The smell of fear

[jeskibuff]

As today's big news of the capture of Saddam rippled through the nation this morning, I did a little website exploring.

Not much activity on the conservative website http://www.ronaldreagan.com

A little more activity on the extreme right-wing website http://www.freerepublic.com, but not much

A beehive of activity on the gathering of morons known as http://www.democraticunderground.com. Their fingers must be getting tired already in this flurry of activity!

It seems like the ever-present fear of Saddam possessed by millions of Iraqis has been spirited out of that country and into the hearts and minds of those ever hopeful that GWB will be replaced by one of 9 clueless individuals next November.

It's downright funny to read the desperate planning and scheming on how to overcome (as one DUh'er puts it) "this coup for Bush". How can they put a spin on this to make it look bad for GWB? They're coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories.

One of my favorites (but I can't find it because DU restricts searches to registered members) was one person who brought up the issue of timing. He said something like "Isn't it suspicious that they caught Saddam now? I bet the Bush administration knew where he was all along and was just waiting to trot him out when it was convenient for them" Then in the same paragraph, the poster says "I really expected that they would have held out just before the election". So this idiot is claiming that it's all in the timing. If finding Saddam now was just a ploy, just WHEN would be a good time to "trot Saddam out"??? These people are pathetic, but it's pretty entertaining to watch them scramble. Why can't they just think things out logically instead of trying to come up with a conspiracy theory for everything?

It's apparent that for most of them, the capture of Saddam is not a good thing. It furthers the possibility that GWB will be reelected next year. What kind of fools have their priorities so screwed up because they hate someone so much?

Will there be mass suicide of DUh'ers when Osama is caught or the WMDs of Iraq are found?

Anyway, forget the conclusion of Survivor tonight. Forget watching the football games. Today's entertainment can be found on
http://www.democraticunderground.com

[trollgirl]

just because these dimmicrats are pathetic is no reason to admire or even reelect GWB. Let's see, for instance, if Cheney's Halliburton REALLY pays back that money... I could go on, but then I'd start to rant.

Laz

[jeskibuff]

just because these dimmicrats are pathetic is no reason to admire or even reelect GWB.

True. Their stupidity has nothing to do with GWB's qualifications.

The reasons to admire and reelect GWB are many, in my opinion:

• There's no alternative on the Republican side that will be running. If McCain were running, I'd probably choose him over Bush, however.
• There's absolutely NOTHING attractive in any of the 9 clowns vying for the Democratic nomination. I've heard outright lies and distortions of simple facts from each of them.
• GWB's handling of the adverse situations he had to deal with (Clinton's recession, 9/11 attacks, corporate scandals, etc.) has been exemplary. Despite ridicule from the empty-headed Dimocrats who can't seem to understand simple concepts like thanking a shipload of soldiers for successfully accomplishing their mission, GWB's forged ahead, making sometimes unpopular decisions that turn out to be right for the country. That's a good sign of leadership, as opposed to the modus operandi of the prior POTUS who would take a poll to decide what action would be best to ensure his reelection.
• He makes decisions on what is best for the country in the long run. He does what he believes to be right, and I agree with much of it, especially involving the economy and the War on Terror. Time will prove him right. Despite the wailing of the Dimocrats on his handling of the economy, it is on a rebound because of his actions. It went into the dumper during Clinton's tenure, but the Dimocrats want everyone to believe that GWB caused the decline. History shows otherwise. I firmly believe that we will find WMD in Iraq and all the naysayers will be quite embarrassed when that happens. Logic says he had them. Illogic says that because we can't find them, they never existed.
• Most every accusation thrown at the Bush administration has been ridiculously petty and partisan. It seems most of the anger has been in retaliation for the (just) impeachment of the former White House resident(s).

I could go on, but then I'd be ranting!

[trollgirl]

under you! You mention what's good for the country and the long run and the war on terror, and that makes me think back. I'm almost fifty-four, and so I've been around the barn a few times. I remember the cold war, and now that it's long over, some of us have concluded that it was a phoney one. I remember when it ended, knowing that the collective WE, especially as we relate to the State, have a need for a boogeyman. At least the State does. I told myself at that time, and a few others, that our society would proceed to find a new boogeyman. Well, we found one: terrorism. Yes, I think it is also phoney. Forget me, but remember this: this new boogeyman will be used as a tool to take our precious liberties away, just as the cold war was, just as the two world wars were, just as the civil war was. I think the founding fathers would be shocked (probably not surprised) at how little real liberty we have left. The worst part is that most Americans can not feel the noose tighten around their necks...

How can it be? It seems that party (Republican) and State have achieved a near lock on news, opinion, and information. It's a larger picture of what they did to the Libertarian Party. Here was this up-and-coming political movement/party, and they were unruly, fun-loving, and truth-seeking. They were not going to play the game like the democrats. Now the Republicans have them by the balls, just peruse any "Libertarian" magazine if you don't believe it. I haven't been a Lib for many years, so I don't know how they did it, but it seem to be done. I wonder how many other aspects of our society have had the same thing done to them??

Laz

[JSE]

Huh? I understand what you are saying about our liberties being taken away but I think the Democrats are much more of a threat than the Republicans. That's a whole other topic. How can you say terrorism is phoney? It's certainly real. You may not agree with how we are handling it, but to say it's phoney is simply wrong. Has Bush used it to his gain is some ways? Maybe, maybe not. I personally don't think he has but many people do. That does not mean it's phoney. And the Cold War. Phoney? I am a little young to really have a thourough memory or knowledge of it so I am speaking from what I have heard and read. I not so sure the threat was as severe and eminent as it was made out to be. It was however real. Look at all the Nuclear storage areas that house old warheads. The ability was there, but I think the intent to use it was not. Everyone knew we would all die. No winners! I think the Cold War elevated to it's peak due to the fact that each side had to out-do the other to show superiority. It got out of control and thankfully both sides realized this and ended it.

I don't think War has ever been used as a tool to take our liberties away. Have we lost some liberties as a result, yes. But that was not the goal. If anything, they were fought to insured them.

[jeskibuff]

I remember the cold war, and now that it's long over, some of us have concluded that it was a phoney one.

And just how did you come to THAT conclusion? The threat was real. We KNOW that the Soviet Union had many nuclear missiles aimed at us - we helped dismantle many of them ourselves! Just because they never fired one off means it all was phony? Thank God that socialism is a royal failure and they just couldn't keep up with a nation that prospered with a free market system. Many years of threats just collapsed when they ran out of money. There was a boogeyman, Laz. He just didn't have the staying power we had! Would you have considered it a real threat if they had taken out one of our cities??

WE...have a need for a boogeyman

Or maybe rather, some evil is always lurking in this world. Can you cite any given year in the history of the world that a war wasn't being fought somewhere? We don't have to invent boogeymen...they turn up readily on their own! There have ALWAYS been vicious bloodthirsty leaders who want to increase their influence on the world. If we do nothing to stop them, we are actually helping them along!

I told myself at that time, and a few others, that our society would proceed to find a new boogeyman. Well, we found one: terrorism. Yes, I think it is also phoney.

And what's so phony about terrorism? Was the WTC/Pentagon thing just a Hollywood stunt? Were the 1972 Munich Olympic killings staged? How about Leon Klinghoffer? The Moscow theatre? The Bali bombing? The slaughter of tourists in Egypt? Pan-Am 103?
The USS Cole? Good grief! If you think terrorism is a phony threat, WHAT WOULD YOU CLASSIFY AS A REAL THREAT??

It seems that party (Republican) and State have achieved a near lock on news, opinion, and information.

Not from MY perspective, and many others! The liberals control most of the media, with few exceptions. They also have a pretty solid lock on the entertainment industry.

Here was this up-and-coming political movement/party, and they were unruly, fun-loving, and truth-seeking. They were not going to play the game like the democrats.

Wishful thinking on your part, I think. Do you really believe that if we had a third major party that things would be much different than they are today? Already we have a blend of the two parties. Some politicians have strong conservative values in one area, but strong liberal values in another. Zell Miller is a prime example. Clinton's welfare reform certainly wasn't following liberal guidelines. Bush's Medicare bill certainly didn't conform to conservative standards. The big problem we have today is NOT political party platforms, but campaign financing and the influence of money. Don't think for one minute that if Libertarians had more clout that things would be much different.

Well, as I go to post this, it appears that JSE has already responded with much of what I've already said. Good job, JSE! I'll post this anyway just in case those points didn't quite sink in!

[trollgirl]

this time!! Where to begin?? First, the Libertarians. I stopped being a Lib after I realized that they were not going to "save" America after all. It is almost a Law of history that when an organization gets enough success and money and power, that it begins to function for itself, rather than for the cause for which it began. If you were to look far back, I don't doubt that the Republicans at first pursued a Cause, not just money and power as they do now. No, I don't suppose things would be much different without the Republican takeover, but it still pisses me off.

So, what is phoney? Is there really a vast conspiracy, or does **** just happen? Often, a person's opinion is based on what news is seen, what books are read, and whose opinion is respected. I don't pay too much attention to the normal news, and my reading is rather specialized, so there is no surprise that you may not be aware of things I am aware of. Here is an example - I have become attuned to timing and what is NOT said, as well as what is. Did you see the recent flap over Halliburton's finances? Well, isn't it very lucky for them that Saddam got his ass caught, and the pressure is off them! Cheney is closely connected with Halliburton, and I wonder if Saddam's location was known, but he was caught for this very purpose - to be a smokescreen. Others will say, just coincidence. As you get older, however, you see this sort of thing happen over and over and over. No, it's not proof, but it doesn't smell right, either. Another example: on the website paranormal.com is a downloadable video of the first moon landing. It's in black and white, rather fuzzy, and down the ladder comes the spacesuited astronaut. He jumps to the lunar surface from the last rung of the ladder and launches into his "It's a small step for a man..." speech. However, he is interrupted by a falling light boom in the background, and light on it flares and winks out. Someone yells, "CUT!" Assistants run in from all directions, while the astronaut says "I guess you'll want us to do this again...!" It's funny as hell!! But is that real...or phoney?? Did we go to the moon and film there? Did we not go, and it was all shot on a sound stage? Did we go, and it was shot on a soundstage because it was not feasable up there? Take your pick, or make up another twist. I've read the offical story, the debunkers' theory, and even those debunking the debunkers. Did we go? Dunno, have to go back and look at the alleged landing sites to be sure. Maybe that gives you a clue in a roundabout way, on how I see things.

The Cold War thing - yes, we had nukes and the Soviets had nukes, but I have concluded that they did not have nearly as many as were told over and over. There is something else too, and that is that the elite of both nations profited greatly by the cold war. In the USSR, party and state prospered, science, technology, and heavy industry did very well due to the challenge of the western threat. Here in the USA, think of all the military contractors who made billions, the military men who retired and were hired by thise very contractors. They were good years for aerospace engineers, military beaucrats, etc. Now was there a tacit agreement to keep the war chilled and profitable, or was it just a conjunction of historical forces? Maybe both, but with the vast amount of money which was at stake in those days, I'll lean toward conspiracy.

Terrorism, phoney? Embrace the possibility, or better yet, read David Icke's book "Alice in Wonderland". In it, he punches dozens of holes in the official story of 9/11, and he pretty well deconstructs the whole song-and-dance. Yes, another example (Icke did his homework): you may remember the very tight turn the "airliner" made just before smashing into the Pentagon. Terrorist pilots? Note that several were Saudis and that Kingdom is our ALLY! Note too, that several men on that list of perps turned up months later very much alive. Beside the point! What is of interest here is the opinion of the perps' flight instructors: they were ALL miserable pilots!! They were just not up to the task! Add to that: where is the airplane wreckage at the Pentagon - not even a tail was visible! We saw at least one plane hit the WTC, but there were no videos of the Pentagon hit, even though the area is thick with security cams. Oh, they were all out of order, just like the cams along the route Princess Di was taken, to her death. Patterns, patterns... Do you really think an airliner could punch through THREE rings of the Pentagon?? I did see a photo of the hole of the inside of the inmost ring the plane penetrated: the hole was round and ten feet across. No wreckage, again. I just don't know what could have done that...boys and girls, can you say cruise missile??

Sorry, guys, am I turning the kaleidoscope too fast for you??!

My (non-humble) opinion is that 9/11 was just another Reichstag fire, just on a larger scale.

Laz

P.S. If you buy that book, get it over the counter, and pay cash. Big Sibling may be watching...

[JSE]

Trollgirl,

All I can say is................................................ .............WOW!

We are on a whole different plane from one another. Can't even begin to respond.


Wow!

JSE

[trollgirl]

and before you finish, you'll be saying it backwards: WOW!

Icke goes into FAR more detail than I have - I just threw out a few tidbits off the top of my head. He says: "You can't fight for peace, you have to peace for peace." It took a while for that to make sense to me, but it is sinking in... BTW, he has a website, just key "David Icke" into a search engine - it should bend your mind, it runs to some 5,000 pages. The reptilian shape-shifter stuff is pretty far out, even for me... Have a look, you don't have to read the whole thing.

Laz

[jeskibuff]

Icke...says: "You can't fight for peace, you have to peace for peace."

Maybe in Utopia, that would be a great slogan, Laz, but here on Earth, there's reality to be taken into consideration. EVERYONE does not want peace. Hitler wasn't interested in peace, neither is/was Saddam, Arafat, Osama, Kim Jong Il, every single radical Islamic fundamentalist on this planet, drug kingpins and probably hundreds of two-bit third-world dictators and warlords.

History gives us a good lesson in the efforts of Neville Chamberlain concerning the Munich Pact. He was under the mistaken impression that he had averted war. In effect, he just gave more incentive for the madman Hitler to play him and Britain and France for fools. A quote from Encarta 2000: "The British and French policy of appeasement-the concession to demands of rival states in order to avoid war-ended with Hitler's invasion of Poland. The Munich Pact, however, came to be a symbol of the dangers of appeasement."
Perhaps if they had a little more smarts, they would've acted against Hitler earlier. Maybe a preemptive war would have cost some lives in battles, but it never happened, and some 10 million people died as a result. Do the numbers...thousands versus millions! Maybe if Clinton was serious in taking out Osama, 3,000 people wouldn't have died on 9/11. Maybe if Bush hadn't pursued an aggressive "War On Terror", Times Square might have been a nuclear waste zone instead of a party zone last night. We can only speculate over what "may have been the outcome".
What I know for certain is that there are terrorists who want to destroy us, and our objective should be to destroy them before they have the chance to make their dreams come true!

We just went through 12 years of UN appeasement with Iraq. The humanitarian aid that was intended to counterbalance the sanctions just provided lining for Saddam & Sons' pockets. Most of the aid given to alleviate the Palestinians' plight went into Arafat & Palestinian Authority's pockets. The humanitarian aid provided to Afghanistan ended up being used for Taliban projects like blowing up Hindu/Buddhist? statues.

The point? Let's not be stupid, thinking that we can reason with unreasonable people. Do you think you can knock on a door in Medellin, Columbia and convince a cocaine kingpin that he should stop trafficking drugs because it "hurts Americans" ? Go for it, Laz! Keep repeating the Icke pledge: "you have to peace for peace...you have to peace for peace". Wear some ruby slippers while you're at it! MAYBE if you're lucky, you might live to tell us all about your Columbian "vacation"!

The reptilian shape-shifter stuff is pretty far out, even for me

What that should tell you is that the man is a certified looney-tune! People who have trouble believing in obvious truths MUST resort to bizarre and far-out conspiracy theories in order to explain away what they DON'T WANT to believe! The whole DemocraticUnderground site is full of these whackos that have to invent things to avoid recognizing the SIMPLE truth! It sounds like Icke has watched a few too many sci-fi movies. I believe in SOME conspiracy theories, like the Reichstag fire, the deaths of Princess Diana, JFK, Vince Foster, Marilyn Monroe, etc., but these are on a MUCH smaller scale than 9/11, therefore easier to perpetrate. When you get to the size of Watergate, too many people are involved, and it becomes near impossible to conceal the conspiracy.

Even some of the bozos at DU know an utterly stupid theory when they see one. Take this thread, for instance, about flight 77 and the Pentagon:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...&topic_id=5617

Some posters are "more" rational than others, saying...
"I'll take the word of the eyewitnesses, some of them regulars here at DU, who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon."
"A regular poster on this board's friend piloted that plane. He's dead."
"A passenger jet strikes a building that sits right next to a four lane highway filled with eye witnesses and some people still don't believe it."

Snopes does a decent job debunking the bozo questions found on this site: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
I like this quote from it: As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

the opinion of the perps' flight instructors: they were ALL miserable pilots!! They were just not up to the task!

Maybe they WERE miserable pilots! What does that mean? Probably that they'd be very BAD at landing a plane smoothly or navigating in a blizzard. But ask ANY small plane pilot that you know about steering a plane on a VACU day (Visibility and Ceiling Unlimited). Ask them about the Microsoft Flight Simulator program. They'll tell you that once a plane is aloft, applying elemental skills acquired and honed by the Simulator program in addition to basic flight training will give you enough ability to do what the hijackers did on that clear, crisp September day. Supposedly, the simulator can even accurately mimic the behaviour of a behemoth 747!

on the website paranormal.com is a downloadable video of the first moon landing. It's in black and white, rather fuzzy, and down the ladder comes the spacesuited astronaut. He jumps to the lunar surface from the last rung of the ladder and launches into his "It's a small step for a man..." speech.

Well, I've lived in Florida and witnessed the space shuttle take off and land MANY times, I even was on the tarmac when Challenger first arrived on top of a 747. I also remember looking into the sky on the way to lunch that fateful January day when it exploded over Florida. I have no doubt that our space program was capable of and DID land a man on the moon in 1969. I also have no doubt that MANY people have the movie-making capabilities to take a familiar event and recreate it sufficiently while adding an element that is intended to discredit the original event. I would consider it a far easier task to mimic the event in an attempt to create a conspiracy theory, rather than to believe that all the years of space pursuit only yielded a stage performance. Wasn't the movie plot of "Capricorn One" similar to this?

I'm really glad all these conspiracy theories are out there. I'm really glad the Dumbocrats are the desperate ones who perpetrate them. I believe that most of America is seeing the directionless stupidity and bizarre face of the Democrat party because of all these baseless theories. I'm confident that unless the Dems get all insane asylum inmates registered to vote, GWB will beat ANY Democratic contender by a nice margin next November!