone would want to put their life on the line for an elite group of people who would readily deny them health care, education, and a decent living is beyond me. death to american plutocracy!
Posted by grouchomarxist on Jun 6, 2005 at 6:40 PM wbysea,
It just irritates me greatly that some people are so sucked in by the power vacuum that they will sacrifice their own country to be on the “side that’s winning”.
Though I despise Ann Coulter and I use the term in regard to the neocons, her phrase is correct, they are “traitors”.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 6, 2005 at 6:48 PM What relevance does the Middle School Cadet Corp have to do with education? Is there any evidence that the MSCC program improves a child’s ability to calculate, read, or write?
Why are the majority of the MSCC programs located in impoverished schools?
How many High School recruits actually graduate from College as compared to non-recruits?
What is the educational benefit from enlisting in the military as compared to other methods of receiving student grants or loans?
Posted by Todd on Jun 6, 2005 at 6:50 PM “MSCC and JROTC are paid for by the military..”
This statement is only partially correct. The instructors salaries, which run up into the $80,000 range are split 50-50 between the military and your city taxes. City taxpayers also cover all the benefits including health care etc.
All the programs field trips are paid for by city tax payers including buses, gas, drivers, insurance etc. If a school does any work like
creating a safe place to store weapons, you are correct, paid for by you and me. Chicago’s tax payers are up into the $3M range.
Posted by Bill on Jun 6, 2005 at 9:29 PM “Natalie, You are an inveterate liar. Virtually every word that comes out of your stinking pie hole is a lie. You are so full of s**t your eyes are brown.”
This response would be funnier if it was something I hadn’t heard on the playground in fourth grade. (well except for the inveterate part) Try to adjust the maturity level so I might get more chuckles, won’t you?
“What kind of fool would volunteer to offer themselves up to today’s US military - to be a battery in the matrix whose only purpose is to be consumed for the benefit of the enrichment of the Bush family? Only a poor, hungry, desperate one.”
That’s what I’m talking about…LOL! Battery in the matrix. That’s adult stuff! You can be so preciously funny when you come in off the playground! But you know, there should be some element of truth in your joke for it to be even more funny. Bush is still coming in a distant fourth in net worth to John Kerry (richest man in the senate), John Edwards and Dick Cheney. And he doesn’t really show much interest in mansions, 6000 dollar bicycles, Gulfstream V private jets and ski chalets. So you see, it doesn’t really….work…ya know?
Posted by Natalie on Jun 7, 2005 at 7:42 AM Margaret wrote:
“You are so off-track it’s laughable. The people who protested Vietnam are now, by and large, mostly Republicans in my life’s experience. They “sold out” long ago.”
I guess they followed in the footsteps of all those Dixiecrats who strangely decided to join the party furthest from supporting their point of view. All the undesirables joined up with the GOP. That’s just so convenient in explaining just about everything. Almost sounds like some kind of article of faith that comforts, soothes, and explains the reason for all the evil in this world. Pardon me if I disagree, and conclude that you are the one who is off-track, anecdotal experiences aside.
Here’s some alternate anecdotal evidence…. Last time I checked, Jane Fonda, John Kerry (mother of all war protesters) and Bill Clinton (mother of all draft dodgers) were all still Democrats. Bobby Byrd and virtually every other former rascist in congress are still Democrats, or were till their dying day. Strictly anecdotal, though.
“to invade Iran (as he signed off on last October, or didn’t you know that?) will force our country back into the draft. Now there is a buzz about us taking on Syria as well, maybe N. Korea? Who knows. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that if we are currently using stop-loss tactics to keep military personnel, we are going to have to do something to shore up our personnel.”
Actually, this is all a ruse to distract from his real plan. Invade and annex Canada. Not really much of a challenge militarily, and boy do they have fossil fuel! Clever, huh? So no need for a draft and therefore no danger of repeating that “read my lips” fiasco. And you thought he was dumb.
I understand that you think these kids are too young to learn about anything military. But at the same time, it would seem that it’s perfectly fine for them to be brainwashed by kook left environmental activists (their teachers) to hate the company their mom or dad work for, and taught that any sexual lifestyle they choose is fine and good, perfectly healthy and normal. This just might be considered by large numbers of reasonable Americans to be an unwarranted attempt at confusing and manipulating kids to serve a political and financial agenda. But Unlike JROTC, there doesn’t seem to be much of a CHOICE of whether or not one is to be subjected to this particular world-view.
My kid’s only seven, but like most boys he’s quite interested in guns, missiles, and fighting. If he was provided an opportunity in a few years to participate in a program that would teach him about the responsible use of guns and the true history and motives of the American soldier, and he CHOSE to join, I wouldn’t be at all opposed. I would consider it a much superior alternative to the scores of other much more negative ways to channel natural male aggression.
He even picks his nose, so he’d be perfect!
Posted by Natalie on Jun 7, 2005 at 7:46 AM Natalie’s just a regular “Lying Limbaugh” isn’t she! The lies just poor out of her mouth like lava out of Mt. Vesuvius. Natalie, your teeth must be rotten from all the effluent flowing over them.
The mother of all draft dodgers, Nat, is Dick “chickenhawk” Cheney. 5 DRAFT DEFERMENTS. WHAT A PUSSY. I think Jane Fonda would kick his fat flabby ass. The rest of the top 100 draft dodging chickenhawk brigade are all yellow bellied, sap sucking, hypocritical, conservative cowards.
You know, famous hypocritical conservative cowards like:George W. Bush
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush
Karl Rove
Saxby Chambliss
Tom DeLay
Chester Trent Lott
Dennis Hastert
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
William “Bill” Bennett
William “Bill” Kristol
John Ashcroft
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich
J. Danforth “Dan” Quayle
Sean Hannity
David Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh
Ken Adelman
Roger Ailes
Neal Boortz
Lee Greenwood
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Brit Hume
William “Bill” O’Reilly
Michael Reagan
Michael Savage
Joseph “Joe” Scarborough
Ted Nugent
Spencer Abraham
Eliot Abrams
Gary Bauer
John Bolton
Andrew “Andy” Card
Asa Hutchinson
Lewis “Scooter” Libby
Richard Perle
Spencer Abraham
Eliot Abrams
Don Evans
Frank Gaffney
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
Jerry Falwell
Marion “Pat” Robertson
etc.
etc.
etc.
“A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run.” - Elbert Hubbard
Posted by Lefty on Jun 7, 2005 at 3:50 PM Natalie,
Yes,yes,John Kerry did protest the war.Unlike most Republicans,he went and fought.I think that gives him a right to protest.Regarding Bill Clinton dodging the draft,please.we’ve heard so often it’s beyond cliche.Dodging the draft is also claiming to have bad knees to avoid service(Buchanan,Saxby Chambliss)a pilonidal cyst(Limbaugh),a problem which can be treated on an out-patient basis,or claiming you have more important things to do(Darth,I mean,Dick Cheney).
It’s funny that Republicans talk on and on about patriotism,yet very few of their politicians have actually served in the military.One of the reasons,I suspect,is those politicians feel military service to be beneath them.Why should they put off law school plans for a few years to fight in some country their party is trying to exploit when there is the"hoi polloi”(as they view their constituents)to do it for them.If Bush is so committed to bringing democracy to the Middle-East why doesn’t he tell his daughters to drop out of school and enlist?At the very least,they could go to O.C.S.and obtain commissions when they graduate.Yeah,right.
Posted by wbysea on Jun 7, 2005 at 4:02 PM Isn’t interesting how people on the right think that “acceptance” of multiple points of view, concern that “all living things” be recognized as valuable to our ecosystem, respect for people with different sexualities and different perspectives, concern that children be empowered to make choices, are all somehow part of a narrow “agenda”?
The reason they say this is of course that if those values are just some narrow left wing commie agenda, then it is perfectly acceptable to oppose them with another narrow right wing agenda.
But they are not part of a narrow left wing agenda. They are the very opposite of an agenda driven value set. They are part of a value set that empowers people to formulate their own agendas for their own lives.
Public education is about creating a common meeting ground for all Americans, and about valuing diversity and difference, and this drives the right nuts. They want to fit the left into a narrow little ideological box, no different and no better than their narrow ideological box. But of course it doesn’t work because in fact many of us on the left are working to create a very different kind of world from the one that the far right imagines, a world of choice and human freedom.
Natalie, how could you learn anything useful about the military from within the military (or a military academy), given that the military is an institution with a narrow promilitary ideology? Wouldn’t you want an objective external evaluation of the military, for better and for worse? Surely you are not one of those far-out lefty believers in the idea that subjective experience is the path to truth?
I’ve never met a teacher who “hates” the company a child’s parents work for. In my experience children’s teachers are well aware of how important parental employment and income are to good educational outcomes.
I’ve never encountered a teacher who sought to teach that “any sexual lifestyle” is fine and good. Responsible teachers would of course emphasize the importance of not hurting other human beings, the importance of respect and the importance of responsibility. That would rule out many imaginable sexual “lifestyles” (ie. behaviors) but not homosexuality or heterosexuality as such.
Sigh. Why does it always come back to gays? The right is just obsessed with gays. I think they are afraid of what lurks within their own hearts and passions. The scariest homosexual is the one we fear lurks within our own heterosexual selves and our pre-sexual children.
Getting your child to hold a gun won’t keep him safe from this demon Natalie. The odds are about 1 in 20 and the military academy won’t make the slightest difference.
Posted by Miles on Jun 7, 2005 at 4:24 PM Natalie,
Obviously, you didn’t know Bush had signed off on Iran. Well, your son should be just about the right age to start training. You’d better buy his plot now.
My son will continue studying the arts, in which he is extremely talented. He knows that violence as the first solution is for bullies and losers, like you Republicans.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 7, 2005 at 4:25 PM “What about you, Campesino? Ready to re-enlist”
I got my Honorable Discharge from the Army in 1981. I doubt they’d have me back
Posted by Campesino on Jun 7, 2005 at 4:46 PM Campo, you obviously didn’t read the stop loss provision on your discharge papers. You’re goin’ tah ‘Raq babeeeeeee!
Posted by Lefty on Jun 7, 2005 at 10:06 PM Wbysea,
I think you missed the list of “chickenhawk” brigade I posted earlier:
You know, famous hypocritical conservative cowards like:
George W. Bush
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush
Karl Rove
Saxby Chambliss
Tom DeLay
Chester Trent Lott
Dennis Hastert
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
William “Bill” Bennett
William “Bill” Kristol
John Ashcroft
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich
J. Danforth “Dan” Quayle
Sean Hannity
David Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh
Ken Adelman
Roger Ailes
Neal Boortz
Lee Greenwood
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Brit Hume
William “Bill” O’Reilly
Michael Reagan
Michael Savage
Joseph “Joe” Scarborough
Ted Nugent
Spencer Abraham
Eliot Abrams
Gary Bauer
John Bolton
Andrew “Andy” Card
Asa Hutchinson
Lewis “Scooter” Libby
Richard Perle
Spencer Abraham
Eliot Abrams
Don Evans
Frank Gaffney
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
Jerry Falwell
Marion “Pat” Robertson
etc.
etc.
etc.
“A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run.” - Elbert Hubbard
Posted by Lefty on Jun 7, 2005 at 10:09 PM Lefty,
Yeah.I probably did.I skimmed through this one in a bit of hurry.BTW,wbysea is not a name,it’s a joke involving anagrams and another poster WHOSE PRESENCE I’M WAITING TO HEAR FROM.Good list,though.Amazing how patriotic these people claim to be without having put their money where their mouth is.At least the militaristic twelve-year old has made the gesture.
Posted by wbysea on Jun 8, 2005 at 11:26 AM That’s a very impressive list, Lefty. An admirable job of pasting and of course let’s not forget that for one to be able to paste, one also has to cut.
However, I find your methodology and conclusions a little confusing when I consider the following:
Number of Democrats in 108th Senate with military service: 16
Number of Republicans: 19Total years service of Senate Democrats: 101
Total years service of Senate Republicans: 149Number of Democrats in 109th House w/ service: 40
Number of Republicans: 70Of course there’s also the assumption that of current military personnel, some 60-70 percent would probably identify themselves as Republican and by large more conservative than liberal. (speculation, I admit, but informed)
And also the assumption that these proportions would likely be reflected in the population at large, since they are elected representatives of that population. I’m still researching the service records of conservative vs. liberal talk show hosts, but I think I’ll probably find that their strengths as a group are more related to ranting and raving, than they are to military service.
Average conservative rating of Senate Democrats w/ service: 15
Average conservative rating of Senate Republicans w/ service: 80I don’t know who Elbert Hubbard is, but I would guess that he might have some pretty rotten teeth and perhaps even brown eyes. Friend of yours?
Posted by Natalie on Jun 8, 2005 at 3:52 PM I guess those numbers would explain why the Republicans are so in love with death, lies and destruction.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 8, 2005 at 5:04 PM Oh, by the way, Natalie, the German were proud of their Wehrmacht, too. Sieg Heil, baby.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 8, 2005 at 5:06 PM Natalie,
You are a pathological liar. You just can’t help yourself can you!
As for “average conservative rating,” since there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: 1)idiots and 2) crooks, I’d say that your made up rating is probably pretty close to accurate with the exception that the rating for republicans should be a perfect 100% liars and crooks.
It remains only to purge the entire democratic party of idiots and crooks (you know, like Zell Miller).
Posted by Lefty on Jun 9, 2005 at 12:56 AM I agree, Lefty. Natalie’s numbers were a bunch of inconsequential hodgepodge.
On the current recruitment shortage, an elderly gentleman told me that only the patriots were signing up. I politely told him that, while I was grateful for what he’d done in WWII, only the political naive were the ones signing up today. At that, the two tables of gray-haired vets sitting with him at the donut shop all started hollering about locking Bush away in a cage, hang the bastards, etc. That really surprised me, them being veterans and all. I guess the people who actually went through it are a bit more wise than those who would rather just believe the lies/rhetoric.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 9, 2005 at 1:06 AM Margaret,
I’m not surprised. Bush is a world class chickenhawk and everyone knows it. My understanding is that about 2,000 officers were murdered by enlisted men in the decade the U.S. was in Vietnam. I wouldn’t be surprised if something similar occurs in Iraq if our troups are still there in another year.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 9, 2005 at 1:25 AM This is really very sad. Lefty makes a “chickenhawk” list and Natalie replies with facts that show, on balance, Republicans in Congress have spent more time in the military than Democrats. And she does this in an objective and fairly polite manner.
Your response is to call her a liar, a Nazi, say that is why Republicans “love death” (do you think most in our military love death?), use profanity, and to call her facts an “inconsequential hodgepodge”.
I really don’t think that she has done anything to deserve the abuse you have given her. Don’t you think you should answer her facts with objective arguments rather than ad hominem attacks.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 9, 2005 at 2:25 AM guess those numbers would explain why the Republicans are so in love with death, lies and destruction.
Posted by Margaret on June 8, 2005 at 12:04 PM
Earlier you were thanking veterans (prior to this war)for their service in defending our country. Now you are saying that members of Congress that have performed this service for you are in love with death, lies, and destruction because of it.
Your stance here is quite confusing.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 9, 2005 at 2:29 AM Miles,
I’m not sure if you’re still hanging around this deteriorating thread, but I wanted to respond to your thoughtful post for which I thank you for keeping well within the bounds of vigorous, yet civil debate.
I couldn’t help but snicker at your first sentence regarding multiple points of view and acceptance thereof. I along with too few others have thought it prudent to present another point of view in response to some of the consistently far left point of view articles that appear here. I probably wouldn’t use the word tolerance to describe the reaction we get. Of course ITT is a liberal lair, and I wouldn’t expect any articles to conflict with that worldview, but I would expect more from our public schools.
Yes, schools are about diversity and difference, but different points of view are not meaningfully included in that formula, unless they involve color, ethnicity, or sexual preference. If a child wants to express a different point of view that wanders outside of these strict parameters, tolerance is suddenly forgotten.
Imagine on Earth Day, a child making a poster illustrating an oil rig with a directional drill reaching down and across to reach a big pool of oil from its small perch surrounded by frolicking wildlife, green foliage, and colorful flowers. I can see all the teachers now, standing around it with concerned faces wondering if this is a message we should allow to be displayed. It would totally conflict with the template they’ve been presenting, that oil companies are bad and solar and wind power are good. It would show oil companies extracting energy in an environmentally friendly way.
http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=958
Or how about something as innocent and innocuous as a child bringing a bible to read during recess or free reading time? We all know how long it takes for some “tolerant” teacher or administrator to politely proclaim that his book is not allowed at school because of the first amendment, don’t you see. The real problem is that it presents a point of view quite conflicting to the one schools prefer.
You’ve really go me all wrong when you assume that I match some characterization of a bible thumping red faced bigot intolerant of anything or anybody that conflicts with my fundamentalist formula. I consider myself to be an average somewhat lower middle class parent who is who does not feel that there is too much diversity taught in schools, but too little. I want diversity to exceed the shallow definitions given by our current system and include much more meaningful, valuable diversity in thinking, and more tolerance of views that, if given a chance, might just prove themselves to be superior to, or at least on par with others.
I’m not afraid of or intolerant of gay people. I’ve got many friends at work and elsewhere who are gay. Teaching tolerance for homosexuality is fine, but in my opinion it often goes too far and reaches a point of being just plain inappropriate:
http://www.newswithviews.com/public_schools/public_schools1.htm
I would hope that people could be at least as tolerant of the JROTC point of view as they would want others to be of theirs.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 9, 2005 at 4:02 PM I’ve got an idea, Natalie. Since we’er both born-again Christians, why don’t you let your son join my middle school club to show how far off Jesus’ teachings the Bush Administration is? We’ll march everyday, “One, two, three, four, let’s kill innocent people for Bush’s war!” We’ll have good citizenship classes teaching the kids how to write to their Congressperson to demand an investigation into the high crimes committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz. Then we’ll march around the Federal Court Building with “Choose Life” signs with pictures of US military personnel killed in Iraq with $ signs drawn over their faces. Then we can go to North Carolina where the “Healthy Forest Initiative” has opened up 100’s of thousands of acres of virgin forest to logging, which we taxpayers can pay for road to be built in and then sell the lumber at under cost to GOP supporters.
Now that’s what I call good Christian stewardship! When shall I expect your boy?
Posted by Margaret on Jun 9, 2005 at 4:29 PM Campesino,
Let me outline this for you so it is clear:
1. A just war, such as WWII—Hooray! Go USA! Go Brave Soldiers!
2. Unjust and illegal war—Vietnam, Iraq—Stop lying to Congress and the American people and the world. Quit lying to our soldiers and using them as sacraficial lambs for your corporate buddies’ bank accounts.
4. For soldiers of any way—I have no problem with you or your commitment, just with your lying Commander-in-Chief.
One other question. How many of those Republican Service years are like the years Bush “spent in” the Texas Guard?
3. ROTC - Not what I’d choose for my child, but for those in High School and College, head on if that’s what you want.
4. JROTC - shouldn’t exist. Conditions children to accept violence and not question authority at an age they should be building critical analytical thinking skills. Leave it for high school and college.
I hope this clarifies my view.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 9, 2005 at 5:21 PM Sorry that got screwed up, but I think you are smart enough to get my point. Hard to run and business and blog at the same time, at times.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 9, 2005 at 5:23 PM “We’ll march, we’ll march”..... (see above)
“Now that’s what I call good Christian stewardship! When shall I expect your boy?”
Now that’s what I call an “inconsequential hodgepodge”! I see that you’re thoroughly indoctrinated with Jim Wallis’s politics, Margaret. Ever have an original thought? (kidding) You do realize, of course, that you’re only furthering my argument that there exists an intolerance for thinking out of the extreme left environmental/political box in public schools.
I maintain that it’s at least as reasonable for the military to support a VOLUNTARY program for young people interested in such things as it is for the environmental and homosexual left to advance their agenda under the cover of “mainstream” thinking, rarely even stopping to think there might be a NEED to offer an opportunity for kids to opt out.
Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate age for introducing certain ideas and concepts to kids. I would not be overly opposed to restricting ROTC activities to youth above the age of 14, as has been the custom since 1916. However, at the same time, it’s common knowledge that kids are maturing earlier, and that many other equally as controversial concepts are being introduced at earlier and earlier ages. I only argue that introducing the concept of the military as a force for good, which is inarguable except to the obtuse, should be LESS controversial than are laws saying that a 12 or 13 year old girl can leave campus to have an abortion and her parents cannot be notified.There’s certainly more than one definition of and approach to environmental “stewardship”, and the methods or lack thereof promoted by the environmental left are often counter-productive. In fact, I’m starting to think that the greater clear and present danger—if you believe in such hype—comes not from the religious right as Wallis would have you believe, but from the Earth worshipping environmental left.
This from one of their heros:
“Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.”
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=31936
BTW, since you were wondering, the numbers of Senators in the 108th congress with military service minus those who served exclusively in the guard and reserve are:
Democrat: 12
Republican: 14The total number of years service minus guard and reserve years:
Democrat: 43
Republican: 59One can maintain that Republicans are war mongers, but one cannot at the same time claim that they’re chickenhawks….and remain intellectually honest.
——————-
“As somebody who is a Christian myself, I don’t like it when people use religion to divide, whether that is Republican or Democrat. I think in terms of his role as party spokesman, [Dean] probably needs to be a little more careful and I suspect that is a message he is going to be getting from a number of us.”
“We are at a time in our country’s history that inclusive language is better than exclusive language” — Barack Obama
Posted by Natalie on Jun 10, 2005 at 5:54 AM ‘I really don’t think that she has done anything to deserve the abuse you have given her. Don’t you think you should answer her facts with objective arguments rather than ad hominem attacks.”
Posted by Campesino on June 8, 2005 at 9:25 PM
I have Campo, Natalie’s “facts” ARE CALLED LIES. She’s pulling these BS statistics out of her ass (or off of some wingnut website). Natalie is a pathological liar, a Lyin’ Limbaugh and she’s not going to post her BS without being called what she is.
And her pathetic “conservative rating” . . . as if being an idiot or a crook was something to stive for.
HEY NATALIE, WHEN YOU HAD YOUR BRAIN WASHED, DID YOU HAVE IT WAXED TOO?
Posted by Lefty on Jun 10, 2005 at 11:50 AM So, Natalie, what would Jesus do?
Would he encourage teaching children war? Would he encourage the rape and pillage of our planet? The Republicans are the only ones on the planet who don’t realize that global warming theory has really been proven beyond the “theory” status.
And, thank you so much. I would agree that Jim Wallis is the finest example of Christianity out there today, aside from Billy Graham and a few others. What the Republicans have forgotten is that Jesus did not come to earth to judge, but to save through his love. We were given the same commission. Not to go beat the crap out of people who don’t believe in him.
With the advent of the Downing Street Memo and the other corroborating evidence, it looks like we won’t have to argue much more about Bush. He, and his groupies, are now sliding down that same slippery slope as did Richard Nixon. I’d give him till maybe 2007 before he’s impeached. Hopefully, we’ll send him, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz to the Hague for war crimes.
You may want to book your flight now, as I am sure you’ll want to go cheerlead for them. Till then, I will continue my work with the Christian missions with which I’m involved, all of which push the fact the Jesus loves you whether you are gay, straight, stoned, Communist or aetheist. It is not for us to judge, only to show the way to God with Jesus’ love. This is something the Republican party has totally lost in their bloodlust.
And, frankly, I didn’t call anyone a chickenhawk. That was Lefty. To boot, I really don’t care who had more service. It is totally inconsequential to the tattered state of our nation that the GOP has brought us to singlehandedly.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 10, 2005 at 3:25 PM Margaret presumes to know what Jesus would do. She and scientists of like mind presume to have mastered the intricate complexities of global climate thermodynamics, coincidentally just as the bloom has started to fall from the rose of the fear mongering environmental left.
Not long ago we were all in angst about the soon to explode population bomb, global famine and global cooling. Now we’re warming again. Whatever keeps those checks rolling in. That’s my “theory”. But if I’m wrong, if man’s use of fossil fuel is causing imminent catastrophic warming, it’s not the far right that refuses to realize that we can’t significantly change the track we’re on without the use of nuclear power. (except for Nick and few others)
NY Times April 9, 2005 NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
“If there was one thing that used to be crystal clear to any environmentalist, it was that nuclear energy was the deadliest threat this planet faced. That’s why Dick Gregory pledged at a huge anti-nuke demonstration in 1979 that he would eat no solid food until all nuclear plants in the U.S. were shut down.
Mr. Gregory may be getting hungry.
But it’s time for the rest of us to drop that hostility to nuclear power. It’s increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming, and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.
Nuclear power, in contrast with other sources, produces no greenhouse gases. So President Bush’s overall environmental policy gives me the shivers, but he’s right to push ahead for nuclear energy. There haven’t been any successful orders for new nuclear plants since 1973, but several proposals for new plants are now moving ahead - and that’s good for the world we live in.
Global energy demand will rise 60 percent over the next 25 years, according to the International Energy Agency, and nuclear power is the cleanest and best bet to fill that gap.”
(rest of editorial available for a small fee @ the NY Times)
I’m afraid your boy Jim has confused passivity with suicide. He’s stood fast against any use of American military force or intervention. Against lifting a finger to prevent communism from engulfing our hemispheric neighbors to the south and elsewhere, and even against attacking Afghanistan. I’m quite certain he’s against the JROTC or any organization that might work contrary to his misguided doctrine. Billy Graham I believe is a supporter of the war in Iraq; his son Franklin certainly is.I wouldn’t pin your hopes too high on the Downing Street memo. It’s much ado about not much of anything. But PLEASE continue to pursue it. I can’t think of a better way to demonstrate to the general public how uninterested the left is in American sovereignty, than to demand that its leaders be shipped overseas to stand trial. Careful now, that memo might even be fake. Better call in Dan Rather for confirmation.
I’m glad you’ve realized that Republicans can’t be portrayed as Chickenhawks, except by highly selective lists. But you did wonder about Guard and reserve service above, did you not? Lefty might be interested to know that I didn’t pull my numbers from the orifice he is so obsessed with, but from the same place or similar that he probably got his list. The geniuses there linked to a PDF file that undermines their own murky theses.
http://www.awolbush.com/108thsenate.asp
What would Jesus do? I’m neither arrogant nor presumptuous enough to claim to know. What I do feel I have the authority to point out is that the overwhelming majority of people expressing no belief in and even hostility toward Him and His word are very comfortable in the Democratic Party.
I wonder, but do not pretend to know what Jesus would think about that.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 11, 2005 at 7:42 PM I’ve never heard a conservative make an argument without the aid of a false premise, and Natalie is no exception.
Well, thank you for your uninformed, unfounded and erroneous opinions on the issues of global warming, fossil fules, nuclear energy, draft dodgers, underlying sources, international justice, and Jesus.
The Downing Street Memo? Oh, you mean that pesky little document that proves Bush and Cheney falsified evidence to manufacture a case for war - squandering American and Iraqi lives and over a quarter trillion dollars of taxpayer’s money, for their personal financial benefit. Yeah, my only hope for that document is that it is crammed down Bush’s throat in his impeachment hearing when, hopefully, the Democratic congress regains the majority in the house of representatives.
And now for something completely different, the topic at hand. (Deja vu?).
Posted by Lefty on Jun 12, 2005 at 2:18 AM Of this, we may be sure:
There is no great need for them to censor the press or the people when we consistently prove that we have neither the discipline nor the manners to DISCUSS issues in search of solutions, without turning upon ourselves.
We are better than this, everyone.
Can we please agree:
—that a well-trained military is necessary.
—that many people still believe and act upon the philosophy that it is RIGHT to contibute their service to their nation, and are not primarily motivated by their economic situations.
—that lack of discipline and focus is what ails us as individuals AND a society, and that any venue for nurturing these benefits us all.
—that a president is beholden to the people, and that perhaps we might do well to FOCUS on legal, respectful, and constitional ways ways to enforce this tenet.
—that every time we initially wish to jump down someone’s throat because they don’t “get our point” quickly enough, it might be more constructive to see what WE missed first.
—that ANY military operation, regardless of motivation and characteristics, is NEVER as cut and dry as we might wish it to be.
We all want to think of ourselves as the only person in America who sees the danger. Wouldn’t it be a relief and a source of hope to admit that WE ALL see many dangers, so that we may join together to address them?
Alternatively, we could accept the blue vs. red paradigm, continue accusing others of being fools, and save the administration the trouble and cost of censoring us.
Thank you all for reading, thinking, and acting.
Posted by Nicole on Jun 12, 2005 at 5:15 PM Any bets on what happens once so-called Christian magnet schools and JROTC get together?
Posted by Lincoln on Jun 12, 2005 at 8:36 PM Natalie writes:
I wouldn’t pin your hopes too high on the Downing Street memo. It’s much ado about not much of anything. But PLEASE continue to pursue it. I can’t think of a better way to demonstrate to the general public how uninterested the left is in American sovereignty, than to demand that its leaders be shipped overseas to stand trial. Careful now, that memo might even be fake. Better call in Dan Rather for confirmation.
The Downing Street memo story has been in the press for a few weeks now. If indeed it is a fake, then why no denial from the White House or 10 Downing Street of its authenticity? Here’s why, Natalie: Because the Bush administration is already up to its chin in lies - and it can’t afford to get caught in another blatant lie. If Bush has cooked intelligence to peddle a phony rationale for committing troops to Iraq - and it appears he has - then this is grounds for impeachment. The fact that right wingers like yourself are unwilling or incapable of acknowledging the gravity of this situation only underscores the perception that the political right will disavow the truth and trample the Constitution for whatever self-serving cause it deems justified.Tell us, Natalie, do you really believe the the right can fall back on the usual tactics of demonizing the opposition and mud-slinging to get itself out of this mess? In fact, the more baiting the right engages in, the bigger the spotlight they throw on the Bush administration’s bright, shining lie. So what next? Hauling out the big brass band of patriotism to orchestrate a campaign of lies and demagoguery?
Posted by Lincoln on Jun 12, 2005 at 9:23 PM Natalie,
You are incorrect about Jim Wallis. In his latest book, he specifically states that there are just and unjust wars. A just war calls for military action, and that is fine. You are completely incorrect on that one. By the way,the last time you brought him up you smeared his reputation and never gave me any of the documentation for your slanderous comments. Do you really think I believe you? You are just a parrot sqwaking on in the FAR Right lingo I’ve come to expect from your side of the aisle.
The Pope was dead-set against the war, as are many ministers in America, not to mention the Achbishop of Canterbury in England. Let’s not get into a there’s more on this side than another.
Also, I do not presume to know Jesus’ mind. But I do know 100% what he did in the Bible, and lying and waging war wasn’t one of them. I am basing my statements on his actions and statements, and it is presumptuous of you to assume otherwise.
Nicole,
You are incorrect about this president being beholden to the people. Almost every act he has done since taking office has raped the people. Look at what legislation has been passed in the last 5 years, you will see a pattern of the dismantling of the middle class and the consolidation of power in the hands of corporations/government/military. He is not at all concerned about anyone but his financial backers and voting base.
Yes, war is sometimes necessary. But not when the reasons for it were fabricated, and the thrust of the war is to line the pockets of corporations.
Sometimes it just boggles my mind how naive and gullible the women of the Right are.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 12, 2005 at 11:02 PM Margaret,
Check back in a day or two, and I’ll provide you with some history on Wallis and Sojourners, since apparently he hasn’t seen fit to share it in his latest book.
I doubt however, that you’ll consider the past activities and stances of these members of the “radical religious left” to be at variance with your belief system. I can’t see how I’ve “smeared” Wallis simply by pointing out his past and present political activities/beliefs and disagreeing with their validity and practicality.
I don’t recall calling him anything close to some of the things you’ve called me, frankly, Margaret. :-).
I think you’re wrong to categorize Nicole as necessarily a woman of the right. She may well be, but one would hope that there still exists on the left a small portion of the boatload of common sense she articulated.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 13, 2005 at 4:07 PM Natalie,
If you would be half as interested in following Jesus’ example as you are in training children to be mindless purveyors of war, you would put half the energy you put into this ridiculous argument into lifting the crushing burden placed on the poor, the widow, the orphans by the Federal Budget of 2006. Here’s how a few noteworthy Christians feel about that:
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/15.03.05budgetrally.html
Non-GOP’s know the real reason you all want to eliminate Social Security is that a Democrat founded it and it has been the most effective program in US history, and you can’t stand it. If the GOP wouldn’t have pilfered millions from it for the war, there would be no crisis for at least another century. Here’s a link talking about why FDR created it in the first place:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0506-33.htm
We are admonished more times in the New Testament to care for the poor, the widows and the orphans than any other order given. And, yet, this is the group the GOP attacks mercilessly. How do you call yourself a Christian when you condone such assaults? Who are you to decide who is shown mercy? When the masses followed Jesus and he said, they only want food and miracles, did he say, send them away? No, he feed them again. And he performed more miracles on other days.
And, frankly, I don’t care a bit if Wallis opposed some past wars. I did as well. The whole Nicaragua/El Salvador thing, where Negroponte allowed death squards to do their covert work killing innocent people. Of course, he’s now been rewarded by our “spiritual leader” for his crimes. We are very good at supporting fascist dictators like Noriega and Hussein, only to turn on them when they don’t continue to create a friendly business environments for our corporations.
Also, Iran Contra. Yeah, your party is really good at deceit, murder, destruction and then the ever-necessary cover-up. Here’s another example:
http://oldamericancentury.org/bushco/bushcontra.htm
Just like the lie didn’t work for Nixon (I’m no crook or there was no coverup), it’s not going to work for Bonzo either. Counting the days till the impeachment hearings begin.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 13, 2005 at 7:43 PM Lincoln said:
“The fact that right wingers like yourself are unwilling or incapable of acknowledging the gravity of this situation only underscores the perception that the political right will disavow the truth and trample the Constitution for whatever self-serving cause it deems justified.”
Lincoln, the mystery becomes, what interest Natalie could have in perpetuating such lies. Did Natalie pay kickbacks to Neil or Jeb Bush in exchange for a no-bid contract in Iraq?
Posted by Lefty on Jun 13, 2005 at 11:46 PM “These kinds of programs would not be in schools if there weren’t kids who wanted it, parents who supported it and administrators who facilitated it,”
The above line in this article caught my eye.
I live in Jacksonville, AR, which is also a poor community. There are two middle schools here, one for boys and one for girls. It didn’t always used to be that way and most of the parents don’t like it. But, since most are
poor, they are conditioned to the concept that there is nothing that they can do. If they complain, they are either ignored or their children are singled out to be hounded by the administration. The parents have no say
in who the administrators are or what rules they pass, either. I belonged to the PTA for awhile, thinking I could make a difference, but to no avail. The PTA meetings were where the administrators went to tell parents what decisions they had already made. They at no time asked for input from parents except for prearranged testimonials from those who enthusiastically supported the change. The meetings were also attended by local businessmen, too old to have children in the schools, who were pushing the agenda due to a “lack of respect” from the local children.The process began with making the children wear uniforms to school. The children who grumbled, were told to “shut up and get used to it as they were apt to spend most of their life in a uniform.” I pulled my daughter out of
the local school district when they started talking about “boot camps for children.” I thought it was an Arkansas phenomenon, but obviously not.Bonnie Hayes
Posted by Bonnie Hayes on Jun 14, 2005 at 8:58 PM No Margaret, I don’t think I’m very incorrect about Jim Wallis. Help me out if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he’s ever been of the opinion that any war during his lifetime has been just. Maybe there was one or two, but it sure couldn’t have been many. I shudder to think how long we’d have to wait until we finally got the go ahead from JW to project force anywhere for any reason.
I know he was disapproving of our involvement in Afghanistan, Grenada, and Kosovo. I know he was all for a nuclear freeze, against deploying Pershings in Europe, all for the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, on and on and on. Actually not much different from the average liberal Democrat in congress, but I don’t hear John Kerry bragging much about his support of Ortega and the nuclear freeze. I’m just curious if Wallis stands by his past, or has he acknowledged he might have been wrong about what is the most effective way to deal with lying communist murderers and lying brain-washed Islamic extremist murderers, or has he just swept it under the rug?
It’s admirable to be a pacifist, to a point, but in my opinion history teaches us that there needs to be a limit to such an attitude, and strong united resolve after that limit is reached. Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, not the peacesayers. Unfortunately in this world there are still instances when force is necessary to achieve any kind of permanent peace. HItlers, Tojos, Husseins, Bin Ladens etc. are simply not reliable negotiating partners and are not reachable on any kind of what we would consider sane level. I think the vast majority of Christians understand and accept that, or at least it would seem so by the way they vote. Wallis has demonstrated by his past actions that he does not, regardless of whatever statement he makes today in his book.
I and I think probably most conservatives simply disagree not with his desired ends, which are apparently peace and prosperity for all, but with his time and time again proven ineffective and pie in the sky methods of achieving them.
Histoy:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1833
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7018
Critique:
http://www.cmpage.org/betrayal/index.html
http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/001615.html
http://tinyurl.com/ac2jp
Perhaps the best way to study Wallis’s past is by reading his early articles written for Sojourners or others. These are not easy to come by online, although there is an archive section at Sojourners where you may be able to order them. Perhaps you’re already familiar with them. If you are aware of any internet links to them, I would be very interested.I think YOU’RE incorrect, Margaret, in believing reasons for war were fabricated, and that they had anything to do with lining corporate pockets. Plenty of pockets, corporate and otherwise, have been lined as a by-product of every war since its invention and it’s nonsensical to single out this one as the first and foremost. I somehow doubt you were all that concerned about defense contractor profits and no-bid Haliburton contracts entered into by the Clinton administration for it’s little war, which by the way seems to have been fought under some false pretenses of its own.
The Bush administration is hardly the first to call attention to the potential danger posed by a budding alliance between Saddam and Islamic radicals, and the subsequent fear about the sharing of WMD’s which practically EVERYONE, even Saddam’s own generals, thought existed in Iraq. These past investigations have been strangely forgotten by the very people that conducted them originally:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
ABC News in 1999:
http://www.radioamerica.org/audio/MR_ABC-Osama-Hussein-connections.mp3
Posted by Natalie on Jun 15, 2005 at 7:03 AM After skimming two pages of comments, and slogging through all of the “I know you are, but what am I?” juvenilia, the BS about faggots, Jesus, booger-eaters, the environment, the “tradition” of JROTC and the like, every one of you have missed the real point here. That point is, what authority does Congress have to write legislation that requires schools to give ANY information about their students to the military, whether they are magnanimous enough to include a clause about “opting out” or not? The same traitorous scum that would vote for the PATRIOT Act without reading one page of it, pass the Real ID Act 100-0 in the Senate, and refuse to impeach a known liar and war criminal, believes that they can get away with whatever they want—and why not, since the Supreme Court has been in the business of rubber-stamping every illegal act of Congress, while trampling on states’ rights, since the days of FDR?
Why would ANY school knuckle under to this? Just for the federal money? And why aren’t the lot of you ripping your crooked congress critters a bunch of new a**holes over their treason? Are we living in Nazi Germany? Or will enough people wake up at some point and initiate the Second American Revolution, before the completely out-of-control federal government finally squashes the few civil liberties left to you in the wake of this phony “War on Terror?”
Posted by Big M on Jun 15, 2005 at 10:42 AM Natalie,
You peg me incorrectly as a pacifist. I think wars are sometimes necessary, and those must be fought.
Secondly, you are incorrect in your assessment of Jim Wallis’ view on war. Once again, read his new book in which he repeatedly states that some wars are necessary, and he felt WWII was absolutely justified. He even states that he felt it was right to go into Afghanistan in order to capture Osama bin Laden. So, on both those counts, he completely contradicts your beliefs in print.
On the validity of the claims for this war, I will include some links, but I know you are a doubting Thomas, so you will just have to wait until it comes out more in the press, as it currently doing. The Downing Street Memo made the front page of the New York Times last Sunday. Tomorrow, half a million signatures demanding a House investigation of these matters will be presented on the Capitol steps before the press.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0803theyknew.ht tm
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/iraq_when_was_the_die_cast.php
I’ve got at least a dozen more articles from the UK and USA showing that the Administration “fixed” the facts to facilitate their plans and lied to Congress and the people.
As you can see by reading this thread, you are absolutely in the minority with your beliefs. Are you like Bush in that you can never admit a mistaken conclusion? Now that Kerry’s complete military history has been released and the Swift Boat Veterans’ lies have been shown to be just that, can you be big enough to admit it? When Terri Schiavo’s autopsy shows there was no “person” still in that vegetative body at the time of her demise, are you big enough to admit her parents were wrong? Here’s what the coroner’s report said:
“Thogmartin concluded Schiavo’s brain weighed nearly half the expected weight of a human brain, saying, “The damage was irreversible.”“No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss.”
Once again, Natalie, you bought the Big Lie.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 15, 2005 at 3:35 PM Big M,
I don’t think the “war on terror” is phoney. I think it’s quite real. And I think it is against the Bush and the Saudi Royal families personally.
Consider G.H.W. Bush’s role in the CIA. Consider the role of the CIA in the world since WWII, ie: the CIA connection to cocaine imports from Panama and Manuel Noriega, the CIA support of Saddam Hussain, the Shah of Iran and the House of Saud. This is just the small tip of a big iceberg.
The terrorist’s hate is not for America, it’s for Bush (and Saud). It’s not America’s war. It’s Bush’s war.
Unfortunately, America is paying for international hate for Bush, in many respects. And to some degree, deservedly so. A (putative) majority of voters have twice elected a fascist war criminal as President.
Posted by Lefty on Jun 15, 2005 at 7:51 PM I’m sitting here reading all of these comments and just can’t help wondering about the country of the USA. You guys are sure hotted up. Other than your President, the CIA, the FBI and your military, who do you think that you need to be afraid of, and why ?
Why do you think that you need to be afraid of any of us, outside of America ? Why do you think that you need such a large army or weapons at all ?It looks to me that the way that you’re behaving in this discussion, you guys are afraid of each other.
By now, I’m sure that you are aware of what provokation caused 9/11. By now, I’m sure that you are aware that there was no threat from Sudam, and that with the years of sanctions, he wasn’t much of a threat to anyone,. let alone the USA.
Make peace you guys. Make peace within your country and you won’t have to be so afraid of the outside world. Take a note from Bolivia.
Posted by Barbara on Jun 16, 2005 at 5:40 AM Dear Lefty:
I meant that the War on Terror is phony because, first off, terror is a tactic, and you can’t declare war on a tactic. Secondly, the government’s story about 9/11, which kicked all of this off, is phony as well.
Here’s an open invitation to anybody who would like to participate: where’s the evidence to back up this fairy tale? Like video footage of 19 Arabs who allegedly got onto planes using fake IDs with non-Arab names, who weren’t on any passenger list, who got past check-in, security and flight attendants with guns, nerve gas, and other assorted nonsense? If this actually happened, where are the federal lawsuits against the airlines for allowing it to happen? No lawsuits, no Arabs? Maybe? Where’s the video evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon? Where’s the evidence that Muslims could suspend the laws of physics, and use plane crashes and kerosene fires to bring down towers that contained over two hundred million pounds of steel and 200,000 cubic yards of concrete in each one? Amazing, isn’t it, that these two towers were hit in different places, suffered diffent types and degrees of damage, and yet, collapsed in the exact same manner—completely vertically and symmetrically, at a rate approaching free-fall, with no resistance at any point, on any floor, from the hundreds of millions of pounds of materials that had held them up for thirty years? Why has every individual who was involved in the alleged incompetence that allowed all of this to happen been promoted and/or received a performance award and a cash prize? Where are the thorough investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board into any one of these incidents? I’ve seen more interest in horse-doping scandals, and Congress seems to be much more interested in steroid use in baseball than in this. Any takers?
Look at evidence suppression. Video cameras that were aimed at the Pentagon were confiscated by the FBI. The steel at the WTC was shipped out before any independent team could run a forensic examination on it, to see whether or not controlled demolition was responsible for the collapse of the towers. No exposure of the names of the people and/or firms that placed all of the “put” options on United and American Airlines through Sept. 10, and who stood to gain piles of cash as a result of their obvious foreknowledge, or “insider information”. And, you can’t explain that by saying their names would be protected under privacy or financial disclosure laws. Just ask Martha Stewart about that. No exposure of the people who advised a number of government officials to cancel their travel plans. How obvious does all of this have to get? Do they need to go on Broadway, hire a chorus, and mount a production of “We did it ourselves, you stupid blockheads,” The Musical?
Lefty, 19 Arabs didn’t pull off a scheme of this magnitude, and I think that by now, you know just who did.
Posted by Big M on Jun 16, 2005 at 5:26 PM Dear Lefty:
I thought that an interesting P.S. might be in order. Following on the heels of my not-too-subtle opinion of who pulled off 9/11, here are some interesting “coincidences” and such about the Bush family, a family that you quite correctly finger as a crime family.
You’re probably already aware that Dubya’s grandfather and great-grandfather were big boys in a Wall Street firm called Brooks Brothers/Harriman, and that they had their assets seized in 1943 by the federal government, and that in the 1930s, they were involved in running front organizations for the Nazi Party.
The Bush family also, as you’re probably aware, has extensive business ties to the bin Laden family, and as you pointed out, G.H.W. was once the head of America’s secret police, and our favorite bogeyman has been a CIA asset for years. But, did you know that . . .
The Bush family is quite friendly with the Hinckley family. You remember John Hinckley Jr., don’t you? The guy that shot Reagan, after managing to somehow get through his security detail, at a time when Dubya’s dad was the VP, as well as the former head of the CIA, and who would have been in a very advantageous position to arrange for just such a breakdown, which almost catapulted him into the Oval Office? (Why aren’t VP’s ever a suspect in an assasination of an American President? Don’t detectives always start any murder investigation by looking very closely at the people who stood to gain the most from the murder? Oh, well—works for me.)
Did you know that the Bush family has, or at least had, close business ties to a guy named Carlos Lehder, who happens to be one of the co-founders of the Medellin Drug Cartel in Colombia?
Did you know that Marvin Bush, Dubya’s brother, was on the board of directors and a major stockholder in a now-defunct company originally named Securacom, then Stratasec, that had the security contracts for the WTC, Dulles International Airport, and United Airlines, at the time of 9/11?
Awfully funny coincidences, wouldn’t you say? NOT!!
Posted by Big M on Jun 16, 2005 at 6:13 PM Indeed, how remarkable that 9-11 became the “Pearl Harbor” that Cheney was looking for. Wasn’t the airforce being distracted by exercises which rendered them useless to obvious threats on the radar?
Posted by pick of the litter on Jun 16, 2005 at 7:36 PM One does wonder…
Let’s hope, if it is in fact more than a conspiracy theory, that it will bubble up to the top like the Downing Street Memo. I’ve always wondered why there weren’t airplane parts around the Pentagon.
First off,we should put our energy into retaking the Congress in ‘06 and then impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and punish Wolfowitz. I feel sorry for Powell having had to toe the line with that BS story at the U.N.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 17, 2005 at 12:04 AM Margaret writes, and I respond:
“You peg me incorrectly as a pacifist. I think wars are sometimes necessary, and those must be fought.”
I believe I was pegging Wallis, not you. Which wars or incursions have YOU thought necessary and just?
“Secondly, you are incorrect in your assessment of Jim Wallis’ view on war…”
In retrospect only a fool would come out against WWII, unless maybe you’re a neo-nazi. The point I made earlier was that if Wallis didn’t have the benefit of hindsight, and based on his general intransigence on military matters, he would likely have opposed much of what was involved in fighting WWII, especially when it came to attacking people who didn’t attack us. Also in hindsight, I suspect he expresses much more approval in his new book toward invading Afghanistan than he did initially. He said before the war that he thought we were justified in bringing Bin Laden to justice (oh no, really?) but we can’t bomb poor Afghan children to do it. As usual he didn’t provide any practical advice as to how we were supposed to neutralize al Qaeda’s support base without an all out invasion. His support for our action in Afghanistan was lukewarm, at best. It’s obvious that if he could have voted, he would have voted against what we did.
“Sure and certain, those who have done this must be brought to justice. But I don’t want the children of Kabul, Afghanistan bombed - Jim Wallis
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0109/S00192.htm
“On the validity of the claims for this war, I will include some links…”
Wow, you guys really have a lot invested in this, don’t you? I would caution you, as I have some of my own family who is bubbling about this impeachment/indictment/ line, to consider the consequences of advancing an agenda that al Qaeda, any remaining Taliban, the Bathists in Iraq, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, Hamas, the Mullahs in Iran and Jacque Chirac would have multiple orgasms over in the event of its success. As a Republican partisan, please, please, continue to pursue it. As someone who has loved ones invested in such IMHO wishful thinking, please reconsider.“Now that Kerry’s complete military history has been released and the Swift Boat Veterans’ lies have been shown to be just that, can you be big enough to admit it?”
What we’ve learned so far is that Kerry was even dumber a student at Yale than was GWB, and that there’s more than one way to fill out a form 180. When Kerry or the press releases the actual completed “form 180”, as has John O’Neill, and it shows that he has indeed agreed to the complete and unfettered release of all of his military history, and that release somehow proves that the Swiftvets were liars, I will gladly admit to being wrong.
“When Terri Schiavo’s autopsy shows there was no “person” still in that vegetative body at the time of her demise, are you big enough to admit her parents were wrong?”
I could be wrong, but I don’t recall sharing my feelings about Terri Schiavo on this forum. If I did, it probably would have been something similar to this:
“Personally, I cannot understand why parents willing to take care of their disabled daughter were not allowed to by a husband who had moved on to another life and family. Terri Schiavo was severely mentally disabled but was not dying, and we don’t decide to end the lives of many similarly disabled people, even children, whose mental capacities greatly diminish their quality of life. As my wife, Joy Carroll, put it, “the issue is not their quality of life, but the ethical quality of our society.” And in situations of medical, scientific, or legal complexity, the morally safer course is always to err on the side of life.” —- Jim Wallis
Take a second look at what you’re gloating about, Margaret. Consider that your friend Wallis might just be right in this particular instance. It happens to broken clocks twice a day.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 17, 2005 at 6:15 AM As the singer, Beck, sings, Natalie, you’re a lost cause. I agree we shouldn’t bomb the children of any country. That’s what Jim was saying. But in his recent book, as I previously stated and you chose to ignore, he states that he ultimately agreed it was right to go after Bin Laden. He was simply lamenting the collateral damage in innocent life. Sorry you’re too dense to understand that without me pointing it out to you.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 22, 2005 at 1:17 AM Oh, and in regard to Jim’s comment about Terri Shiavo, unlike you, I am not afraid to state my own beliefs when they go against someone I admires viewpoints.
So glad to see that we are going to start pulling out troops next December and Bush has admitted defeat on Social Security. Impeachment is next. Have fun,Natalie.
Posted by Margaret on Jun 22, 2005 at 1:19 AM There is one thing that is not addressed in these comments. The cost of JROTC to school districts. In this time of major budget shortfalls for education in almost every state one must question the way the limited funding is used. In the school district where I live we paid out $168,000 for JROTC last year to benefit only about 120 students. That does not include the hidden cost of transportation, equipment storage and facility rentals. At the same time music, art and athletic programs that benefit more children are being cut back and parents are being asked to “pay to play” with these programs. The Department of Defense reimburses the districts some of the money. But why would they do that while at the same time declaring emphatically that JROTC is not a military program?
Posted by Nino on Jun 22, 2005 at 11:47 AM “I agree we shouldn’t bomb the children of any country.”
Hold up a minute, bombardier! I think I see children down there! You know our orders….no bombs if there’s children present. Turn this buggy around, we’re going back to base.
But Sarge, there’s pretty much childrens everywhere there’s people, ya know?
Yeah, Bomby, I know. President Clinton’s orders, though. She’s the boss. Take us home.
“Oh, and in regard to Jim’s comment about Terri Shiavo, unlike you, I am not afraid to state my own beliefs when they go against someone I admires viewpoints.”
I’m with Jim on this one. Reconsider, lest you risk being accused of practicing “bad theology”. Ouch.
“Impeachment is next.”
Bring it on! (LOL) (Having fun)
Posted by Natalie on Jun 29, 2005 at 6:09 AM LOL BIG M I enjoy a good con-theory but that on takes the cake. Perhaps you should change your name to BIG BS
Posted by Jim on Jul 1, 2005 at 5:31 PM Hi, Jim:
Before I change my name to BIG BS, suppose you offer one piece of evidence to confirm the government’s fairy tales, as I requested, instead of engaging in juvenile ad hominem attacks? You could start by proving that any one of these 19 Arabs ever got on any one of those planes.
Anybody that would support or believe the stories from a government that lied about every aspect of the Vietnam War, Waco, Gordon Kahl, Ruby Ridge, etc., and has had every one of its justifications for invading Iraq exposed, globally, as a pack of lies doesn’t have much credibility with me. So put up or shut up, OK?
Posted by Big M on Jul 2, 2005 at 3:57 PM Ok - no more ad hominem attacks if you stop suppressing evidence that conflicts with your arguments. Also every one of the Governments reasons for going to war with Iraq has not been disproven. FACT - Iraq was in violation of the terms of a cease fire set forth after the gulf war. It is irrelevent if you like this or not but we had the right to legally resume war at any point over the last 12 years if we so desired. Saddam agreed to and was bound by the resolutions period… no debate… This fact can not be challenged.
Here are some examples of evidence you discount or ignore.
First - there were recorded phone conversations with loved ones on the plane that confirmed Arab men had taken over the planes using what appeared to be razor knifes or box cutters…..not guns, mace and etc. like you mistakenly reported. Just because you post something such as your mace, gun comments don’t make it true. Any search of the event in news articles will provide a detailed account of what really happened per family members who had contact with loved ones prior to the planes going down.
Second - a group of citizens stormed the cockpit which was also recorded by cell and has been played numerous times on most media outlets. That plane crash was investigated and it was determined that US citizens kept the plane from reaching its target.
Third - I can not prove those men got on the plane just as you can not prove they didn’t. However my position that they did in fact get on the plane can be supported by more evidence than your position that the didn’t. EYE witnesses, sworn testimony from family who lost loved ones etc…
Forth - there are law suits pending. 92% of victims settled and the remaining people involved are pursuing suit. One problem is The primary Ins. company’s and the Reinsurance Company’s had to eat Billions of dollars of losses and are appealing the verdict reached by a law suit that increased the liability 2fold. Until the full extent of liabilty is determined individual suits will sit on the burner. I work in finance and have first hand knowledge of the impacts caused to the scor group and others by pending litigation and their exposure.
So Big BS have a good 4th and watch out for the big bad Government they’re watching you. Really you’re being watched right now. Look behind you!!!!!!! HAhaHAhaHAha
Posted by Jim on Jul 2, 2005 at 6:31 PM Hi, Jim:
Well, to the anger, embarrassment and shame of the world, I’m back, after a nice, extended weekend trip out of town. Contrary to your wishes for a nice 4th, however, I must confess that I spent most of it looking under every rock, and behind every tree and bush, for government agents. It’s quite exhausting and stressful work, I can assure you.
I wasn’t going to bother responding, but I figured that if I didn’t, it would be taken as a sign that your statements couldn’t be refuted, and I do possess a modicum of self-respect. However, this will definitely be my last post on the subject (hold the applause), so feel free to have the last word, and take all the potshots you like – I’m not going to respond. Call me a chicken or a coward if you like, but I’m not going to be drawn into an ongoing pissing contest like two other people on this site got into over this article, and other things, especially when it’s evident to me that your faith in government fairy tales can’t be shaken.
What I am going to do here is address your points, going down the list, offering some logic and good old horse sense, and, in following your lead, I will introduce a number of facts. This last post is rather lengthy and long-winded, to be sure, but some things need to be said, considering that this story is the Bush administration’s justification for endless war, the trashing of the Bill of Rights, and the all-too-believable scenario of the reinstatement of the military draft. (Perhaps you might want to give up your job in finance, and prove your patriotism by enlisting, to bring “democracy” to the benighted masses of the Middle East. If you’re not willing to do this, then you must be “with the terrorists,” and you should be sent to Gitmo, to be held indefinitely without charges or trial, because George W. Bush said so.) And by the way, considering all of the cover-ups involving the Bush administration, which I will address below, you have to have some kind of brass balls to throw accusations about suppressing evidence in my direction.
The U.S. claimed that Saddam was in some sort of violation of UN resolutions for 12 years running, but they didn’t find any reason to invade Iraq previously. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember that Israel has been the subject of a number of UN resolutions for quite some time, has plenty of nuclear weapons, has been caught spying on the U.S. on numerous occasions (including the recent bust of Larry Franklin, and the indictments of senior members of AIPAC – heard about this one?), and, during a war with Arabs in 1967, attacked the USS Liberty IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, killing thirty-five people and injuring 170 others (an act, by the way, which to this day has never been investigated by Congress), and yet, the U.S. just can’t seem to find a reason to bomb Israel back to the Stone Age, and as we all know, anybody who criticizes Israel hates America. Your statement, frankly, is a red herring. The Bush administration’s publicly-stated reasons for invading Iraq were that Saddam had WMD, and that he was an immediate and growing threat to his neighbors (read: Israel), as well as to this country (sure – a guy who apparently couldn’t manage to shoot down one American plane in twelve years of sanctions and no-fly zones was certainly a threat to the continental U.S. of A.). They also said that we needed to remove Saddam from power.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:26 AM The fact that the weapons inspectors repeatedly stated that they found no evidence of WMD, or weapons labs or programs, weren’t going to loosen the wheels on the invasion vehicle – in fact, as anybody can see, when Bush is exposed as a liar, it just inspires him all the more to force his agenda, and to even repeat the same lies that have just been exposed, as witness his latest radio address. This man, and the neocon fascists (and numerous Zionists) surrounding him, could no more admit a mistake, or tell the truth, than I could swallow my own head. These accusations have all been exposed as bald-faced lies, as well as the outrageous claims that Pat Tillman died a hero’s death, and that Jessica Lynch is the reincarnation of Sargent York. So, we took Saddam out of power. Quite some time ago. So why in the hell are we still in there? Don’t tell me to bring the Iraqis “democracy,” either. That reason was only offered to the gullible, in a slop bucket, after the other ones were exposed as lies. We’re fighting a “War on Terror” for two reasons: 1) to control the flow of oil out of the Middle East and the central Asian republics that were formerly part of the Soviet Union (blatantly using NATO to encircle and cut off Russia from those sources), while simultaneously controlling transportation routes from China and India into the Middle East, and: 2) to eliminate the enemies of Israel.
Concerning your examples of “evidence”:
As to your first, phone conversations (or tapes or transcriptions of them) can be easily faked, as can video purporting to show bin Laden taking credit for the 9/11 attacks. This video, as you certainly ought to know by now, has been thoroughly debunked. Either it is completely fake, or it has been heavily edited. It’s also easy to print a duplicate passport for somebody, and plant it as “evidence.” As to “loved ones,” are you talking about the calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, which have also been effectively debunked? Or do you mean the one from Flight 11, from a “flight attendant” named Madeline Amy Sweeney, allegedly based in New England for 12 years, who can’t even identify lower Manhattan and the Hudson River, but instead, engages in some B-grade horror movie dialogue, along the lines of “ . . . I see water . . . buildings . . . Oh, my God!” (I think that this is where the Creature from the Black Lagoon grabs her.) That one? The one where out of approximately 90 (alleged) people on board the plane, she’s the only one that you can hear screaming? The person that her employers credited with being so calm and collected? That one? The one where if you follow the timeline, the plane went off course before the “hijackers” even entered the cockpit (oops!)? As to the call(s) from Flight 93, it’s been established that the last three minutes of the CVR have been erased. As far as I’m concerned, everything with all of these “calls,” on all of these flights, raises red flags.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:27 AM You really believe, do you, that four or five people, of any race or persuasion, could take over those planes with boxcutters or razor knives? The passenger lists for these flights show anywhere from fifty to ninety people on them. It’s basically impossible to believe that these people could overpower all of the passengers, the flight crew, and the pilots (most of whom are ex-military) with boxcutters or razor knives on a plane with just fifty people, but on four different ones, one with around ninety passengers, at the same time? And by the way, the comments about guns, mace and the like aren’t my own. They are comments supposedly made by “passengers” who placed these phone calls, and/or the FBI. These “comments” materialized after the FBI figured out that people who know how to think for themselves weren’t buying the Tale of the Magic Boxcutters. Where are the phone companies’ records of these calls? It’s an absolute insult to my own intelligence to comment any further on stupidity like this.
It’s also been established that at least three or four of the “hijackers” had previously been victims of identify theft, including Mohammed Atta. However, let’s leave that aside for a moment, and assume that the passport “found” three blocks from the crash site was legit. What would it prove? It wouldn’t even prove that he was on the plane, if you take a moment to think about it seriously and logically, much less that he was a hijacker. One out of nineteen passports is a pretty piss-poor batting average, anyway. The whole scenario is too corny for even a Hollywood producer to contemplate for long.
As to your second, I’ll refer you two paragraphs back. And, concerning investigations, just who conducted the investigations? It reminds me of the “investigations” carried out by these phony “commissions,” with government “investigating” itself, that concluded that even though 3,000 or so people lost their lives, the entire air defense command and its routine procedures were deliberately suppressed, etc., nobody in the federal government was responsible for anything, including manipulating “intelligence.” You may as well appoint the Mafia to investigate organized crime. As far as I know, the National Transportation Safety Board, which should have been the ones conducting inquiries on a federal level, didn’t do much of anything. I have yet to hear about that agency conducting a thorough investigation of any one of the crashes.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:27 AM As to your third, I knew that you wouldn’t be able to prove that they got on the planes. The entire point that I’ve been trying to make here, Jim, is that the government can’t prove it, either. You say that I can’t prove that they didn’t get on the planes? Well, you know something? You’re absolutely right. For starters, Jim, I’m going to assume that you’ve never studied logic, because any first-year student of logic could tell you that it’s basically impossible to prove a negative. That’s why, in our system of jurisprudence, the accusing party has to prove (theoretically, anyway) that somebody did something – the defendant is not required to prove that they didn’t do something. Think of the federal government, and/or a prosecutor, in the same manner. If you can’t provide any evidence to prove what you’re accusing people of, then you have no case. Yes, or no? Well, I’d say that no Arab names on passenger lists, no airport security video footage of any one of them (even though the FBI claimed that 9 of them went through secondary security, where their luggage would have been searched, with a fine-toothed comb, by hand, and where there would most assuredly be video cameras), the fact that the FBI had to admit before the end of September, 2001 that they had no actual clue as to who the “hijackers” were, due to the fact that a number of them were almost immediately found to be alive . . . well, that’s enough of this. The government can’t prove its case here in any way, shape or form. In my book, that means that these so-called Arabs are fiction, at least the 19 fingered by the FBI, your clumsily-contrived and obviously-faked cell phone calls, and their “transcriptions,” notwithstanding. As to your assertion that you can support them being on the plane more than I can do the opposite, how? You mention eyewitnesses. What eyewitnesses? Where are they? The ones on the planes? I can’t imagine who else you’re talking about, unless you’re talking about people like Ted Olson. I’m not going over this again. If you want to continue in the belief that Arab hijackers were actually on the planes, there is only one possible way that it could have happened, and that is if the airlines and/or the government, and/or security (see near the end of my fact list below) had them and their weapons smuggled on board prior to the flights. If anybody was smuggled on board, and/or the planes weren’t controlled remotely, they were probably members of the Mossad, and not Arabs. Even if I were going to believe that these 19 Arabs got on these planes and hijacked them, it doesn’t explain the complete and utter failure of the U.S. Air Force to intercept any one of them, and there is, allegedly, technology built into these planes that will allow the flight control computers to be overridden from the ground, in the event of a hijacking. If this is true, then how did the planes reach their targets, regardless of whether the Air Force could be bothered to put down its Dunkin’ Donuts®? It also seems likely that Israeli agents were impersonating Arabs in certain situations, which they’ve been caught doing before, in order to have Arabs framed. Many Israelis who are members of the Mossad have come from Arab countries where they were born and educated, and they appear more Arab than Israeli.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:29 AM And, if you believe that the federal government wouldn’t be involved in carrying out attacks against its own citizens, in order to frame people, have you not heard of the “Northwoods” document produced by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, and recently de-classified, outlining a plan that, if carried out, included the probable killing of Americans in this country, IN TERRORIST ATTACKS, so that the killings could be blamed on Cuba? Probably the most interesting scenario is where they talk about using a radio signal to blow up a remote-controlled plane over Cuban airspace, to whip up hysteria for an invasion of Cuba. Do tell. Hell, they were even looking to use John Glenn’s launch into space as a pretext against Cuba, if for “some reason,” his rocket exploded and killed him. When you hear about the actions of people such as Mohammed Atta and Moussaoui at their flight schools, many people might become suspicious that the people in question weren’t actually them. Not too long ago, a bunch of Israeli “art students” were caught trying to obtain information as to security and such at certain locations. Which brings me to . . .
As to your fourth, any idiot would know that private individuals would file lawsuits against the airlines, given the fact that there were apparently plane crashes. However, Jim, if you read a little more carefully, I asked about federal lawsuits. Where are they? I’ve heard of none. Seeing as how the only possible scenario for these people getting on board was just illustrated above, well . . . And, just a bit off the track here, have you ever heard anything about either airline filing loss claims with their insurance carriers? As a financial employee, with your self-stated knowledge of insurance, you should have an answer for that one. And wouldn’t that be interesting? Trying to collect tens of millions of dollars from an insurance company, when they can’t find any trace of the airplane? It’s said that they found part of an engine fan from Flight 93, but what else? Insurance adjusters aren’t stupid, and they would probably require a bit more evidence than that before there were any payments. And, if they didn’t file any claims, that would be pretty interesting, as well. As a matter of fact, I’ve seen pages from the Bureau of Transportation’s own web site (which they’ve apparently had the sense to remove by this time, given the possible criminal implications) that return absolutely no information at all for Flight 11 or Flight 77 on September 11, 2001, under any search criteria, although you can find results for the other two. There are links on the Internet to these pages, as well – they were extensively backed up before the BOT took them offline. Let’s clear something up right now. Jumbo jets, of the type we’re concerned with here, weigh around eighty tons when they’re empty, and they have a minimum of twenty to thirty tons of titanium and steel in them. I don’t care if they crash into a mountain, a building, or the ground – THEY DON’T VAPORIZE INTO NOTHING! The first story to tumble out of the pieholes of the FBI was that the “jumbo jet” at the Pentagon had actually vaporized, but that they recovered enough DNA to identify all but a handful of passengers. How f-ing stupid would somebody have to be to believe this? It is absolutely impossible for any 757 to vaporize, for reasons too obvious to require explanation. But, let’s assume that you believe it, because I’m sure that you do. Can you explain how it is that temperatures high enough (I can’t believe that I even need to ask the question) to vaporize – not melt, but VAPORIZE – steel and titanium, could somehow leave behind usable human DNA? And exactly where was this DNA found? Hello, brain stem!
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:30 AM You mentioned that your opening fact about Saddam couldn’t be challenged. Well, I’m going to introduce some facts of my own here, that can’t be challenged, either. Every single one of them can be easily researched and proven, and quite a few of them are public knowledge. Let’s get started.
FACT: The FAA had established open phone lines with the Secret Service by 8:45 AM that day, as Cheney himself admitted in late 2001. This means that before Bush set foot in that school, he and the Secret Service were already aware that at least two planes were wildly off their flight paths, and that one had crashed into the North Tower, and that it was being called a terrorist attack. So, the man who is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, who has sworn an oath to defend the country and uphold the Constitution, decided that the best thing to do would be to sit around listening to kids reading a book.
FACT: Bush was informed at 9:06 AM that the nation was under attack, as he himself has admitted.
FACT: He continued to sit around, listening to kids read, and he deliberately did absolutely nothing to take control of the situation. In fact, he, the Secret Service, the Air Force, the Vice-President, the acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, NORAD, and the Secretary of Defense, all did essentially the same thing – BASICALLY, NOTHING.
FACT: The Secret Service detail made no attempt at all to take him out of that school, even though their first priority is to get the President out of any potential danger situation. Bush’s whereabouts were public knowledge. His arrival and departure routes were public knowledge, as was where he was going to be, when he was going to be there, and what he was going to do there. If these attacks had actually been a surprise to the Secret Service, then they couldn’t have possibly known whether a plane might be hijacked from a nearby airport and dive-bombed into the school (a scenario that intelligence agents have admitted, in the past, that they couldn’t come up with a solution for, in regards to the White House – Bush was five miles from an airport), or if a coordinated ground attack might have taken place. Every single person in that school would have been a potential target. If you actually believe that the government wasn’t in on the script, what possible explanation can you offer for any of this? Bush’s complete refusal to do anything, given the events of that day, should have had him impeached before the end of September.
FACT: While Bush was holding his press conference at the school, and flatulating from his piehole that he was going to track down the people responsible for the attacks, there was another plane wildly off its flight path, heading straight for Washington DC, with its transponder turned off, being tracked by radar, while the fighters at Andrews Air Force Base were still sitting on the tarmac, and he was fully aware of it, and he continued to do absolutely nothing about the treasonous failure of the Air Force to intercept the plane. He left the school at about the same time that the Pentagon was hit.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:30 AM FACT: When Bush and his entourage could finally be bothered to leave the school, around forty minutes AFTER they had been informed that the country was under attack, they did not deviate at all from their publicly-known departure route! Are you kidding me?
FACT: Air Force One was diverted away from DC for close to ten hours after the events. The only explanation for this, that the plane might have been the victim of a “credible threat,” was dropped down the memory hole a week or so later, with the off-hand remark that it was a false alarm. Really. Just what kind of threat? Did they think that an unarmed civilian aircraft (or, maybe, with boxcutters on board?) was going to somehow evade the military fighters escorting the aircraft, and ram it? I suppose that they somehow discovered and locked on to the plane’s coordinates, using their Captain Osama Secret Decoder Rings. Just who advised them of this “credible threat,” what kind of threat was it, and why was this “advice” allegedly taken seriously? Well, I guess we can’t expect any explanation – it would endanger national security, the standard response out of this administration to any demand for proof of its accusations, fables or outright lies.
FACT: The entire air defense command was put on ice during the attacks. If I had to explain how unbelievably obvious this aspect of the day’s events is, I’d probably put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. The air defense command in this country is largely staffed with current and former military commanders, and fighter pilots who are trained to respond at a moment’s notice, and kill if necessary, but we’re supposed to swallow the bilge that they all sat around, wringing their hands, and agonizing over what to do, unable to decide whether they should intercept and/or take down planes, when this had happened about 60 times already in the first part of 2001 alone, as part of routine procedures? And that they couldn’t even get a visual on any one of these things before they crashed? What utter, f-ing crap.
FACT: NORAD originally said that no fighters were scrambled, and then, a week later, changed its mind, and said that in fact, fighters were scrambled that day. Since NORAD would be the agency that actually issued the scramble orders, how in blazes could they somehow forget it, and only recall it a week later?
FACT: The entire air corridor between Cleveland and Washington DC was closed by the FAA at 9:06 AM that day, and yet, at a time when the entire air defense structure in this country should have been on the highest possible state of alert, something managed to fly for over half an hour, and for over three hundred miles, right through this corridor and straight into DC, completely unmolested by the most powerful Air Force on the planet.
FACT: The maneuver pulled off by whatever hit the Pentagon, just prior to impact, if it was pulled off by a human, probably couldn’t have been executed by a commercial 757 in any event, and could have only been pulled off, in any sort of aircraft, by a military fighter pilot and/or stunt pilot of the highest caliber – not by people who, judged by their own flight instructors’ statements, couldn’t even competently operate a Cessna. Several experienced pilots have stated that a turn like the one witnessed couldn’t have been performed by a human pilot, because of the G-forces involved (the 9/11 Commission Report stated that the plane was going over 500 MPH when it hit), which would make even the simplest movements tremendously difficult.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:32 AM This would tend to reinforce the theory that some, if not all, of the planes were remotely controlled, not just because of the inexperience of the people accused of whipping the planes around like Top Gun pilots, but the fact that there doesn’t seem to have been one identifiable corpse recovered from any one of the planes, and like planes, bodies don’t just disappear in a crash, although the list of remains returned to family members, as well as funeral arrangements for them, is mighty short.
FACT: The Pentagon, one of the most heavily fortified buildings in the world, complete with a surface-to-air missile defense system, somehow couldn’t manage to get off one shot in its own defense, even though it had plenty of advance warning that it was a possible, if not probable, target.
FACT: The available photographic evidence shows, conclusively, that the damage to the Pentagon could not have possibly been caused by a 757.
FACT: Three video surveillance cameras, that were trained on the section of the Pentagon that was hit, were confiscated by the FBI within minutes of the impact (as was the security camera that was right across the street from the Murrah Building, and pointed right at the area that was blown). National security, I suppose. Almost four years later, not one frame of them has ever seen the light of day, and they never will. If the feds want people to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon, then why don’t they just show the videos, clear the whole thing up, and shut the mouths of people like me for good and all? Even you know the answer to that one.
FACT: No plane crash, and/or kerosene fire, could have possibly weakened the support structures of the WTC towers in so short a time, that they would collapse. Even the Village Idiot could see this. Furthermore, a collapse has nothing to do with close to a half-billion pounds of steel and concrete being largely vaporized into moon dust. Look at the videos – the concrete was being pulverized into dust even before it hit the ground. Go to google.com, search for “Windsor Building Fire +2005,” without the quotation marks, and read about the fire in that building, which stayed standing, with its skeleton around ninety-eight percent intact, even with a crane on the roof, and then try to sell anybody the nonsense that a kerosene fire took down a 100-story skyscraper in under an hour, that tower being the South Tower, which was struck second, had a much smaller fire, and yet managed to collapse first, as neat as any demolition company could have arranged it. Pretty clever, those Muslims – who needs to hire expensive explosives experts when you’ve got jet fuel, which is refined kerosene, which sells for less than a dollar a gallon on the open market?
FACT: The steel in the WTC was rushed out of there as quickly as possible, with no independent agency or engineers allowed to conduct a forensic examination the steel. Indeed, FEMA saw to it that these people had their hands tied every which way, and they were basically made subservient to the clean-up crews. Try to imagine that you’re a detective, and you arrive at the scene of a murder to find that all of the bullets have been sold to recyclers, the body has been removed, the blood has been largely washed away, and that you have to ask permission of the janitors to take photos or look for evidence, and you’ll get an idea of what went on at the WTC. Many of the engineers and firefighters were outraged, and publicly complained about the evidence being taken out of there, and some of them stated flatly that they thought that FEMA’s “investigation” was a steaming pile of manure, as well as a blatant cover-up. A number of them even had gag orders slapped on them, so that they couldn’t talk further about what went on.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:33 AM And how about each truckload of scrap metal being tracked on its way to the yards by expensive GPS technology? Who in the hell tracks scrap metal with GPS? I’ll tell you who – people who can’t afford to have any of the steel diverted to an open investigation, that’s who.
FACT: The lightweight truss theory and the “pancake” theory, both shamelessly hawked by paid government liars in TV “documentaries,” are complete nonsense. It’s almost beyond belief that these people can tell these lies with a straight face, and completely beyond belief that people who know better haven’t publicly annihilated their lies in the “mainstream” media. Early construction photos of the towers show plenty of nice, thick, solid steel beams running through them. These would have to have been there, in order to transfer the wind load from the outer perimeter walls to the central core. Otherwise, in a high wind, the outer walls would move several feet, and the floors would buckle. You might as well believe that bridges are constructed with any credible reinforcements placed 1,300 feet apart. I remember one of the original designers of those towers being interviewed a while back, and the interviewer asked him if he thought that more steel in the buildings might have prevented their collapse. The designer’s response was that he couldn’t see how any more steel could have possibly been put into the buildings. As to the “pancake” theory, I can just see myself approaching the New York Port Authority, and telling them that I want to build the tallest buildings ever built in America, I want to place them smack dab in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in the country, and I’m going to build them in such a manner that if one floor somehow falls onto one other floor, the support structures at every point, on every floor, will give way like wet toilet paper (even on the floors above the point of impact!), the entire structure will collapse at a rate approaching free-fall, and it will be reduced to powder, killing everybody inside. “Well, here’s your building permit, Big M. By the way, the airlines love your idea of building eighty-ton jumbo jets so that they vaporize into nothing when they crash – it makes the cleanup so much easier, you know.” Every single floor in that building would have been reinforced to the point that it could have sustained at least three times its maximum rated weight load without collapsing, and more than likely, six times its rated weight load. The idea that one floor could collapse on one other floor, and that this would cause a 100-story structure to “pancake,” fall apart and turn to dust, is so unbelievably absurd that one wonders, slack-jawed, if there is any limit to human stupidity. Since the floors above the impact points weren’t hit, suffered no damage, and had nothing fall on them from above, Jim, what’s your explanation for THEM turning into powder?
FACT: A company involved in the cleanup at Ground Zero, Controlled Demolition Inc., is the same company that had the debris removed from the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, which was also disposed of without any forensic testing being done on it, at least by anybody outside of government.
FACT: WTC7 was taken down by demolition, and Giuliani’s crisis control center, located on (I believe) the twenty-third floor, along with its records, equipment, etc., as well as a CIA office located inside the building, went with it. As Church Lady might say, “Well, isn’t that convenient!”
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:34 AM FACT: The crisis control center was abandoned prior to the demolition, and it was supposedly done pursuant to a phone call, from a person that nobody in the center could apparently identify, ordering them to get out of there. This statement was made by a person who was said to be physically there at the time. Oh – I see. Who would have had the authority to issue such an order, apart from Giuliani himself? The governor? I’m sure that they would have recognized his voice. It obviously wasn’t him, so who was it? Let me get this straight – the very entity that was created to deal with a crisis, in the middle of the worst crisis the city had ever seen, closes up shop, with the employees evacuating the building, based on an anonymous phone call? And all of the records of activity in the center are conveniently lost, as well as the CIA’s records? Call me a cynic if you must, but there’s something here that just doesn’t seem right to me.
FACT: Ashcroft had materials retroactively classified that had been available on the Internet for two years, citing national security, among other baloney. The fact that he wasn’t immediately labeled a dangerous nutcase, and placed in a straightjacket, tells you all you need to know about this fascist administration, as well as the lapdog mainstream media in this country, who are whores for the federal government, and who would have been welcome in the offices of Pravda.
FACT: Ashcroft and the Justice Department had a gag order placed on a woman named Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator who exposed a number of treasonous activities that were taking place inside the FBI’s translation department. This gag order was imposed at about the exact same time that the stuff in the above paragraph was taking place. After about two years, her case was recently thrown out. Martha Stewart must have asked, “You can do that?”
FACT: There were massive amounts of “put” options placed on stock of American and United Airlines, between September 6 and September 10. These people obviously had foreknowledge of something, and stood to make a hefty pile of dinero from it. There was supposedly an investigation into this, but it was almost immediately dropped. And, as I mentioned previously, their names would not be protected under financial disclosure laws, or federal privacy laws. So why no investigation, after almost four years, of the people who exercised these options?
FACT: Marvin Bush, Dubya’s brother, was a member of the board of directors, as well as a major stockholder, of a now-defunct company originally named Securacom, later Stratasec, that held the security contracts for the WTC, Dulles airport, and United Airlines at the time of 9/11. These people would have had unfettered, unlimited access to the buildings and planes, and they would have known just how to compromise them, or to possibly smuggle individuals on board planes.
FACT: The government claims that it can’t find a number of “black boxes” from the plane crashes. For starters, this is practically unheard of. Even if planes wind up on the bottom of the ocean, you continually hear about ongoing efforts to recover them. You not only have missing boxes here, but you don’t hear a thing about it from the whores, lapdogs and enablers in the “mainstream” media. These “black boxes” are painted orange, are practically indestructible, and can emit pings or radio waves to help locate them. And yet, they can’t be found? What, me worry?
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:34 AM FACT: Some Israelis at the WTC received warnings, before the attacks, to get out of the buildings. I doubt that they were warned by fanatical Muslims.
FACT: Zim Israeli Shipping, one of the largest shipping companies in the world, moved out of the buildings shortly before the attacks, claiming that they wanted to save money on rent. Well, why would I doubt that story? After all, a company that has the financial support of the Israeli government, which, as you know, is lavishly funded by We the Taxpayers, would obviously have to pinch their pennies, right? And, considering that there was an awful lot of vacant office space in the WTC, it stands to reason that their rent must have been too high to handle. Uh-huh.
FACT: Certain government officials were warned ahead of time to cancel their travel plans for September 11. I doubt that they were warned by fanatical Muslims.
FACT: The supposed suicide note, written by some “devout Muslim,” is a fake. I’m certainly no expert on Islam, but I know that no devout Muslim would mention his family in his prayers to Allah, and a devout Muslim would mention the prophet Mohammed immediately after a reference to Allah. Like Casey Stengel said, you could look it up. Well, what the hey, I guess I should give this one the benefit of the doubt. After all, if I’m to believe what I hear about the FBI and the CIA, they can’t seem to find anybody that can speak or translate either Arabic or Farsi competently. I could also assume, by conjecture and common sense, that they apparently wouldn’t be able to forge them competently, either. And by the way, if this letter was found at the crash scene, as is claimed, intact (again, surviving a supposed fiery conflagration that vaporized a jetliner), why would anybody take it on the plane, instead of leaving it behind somewhere, where it would be less likely to be destroyed and/or lost? Oh, well, nothing to see here, people . . .
FACT: The bin Ladins and the Bushes have been in bed financially raking in hundreds of millions together on big oil, construction and defense contracts for decades, and they’re both making plenty off the Bush administration’s crusade in the Middle East. (Ever hear of The Carlyle Group? Or the bin Laden construction company?) Additionally, although not one person in Bush’s current cabinet has ever fought in a war, most of them are connected to companies that are profiting mightily from the current conflict. What kind of outrage is it that the same people who stand to benefit financially from a war are the same people who start the war? Why are American taxpayers being bent over to pay for bombing a country back to the Stone Age, and then bent over again to pay to reconstruct it, with people in the Bush administration raking it in?) This is why Osama bin Laden will never be captured. In fact, Bush doesn’t concern himself about him any more, by his own admission, even though he fingered him within hours for the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people. You don’t capture somebody that you can blame everything on. It’s well known that Osama has been a CIA (read: America’s secret police) asset for years, and Dubya’s daddy was head of that agency for years. Bin Laden was actually in a hospital in Dubai in July, 2001, where he was supposedly visited by the local CIA agent, as well as various Saudis and Emiratis, also U.S. allies, treated, and allowed to walk free. The most wanted terrorist in the world? Can you say “bogeyman?” Anybody who has read Orwell’s 1984 will recall the two-minute hate sessions. As mentioned above, the video showing bin Laden taking credit for the attacks is either a fake or edited, and the Bush administration has never come up with one solid bit of proof to tie him to the attacks – not one, and bin Laden has pointedly denied any involvement.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:36 AM The fact that the federal government and the FBI have never even remotely looked at anybody else as a suspect, considering all of the enemies this country has managed to create around the world, is absolutely astonishing. And the FBI claimed that it couldn’t have possibly known, predicted, or prevented anything on 9/11, but they somehow managed to identify bin Laden in a matter of hours, and these 19 Arabs in three days, with no video footage, no Arab names on passenger lists, no bodies pulled from the wreckage, and no living eyewitnesses? Again, how f-ing stupid would somebody have to be, in order to believe this?
FACT: The Taliban offered, in early 2001, to extradite bin Laden to a neutral site so that the U.S. could nab him, if the U.S. would show them evidence that he had committed the acts that the U.S. had accused him of. The U.S. response was essentially, “Evidence? We don’t need no evidence. We don’t got to show you no stinkin’ evidence!” And, just prior to the 9/11 attacks (August 2, I believe), a representative of the Bush administration, which was furious at the Taliban for dragging its feet on allowing an oil pipeline to be built through the country, warned them, “you can have a carpet of gold, or we will bury you under a carpet of bombs.” The attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks – it’s the oil, stupid. It should be obvious that the attack was pre-arranged. In 1991, this country needed 4-1/2 months to prepare to go into Iraq, but we could not only finger the culprit here in a matter of hours, or a few days, but arrange and carry out all the logistics, and launch an attack, in 25 days? And, if so, how does that square with the alleged incompetence, up and down the line, in every single defense agency, on 9/11? Please excuse me while I figuratively die of laughter, while people are literally dying there, as we replace the Soviet Union in that country, apparently without learning anything from their experience, except how to revive the opium trade there into the most lucrative on the planet. After all, the CIA needs lots of money.
FACT: A convicted Pakistani terrorist, highly placed in the Pakistani Secret Service, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. And yet, the U.S. shows no interest at all in laying its hands on this person, despite Bush blustering that “if you support a terrorist, you’re a terrorist,” especially if you smoke a joint (well, we’ve already got a War on Drugs to take care of that – a twofer!). The guy was apparently forced to resign. Hey, wait a minute. No bombing of Pakistan until they hand him over? No labeling of Pakistan as a “terrorist” state? Well . . . no. Why, in fact, Pakistan is one of our staunchest allies in the (drum roll, please) “War on Terror,” don’t you know? In fact, we just sold them a bunch of military equipment so that they can deal with their enemy, India, which was a country that, coincidentally (NOT!), blew the whistle early on over the, uh, inconsistencies engaged in by the Bush administration. So, the U.S. has not the slightest interest in pursuing somebody who is absolutely known to be a link in the 9/11 chain, no interest in punishing the country harboring him, and, in fact, considers that country an ally, even though it has supported terrorist groups from the Middle East to the Balkans, to China, and to Southeast Asia. Well, all righty then.
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:37 AM So many facts, so many coincidences, so many sloppily-constructed frauds and lies, so many laws of physics, and so little time. Well, I’m about done. Oh, wait – I forgot one more fact. It’s a fact, Jim, that you are a seriously brainwashed and ignorant fool (or possibly a Zionist?), and that the people who actually pulled this off give thanks every night before beddy-bye for you and the tens of millions of dolts who have swallowed all of this whole, and who continue to defend this fraudulent War on Terror and the outrageous invasions of two countries that did nothing to the United States (with more on the playlist), while sporting your mindless “Proud to be an American” bumper stickers, and your “Support our Troops” ribbon magnets. It’s bad enough that people act like Pavlov’s dog and dutifully stand up at baseball games for the “seventh-inning stretch,” but now we have, thanks to 9/11, the idiotic spectacle of people, at every baseball game, singing “God Bless America,” forever and ever, Amen. I’m fairly certain that anybody who has enough sense or self-respect to opt out of this asinine ritual would be glared at as if he were Beelzebub himself, if not spat on, cursed or assaulted. Have some Freedom Fries for me, would you? And remember to boycott French wine. LOL
Posted by Big M on Jul 6, 2005 at 4:37 AM Wow you have a lot of free time. LOL BIG M I enjoy a good con-theory but that one takes the cake. Perhaps you should change your name to BIG Master OF BS. You know so much as fact. If it wasn’t for the fact that the US GOV. controls everything so perfectly I guess you would expect that your facts would be getting some attention by media pros. Keep up with the story you could get rich with all of the facts??? you just posted. You should pitch a TV show to FOX.
Big BS’s house of facts that no one will report.
I guess we could both continue this forever but it appears you have a lot more time @ your disposal so keep up the good work.
Posted by Jim on Jul 6, 2005 at 12:02 PM Your post made me think with my remaining 2 brain cells. At first I wept at the significance of whay you said, but then….....
Sniff, Sniff, I bet it’s hard to know so much and not be able to do anything with it, Sniff, Sniff. I’m sure eventually someone of importance will listen to what you’re saying, wont they? Or perhaps the tens of thousands of people who conspired to make this happen and pull off the biggest scam the world has ever seen also have the ability to suppress geniuses like you. Say it isnt so… Could it be that if this was a Gov. Job, Bush and his people are the most talented people we’ve had in office for a long time and we should all be happy :). You said he should be impeached but I say if what you write is fact then lets make him Ruler for life. Anyone who could execute this plan and succeed is worthy of the job. If this was a planned action by the GOV and not incompetence, then you have changed my opinion of this administration. Bush for Life. Bush for Life. Bush for Life.
Posted by Jim on Jul 6, 2005 at 12:39 PM Natalie,
Don’t know if you’ll ever see this, but don’t you just love that Karl Rove’s been fingered for treason? And that the Downing Street Memos keep piling up and the British have verified their authenticity?
It’s such a pleasure to know that you will have to eat crow! Can’t wait for the 2006 elections when the GOP falls from power. Oh, and Jeb called off the Schiavo investigation. Ha, ha, ha. Once again, my fellow Christians have made a pig’s ear of something that was none of their business. People like you, Natalie, are a cancer on the name of Jesus.
Posted by Margaret on Jul 8, 2005 at 4:27 PM Margaret, Rove will be found guilty of treason as quickly as Jane Fonda. HaHaHaHa oops
And you cant wait for the 06’ elections huh? Just like you couldnt wait for the 04’ when Bush would lose? Your the type of new age hippy christian wanna-be that gives fellow christians a bad name. People like you make it easier for us to continue winning. SO thank you Marg keep up the good work. I’ve got money on you eating crow.
VOTE ROVE in 08’
Posted by ROVE in 08' on Jul 8, 2005 at 5:22 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by Liz on Jun 14, 2005 at 5:31 AM 
Also by Jennifer Wedekind
- The Childrens Crusade
Military programs move into middle schools to fish for future soldiers
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
