Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Peace as viewed by Ike

Posted by Mason on 3/18/03 at 18:25 (113367)

'I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to
promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.'

-Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. general and 34th president

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

marie on 3/18/03 at 20:01 (113381)

Thank you Mason. Lately it seems to me that PEACE is has become a dirty word in our country. When did this happen? I thought history would have taught us something by now. My prayers are with our young folks in Kuwait as they ready for a battle. I also pray for the soldiers in the Iraqi army. They are someones sons. God Bless Them. Peace to you.


Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/18/03 at 20:48 (113392)


I have seen no evidence the the word 'peace' has become a dirty word in our country. The entity in question is the so-called 'peace movement.'

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/18/03 at 20:52 (113395)


One dilemna is that the majority of governments in the world are still not democracies -- governments of the people. There have been very few wars between democracies. Perhaps we can bring democracy to the Middle East. Perhaps we cannot.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Dr. Z on 3/18/03 at 20:53 (113396)

I pray for the soldier of Iraqi that they have brains but more important the courage to stop fighting and turn on Sadam We have choices in this world and I pray they make the CORRECT choice.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Mason on 3/18/03 at 21:12 (113401)

'Peace' has become a dirty word to many in this country. The addition of the word 'movement' to make a distinction is merely semantics. 'Movement' in this case means just what a thinking person would gather: movement toward peace. That so many take the idea of moving toward peace to mean moving against the United States is just one symptom of what appears to be a growing and dangerously undemocratic, profoundly un-American attitude in this country. To many, now, 'peace' = 'traitor.' Our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves, just as 80% of the world's population are turning out to speak against the direction our country's leaders are taking, which is extremely disillusioning to many people both here and abroad in countless countries. These are people who used to look to the United States to set an example. What a terrible loss.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/18/03 at 21:19 (113404)

I still don't know anyone in this country who considers the word 'peace' to have any negative connontations. There is a MASSIVE difference between the word 'peace' and the so-called 'peace movement' that goes well beyond semantics. The 'peace movement' in our country today consists of a number of individuals (not all) who are against our efforts to fight tyranny in Iraq -- a very selective view of what constitutes 'peace.' What statistical source are you using to back the statement that 80% of the world's population is against the direction our country's leaders have taken?

This country is setting an example by fighting tyranny, an example our founding fathers would be proud of.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

BGCPed on 3/18/03 at 21:28 (113407)

Well letting him and others go on with their sickening behavior is a bigger crime. I dont think that the 80% of the world will be very accurate in the next few days, even more after we wipe up that region.

I think the backlash against certain 'peace' advocates is shared by more than they want to believe. Sheen, Penn,Dixie Chick, Chirac,Michael Moore, Daschle and the idiots that attacked the lady and her display in California are out of touch. Yes it is free speach but it is also American right to boycott and denounce these people

The word peace is not bad and I would say there are no people on the right that are getting off on the war. What it is that many good people are tired of the crap from the left about give the inspectors a chance blah blah. Sorry but that is just stalling and he has had 12 years.

Many of the so called peace activists are more Bush and the right haters. They said nothing when Clinton went into Bosnia without UN approval. In fact Sheryl Crow serenaded the soldiers and hung out with Hillary for a few weeks kissing up and supporting them.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Many good solid people want Saddam and his regime to finlly meet justice. The fact that many of the activists and the left ignore the human rights and torture aspects that Saddam and his sons have visited on millions.

So peace is not a bad word. It is the ones that cloak themselves in the word to sugar coat their other agendas. I will maintain many Americans are apathetic and sometimes ignorant of history. That said many are smart enough and have a sense of right and wrong. In short most Americans do the right thing so to speak.

I am thankful Bush and Blair have the stones to do this.

Re: Orwell's 1984

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/18/03 at 21:33 (113409)


71% of people in the US support our efforts. I know of no international poll so I would question if the 80% is accurate now. Everyone knows the definition of peace but the doublespeak use of the word 'peace' is just a state of affairs consistent with the desires of the left.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Mason on 3/18/03 at 21:33 (113410)

Many in the peace movement see this war for what it is: not so much a war against tyranny as a war to protect our interests -many of those interests not yours or mine, but of a select few. Sure, many Americans don't want to hear that (I don't enjoy it either), but they would do well to take their heads out of the sandbox and search, honestly and with courage, for the truth behind this administration's motives. It isn't easy to find, given media spin, bias, and censorship, but it isn't that hard to find if you really are open and want to find it. I'm not saying that it's a black and white situation. Indeed, it's very complex. But the number of very real, truth-seeking questions that go unasked here is astounding.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/18/03 at 21:36 (113411)


Please go ahead and ask the 'questions' you speak of. I think many are aware of ulterior economic motives that exist such as oil but I don't think that such motives are the driving force in this conflict.


Re: the "peace" movement

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/18/03 at 21:42 (113415)

Has anti-war movement
been hijacked?
Terror alliances, radical politics
revealed at forefront

Posted: November 4, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Sherrie Gossett
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

While publicly promoting non-violent protest and humanitarian causes, some key leaders and prominent groups that organized and participated in the recent anti-war demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol and San Francisco are staunch supporters of terrorist groups and dictatorial regimes worldwide.

In fact, critics now charge that the 'new' anti-war movement is being 'hijacked' by this dominant network whose organizational power is increasing and whose political agenda is anathema to most Americans.

The Saturday, Oct. 26 rally, which focused on opposition to a U.S.-led war against Iraq and drew 100,000 protesters, featured speeches by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, actress-activist Susan Sarandon, singer-songwriter Patti Smith, as well as a host of lesser-known figures. The protests also served as a platform for Democratic Party campaigning, as top politicos hobnobbed with the elite of the anti-war movement.

The large turnout signals an invigoration of the 'new' anti-war movement, which has been increasingly dominated by the international A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, an organizational front group formed by the International Action Center. Closely allied with IAC is the World Workers Party, a quasi-Stalinist organization that supports authoritarian regimes and communist dictatorships. The World Workers Party created the IAC in 1992, and put Ramsey Clark, now kingpin of the anti-war movement, at the head of it.

Also at the forefront in the weekend demonstration and current anti-war protests was the 'Not In Our Name' campaign. NOIN spokesman Clark Kissinger represents that movement to the public and is an integral part of Refuse and Resist, an organization with close ties to the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, of which Kissinger is a member and writer for its newspaper.

The controversial ties of IAC remain almost completely unreported by the mainstream media, but increasingly are being exposed by a handful of enterprising journalists, including Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com, Ian Williams, United Nations correspondent for The Nation; Michael Tremoglie, Edward Immler and David Horowitz of FrontPage Magazine and Christopher Hitchens, a 20-year veteran of The Nation magazine, now writing independently.

The controversy has now spread to the commentary pages of Mother Jones and also has Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com crying foul while bemoaning San Francisco's 'Baghdad-by-the-Bay' protest experience.

'Pathetic' is how Raimondo described the protest, complaining that those in charge of the demonstration 'weren't about to brook any criticism of either their ideology or their methods: this was the only show in town, and they weren't about to give it up.'

Now, a small but growing number at both ends of the political spectrum, as well as libertarian activists and writers, are accusing the organization's elite of being sellouts to foreign dictators while giving lip service to humanitarian concerns. Some warn that this 'patina of morality' obfuscates a surreptitious political agenda: the armed overthrow of the American republic.

Leading critics from both left and right now charge the leaders with supporting the very things against which they claim to be protesting.

'The International Action Center and the Revolutionary Communist Party [USA] aren't just extremists in the service of a good cause,' says Michelle Goldberg, a writer with Salon.com. 'They are cheerleaders for some of the most sinister regimes and insurgencies on the planet.'

'Once people realize this,' Goldberg adds, 'it could easily discredit any nascent anti-war movement, unless a more rational group comes to the forefront.'

Sock puppet for Saddam?

The founder of the IAC and director for A.N.S.W.E.R. is Ramsey Clark, who is introduced at IAC rallies as the former attorney general under the Lyndon Johnson administration. No mention is made of the fact that Clark, in his current occupation, has been retained by the State of Iraq to serve as legal counsel for the regime.

Not surprisingly, criticism of Saddam Hussein is not aired at IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R.-controlled protest events. No mention is made of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, invasion of Kuwait, murder of an estimated 1 million of his own people, environmental terrorism, imprisonment, torture or execution of political prisoners.

The suffering of the Iraqi people is blamed solely on the United States, just as the suffering of Palestinians is blamed solely on Israel.

IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R leaders have aligned themselves exclusively with pro-Arafat groups. The only Jewish people truly embraced as 'brothers and sisters' are those who equally denounce Israel or deny Israel's right to exist. A.N.S.W.E.R's pro-Palestinian march in April was regarded by many, in fact, little more than a thinly disguised public display of anti-Semitism masquerading as a 'pro-Palestinian' march. Frequent mention was made at the march of a 'supposed holocaust,' and of a 'genocide' in Jenin, despite the fact that New York Times reporters allowed into the area had already discredited such reports as erroneous.

The 'genocide' claims dominated the rally, even though fatality estimates had already been downgraded from 500 down to 56-90, most of which, according to media reports, were said to be terrorists.

Clark represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly tourist who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986.

And while accusing the Bush administration and Israel of Nazi-like war crimes, Clark fails to mention his former client Karl Linnas, an ex-Nazi concentration camp guard in Estonia, where he had overseen the murder of some 12,000 resistance fighters and Jews. Linnas was at that time being deported from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. to face war-crimes charges. Clark lost the case, but went to bat for his client in the public arena. According to media reports, Clark said that he questioned the need to prosecute Nazis 'forty years after some god-awful crime they're alleged to have committed.'

While consistently denouncing the American and Israeli 'terrorist states,' IAC leadership, headed by Clark, have defended dictator Slobodan Milosevic in the International Criminal Court. They also leapt to the aid of genocidal Hutu militias as the U.N. wrote up war-crime charges against their leaders for ordering the slaughter of half a million Tutsi civilians in 1994.

Clark client, Rwanda genocide indictee Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, was accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them. The genocidal leader later led killing squads in the 'hell on earth' that Rwanda quickly became.

Elsewhere in the media:

The WWP supported the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of protesting students and workers, who were conveniently labeled 'counter-revolutionaries.'

Clark and his backers also were quick to cheer on the brutal Chinese repression of the indigenous culture in Tibet (which sent the Dalai Lama and 80,000 refugees packing).

The WWP has wooed the Democratic Party, and supported Jesse Jackson's presidential bid in 1984. In New York, the WWP made alliances with the left wing of the Democrats in order to establish a strategic foothold in key trade unions.

Clark has defended convicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic, in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims. The suit, brought by the National Organization for Women and the Center for Constitutional Rights, charged Karadzic with ordering mass rape and war crimes.
Serbia also has retained Clark as counsel. Accordingly, no outrage over Serbian ethnic cleansing or rapes will ever be heard at an IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R. rally. Nor will mention be made of the siege of Sarajevo, the killings at Srebrenica or the million homeless refugees. Clark and the IAC make no mention of the notorious tortures held at the Serbian police station on Cacak Street in central Pristina.

The scene was discovered by British paratroopers and the media, who described 'a bed, with leather straps, its ratty yellow mattress plunged through with bayonet and bullet holes, and clothes of its victims piled in the corner.' Reporter Laura Rozen described it as a 'house of torture' still reeking of 'rotting human flesh' where Kosovo Albanians, many of them teen-agers and children, were brutally raped, beaten and killed. Stashed on the scene were all manner of torture instruments, as well as violent pornography.

Nevertheless, at the Oct. 26 rally, IAC staff introduced Clark to an adulating crowd as a 'man of extraordinary principles and conscience.'

'The war criminal's best friend

Detractors from both the left and the right denounce Clark for his 'straightforward dishonesty,' calling him the 'tyrant-in-chief,' a 'traitor' and 'the war criminal's best friend.'

Overall, the IAC-WWP-A.N.S.W.E.R. triaxis, firmly at the helm of the anti-war movement, unequivocally supports Iraq, while instructing protestors that the U.S. is the foremost terrorist threat to the world. In addition they claim that Osama bin Laden was the victim of an imperialist American plot. Brian Becker, member of the secretariat of the World Workers Party, national co-director for the IAC and a member of the national A.N.S.W.E.R. steering committee, is admired by the North Korean dictatorship for his loyalty to their state as well. At a press conference in Pyongyang, Becker denounced the U.S. for 'mercilessly killing innocent people.' In May of 2001, FBI Director Louis Freeh labeled the World Workers Party a potential threat to U.S. national security – a status certain to be explained by the WWP/IAC (as is most criticism) as a conspiratorial smear by warmongers.

WorldNetDaily asked Larry Holmes, co-director of IAC and spokesperson for A.N.S.W.E.R., to comment on Clark's retention as counsel for the state of Iraq. Holmes replied, 'He's just a spokesman.' When WND indicated that Clark was in fact the founder of IAC as well as the director of the international A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, Holmes deferred comments to Clark, who was unavailable for an interview.

Asked to comment on what detractors call the 'Pro-Saddam' slant of the IAC and its failure to criticize Iraq or Saddam Hussein, Holmes responded: 'We live in America. We have to take some responsibility for what the government is trying to do in our name. I think it's wise for us to stay focused. It's U.S. foreign policy that we must be responsible for.'

He added, 'There's an effort to vilify Iraq and its government and not on an honest basis … but as a very conscious effort to demonize a government for the purpose of making it easier to move forward with war.' Asked whether he would support war on Iraq if it attacked first, Holmes evaded the question, indicating it would be the U.S.' fault for planning a pre-emptive strike.

Pressed to answer the same question in a scenario where Iraq attacked after the U.S. gives up plans for a pre-emptive strike, Holmes still declined to answer: 'That's just a hypothetical,' he said. 'I don't think that Iraq poses a threat to this country – it's a transparent search of pretexts for war. No one talks about oil, and the geopolitical reasons for invading the country. Media is not saying that this is really the reason they're going to war. Government and corporations want to occupy Iraq for oil.'

Holmes added that the idea of Iraq attacking the U.S. was as ridiculous as Jamaica or Haiti attacking.

'Peace Congress' to undo U.S. Congress?

The next move for the IAC is to convene a 'Peace Congress' the weekend of Jan. 18 and 19, coinciding with Martin Luther King's birthday.

'Congress rushed and rubber-stamped the war issue,' Holmes complained. 'It's time to expose the very serious fact that Congress was not listening to the people.' There will be delegations from every state, as well as from labor unions. 'They will pass resolutions concerning how the budget should be used – for jobs and education,' Holmes explained. In addition, there may be marches on Monday, Jan. 20 as well.

WND asked Homes to explain the logic behind saying the American people were 'not heard,' since the U.S. has a representative form of government and it was elected officials that voted.

'It failed,' Homes said. 'That's the problem. At a time when anti-war sentiment was going through the charts, late September for example, when Congress had calls and e-mails 40-1 against the war – they very quickly and cowardly and sheepishly voted so the issue would go away.'

'The really beautiful thing'

Especially prominent at the Oct. 26 rally was the 'Not In Our Name' campaign, which ran a large ad in the New York Times and whose slogan was central to IAC speakers. At least one member of the media labeled the campaign a 'really beautiful thing.'

Represented by Clark Kissinger, the ad campaign was lauded by Hartford Courant writer Frank Rizzo, who quoted the activist as saying: 'People have been longing for this. It's a statement that basically repudiates the whole direction of things. It's about American empire-building.'

FrontPage Magazine writer Michael Tremoglie laments Rizzo's failure, however, to inform readers of the details behind Kissinger or his organization: 'The same journalists who will be more than happy to tell their readers that a group is related to, or receives funds from, say the NRA or the Christian Coalition or the dreaded Scaife Foundation, will never mention the relationship of a liberal group with communist organizations – even if such organizations are labeled terrorist by the FBI,' says Tremoglie.

Kissinger's Refuse and Resist runs information releases from the Revolutionary Communist Party USA on its site. The following are some of the goals and ideologies of the party as expressed in the party's newspaper, 'Revolutionary Worker,' for which Kissinger writes. They give an indication of what leader Kissinger and associates plan for the U.S.

Its ideology is Maoist/Leninist/ Marxist communism, and its capstone program for the U.S. is called 'Create Public Opinion – Seize Power.'

Party members are being told to prepare and plan for 'a future armed uprising' leading to a 'civil war' in the U.S. primed by 'a major crack in the system' – a destabilizing event that will enable the RCP to 'seize power' in a violent insurrection that replaces the American government with a 'Communist proletarian dictatorship.' Says RCP, 'We are preparing minds and organizing forces for the time' – the time when 'revolutionary crisis breaks out.'

RCP officials say they are 'doing everything to help bring about, as quickly as possible, the conditions where we can begin the highest form of the struggle – the fight for power over society … when, 'all of a sudden,' millions are starting to bust loose. When there is a great upheaval throughout society. … Then it is time to strike – and to hold back nothing – time to take power by force and arms. … That time is coming, and we must get ourselves and others ready for it.'
Central to this plan is a stated effort to convince Americans that their government is illegitimate and therefore can and should be overthrown and its institutions seized. At the Oct. 26 rally, Clark referred to President Bush's foreign policy as 'criminal offenses, they are high crimes, they are indictable offenses, and they are impeachable offenses.'

Repeated throughout the rally was the notion that the American government as a whole had lost its legitimacy, and leaders called on protesters 'to seize all the major institutions,' 'to take democracy back' and 'occupy the Capitol,' a clarion call with obviously widely different meanings for different groups:

The RCP expects the armed uprising to follow along Leninist lines in the confrontation of 'economic relations with employers' or 'immediate exploiters and oppressors.'

They have been working to 'spread our influence through society, especially where people are protesting or rebelling.' To this end RCP advises its members to spread out like 'seeds' and plant themselves into other organizations, so that the RCP's cohesive plan is harder to detect and define, while its influence spreads.

Agitation and manipulation of those at the lowest levels of society is key. It's noted that these people generally feel they have 'nothing left to lose' and will be most likely to take up arms in order to facilitate the leaders' power grab. Key is convincing them of a victimhood status where those who have more personally owe them something. From there the thinking is developed to convince the unfortunate to steal others' material effects by force of arms. But it's clear that the real intent is to use the lower class for personal gain.

The eruption of an 'actual crisis' is anticipated as the pivot point for the activities of the RCP. This is where 'the authority of the ruling class and both its right and its ability to rule are called fundamentally into question.' It adds that the 'crisis will be marked by sharp divisions within the ruling class itself, reaching into its major pillars of power, including the armed forces.'

While the RCP promises that this civil war will usher in a 'global community of freely associating individuals,' whites will not have the same rights of association as minorities. The program calls for allowing 'people of color' to 'just live around other people of their race' if they desire, but a similar allowance will 'not be [made] for white people,' who are seen as particularly untrustworthy. This, in spite of the fact that the RCP's leader, Bob Avakian, is a white male. (Whites are seen as the least likely to submit to the RCP revolution.) According to media reports, Avakian is now in France, hiding out from the FBI.

While the Associated Press reported that the Maoist guerilla-led insurgency in Nepal left hundreds dead, the RCP called the bloody uprising 'glorious' – a far cry from the anti-violence rhetoric of the big rally in the nation's capital.

In addition, the RCP supports the brutally violent 'Shining Path' of Peru. The RCP website boasts of killings perpetrated by Shining Path members and notes 'rulers in Peru fear the Maoist People's Party.' The approved killings include those of police, army personnel and any civilians who disagree with the Shining Path.
In a Workingforchange.com article, writer Geov Parrish recalls Kissinger, identified as a 'core member' of the RCP: 'I still have vivid memories of Kissinger explaining calmly to me why when the RCP took over it would be necessary to shoot everyone who didn't agree with them.'

Despite the murder/mayhem tactical line of the RCP, Kissinger ironically called President George W. Bush a 'blood-stained executioner' and the Republican National Convention the 'Executioners Ball.'

Kissinger also publicly vilifies Homeland Security head Tom Ridge as 'really scary' because Ridge supports the death penalty for murderers.

WND asked Larry Holmes, co-director of IAC and spokesperson for A.N.S.W.E.R., whether he foresees an armed uprising, should January's 'Peace Congress' and all other efforts fail to overturn the U.S. Congress' vote.

'That's nothing that we can get involved in,' said Holmes. 'We can have dramatic and creative protests, though.'

When asked to comment on the RCP's support for armed uprising, Holmes said, 'I don't know that that's what they're planning.' When told that taking up arms against the U.S. government was indeed a stated key part of RCP's plan, and asked whether he and the IAC support that plan, Holmes responded, 'That sounds just like rhetoric,' and added: 'We have to be very careful now, not to be talking about these things – with the Patriot Act and all, you know, Attorney General John Ashcroft is just looking for excuses to pick people up, detain them, and throw them into prison for no reason at all. We don't want to give the FBI or feds a pretext to move against them [the RCP].'

WorldNetDaily attempted to contact Revolutionary Communist Party national spokesman Carl Dix, but his two phone numbers had been disconnected. No one was answering phones at the RCP Publications PR office and a message left was not returned.

9-11: 'Nothing personal'

IAC associate Lynne Stewart, labeled by detractors as 'the terrorist lawyer,' is also an influential presence at IAC events. A civil-rights attorney, Stewart was recruited by Clark to defend the 'blind Sheik' Omar Abdel Kahman, later convicted as being the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and the planner behind the proposed bombings of New York City landmarks, including the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.

In April of this year, Stewart was handcuffed outside her Brooklyn apartment and indicted on two charges of lying to the government and two charges of aiding a terrorist organization. The charges stemmed from recorded conversations between Stewart and her client. Attorney General Ashcroft charged that Stewart knowingly participated in aiding the sheik in communicating with an Egyptian terrorist organization.

Stewart denied the charges, portraying herself as the victim of a frightening police state, run by a power-mad administration. But the activist's reputation was badly damaged when the supposedly sealed affidavit for a search warrant was leaked to Court TV and somehow wound up posted on The Smoking Gun website.

Included were transcripts of the wiretaps that revealed Stewart knowingly allowed the sheik, in violation of federal law, to dictate information to be passed to terrorists. That information passed to an Egyptian terrorist organization included an order to end a cease-fire and the message to 'to fight the Jews and kill them wherever they are.'

Later, after a meeting of Stewart supporters was canceled, she would voice concern to New York Times writer George Packer, over 'Jewish and Zionist supporters' of the radical associations she is involved with. Perhaps they were driving her supporters away, she worried.

In addition, Stewart joked on tape that she should get an acting award for fooling prison guards into thinking she was engaged in a legal lawyer-client conversation.

At the recent Washington, D.C., rally, Stewart gleefully joined protesters in a chant of 'Ashcroft sucks! Ashcroft sucks!' She again portrayed the attorney general as a prominent threat to America, denouncing his Patriot Act as a profound and unforgivable violation of civil rights.

A few protestors called for Ashcroft's death and the hanging of Bush administration officials.

Ironically, according one writer, 'The social and cultural rights claimed by [Ramsey Clark's] Iraqi hosts include the right to hang opponents in public.'

In addition to speaking at IAC-led protests advocating 'non-violent' resistance, Stewart had this to say in a 1995 New York Times interview: 'I don't believe in anarchist violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions who perpetrate capitalism, racism and sexism, and the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions.'

In a recent New York Times article, author George Packer wrote about Stewart's attitude toward 9-11: 'When the towers fell, she felt that her city had been violated and her own life disrupted. But this warm-hearted woman took the slaughter of innocents with a certain cold-bloodedness. The Pentagon was a 'better target'; the people in the towers 'never knew what hit them. ... They took it personally. And actually, it wasn't a personal thing.''

Packer continued, 'As for civilian deaths in general: [Stewart said] 'I'm pretty inured to the notion that in a war or in an armed struggle, people die. They're in the wrong place. ... So I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are placed in a position of having no other way.' Stewart doubts the government's version of Osama bin Laden, nor does she find him too 'repugnant' to represent.''

Writer and novelist Michael Tremoglie comments, 'Obviously, Stewart's worldview meshes seamlessly with that of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, the blind Sheik and Osama bin Laden. And with that of ... Brain Becker, Ramsey Clark and the World Workers Party.'

He adds, 'There are many legitimate defense attorneys who provide legal defenses for clients with whom they do not themselves sympathize. Lynne Stewart, Ramsey Clark are not among them.'

If convicted, Stewart faces up to 40 years in prison.

A 'hijacked' movement?

Michelle Goldberg of Salon.com writes of the 'hijacking' of the 'new' anti-war movement, and contends that the political views of the anti-war protest leaders are 'anathema' to most Americans.

Libertarian Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com agrees, but still feels there's hope for the movement: 'The people who came to these demonstrations – 100,000 in Washington – don't share the politics of the organizers. Indeed, there aren't many people on earth – save in North Korea – who share the politics of the organizers. I won't go into a long tirade about those politics – the 'International A.N.S.W.E.R.' 'coalition' is, in reality, a front for a group of particularly kooky leftists, the Workers World Party.'

'Suffice to say that I'm not alone in my criticisms,' says the activist, 'and that dissatisfaction with having admirers of Kim IL-Sung representing the antiwar movement has bubbled up from the rank-and-file.'

Indeed, some have expressed deep concern that they not be 'painted with the same brush.'

'Here, at this solemn moment, as the nation teeters on the brink of a disastrous war,' Raimondo adds, 'and rational arguments are called for, what do we get? 'Rah rah, sis-boom bah! Hooray for us, and [expletive deleted] the rest of the country.''

'The only relief from tirades against capitalism came when a few Democratic party politicians trooped to the microphone, telling us how we need 'regime change in Washington' – so as to give the Other War Party a chance to prove its warmongering bona fides,' he said.

'The movement has been hijacked by a bunch of neo-Stalinists,' complains Raimondo, 'who, oddly enough, utilize their hopped-up 'radical' rhetoric in the service of the most conventional Democratic Party politics imaginable.'

'It was a revealing moment, and a truly disgusting sight,' he said.

'Extremist Islamic backings'

'The Pull,' a 'hacktivist' with the infamous 'Cult of the Dead Cow' hacking group, told WND: 'I find that [they] generally are extremely biased and they operate as a cult. While there are communist backings behind them, there are also extremist Islamic backings ... and many of their 'liberal' ideas were first found amongst Neo-Nazi cults.'

The Cult of the Dead Cow, former bad-boy hackers, now use their skills to work through underground channels to help members of oppressed populations gain access to state-forbidden Internet information – most notably Western news sites, human-rights websites, and 'gay' and lesbian organizations.

To this end they pass hacking tools to members of Communist and radical Islamic countries – tools designed to enable citizens to break through firewalls, in order to gain freer access to such information. In addition, they are outspoken opponents of communist dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. They also have the distinction of being banned by the United Arab Emirates.

Commenting on the controversial elements of the anti-war leadership, 'The Pull' added, 'Two of their [mentors] … have a history of supporting ruthless dictators and slaughters,' referring to Noam Chomsky and Edward Said. 'Chomsky has covered up Sudan and the slaughters behind the Soviet Union. His works are full of extremely biased errors,' he said.

'If these fellows [key leaders] are shown to be extremist communists and paid by Iraq, many of them will have a trained response' said 'The Pull,' such as that one should be interested in a person's points, not his personal life.

'They are obviously supporting a ruthless dictatorship against the U.S. in their fight,' he said. 'It is not with wonder that Iraqi-Americans turned out to counter-protest these groups.'

'The Pull' was referring to a tiny counter-demonstration of about 200 people, held on a capitol street corner, organized by 'Freepers' sporting 'Tyranny Response Team' T-shirts. 'Freeper' speakers challenged current leadership of the anti-war movement, accusing them of being sycophants in the service of brutal dictators. Among the 'Freeper' speakers was former Clinton administration official Notra Trulock.

Trulock is former counter-intelligence chief for the Department of Energy, and a well-known whistleblower on national security counter-intelligence failures. He shot to fame as the target of FBI harassment meant to intimidate and silence his revelations. ('Freepers' are supporters of the Free Republic Network).

Their Iraqi guests, who addressed the crowd in both English and Arabic, spoke of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and pleaded for Americans to intervene militarily. For some, it was personal. Several of the Iraqi-American community members present said they had lost family members to Saddam Hussein's regime through execution or imprisonment.

Days after the event, Trulock told WorldNetDaily, 'The mainstream media's coverage of last Saturday's 'anti-war protest' was a disgrace. Attorney General John Ashcroft ought to be looking hard at the degree to which the hard-left, 'hate America' crowd was driving this protest and how it was funded.' Trulock currently is affiliated with Accuracy in Media, a journalism watchdog group.

'Morally tainted leadership'

Todd Gitlin, author of 'The Sixties: Years of Hope and Days of Rage,' also agrees with Goldberg's assessment.

Currently a Columbia University professor, the former president of Students for a Democratic Society fears the hypocrisy will result in a 'gigantic ruination of the anti-war movement.' Gitlin prefers peaceful and informative debates and 'teach-ins' where all are allowed (and expected) to present honest, rational arguments for their views.

'They should be holding debates,' contends Gitlin, 'not rallies of the faithful.'

'Clark and others of his mindset are not only morally tainted,' adds the professor, 'they're doomed. And the anti-war movement is doomed if they're allowed to lead it.'

'This will not play in Peoria,' warns Gitlin, 'It does not deserve to play in Washington.'


Sherrie Gossett is a Florida-based researcher and writer, formerly with the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and a contributing reporter to WorldNetDaily.

E-mail to a Friend Printer-friendly version



Saddam, sons given 48 hours to exit Iraq

Bush's ultimatum to Saddam

Iraqi-terror nightmare scenario

Conyers backs away from impeachment

Global court threatens Blair, Bush?

Governor to top cop: Stop 'intimidating' protesters

Letter-writing helps vet save home

Air marshals disciplined for 'sexcapades'

Sheriff warns of unidentified troops in U.S.



GOP goes soft on Murray, Katur and Moran
By Joseph Farah

Dirty little secrets, ulterior motives
By Rebecca Hagelin

The donkeys are panicking
By Neal Boortz






© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Contact WND
Co-Located at Fiber Internet Center

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Mason on 3/18/03 at 21:44 (113416)

To ponder:

Why do the opinions of a small bunch of entertainers matter to you at all, not to mention to the extent that you bring them up daily? They're a tiny group and not worth listening to for the most part.

Have you been staying up nights worrying about Saddam Hussein for the past 12 years, or only since October?

If our military is going to crush Hussein and his army, which they will (along with too much else), what was the sudden big threat they posed in the first place? (In other words, have you been following this for years, or do you now believe he's a threat to you because you were told to believe it?)

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/18/03 at 21:53 (113418)

Your questions may be directed at BG so he may answer later.
Keep in mind that numerous protracted conflicts have been raging for years if not decades. Such conflicts fade on and of the radar screens of the media but remain unresolved. Korea is a good example of an unresolved conflict that only came back into the news due to recent events. There are numerous boiling cauldrons in the world and sometimes we only look at them when things boil over and we get scorched. Certainly, it would be better if we could pay more regular attention to all of those areas. People have busy lives, and to an extent, depend on elected officials and government agencies to handle such situations.

Re: the "peace" movement

Mason on 3/18/03 at 21:54 (113420)

There isn't room here for the things I and others could copy onto this board in response to wordy opinions like this. Wasted space, this.

No one likes Saddam Hussein or believes he should not be held accountable for his crimes.

The world should try him for his crimes. The United States should not destroy another country and wreck the lives of thousands or millions in place of such a process (how obvious does the immorality of this act have to be?). The United States should set an example, play a large part in backing and building the setting for such a process, and be humble and smart enough to work with a coalition to accomplish it.

We should be setting a constructive precedent. Instead we are setting a very dangerous precedent. Think ahead. Far ahead. Beyond next week, next month, next year, next decade.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Mason on 3/18/03 at 22:20 (113422)

This is true.

And you think the answer is to light a match to this tinderbox? You sound a little smarter than that, and I'm surprised.

Yes, people do have busy lives and do depend on elected officials and government agencies to handle such situations. But elected officials and government agencies often don't handle them well, do they? Hence, the peace movement, and I would hope other types of movements in the future as well, to discourage the ages-old fallback war position and encourage dealing with world problems in new ways at the very pinpoint where they lie.

Of course, this requires great insight and vision. It's difficult to find such leaders, but it's imperative and in my opinion noble to try.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

BGCPed on 3/18/03 at 23:21 (113428)

So then Mason is it ok to leave him? If you your wife or relatives and been raped, beaten or murdered by his thugs would you feel the same way? Perhaps you can list the top 5 actions or steps that would finally resolve the issues over there. Issues that were allowed to fester and worsen under the Clintons.

I will settle for even 3 things.

Re: the "peace" movement

BGCPed on 3/18/03 at 23:30 (113429)

So Mason you actually believe that most Iraqis love living under that tyrannical bastard? You are being factually dishonest to say we will destroy millions of lives and destroy a country. Let me ask you would you live there? If you could get your tongue cut out and allowed to bleed out hanging from a light pole on mainstreet.

Did it occur to you why many of the Iraqi soldiers will and do give up the second they get a chance? You observations are lacking any real solution. It would be great if everyone could play nice and we could ask him to please allow his citizens to live like human beings BUT IT WONT HAPPEN that is reality.

So since the articles Dr Ed posts are 'wasted space' then lets here some reality based solutions from the left.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

BGCPed on 3/18/03 at 23:38 (113430)

'Elected officials and government agencies often dont handle them well, do they' Hence, the peace movement' That is rather assumptive on your part. Perhaps you should say that blind and irrational passivism has allowed this and several other situations to fester.

Would you rather light a match to a tinderbox or wate till the whole block is on fire. Where were you and other members of the left when Clinton went into Bosnia without UN approval? I know cant bite the hand that feeds you. If it was Bush back then the left would pull the same stuff.

Bottom line is the situation is getting handled. Trying to reason with muslim fanatics or psychopaths like Saddam is futile. You have more luck teaching a dog to play the piano.


Necee on 3/18/03 at 23:57 (113431)

Peace would be great but........in order to have it, we must fight for it.
Again, what part of this whole thing don't ya'll understand! We are NOT dealing with a rational, peaceful, gentle loving man!
What if we put down our weapons, destroyed all our missles, and said ok, lets be friends, just what do you think would happen to our freedom then?


Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Mason on 3/19/03 at 01:11 (113432)


No one likes Saddam Hussein or believes he should not be held accountable for his crimes.
The world should try him for his crimes. The United States should not destroy another country and wreck the lives of thousands or millions in place of such a process (how obvious does the immorality of this act have to be?). The United States should set an example, play a large part in backing and building the setting for such a process, and be humble and smart enough to work with a coalition to accomplish it.
We should be setting a constructive precedent. Instead we are setting a very dangerous precedent. Think ahead. Far ahead. Beyond next week, next month, next year, next decade.


Mason on 3/19/03 at 01:34 (113433)

Mrs. Necee: I did not say that Saddam is a 'rational, peaceful, gentle loving man.' I did not say that we should go to him with 'ok, lets be friends.' Which post led you to believe I said or implied either of these things? What are _you_ having trouble understanding, and why are y'all so angry? I'm not the least bit angry with you. In fact, some things posted on this topic are really amusing, and I thank you.

I've suggested one or two alternatives to pre-emptive war on the country of Iraq (where real people live, not just Hussein). And, as I've suggested, I believe it's the responsibility of everyone, especially our leaders, to keep thinking it through, to work with others to come up with more and non-destructive solutions so that we ensure the long-term survival of the world, and then to act on them.

If we keep resorting to war, we'll continue to have war, not peace. (Do you really find that hard to understand?) If we keep giving it, we'll keep getting it. (The Middle East, including Israel, is a perfect example of this endless, vicious circle.) With nuclear weapons now in the hands of a number of countries, war will ultimately finish us all.

Repeat from above:

No one likes Saddam Hussein or believes he should not be held accountable for his crimes.
The world should try him for his crimes. The United States should not destroy another country and wreck the lives of thousands or millions in place of such a process (how obvious does the immorality of this act have to be?). The United States should set an example, play a large part in backing and building the setting for such a process, and be humble and smart enough to work with a coalition to accomplish it.
We should be setting a constructive precedent. Instead we are setting a very dangerous precedent. Think ahead. Far ahead. Beyond next week, next month, next year, next decade.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

BGCPed on 3/19/03 at 07:33 (113436)

So I guess we send a group of UN 'process servers' over to tack a summons on his door or serve papers on him. Ask him to buy a new suit and tell him what day it would be convienient to show up with his lawyers at the court.

Sounds like a doable plan. Perhaps we can draft a resolution and give the UN, oh maybe 12 years say to execute the warrant. Maybe try him in absentia, find him guilty, brand him an interantional meanie and let his shame and conscience eat him alive?

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

marie on 3/19/03 at 08:13 (113437)

What's wrong with the people of the world coming together to express their views on peace? Do you have a problem with freedom of speech? or is it your wish that they remain silent?

It seems to me that people that unite for peace should be thanked. Isn't peace what we all ultimately want?


Re: Which is more important?

Sharon W on 3/19/03 at 08:50 (113438)


You wrote (#1),'...I believe it's the responsibility of everyone, especially our leaders, to keep thinking it through, to work with others to come up with more and non-destructive solutions so that we ensure the long-term survival of the world, and then to act on them.'

You also wrote (#2),'No one likes Saddam Hussein or believes he should not be held accountable for his crimes... The world should try him for his crimes.'

I agree with both comments, in principle. But, with respect to comment #1, world leaders been following that line of thought since the Gulf War ended. If I could see ANY way to make comment #2 a reality by following the approach mentioned in #1, I would be 100% in support of it. I really doubt if there are very many people, at least in the US, who would not applaud a peaceful approach that results in Saddam being out of power and held accountable for his crimes.

So far, I have heard no such solutions. But many are saying that 'our leaders' or 'George Bush' or SOMEBODY in charge should somehow solve the problem and make it happen without any bloodshed. [Do those who demand this really believe our leaders have such a solution available but are withholding it from us because they prefer to go to war?] A lady named Julie posted a number of articles (most of them from The Guardian newspaper) that made suggestions for alternatives to war. Unfortunately, none of them seemed to be both implementable AND to offer any realistic hope of resulting in Saddam being put out of power and brought to trial (in person) for his crimes.

War is not something that I think our government would want if they could bring Saddam to justice any other way. But I don't think any realistic alternatives to war exist that would result in Saddam being out of power and held accountable for his crimes. I wish with all my heart that there were. I am still very much torn, as far as this war is concerned. I did not want this to come to war, but I do believe that Saddam is a real danger to the US and to the world, and I think he should be brought to justice.

The issue of war with Iraq is frequently depicted as a conflict between those who want peace and those who want war, or as a disagreement between those in sympathy with Saddam and those who want to get rid of him. Both of those depictions are incendiary and unnecessarily provocative. Very few Americans actually want war rather than peace. And very few Americans are trying to protect Saddam from being brought to justice. I think the main thing we disagree about here is which is more important -- avoiding a war, or getting Saddam out of power and/or brought to justice.



marie on 3/19/03 at 08:50 (113439)


Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear. I have read your posts and understand them clearly. Finding a solution to the problem of Saddam and his government without the loss of a single persons life would take a great leader with vision. I am afraid we do not have that. So it is important that the people of the world continue to speak. What we really need to do now is rally together and vote again in two years. Remember Bush did not when the vote of the people...he won with electorial votes. When I saw the people President Bush selected for his offices it wasn't hard to predict the situation that we are in today. I rember the Wolfowitz-Cheney Doctrine....which is why I didn't vote for Bush. There are many conservatives who oppose the direction that this president has selected and are begrudgedly trying to support this war. They feel the same as you and I. They want diplomacy and true intelectual ability to solve word problems. We have many troops that are Democrats.

What will I see in a few days after the war begins? What I know Saddam probably has chemical weapons, a people who are ready for freedom, a show of our military might. I don't need a war to proove to me what I already know.


Mason on 3/19/03 at 09:55 (113446)

You are a voice of sanity here, Marie. You are one of the very few who make an honest attempt to look at all sides and then have the courage to face some unpleasant realities. The answer to all the questions posed here which assume nothing but war can provide a 'solution' can be summed up in the cry for 'a great leader with vision.' Unfortunately, we don't have one, and I don't see one about to step forward, either. Still, I continue to hope that one will emerge in the future.

Yes, the people Bush selected for his administration made what is currently happening very predictable. I would word this a bit differently, though: the people behind Bush selected _him_, as your reference to the Wolfowitz-Cheney doctrine shows you understand.


Sharon W on 3/19/03 at 10:29 (113448)

It is not just the current Bush administration and our congressional leadership that have been unable to provide a 'solution' to the Iraq situation that doesn't involve war and doesn't involve Saddam staying in power over Iraq. It is all the leaders of the world.


Re: realism

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/19/03 at 10:59 (113451)

You have got to be kidding. 'Finding a solution to the problem of Saddam...without the single loss of a persons life would take a leader with great vision.' Absolutely not -- it would take a deity, a supernatural act. That is something that no human could accomplish and something no leader has ever accomplished in the historoy or our world. You have raised the bar a bit to high for a mortal.


john h on 3/19/03 at 11:39 (113457)

Any arguments against war at this point are moot. There will be war. 70% of the American people support war against Saddam. Even the French now say if Saddam uses chemical weapons they are on board. Thirty nations have indicated they back the U.S. and many more support us but not openingly including Muslim states. The British House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to support the U.S. effort yesterday and they also voted overwhelmingly against a proposition not to support the war. Australia will send troops in supoort of the war effort. The French have said they want to be there to help rebuild Iraq. No nation has ever won a war without air superiority since before WWI and no nation has ever lost a war with air superiority. People who are against the war have made their case and the American public does not accept it by a 70 -30 majority. There will be casualities both military and civilian. People do get killed in wars as war is about death and destruction. The war started with the death of 3000 people from all nations in the World Trade Center and may have started with the attempted destruction of the WTC by bombing some years before. We are still the good guys and Saddam is the bad guy...


john h on 3/19/03 at 12:01 (113458)

What great Leader could have prevented the World Trade Center loss? What great Leader could stop the killings on both sides in Israel and Palestein. If some peoples in the Mideast do not even recognize the right of the State of Isreal to exist what great Leader can change their minds. What great Leader could have prevented the bombing of the WTC in the 90's with loss of life. There is a realty out there that cannot be overcome with happy thoughts of peace and everyone doing the right thing. The world has always had the Saddams,Hitlers.PolPots and always will.Was President Clinton able to solve the killing in Kosovo without the loss of life or even with approval of the U.N.? Any nation that wants to survive had always better be prepared to defend itself. President Regan and his policy of strength clearly ended the Cold War and avoided open war with loss of life so he if anyone might fit the title of a Great Leader. It was done through strength so much so that no one dare attack us. Did the U.N. stop the war in Korea, the war in Kosovo, the nuclear faceoff in Cuba, the masacre of millions in Cambodia, the Vietnam war, the massacres that continue on the continent of Africa, the Israel/Palestein killings, the war in the Falkans, the war in Panama, the Formosian crisis, the war between Iraq and Iran? The only thing the U.N Security Council has ever accomplished is coming toghether on Iraq after they invaded Kuwait

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

john h on 3/19/03 at 12:07 (113459)

Oil has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict. People who use this issue as a smoke screen to counter a war are not in touch with reality. We did not take the oil in the first war. Actually the biggest users of oil since Gulf War I is France. The French firm of fina has a contract of approximately 50 billion dollars with Iraq. France up until just the last few months continued to sell aircraft parts to Iraq for the Mirage French fighters..

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 12:09 (113460)

I would never want to stiflr speech, as I have stated here in many posts. I think it is better to let the opposing view state it loudly and often.

The irony regarding many on the left and their view of peace in this situation escapes me. Do they think that the people of Iraq are enjoying 'peace'? Have they for the last 23 years? The human shields are a prime example. They went to defend a muduerous bastard regime trying to protect them from violence.
What did they get for their efforts? used like tissue paper thats what. Where were any of them after to go on CNN and denounce how they were played? Why didnt any media seek out their story like they did when they were going there?

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

john h on 3/19/03 at 12:13 (113462)

Are the 70% of Americans who support this President in his war with Iraq out of touch Mason or just do not know any better? We are sick of talk and delay. We have been talking for 12 years and all that has happened is Saddam has defied the U.N. and grown stronger and murdered over 1 million people. When the mass graves are dug up after this war is over give me your opinion then. While all this delay and talk go on Iraqi people continue to be murdered, tortured, and kept in poverty by a madman. All the reports of torture and murder come from eye witnness Iraqi people who have escaped this tryant.

Re: realism

BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 12:19 (113464)

Thats exactly what Im talking about Willis. Good points Ed and Sharon


Mason on 3/19/03 at 12:22 (113466)

Maybe you can help me out here. You hold up Ronald Reagan as an example of a great leader.

Was there terrorism on American soil before the Cold War and, ironically, the balance of power it ensured, ended? And was there terrorism on American soil before the Gulf War of 1991?


john h on 3/19/03 at 13:06 (113472)

Mason are you suggesting we should not have fought Gulf War I and let Saddam's invasion of Kuwait stand? That would seem to be your case by posing the question was there any terriorism prior to 1991?


Mason on 3/19/03 at 13:13 (113473)

The Gulf War One question was an afterthought. I'm mainly trying to understand why you seem to think the world is better off now, with the direction we're heading in, than it was during the Cold War, which Reagan was so eager to claim credit for ending.


john h on 3/19/03 at 13:38 (113482)

Mason: Certainly the bombing of Pam Flight 103 by Lybian terriorist in 1988 is a clear act of terriorism. You say U.S. soil, well Pam Flight 103 was a U.S. aircraft and be it on the soil or in the air was clearly terriorism directed at Americans. Both the U.S. and U.K labeled this as an act of terriorism.


john h on 3/19/03 at 13:38 (113484)

Mason: Certainly the bombing of Pam Flight 103 by Lybian terriorist in 1988 is a clear act of terriorism. You say U.S. soil, well Pam Flight 103 was a U.S. aircraft and be it on the soil or in the air was clearly terriorism directed at Americans. Both the U.S. and U.K labeled this as an act of terriorism.


BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 13:44 (113486)

Now John dont go getting facts and logic in the way of debate. Peace has worked for over 23 years in Iraq. I think Bush needs to step back, think about it. Maybe share a cigar with an intern, Maybe then he will relax and turn the other cheek.


BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 13:45 (113487)

What are you saying, its Clintons fault?


BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 13:48 (113488)

And after we ponuded Quadafi's compund we have not heard much from him have we? Those were not FTD packages we dropped on him


john h on 3/19/03 at 14:03 (113491)

Mason: considering that embassies are considered American soil there have been numerious attacks of terriorism on the U.S. well back into the 80's and various bombings aimed at Americans. TWA flight 840 was blown up between Rome and Athens in 1986. The Le Belle Disco used primarly by Americans was blown up in Berlin in 1986 with loss of American life. Clearly terriorism did not begin in 1991 and begin well before the Gulf War.

Terriorism has it roots in the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror around 1890. Sort of stupid arguments take place about terrorism as to what it is. In a Democracy the State and the People are considered one and the same so if you have a grievance with the state the terrorist has no problem killing the people be they children or anyone else. What is reasonably new and more worrisome is State Sponsered terrorism. There is a clear case that ties the 1993 bombing of the WTC back to Saddam. This bombing was intended to bring down the building. Also part of this plot was to blow up 11 American air liners. We only got the local guys in this plot as at that time the FBI and other parties involved in this investigation did not cooperate. To try and tie terrorism to any particular President is absurd. One might try to blame terrorism on JFK because of the Bay of Pigs. Some try to blame his death on Cuban terrorist. Terrorist have been around for a long time and they do not care about your politics. Islamic Fundamentalist hate Americans. Period. They do not care about your politial beliefs.


john h on 3/19/03 at 14:19 (113495)

Correction on date of Reign of Terror. It was around 1790 not 1890.


john h on 3/19/03 at 14:30 (113496)

Mason do I think the world is better off than during the Cold War? You better believe I do. Maybe you forgot bomb shelters and little kids in school hiding under desk in preperation of nuclear war. I was involved in the Cuban Crisis. As the Russians ships approached Cuba I was landing in Spain with a squadron of KC-135's and B-52's. When I arrived in the briefing room a two star General took the podium and said it is very likely that in three hours we will sink the Russian ships and be in a nuclear war. We had all our B-52's loaded with nuclear weapons circling on the Russian border. Our military position is that we would have sunk those ships. If we had not then nucler missiles would have been off the coast of Florida. Do you think we should have searched for a more peaceful way to handle this? What would the world look like if those missiles had been installed? Fortunately we had a President that took the long view and not the short view. You need to refresh your memory about life during the Cold War. The world was on the brink of destruction and there is no comparison with what we face now and then.

Re: realism

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/19/03 at 14:49 (113504)


It seems that there may be an inconsistent standard for judging our leaders. Clinton is almost beyond reproach but Bush is expected to exercise mystical powers to remove Saddam without the loss of a single himan life in order to qualify as a leader of 'vision.' I am flabbergasted.

Re: realism

Mason on 3/19/03 at 14:56 (113506)

I beg your pardon, but Clinton is 'almost beyond reproach'? I can't think of a 20th-century president who experienced more reproach, and for the most trivial of reasons (not to mention the pronounced double standard involved). I am 'flabbergasted.'

He was not a great president. He was not the worst, either.

But he isn't the point. The abilities and vision of our current administration are the point.

Re: realism

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/19/03 at 15:06 (113509)

No, the inconsistencies in judging leaders IS the point. Do you agree with Marie's criterion for George Bush? Clinton's reproach did not come from the same individuals now criticizing Bush and demanding that Bush operate with standards many times greater than that of Clinton.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/19/03 at 15:09 (113511)

Are you referring to the Mirage F1 fighters with the large chemical tanks affixed beneath their wings for the purpose of spreading chemical and biologic agents Saddam does not have?

Re: realism

marie on 3/19/03 at 15:47 (113514)

You hear what you want to hear. No I am not kidding. I am not opposed to taking a hard military stand against Saddam....it is the process of how we got here today that I oppose. Once again in case you didn't get it,I am not opposed to taking a hard military stand against Saddam....it is the process of how we got here today that I oppose.I am not opposed to taking a hard military stand against Saddam....it is the process of how we got here today that I oppose.I am not opposed to taking a hard military stand against Saddam....it is the process of how we got here today that I oppose.I am not opposed to taking a hard military stand against Saddam....it is the process of how we got here today that I oppose.I am not opposed to taking a hard military stand against Saddam....it is the process of how we got here today that I oppose.I am not opposed to taking a hard military stand against Saddam....it is the process of how we got here today that I oppose.


Re: realism

BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 16:01 (113518)

Well Mason he, in my opinion got away with a hell of a lot more. The rest was his own doing. I think he degraded the office with his frat boy behavior and in other cases he went way beyond. It trivializes the levels he stooped to toy just assume we are talking about Lewinsky.

Remember he was elected with the help of about 93% of the mainstream media. Of course he was on the nightly news but it was not fabricated. If that were a republican he would get hammered much worse.

Bottom line we gave the last administration 8 years and the UN 12 years and they achieved nothing. In fact they watered those flowers with their incompitance. Now we will see what results when we actually try proactivity for once

Re: realism

BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 16:05 (113519)

Wow thought I was having a vision problem, that was cool I will have to try that

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 16:08 (113520)

Dr Ed, those tanks were installed to water the large fields were Saddam grows his prized peace lillies. He often strolls around smelling them while he ponders his next humanitarian effort.

Re: realism

Mason on 3/19/03 at 16:11 (113522)

If there are any inconsistencies in judging our leaders past and present, then I see them going both ways. (The inconsistencies are all over this forum and have been for weeks.)

Again, at this point, I don't expect or demand much of anything of George Bush. I don't think he has been up to the tasks he has encountered. In foreign relations, I don't even believe it's all his fault. He was put in office by power-hungry, extremely ambitious people who are calling the shots and have been all along.

We will pay for this in many ways for a long time to come, as will the rest of the world. Believe me, I wish it weren't so. I want to be proud of where I live, and I still am proud of many of our citizens.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

john h on 3/19/03 at 16:13 (113524)

I listened to an interview with the former Prime Minister of Israel today and he was asked the question what would Israel do if attacked. He said if Saddam attacked with conventional weapons they could absorb the attacks and stay out but if Saddam attacked with bio weapons Israel would respond with devistating weapons. Of course Saddam has no bio weapons. Saddam will indeed make a big big mistake if he attacks Isreal with bio weapons. They have been hammered for years by terrorist and their public unlike ours has no problem responding with what ever force is required. Have you ever seen a demonstrator in the streets of Israel? They have a little bit different perspective than ours..

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Sharon W on 3/19/03 at 16:18 (113525)

John, that was interesting... I had wondered what Israel would do this time if they're attacked.

I still don't think Saddam is stupid enough to use chemical or biological weapons against Israel or anyone else.


Re: realism

john h on 3/19/03 at 16:21 (113527)

Mason why am I not surprised that you think Clinton was a great President? Do you have any problem with him going into Kosovo without UN approval? How about him paying off the North Koreans not to build nuclear weapons only to now have them saying they were backing out of that agreement. I still can picture Clinton with his arms outstretched around Arafat and the Israeli Prime Minister proclaiming peace. Sure! Or his feeble attemptes to go after Bin Laden or shut down the terror training camps in Afganistan. History will judge this President. Actually I think I will avoid any more post on Clinton as this is a thread that has been beat to death and no one will be convinced of anything.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 16:22 (113528)

Same reason that,inspite of being surrounded by a Muslim worls were many hate them, they have had, I believe only 1 plane hi-javked in a bout 20 years. Saddma will expidite his demise cause Israel and its Mossad are very swift and skilled when it comes to dealing with thugs.

They dont care about colateral damge. Sadly there are some people that would say that Israel would be mean and out of line should they hammer Bagdad due to a bio attack

Re: realism

BGCPED on 3/19/03 at 16:29 (113530)

So then Clinton was put in office by a communist government (China) and some companies that did bad things trade wise. Loral Space and Hughes sold sattelite tech i.e. ability to get nukes to our shores and they donted tons to Clinton so it goes both ways.

I would rather a President beholden to big business that treasonist business. You assert GWB 'hasent been up to tasks he has encountered in foreign relations' hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm thats your opinion but can you please state some factual highlights of Clintons foreign policy?

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

john h on 3/19/03 at 18:03 (113538)

Sharon: up until a few months ago I kept in contact with an Israeli Air Force Officer who at one time appeared on our board. He is currently on active duty in Israel. Of course Israel has a large store of nuclear weapons and one of the best Air Forces in the world. Israels position though not spoken aloud is that if the middle east should ever try to overrun and destroy Israel they will destroy the entire middle east. The middle east clearly understands this and know they mean business so only a madman like Saddam might have made a 1st strike against Israel if he thought he could get away with it. Of course Israel took out Saddams fist nuclear plant which the French built for him. I would not rule out a nuclear weapon if Saddam were to kill 10's of thousands of Israel's with a bio attack. They would seek no one's permission. The Israeli Air Force Officer told me clearly Israel would never be overrun that they would respond with every weapon they have at their disposal.The removal of Saddam could just possible save the entire middle east from a nuclear war and complete destruction.

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Sharon W on 3/19/03 at 18:11 (113541)

I remember the incredible restraint that Israel showed during the 1991 Gulf war, receiving volley after volley of incoming scud missiles without responding. I have pointed that out on a number of occasions to people who called the Israelis trigger-happy and out-of-control.

I do not like some of the things that they have done in response to terrorist attacks on their own soil - but I do believe that they, like everyone else, have a right to self defense.


Re: realism

john h on 3/19/03 at 18:14 (113543)

Mason again please explain the 70% appoval of the publics view of the way Bush is handling Iraq? Are the 70% all wrong and the 30% very enlightened. Please explain why we have Republicans in control of the House,Senate, and Presidency. Must be a lot of real dumb Americans out there, Nearly all public opinion polls from day one trust the Republicans more than the Democrats when it comes to Foreign Policy. Would I be happier with Al Gore in charge since 9/11? Hardly! I think we have one of the best cabinets in this adminsistration I have seen in my life time and that goes back to Roosevelt. I have supported Truman,Roosevelt,John Kennedy (certainly not the other Kennedys) in my life time so it is not a matter of Democrats and Republicans. Recently there was a study and poll conducted by and independdant institute of the worst Presidents and when it came to foreign policy Jimmy Carter was considered one of the worst and Clinton was well down on the list..

Re: realism

Mason on 3/19/03 at 18:50 (113552)

The 70% approval rating is very recent. The numbers were the reverse only a few months ago. In addition, citizens even more recently were about evenly split, and even many of those who said they would support our invasion of Iraq qualified it with 'only with U.N. backing.'

When people come to see the war as inevitable (and we all know it was going to take place no matter what anyone outside the United States government said), some give in, apparently feeling it's not worth it to challenge their government or, in some cases, be seen as unpatriotic. Also, some of those changed numbers reveal that the terrorist alerts are working as far as scaring people. It's ironic, because if we weren't invading Iraq, the people motivated to commit terrorist acts would be fewer. Our invasion will indeed up the probability of more terrorism on our soil, likely by quite a bit. I was under the impression that most of us wanted to see that decrease after 9/11; so, yes, I do think the 30% are probably a more enlightened bunch. You won't like that, but it's my opinion, and you are welcome to yours.

I don't know why Republicans are in the majority in the government at the moment. But I can tell you that I doubt very much they'll stay there. I've never read of more conservatives than there are today who are dissatisfied with their government; some among the electorate are changing parties.

There is always a surge of approval of a president in time of war. The first President Bush enjoyed a 93% approval rating of his war. Two years later, he lost the election. So we shall see.

Re: realism

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/19/03 at 19:37 (113559)


Information concerning Saddam's misconduct has yet to come out and when it does, I think it will back up our actions and our President will have even greater popularity. Bush Sr. lost the election over the economy.
FOX Fans Log on Here
or Register Now.

Why We Must Fight and Now!

Wednesday, March 19, 2003
By William J. Bennett

Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of 'human rights.' Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.

Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a 'virtual march on Washington.'

Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln's birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: 'The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.'' With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler as we saw and heard in the 'human rights' protests betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.

Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: 'The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.' Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.

Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf's view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanis, the true shepherd saved them.

It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world's dictators.

In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: 'What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal.' Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, '[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country.'

It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it.

We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world's moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S.

This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world's liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: 'Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers.'

Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of appeasement.

Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today, weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence.

We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam '[t]orture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort,' according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton's director of Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11, 2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death. And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the unthanked, the action of the free.

In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration of Independence, called 'a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.' That is who we happen to be. And it is an honor.

William J. Bennett, chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, is a former secretary of Education and the author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, re-released and updated in paperback (Regnery, 2003).

Schedule (PIPE) FOX News Bios (PIPE) E-mail Shows (PIPE) FAQ (PIPE) FOX News Shop

Find FOX News Channel in Your Area (PIPE) Find FOX News Channel Abroad

Advertise on FOXNews.com
Jobs at FOX News Channel. Internships at FOX News Channel.
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
(email removed); For FOX News Channel comments write to
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2003 Standard & Poor's
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2003 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

Special Report w/ Brit Hume
Wed. 6 pm / midnight ET

Too late for Turkey? U.S. planes will be allowed to fly over, but permission to land is still up in the air.

FNC Schedule

Re: realism

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/19/03 at 19:40 (113560)


I don't hear what I want to hear. I have read exactly what you have written and it was not just about Saddam, it was about an expectation of President Bush -- are you saying that you did not write that?

Re: Peace as viewed by Ike

Ed Davis, DPM on 3/19/03 at 20:48 (113572)


I wish we could get inside his head to see what motivates him - -there are some theories. Does he want to be a martyr and go out in a blaze of glory?
If so, he could try to use WMD. A number of questions like these will have more answers in the next few days and weeks.

Re: realism

BGCPed on 3/19/03 at 22:19 (113593)

i am glad you are in a place you can post your views. as of now you backed the losing dog in the fight. there is a reason that the dems lost all of those seats.

i am lacking motivation in responding to your posts. i will say that you are one of the most clouded thinkers and un-patriotic people i have known. your subjective posts that you try to present as fact lack any sense of real world reason. that said you should be glad you can be free to post them.

you should admit you hate bush and are ignorant of logical policy. i still have yet to hear you state any ideas to support your passive diplomacy. i would like all people to have free gas, big cars and never get acne. i would also like all children to never lose in any sport and never suffer the humility of less than a b-

i thank my stars that you and your party had 8 years to extend the lame solutions that started in the 60s with johnson ( btw a good factor in viet nam)i also thank god that the general public was smart enough to dismiss that thinking (try as they might, but dumb voters in fla dont count)

your party is filled with sore losers that have bitched sinse the election. tom daschle is , imho a scum bag and and a slime. he is sub clinton in his subterfuge and self promotion.

that said i respect your right to post. your team lost...give war a chance


Necee on 3/20/03 at 02:20 (113611)

Well Mr Mason.....I did not say that you said he was a rational, peaceful, and gentle loving man. If you had read my post correctly your name was never even mentioned.
Furthermore, in order to have a long-term survival, we must act, and act now. Peace and freedom comes with a price. How can we keep 'thinking it through', as you stated, and come up with a better solution when we are not dealing with a rational man....we are dealing with the devil himself!
Why is that so hard for you to understand?



Necee on 3/20/03 at 03:03 (113615)

I beg to differ with you Marie! The people of America did rally together, and vote in a man with a great vision for what's best for this country. I shudder to think what would happen to us all if Gore had won the election.
It makes me very proud, and I can rest assured, knowing that we have someone whos doing what is right and best for this nation. Of course I don't really expect you to feel that same confidence, for some reason there are those among us who just don't get it.
You mentioned that it wasn't hard to believe the situation we are in today once you saw the people chosen for certain offices. Well.......I hate to rain on your parade Marie, but........these problems were inherited by our President when he was elected.

I just wish we could put all feelings aside and focus on supporting our troops. By posting this message, I feel I'm doing just that.

Happy trails....



Ed Davis, DPM on 3/20/03 at 19:07 (113674)

It is hard to say what Gore would have done under these circumstances if elected President. We would have done better with the UN vote because Gore could call in his legal team and find a technicality to throw out the French vote. Perhaps the punch cards used for UN votes had swinging chads, dimpled chads, pregnant chads -- all grounds to keep recounting the UN vote.