The New Road

Looks to me like bin laden was trying very hard to create a direct link between saddam & al qaida, but saddam didn't respond. But bin laden was fighting within Iraq, against saddam, until the people he was supporting told him to stop. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That was one of the things I got from the link to cnn.

Okay, now I went to newsmax.com and this is what I found http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/16/132355.shtml
I guess there's your right wing slant on it. One of the main things that I noticed in both stories is that the 9/11 commission is taking the word of 2 sources close to bin laden over our own military intelligence. Who is our president supposed to trust?

About Bush's speech in Tampa, he said, "I don't know if they've contacted Rush yet." I agree, the Iraqi population would probably not care for Rush's raging national pride. They probably wouldn't get his jokes. They probably wouldn't agree with his suggestions. They'd despise Michael Savage. But the important thing is that the communication is opening up in Iraq and there is a dialog beginning to happen and maybe they can find a way, other than violence, to govern themselves. Maybe? I'm not so sure, but maybe. At least Saddam isn't there to silence the opinions - they can be aired. Ah . . . freedom.

But can't you relate to Michael Savage's rage? I mean, he was too hard core for the Nashville market. They took him off the air after about a month. And we all know what happened to him on msnbc. He's extreme. He's shocking. But he makes his points - CBS, msnbc, Ted Kennedy et al killed Nick Berg - which you can agree or disagree with and it's okay to torture a subhuman. Dogs are subhuman and there are laws in the US protecting them. It's not right. But you know, we have freedom of speech. Apparently some people are entertained by him, but nobody has to listen if they're offended.

In all fairness, the commission didn't say that there is no connection between al Qaida and Iraq; they said that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in those specific attacks. They didn't prove that they're not connected. There have been other links of al Qaida to Saddam mentioned in the media, such as this one:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32264

This also for Worldnet Daily:

"Kerry wants to lift the ban on gays in the military as well. If the Democrats thought the Iraqi prisoners were offended from being disciplined by women, just wait until they have to worry about having contact with homosexuals."

I've never read this before magazine before, but you have to admit that there is a strong bias to it.

Jacqueline, no I can't relate to Micheal Savage in his statements about subhumans. Are dogs subhuman? Dogs are canines. Full canines. Not sub-canines. Just canines. Humans and humans. You could say that cavemen were pre-human. But sub-human? No, the only time people use words like that are when they want to torture or kill people. Which is much easier when you don't think about them as people with minds, hearts, beliefs, and families.

Was everyone in that prison guilty? Are there any prisons where everyone is guilty? Why is it ok to say that we should take 1,000 Iraqis out of a prison and kill them today when we wouldn't do the same thing in Tennessee? I always find that a good mirror to hold up to an opinion. Would you do the same thing here? Would you like it if it happened to you. That's why torture is bad. That's why saying that we should take 1,000 people out and kill them is bad.

What Michael Savage said was jaw dropping barbaric and awful.

My point was that it is wrong to torture even subhumans - which, based on the root structure of the word, I understand to be anything lower than humans on the food chain. ie dogs, horses, fish, worms, etc. Wrong to torture them all.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that most people in America have felt some rage while watching the goings-on in Iraq. I know yours has been directed mostly at the US action - we shouldn't be there in the first place etc. Mine has been more towards the cheering crowds stomping on and setting fire to people (human-humans), swinging their mutilated bodies from bridges etc. The point here is that Michael Savage is spewing hateful speech that comes directly from that sense of rage. And he's spewing it, uncensored, where the rest of us sane (?) folks would try to compose ourselves before we say something radical and stupid sounding. Like Toby Keith's song, written in a moment of anger, that touches people who have absolutely felt that way but would never say something that . . . base.

Freedom of speech. We get to say whatever we want. And so does the guy who disagrees with us and makes an ass of himself. And the listener is free to form his own opinion. I know you understand this, because you posted the link. Mission accopmlished. Michael Savage has some awfully hateful things to say.

Now, onto your paragraph of guilty or not. You just paraphrased the golden rule. :)

I don't believe it's okay to take 1000 people out of a prison and kill them all (guilty or not), but it is totally okay to suggest it in a free society. freedom of speech.

Actually freedom of speech is a little more malleable than that. You can't, for example, yell Fire! in a crowded theatre. And, as the radio personalities in Africa are finding out, insighting listeners to commit acts of genocide is a war crime.

As to being critical of America. Yes, I thought the Falluja acts were horrible. Yes, I think the Nick Berg incident was horrific. But those are the acts of other people in other countries that we can't control. What we can control is ourselves. And what we haven't controlled is ourselves. So I feel rage about the things I can change, which are the acts of Americans. So I concentrate on that. And no, it wasn't seven bad apples, reports are coming out today that the torture techniques were authorized by General Sanchez. Which is why we have a four star general doing the prosecution, and Sanchez is leaving the theatre.

Don't I have the right to be angry that atrocities were committed on three seperate continents by the armed forces of a selected President of my country gone mad with absolute power?

Good thing we have the FCC to be our watchdog on what is speech/visual is going too far. If only the rest of the world were as responsible as we are and had checks and balances in place like we do. Why can't we all just get along?

Maybe I shouldn't post this. We're just facing some very very tough issues in the world right now and if we can't all just get along, which we can't - because we're humans and everyone doesn't respect life and liberty as we do - then I want to get them before they have more chances to get me and mine.

If we had talked during the war in Afghanistan we would have been in complete agreement. I totally and completely supported that war, and our continuing actions against al Qaeda. I, like I think almost every American, put partisan politics aside and supported the President completely after 9/11.

In fact, I wouldn't call myself a supporter of the President before 9/11. I considered him more like a hapless tolerable boob. A federal version of Jesse Ventura. Silly more than harmful.

It was only when he started obviously distorting reality to advance his own Iraq hegemonist policies that my opinion of him went for support to fear and hatred. From my perspective I have been betrayed, I trusted this President, as we all did, to prosecute a war on al Qaeda, which he initially did. He then abused my trust and used illegitimate means to wage an unprovoked war on a sovereign nation and in so doing deeply stain and abuse our hard fought good standing in the world.

I would love to get along. I would love to be able to support the President. I would love to think that this war was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I want to like this President. I want to support his policies. But doing so means going against everything that I believe is good about myself and my country.

I care as deeply about me and mine as you do about you and yours. Which is why I want this administration focused on finding Osama and destroying al Qaeda. Not screwing around in Iraq lining the pockets of Halliburton fat cats.

A recent report claimed that it is easier to get access to nuclear materials now than it was before 9/11. That scares me. A lot. And being focused on Iraq won't fix that. Being focused on the real war on terrorism will.