Jane Fonda, Kerry, Prescott & GHW Bush,& Reagan Traitors?=Bush & Nixon War Criminals? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 04-19-2005, 09:56 PM

For a change.....let's try keeping this in one place instead of
hijacking other threads with sidetrack discussions of is she (he) or isn't she (he), a traitor or a war criminal.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3">http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3</a>
Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_wct-rc.htm">http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_wct-rc.htm</a>
Below is the indictment written by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

INDICTMENT

This Criminal Indictment Charges George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John D. Ashcroft, Tommy Franks, and his successors as Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, George J. Tenet, L. Paul Bremer, III, John Negroponte and others to be named with Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, the Constitution of the United States and Laws Made in Pursuance Thereof.

The Crimes Charged are:

1. Waging a War of Aggression against the sovereignty of Iraq and the rights of its people, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries among the people of Iraq, most civilians, from military violence and thousands of U.S. G.I’s. War of aggression is defined as “the Supreme international crime” in the Nuremberg Judgment.

2. Authorizing, encouraging and condoning the use of excessive force, in terrorem, tactics called “Shock and Awe”, targeting defenseless civilians and, civilians facilities and indiscriminate bombing and assaults.

3. Authorizing and ordering the use of illegal weapons including super bombs, cluster bombs, depleted uranium enhanced bombs, missiles, shells and bullets and threatening the use of nuclear weapons.

4. Authorizing, ordering, concealing and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murders, disappearances, kidnappings and torture. 5. Authorizing, financing, utilizing and condoning illegal violence, use of force and torture by highly paid paramilitary civilian forces operating anonymously and not accountable to U.S. supervisors for their acts, who kill, coerce, control and contain the Iraqi population.

6. Authorizing, ordering and condoning the systematic destruction of economic, social, cultural, medical, educational, governmental and diplomatic resources, properties and facilities throughout Iraq.

7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning acts designed to divide the Iraqi population to cause internal conflict and violence among major segments of the society, ethnic, religious, political and economic, in order to weaken and exhaust the population and bring all segments under the control of a new surrogate government submissive to U.S. command. .

8. Authorizing, imposing and maintaining a violent, criminal military occupation over Iraq which kills defenseless Iraqi’s daily and fans the flames of anti-U.S. anger worldwide.

9. Defying and incapacitating the peace making capacity and role of the United Nations by unilateral actions to undermine its potential effectiveness while continuing to coerce and use the U.N. to pursue U.S. policies in Iraq and elsewhere, and coercing and enticing other nations to support U.S. policies and actions in violation of international law in the U.N. Security Council and against Iraq and other nations.

10. Engaging in systematic acts to undermine and destroy international laws and treaties designed to prevent and control war, weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction; limit participants in military service; protect the environment; prevent the economic exploitation of poor nations; and engaging systematic acts to obstruct justice by the evisceration of the International Criminal Court and manipulation or defiance of other international judicial and regulatory bodies that might seek to hold the U.S. accountable to international law and the will of the majority of the people of the international community. 11. Manifesting their continuing commitment to world domination by ordering, directing and condoning violent regime change in Haiti in March 2004 to replace the independent, elected democratic President Jean Bertrand Aristide with a U.S. selected and controlled neo Duvalierist surrogate causing growing violence, hundreds of deaths and further impoverishment of the Haitian people....................

Jane Fonda, traitor ?

John Kerry, traitor ?

Prescott Bush, traitor ?

Ronald Reagan, traitor ?

GHW Bush, traitor ?

Richard Nixon, war criminal ?

George W Bush, war criminal ?

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-19-2005, 10:34 PM

I'm going to take a quick stab at this.

Fonda, Yes.
Kerry, Yes.
Prescott Bush, dunno, if he was still selling to Hitler after we declared war yes, if not no.

Dubya, no. Regardless of the pretenses of war, until anything binding establishes that Bush knowingly lied, he is allowed something called "Good Faith". Most of the facts put fourth by Mr. Ramsey are bull, in that they are twisted and not truthful. Nuremburg be damned because State Sovereignity trumps any flimsy International order or law, especially since Bush sought and recieved congressional approval, in good faith, Bush is beholden to America and it's laws, nothing and nobody else. I would respond in more detail buts it late, I just wanted to take a quick stab at this. Perhaps tomorrow.

Oh aslong as you have Nixon and Reagen up there, might want to throw LBJ and Kennedy.

ObieX · 04-20-2005, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Nuremburg be damned because State Sovereignity trumps any flimsy International order or law, especially since Bush sought and recieved congressional approval, in good faith, Bush is beholden to America and it's laws, nothing and nobody else

Should be careful with that since thats what Saddam was doing. Trying to keep his state's sovereignty, fuck the rest of the world, and all that kinda stuff like that there. The rest of the world wants you to stop making nuclear/chemical/biological weapons? Fuck 'em! The rest of the world wants you to not invade another nation based on flimsy and (in some cases) blatantly false evidence? Fuck 'em!

Janey · 04-20-2005, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Should be careful with that since thats what Saddam was doing. Trying to keep his state's sovereignty, fuck the rest of the world, and all that kinda stuff like that there. The rest of the world wants you to stop making nuclear/chemical/biological weapons? Fuck 'em! The rest of the world wants you to not invade another nation based on flimsy and (in some cases) blatantly false evidence? Fuck 'em!

Its like the food chain cartoon with the bigger fish eating the smaller fish in a chain;

kuwait <=== Iraq <=== USA

samcol · 04-20-2005, 06:16 AM

I'm really glad you brought this up. The penalty for treason is death by firing squad correct? The Bush crime family does go clear back to WWII.

“Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951” - Federal Documents

Here's a couple quotes from the article

Quote:

After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.

"The discovery of the Bush-Nazi documents raises new questions about the role of Prescott Bush and his influential business partners in the secret emigration of Nazi war criminals, which allowed them to escape justice in Germany," says Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com and an amateur 'Nazi hunter.' "It also raises questions about the importance of Nazi recruits to the CIA in its early years, in what was called Operation Paperclip, and Prescott Bush's role in that dark operation."

Fox News also picked up on this story and did indeed admit John Buchanan found the documents and reported on it. Of course they picked up on the AP article that spins to truth insteed of Buchanans actual findings. Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler
The reason I'm linking this article is because it gives credibility to his story, and also shows how the news media spins to truth to protect the Bush crime family.

John Buchanan is now receiving death threatsfor his uncoverning of the truth
A Letter from John Buchanan... Buchanan has received hundreds of credible death threats and is now living under 24-hour police protection. Funny how anyone who exposes the truth gets threatened. Finally, here's a video interview of John Buchanan discussing his findings at the National Security Archive: 9/11 Martial Law: Rise of the Police State: Buchanan Interview

Here's where you can watch the full movie if you care to

roachboy · 04-20-2005, 06:34 AM

i find it interesting in the above posts that take the ridiculous accusations of treason seriously that "treason" seems to be reserved in rightwingland for those who opposed particular wars, and vietnam above all others. funny how that works, isnt it?

funnier still that this is associated with the reactionary claim that state sovereignty trumps international law, particularly when that law pertains to questions of war crimes.

put the two together and you get a glimpse into the conventional "wisdom" of the right: so long as the actor is a "real american" (read conservative) anything goes: step out of line and oppose what the conservatives decide to be the Best Interest of Real Americans like themselves and it is treason.

it seems to me that if there is a problem, it lay with the ridiculous viewpoint developed by the conservative apparatus on this. it is like they are practicing for a total clampdown on dissent from moderates and the left by obsessing about vietnam, about those who opposed it, by rewriting the past and casting those who exercized their freedom of speech in opposition to a an obviously foul colonial war in the role of enemies of the state.

it seems like the idea is simple: get the brownshirts used to this kind of thing by practicing on signifiers framed by revisionist understandings of vietnam: when the shoe drops in real time, these same people will cheerlead the "purification" of the "real america" by the "elmination" of "traitors"--who knows, maybe some of these "traitors" will get to visit the system of outsourced torture the americans have set up already. one thing for sure, if this type of logic is followed, you can be sure the right will say nothing critical about it, will not care.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-20-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i find it interesting in the above posts that take the ridiculous accusations of treason seriously that "treason" seems to be reserved in rightwingland for those who opposed particular wars, and vietnam above all others. funny how that works, isnt it?

There is nothing funny about it, and I never said it was reserved to people in "rightwingland", it just happens when cowards from "leftwingland" testify and lie before congress and America GI's suffer and die from it I get pissed.

Quote:

funnier still that this is associated with the reactionary claim that state sovereignty trumps international law, particularly when that law pertains to questions of war crimes.

Maybe you don't know this, but it does. That's how the rules set up for one, countries are only beholden to treaties they sign, we haven't signed any ICC treaty. Secondly International law only has authority were it is conceded. There is nothing reactionary about this, it is merely political fact.

Quote:

put the two together and you get a glimpse into the conventional "wisdom" of the right: so long as the actor is a "real american" (read conservative) anything goes: step out of line and oppose what the conservatives decide to be the Best Interest of Real Americans like themselves and it is treason.

I don't know where you got this from, I agreed that Prescott Bush was guilty of Treason contigent on the information Samcol put fourth, I couldn't comment on the Reagen/Nixon claims, Nixon I'm assuming being involved with Vietnam; so that is why I suggested Kennedy and LBJ, the two that started the war, be thrown in with the first two.

Quote:

it seems to me that if there is a problem, it lay with the ridiculous viewpoint developed by the conservative apparatus on this. it is like they are practicing for a total clampdown on dissent from moderates and the left by obsessing about vietnam, about those who opposed it, by rewriting the past and casting those who exercized their freedom of speech in opposition to a an obviously foul colonial war in the role of enemies of the state.

Maybe you can't grasp this concept, but there is dissent, and then there is treason. Dissent is alright and it is protected speech, when you go beyond that by doing things like meeting the enemy and garnering them support by the blood of America troops you are committing treason.

Manx · 04-20-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

There is nothing funny about it, and I never said it was reserved to people in "rightwingland", it just happens when cowards from "leftwingland" testify and lie before congress and America GI's suffer and die from it I get pissed.

You getting pissed is hardly justification for a determination of treason.

I'll quote my response, from another thread, to your claim that Kerry is a traitor:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

There is nothing inconsistent with what I said. Miss Fonda can say whatever the hell she wants, not limited to the states, when she leaves the country and consorts with the enemy that is providing aid and comfort which is treason.

As for Kerry last time I checked lying to congress (read perjury) is not protected speech, especially when it plays into the hands of our enemy.

Last time I checked, lying to Congress (and I'm just going to let that belief of yours go unchecked here) is also not treason. So yes, your statement is inconsistent.

"it plays into the hands of our enemy" - could there be a more vague methodology to label someone a traitor? Apathy could also "play into the hands of the enemy".

If we're setting the bar so incredibly low and supported with such far fetched justifications for such a significant claim, that of treason, here's my contribution:

Bush is a traitor because he lied to the American people to further his and his cronies oil interests, costing the lives of over a thousand Americans. Playing RIGHT into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Aiding the enemy.

Ann Coulter is a traitor because she forsakes the religious freedom of the U.S. to champion the wholesale annihilation or conversion of all Muslims in the Middle East, thereby instigating a flat-out religious war which would inevitably cost thousands and thousands of American lives. Playing RIGHT into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Aiding the enemy.

There's no end to whatever fanciful, imaginary and ultimately arbitrary claim I can make with your methodology of defining treason.

Of course, then when someone does come along who is actually commiting treason - no one is going to believe me if I were in a position to point it out. There's a childrens parable about that.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-20-2005, 09:12 AM

Manx, as I've stated before, Bush is allowed good faith, it is only speculation on your part that he knowingly lied.

Ann Clouter may be a nutjob, but she is not a traitor, even if you would like to label her as one it is just simply not true.

Kerry admitted to the fact that he lied to congress in his testimony about American soldiers committing war crimes.

Manx · 04-20-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Manx, as I've stated before, Bush is allowed good faith, it is only speculation on your part that he knowingly lied.

Ann Clouter may be a nutjob, but she is not a traitor, even if you would like to label her as one it is just simply not true.

Kerry admitted to the fact that he lied to congress in his testimony about American soldiers committing war crimes.

Sorry, but your determinations are not mine.

I don't believe Bush or Ann Coulter ARE traitors, for much the same reason I don't believe Kerry is a traitor. I was simply pointing out that your methodology of determining treason is equally applicable to Bush and Coulter as you believe it is applicable to Kerry.

Even if you would like to deny it is so, it is simply true.

Kerry lying to Congress (and again, I'm going to let that claim slide for expediency even though I do not accept it as fact) does not make him a traitor. Much like Bush lying to the American people does not make him a traitor.

smooth · 04-20-2005, 10:35 AM

I wish conservatives would be consistent on the reading of this law--adhering to "original intent."

of course, then aid and comfort to the enemy would be limited to actually providing aid and comfort--as in, providing food, shelter, and physical/tangible assistance to people who were on our soil fighting against us.

(along with the two witness requirement which was tossed not too long ago by "activist" judges)

moosenose · 04-20-2005, 04:08 PM

Your Ramsey Clark quote should have included either "nutjob" or "Saddam Hussein's attorney" depending on where you wanted to go with it.

Ramsey Clark=TRAITOR.

Quote:

Maybe you can't grasp this concept, but there is dissent, and then there is treason. Dissent is alright and it is protected speech, when you go beyond that by doing things like meeting the enemy and garnering them support by the blood of America troops you are committing treason.

Correct. The entire hierarchy of the anti-war movement during Vietnam were guilty of treason. You don't have to take my word on it, though, simply read Giap's autobiography. In it, he states that they had lost the war militarily, but used the anti-war movement in the US as a front to reach a political victory. Given the level of support the anti-war movement received clandestinely from the KGB, there is no doubt that they are, in fact, traitors.

moosenose · 04-20-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I'm really glad you brought this up. The penalty for treason is death by firing squad correct? The Bush crime family does go clear back to WWII.

It's a shame you didn't mention Joe Kennedy in your little rant...why is that?

moosenose · 04-20-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Kerry lying to Congress (and again, I'm going to let that claim slide for expediency even though I do not accept it as fact) does not make him a traitor. Much like Bush lying to the American people does not make him a traitor.

Correct. It was Kerry's actions in Paris in 1972 that made him a traitor and got him a "less than honorable" discharge, which he then had to wait 5 years to get upgraded. Ever wonder why he didn't sue the shit out of the Swifties? It's because if he did, his military records would have been subject to discovery, and then he'd have been fucked.

moosenose · 04-20-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Kerry admitted to the fact that he lied to congress in his testimony about American soldiers committing war crimes.

That's perjury, not treason. The treason came later.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-20-2005, 04:28 PM

I'd say it's treasonous because of what it precipitated(sp). He knowingly falsified testimony to garner support for the anti-war movement. As a result of it many American GI's were tortured, held longer in captivity, or executed because of the "war crimes" they committed.

roachboy · 04-20-2005, 06:04 PM

isn't treason a crime?
isnt someone presumed innocent until a charge has been brought, a trail carried out, and the accused found guilty?

but there wasnt any trial for jane fonda or the other folk that have the right's panties in such a retrospective twist.
there was no due process.
there were no charges.
so there is no treason.

you, mojo (or anyone else who believes this nonsense) might have the opinion that x is guilty of treason--and i might (well i do) view that opinion as crackpot. you might find it therapeutic to wage symbolic warfare against jane fonda for whatever bizarre psychological reason--i doubt somehow that you were alive during the vietnam war, mojo---and it is your right to do that. yes it is. and it my right to view you, on this and the kerry matters, as a crackpot. period. but nowhere in any of this is there the slightest question of guilt.

unless of course you really are true to the legal "logic" of bushworld and are trying at some level to blur what you imagine fonda did into the category "terrorist" or an equivalent--in which case, like for your boy in the white house, there is only the need for suspicion--for bushworld, suspicion is enough to send many folk into either the domestic or international legal black hole circuit, shuttled place to place on private jets accompanied by cia operatives and delivered to the secret service of egypt, syria, pakistan for torture--ooops, i meant "interrogation"---with no hope of coming to trial...for background, listen to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme..._4/4246089.stm

or read this (a transcript)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...renditions.pdf

or if you read french, check out the lead article in this month's le monde diplomatique on the american outsourcing of torture--lots of documentation behind it--check the sources, mojo--be critical and look into the matter.

funny how this works--on the one hand, conservatives like yourself are interested in doing away with due process at all and effectively convicting someone who was never charged with anything of treason--on the other hand, your conservative buddies in power are interested in doing away with due process altogether by interpreting human rights law (like the cia said once: human rights are very simple) in the narrowest possible sense and not ever bringing charges against suspects. you could combine this stuff with the recent far right assaults on the judiciary in general and see that everything converges on the justification of what amounts to vigilante pseudo-justice--which i am sure you would endorse, so long as people you agree with politically were carrying it out. why not, really--it is very john wayne.

what a great bunch of folks there in bushworld.
real champions of individual rights.

Willravel · 04-20-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Jane Fonda, traitor ?

Nope. She was practicing free speech, and was anti-war. Nothing illegal about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

John Kerry, traitor ?

Same as Jane. Kerry was a hero for what he did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Prescott Bush, traitor ?

Of course. He should have been prosecuted for aiding a state at war with America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Ronald Reagan, traitor ?

We're still not 100% sure about his election (the POWs release being possibly heald longer until after the election for weapons). What he did to Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras were beyond horrific, but a traitor he was not for those. His work at the EPA was astounding (see "trees cause more polution than cars...). I don't recall him being a traitor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

GHW Bush, traitor ?

Nothing I can prove, yet. Plenty of adding facts, but no proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Richard Nixon, war criminal ?

Nixon, as a private citizen during the 1968 presidential race, sought to delay and disrupt the Paris peace talks, thereby prolonging the war in Vietnam and leading to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. Did someone say traitor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

George W Bush, war criminal ?

Hahahaha. Of course. He is guilty of being an accomplice to over 3000 U.S. murders. I don't know if I have time to list all the ways, so I figure one is enough.

Sincerest apologies for the threadjack in the other thread. I meant no disrespect.

moosenose · 04-21-2005, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

there was no due process.
there were no charges.
so there is no treason.

So you're saying that OJ really DIDN'T kill Nicole? After all, he WAS found not guilty...

If the measure of criminality is a conviction, then for the most part there is no crime.

If a drug dealer hasn't yet been convicted of dealing drugs, does that mean he's law-abiding?

Murder is murder, regardless of if there has been a conviction so far. Same with bank robbery, rape, and treason.

moosenose · 04-21-2005, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Nope. She was practicing free speech, and was anti-war. Nothing illegal about that.

Heh. The Anti-war movement was financed by the KGB in an effort to destabilize the "main enemy". She acted as a propaganda agent of the enemies of America. Giap, the military leader of the North Vietnamese, stated in his autobiography that his entire strategy depended upon the actions of the anti-war movement...the movemement which was financed by the Soviet Union in an effort to destabilize the US. So, you've got the US in a world-wide war with Communism...the North Vietnamese communists saying that they counted on the anti-war movement as a huge part of their strategy, and the entire thing being financed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, you've got Jane Fonda, as a leader of the anti-war movement, publicly saying "If you understood what Communism was, you would hope and pray on your knees that we would someday become Communist."

Nope, no treason there...

ObieX · 04-21-2005, 04:15 AM

You say that as if everyone was lining up to get into uniform and kill some asians. If thats the case what's with the draft? Why have a draft if everyone's ready to kill some vietnamese? Whats with folks fleeing into canada to avoid being drafted? Could it be that they don't want to die? Or kill someone? Or facilitate the killing of someone (enlisted noncombatant)? It's all a commie plot though?

As for the North Vietnamese being glad that folks dont want to wage war against them i dont blame them. I'd be glad if folks didnt want to go to war against me too.

tecoyah · 04-21-2005, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Heh. The Anti-war movement was financed by the KGB in an effort to destabilize the "main enemy". She acted as a propaganda agent of the enemies of America. Giap, the military leader of the North Vietnamese, stated in his autobiography that his entire strategy depended upon the actions of the anti-war movement...the movemement which was financed by the Soviet Union in an effort to destabilize the US. So, you've got the US in a world-wide war with Communism...the North Vietnamese communists saying that they counted on the anti-war movement as a huge part of their strategy, and the entire thing being financed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, you've got Jane Fonda, as a leader of the anti-war movement, publicly saying "If you understood what Communism was, you would hope and pray on your knees that we would someday become Communist."

Nope, no treason there...

I am so very tempted to move this thread to Paranoia

Following this logic.....if Osama has a plan, which involves manipulation of American society through Subtle, if indirect means. And I unknowingly take part in it, I am a traitor. Heres a hypothetical for you:

Osama has decided the best way to destroy America is to garner Hatred in the world for it. To create this hatred he decides to get us all to pit Christianity, against Islam. In twenty years....we will need to place a traitor label on quite a few Americans...now wont we.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-21-2005, 05:50 AM

If they are flying to Afghanistan and holding meetings with him, facilitating his cause in the same manner as Fonda, then yes you would label them traitors.

pan6467 · 04-21-2005, 05:56 AM

You know, this just is nothing more than another thread for right and left to bash each other over past issues that just don't amount to shit.

Prescot Bush, Jane Fonda, blah blah blah ....... the problem is we are not learning from the past both sides pick and choose what they want to discredit and hurt the other side.

Talking about this crap is mental masterbation trying to prove that you are right and the other side is wrong over something that will not change anything.

You want to better the US, take both sides equally, weigh what we have tried and what worked. Take what has worked and make it better and take what didn't work and find out why.

Stop playing finger pointing bullshit and just work together to build a better future... because the future is passing us by and we're standing with our dicks in our hands having pissing contests to see what morals law we can pass, or who has a better moral history. We have let religion and morals become our prime targets and we have let financial growth, developing a better infrastructure and educational system be legislated by fucking big business lobbyists who pay both sides to keep our attention diverted on other things than what truly matters.

WAKE UP and stop the fucking piss games and fight to better America, get us strong again. Cause we're dying and all we can focus on is who was or wasn't a traitor 40 years ago, and why gays should or should not be married, how bad Howard Stern is, abortion, blah blah blah.....

Are any of those going to affect the betterment and health of America? Do those issues truly matter to you? Do those issues truly matter more to you than making sure your kids and grandkids can compete in a world economy and make decent livings?

Maybe if we stop the finger pointing and having to blindly accept our party lines and follow a disgrace of a president or a party catering to extreme whackos.... (BOTH SIDES FAL INTO THIS) and we all worked to better society we'd see all our leaders have sold us out to big business, ultra rich lobbyists..... That both sides have not the true interests in the common working class American to better himself. And it's not just GOP, DEMS, it is LIB, GREEN, whatever party. The leaders in all parties have been bought and paid for by lobbyists because the people are blindly following minutia issues and not focussing on what truly is wrong.

Wake up.

roachboy · 04-21-2005, 07:18 AM

if you start "working for a better tomorrow" within a discursive context that leans well into the realm of fascism, if you do it without thinking--with great focus--about that frame, the "tomorrow" that will result for may not be what you hoped for at all.

calls for a busby berkeley moment without regard for context might make you feel better in the short term, like you are "doing something" and not engaging in the Bummer of Critique.

"waking up" in a context unexamined is worse than remaining asleep.

Lebell · 04-21-2005, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You know, this just is nothing more than another thread for right and left to bash each other over past issues that just don't amount to shit.

Prescot Bush, Jane Fonda, blah blah blah ....... the problem is we are not learning from the past both sides pick and choose what they want to discredit and hurt the other side.

Talking about this crap is mental masterbation trying to prove that you are right and the other side is wrong over something that will not change anything.

....

Agreed.

And it gets old.

IMO this whole thread is walking the edge.

host · 04-21-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Agreed.

And it gets old.

IMO this whole thread is walking the edge.

"Walking on the edge", of what ???

There will be no agreement among us who the traitors are or aren't.
Some members may be influenced to further examine if their own opinions are well reasoned, and may become more curious and then, better informed.
Becoming better informed could lead to increased admiration for some of the people named in the thread titles, and decreased admiration for others.
Voters with more balanced views could move the U.S. away from "the edge".

This is not going to go away, IMO. Read through the links to past TFP posts with
Jane Fonda references..........

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post438171
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post809122
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post925861
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post961026
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post974202
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=14
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...nda#post976701
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1005957
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1009268
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1016048
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1023603
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1026496
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1230018
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1368903
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1375652
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1376544
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1402905
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1424373
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1424913
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1425025
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...da#post1425063

You may not be favorably disposed towards this thread and it's subject matter, but the controversy as to whether each of the individuals named in the thread title (add Ramsey Clark to the list, since he was susequently criticized in a post or two....) is a patriot or a traitor, a great American president or a war criminal, is the stuff that "politics" has always been about.

"Moderate" it away, and what are you left with ?

From my point of you, there is very little in American politics that can be distilled to either black or white, or good or bad. I do have to endure posts like the one linked here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=13

I responded to the post linked above, with the following two posts, hoping
to add some "gray" to the "black or white".
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=17
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=20

As you can see, my posts and the information that they contained, had no
effect on this poster's opinion, for just two days ago, this was posted:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=64

I read the argument in the media and in posts here, that the U.S., even in the absence of WMD, was justified in invading Iraq, because Saddam was
a "brutal dictator", and "he gassed his own people".

I counter this "black or white", with more gray:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=15

The response is that the U.S. aided Saddam in the 80's because he was fighting against our enemy, Iran......

I responded to this by posting references that show that the former president who the U.S. recently afforded a state funeral that shut the business of the capital down for a week and monopolized most of the media for the same period, was found by a special prosecutor to have concealed from his investigation that he (the president) was fully aware that his administration was selling weapons to Iran while it was aiding Saddam, and negotiating with terrorists against the president's proclaimed public policy statements.

The special prosecutor also made similar determinations about the vice president, who then succeeded that president when he left office.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=31

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I am so very tempted to move this thread to Paranoia.......

tecoyah, do not allow the followups to what I believe is a very relevant, timely, and necessary thread subject to persuade you that this is not a political subject. Much money and effort was spent in last years election to isoil Kerry by linking him to "Hanoi Jane" and by equating his activist protest against the war, with "treason". It was a largely successful effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You know, this just is nothing more than another thread for right and left to bash each other over past issues that just don't amount to shit.

Prescot Bush, Jane Fonda, blah blah blah ....... the problem is we are not learning from the past both sides pick and choose what they want to discredit and hurt the other side.

Talking about this crap is mental masterbation trying to prove that you are right and the other side is wrong over something that will not change anything.

You want to better the US, take both sides equally, weigh what we have tried and what worked. Take what has worked and make it better and take what didn't work and find out why.

Stop playing finger pointing bullshit and just work together to build a better future........

.........Wake up.

pan6467, I disagree with you, because ignoring this will not make it go away.
An argument can be made that it needs to be talked to death before that can or will happen. The talk show hosts and the architects of presidential campaigns and their spin machines still heavily use this subject to their advantage.

Every day, more info comes out to further erode what the American people were told were the justifications for invading another country. We seem now
to be left with arguments that the "brutal dicatator", who our government sponsored, because he fought against our mutual enemy, while we also were
secretly selling arms to that enemy, still deserved to be attacked and deposed, even though he only fooled our government into believing that he
possessed massive, menancing stockpiles of WMD, or the means to "whip them up" in the wink of an eye>

Can't you see that until we as a nation see the "gray" that blurs the "black or white" of these life and death issues, to the point that we stop shutting our capital and media down for a massive state funeral to "honor" a great,
(but disingenuous and double dealing) past president, and possible examine whether our government invaded Iraq at the expense of it's own long and oft stated repudiation of wars of aggression, that this nation will not move on.
This is a problem, no less than banning photos of flag draped coffins of our
military casualties is a problem.

It gets old, Lebell, but what can you offer that is superior to this, to possibly fix it. Influencing people to be more curious and to seek out the "gray" in the issues is important enough to put up with messy and sometimes emotional exchanges. To me, religious services "get old", in their repitition. It seems that the reason for this is so everyone, from the dullest to the brightest, might have a chance to understand the message and it's lessons.

My hope is that in the next national election, more people will be more curious about who the statesmen and who the criminals are, who the patriots and who the traitors are. If we don't continue to talk about it on a political thread, or at all, how can that happen ?

Lebell · 04-21-2005, 02:34 PM

You remind me of someone I know.

He also claims that the world is full of greys but then he goes on to present it in his own version of black and white.

Take this example that you use to bolster your argument:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=87571

I read through the entire article and from what I read, nothing changed my mind as to rightness of our actions in the 80's and 90's.

Yet to you, it is clear evidence that we were lied to by Bush.

What I suggest is that you have your version of the "truth", but it is really just your own perception colored by your experiences.

Once we realize this about ourselves, then we can truly move forward with reasonable debate.

Until then, I decline being drug into a useless argument where we cannot even read the same article and get the same information.

As to "walking the line", what I meant was that the thread is/was degenerating as usual with partisan politics, sniping, etc. and that if it continues, the usual warnings, bannings, blah blah blah.

moosenose · 04-21-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Osama has decided the best way to destroy America is to garner Hatred in the world for it. To create this hatred he decides to get us all to pit Christianity, against Islam. In twenty years....we will need to place a traitor label on quite a few Americans...now wont we.

If people are taking paychecks and marching orders from OBL, you're right, they're committing treason.

Case in point: Ramsey Clark. He's not, to the best of my knowledge, taking a paycheck from OBL, but he sure as hell was taking a paycheck from Saddam...

Another example is the female lawyer in NY, IIRC, who was acting as an information conduit for her client, a convicted terrorist, and other terrorists that were on the outside, under the guise of "attorney-client privilege." IIRC, she's currently in a PMITA prison.

BTW, which part of my statement is paranoia? Please keep in mind that Fonda's comments vis a vis communism are a matter of public record. Giap's statements regarding his use of the anti-war movement were published not on WorldNetDaily or FreeRepublic, but in his autobiography. And the Soviet Union's use of the anti-war movement and their funding for same stems not from some Right-wing think-tank, but from the KGB's own files which were released under Glasnost/Gorbachev. Do you think the "Armand Hammer was a communist" thing was just made up?

How can you be paranoid when they really ARE out to get you? We're not talking tin foil hats here, we're talking stuff released from the proverbial "horse's mouth". Just out of curiosity, do you think the Rosenbergs were framed?

roachboy · 04-21-2005, 03:02 PM

lebell:

i have in the main stayed out of this thread but i have been reading it--and i have to say that i cannot understand how you could derive a rationale for american actions from the material presented above.

i really dont--unless for you politics in general, and support for american actions vis-a-vis iraq in particular, are simple functions of prior disposition, not related to any evidences---politics in this case is deductive, in that you have a prior set of sommitments that you use to filter out dissonant information, as opposed to a more inductive relation that would test and retest general positions on the basis of evidence/data.
a deductive politics is not really a political position at all. rather it is a variant of faith, of belief in the protestant sense, masquerading as politics.

if you want to speak about rational debate, perhaps it would make sense to establish ground rules--like you need to route arguments through evidence--otherwise it might have the external form of rational debate, but is not rational. it is not deliberative. it is not about the exercize of power. it is not about anything.

it is good to practice this kind of debate, even here, because were the united states a democracy such debate would be central to its functioning. if the united states were to become a democracy--perhaps after the implosion of the current order--it would be central.

you could take from the simple fact that folk can elaborate political positions without any reference to evidence at all a good indication of the distance that seperates the american situation from a democracy....

it is pretty clear that the american system is best understood as a type of oligarchy
that legitimates itself through the disourse of democracy. this discourse is central to its modes of opinion management---the public is dominated by setting them against each other across sometimes meaningful but more often trivial matters, deploying types of strategies in debates that are not the result of any prior agreement about rules, which devolve quickly and often into trivial pissing matches that operate to distract--the people who find themselves so dividewd confuse this with being free, with operating inside a democratic polity, because they get to use the words freedom and democracy alot. worrying about whether they refer to anything is nowhere near as much fun as using them alot. these words, in the united states, are like any other toy.

meanwhile, of course, the folk in power do and say what they like---with impunity--because they know that even arguments presented with considerable evidence will not persuade anyone to even consider their politics, which are routed through disposition, are not falsifiable, etc.

pan6467 · 04-21-2005, 05:31 PM

Host,

Nowhere in my post did I say ignore these issues. In fact I stated examine the past find out what worked use it, what didn't work and find out why.

Look, I wasn't around in the 1930's and 40's, but if Prescott Bush dealt with the Nazis then he dealt with the Nazis, I refuse to hold the crimes of the father against the son. Not to mention we would also have to bust Ford, Chrysler (as they are part of Mercedes and they were Nazis), and so on. My guess is a lot of American companies did business with Hitler at first because Germany was the first country to bust out of the Depression that was hitting the world, and thus Germany was the place to sell your product and make profit. To point fingers at people wanting to do business with the only country that could truly afford to do business is pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA and self righteous BS and serves no other purpose.

As for Fonda and Kerry, they did what many in that era did or would have done had they had the platform. Look at all the marches, riots, draft card burnings, draft dodging.... to yip about what Fonda and Kerry did is POLITICAL FINGERPOINTING and serves no other purpose than to try to be self righteous and push your own agenda. It's BS.

As for Iran-Contra, I don't know. Our government has done many bad and illegal things in it's history to promote one party over another. What happened happened.... fingerpointing bullshit is not going to get anyone anywhere. LEARNING from the past however, can and will.

Perhaps, IF Iran-Contra is all fact based we can learn that because of this, Saddam had issues with us, the Central American nations could feel used and we can learn that interfering with other nations politics and sovereignity leads to bad things.

I"m sorry, I just honestly don't see a positive from finger pointing, rehashing old wounds and not looking for solutions but using past issues solely as an excuse to hurt another. There's nothing to learn there, except hatred and passing blame.

Manx · 04-21-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

As for Iran-Contra, I don't know. Our government has done many bad and illegal things in it's history to promote one party over another. What happened happened.... fingerpointing bullshit is not going to get anyone anywhere. LEARNING from the past however, can and will.

How are we supposed to learn from the past if everytime it's brought up you claim it is useless "finger pointing"?

pan6467 · 04-22-2005, 12:29 AM

Manx,

We've had this discussion before, you can learn from history without political fingerpointing.

We can very look at the past say it happened and find out why and learn from it. You cannot keep hate alive for past events like Iran-Contra, it serves no purpose. But you can look to see what truly happened and make laws and make sure they are enforced to prevent it happening again.

It's just my opinion, I just don't see what screaming and finger pointing about the past does if that is all you do.

It was a different time and different administration.

Same as the bombing of the Maine.

No country's government is 100% pure and righteous, every country has a history of mistakes and being self serving while hurting another country. All you can do is learn what they did, and why they felt they had to do what they did and if enough deem it bad enough pass laws to make sure it never again happens..... but to just yell and try to create problems is doing nothing but dividng people and taking your eyes of problems that need attention today.

dy156 · 04-22-2005, 09:31 PM

Leave Pappa Bush out of this, or I'll have to educate (lay the smack down) on all of ya'll.

MoonDog · 04-23-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

You remind me of someone I know.

He also claims that the world is full of greys but then he goes on to present it in his own version of black and white.

Amen, Brother Lebell!

Locobot · 04-25-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dy156

Leave Pappa Bush out of this, or I'll have to educate (lay the smack down) on all of ya'll.

Oh I'm so scared!

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm

George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was the Managing Director of the investment bank Brown Brothers, Harriman from the 1920s through the 1940s. It was Brown Brothers, in conjunction with Averell Harriman, the Rockefeller family, Standard Oil, the DuPonts, the Morgans and the Fords who served as the principal funding arm in helping to finance Adolph Hitler’s rise to power starting in 1923. This included direct funding for the SS and SA channeled through a variety of German firms. Prescott Bush, through associations with the Hamburg-Amerika Steamship line, Nazi banker Fritz Thyssen (pronounced Tee-sen), Standard Oil of Germany, The German Steel Trust (founded by Dillon Read founder, Clarence Dillon), and I.G. Farben, used the Union Bank Corporation to funnel vast quantities of money to the Nazis and to manage their American interests. The profits from those investments came back to Bush allies on Wall Street. Thyssen is universally regarded as having been Hitler’s private banker and ultimate owner of the Union Bank Corporation.

Early support for Hitler came from Prescott Bush through the Hamburg-Amerika Steamship line -- also funded by Brown Bothers -- that funneled large sums of money and weapons to Hitler’s storm troopers in the 1920s.

According to Tarpley and Chaitkin, “In May 1933, just after the Hitler regime was consolidated, an agreement was reached in Berlin for the coordination of all Nazi commerce with the U.S.A. The Harriman International Company… was to head a syndicate of 150 firms and individuals, to conduct all exports from Hitler Germany to the United States.”

Furthermore, a 1942 U.S. government investigative report that surfaced during 1945 Senate hearings found that the Union Bank, with Prescott Bush on the board, was an “interlocking concern” with the German Steel Trust that had produced:

50.8% of Nazi Germany’s pig iron

41.4% of Nazi Germany’s universal plate

36% of Nazi Germany’s heavy plate

38.5% of Nazi Germany’s galvanized sheet

45.5% of Nazi Germany’s pipes and tubes

22.1% of Nazi Germany’s wire

35% of Nazi Germany’s explosives
The business relationships established by Bush in 1923 continued even after the war started until they became so offensive and overt as to warrant seizure by the U.S. government under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942.

In 1942, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.’s stock shares.

“… all of which shares are held for the benefit of… members of the Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals… of a designated enemy country.”

“On October 28, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run by the Bush-Harriman bank: the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation.”

“Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father in law George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942…”

These seizures of Bush businesses were reported in a number of American papers including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Prescott Bush went on to become an influential Republican Senator from Connecticut who went on to be a regular golfing partner of President Dwight Eisenhower. His attorneys were the lawyers John Foster and Allen Dulles, the later became the CIA Director under Eisenhower.

host · 04-25-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Amen, Brother Lebell!

What is it that you are "Amen-ing", MoonDog, unsubstantiated assertions, such as the one linked here?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=13

or..... information that has the potential to influence some of us to form an opinion, time after time, that there is much we don't know, and probably will never know to the extent that we can reach a conclusion in regards to the integrity and veracity of our elected officials.

To counter Lebell's effort to shoot the messenger instead of posting arguments that challenge specific points I (and others) posted related to the people headlined here, the extent of my "black or white" opinions is to identify conclusions about a controversial individual's character, reputation, and accomplisment, that can only be reached by excluding information that, if considered using similar criteria to that applied to included information used in reaching a conclusion, would cloud the thinking process and preempt the arrival of a conclusion.

My opinion is that the "Hanoi Jane is a traitor" opinion, linked above, is arguable because it fails to consider the events and political climate of the
times when "Jane's" treason allegedly took place. I posted my documented argument in a <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1736252&postcount=20">link</a> in my last post here.

What would I have had to ignore or give less consideration to in order to align my thinking with those who accorded Ronald Reagan the accolades and the pageantry directed in his honor during the days after his death last june ?

I cannot conclude that Reagan was a traitor because he secretly authorized the trading of arms to a declared U.S. enemy, but when given accurate weight in the process of assessing Reagan's place, in comparison to other presidents, the findings of the special prosector serve to seriously diminish his reputation. I would have to ignore Reagan's own admission and Lawrence Walsh's findings in order to make a "white" conclusion about Reagan.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=31

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/...e/index_5.html

Timeline of Ronald Reagan's Life

1984
April 16: Reagan signs directive for aggressive posture to terrorism. The new policy is set forth in a document officially designated National Security Decision Directive 138.

October 10: Congress passes the 2nd Boland Amendment which outlaws solicitation of 3rd-party countries to support Contras. The amendment bars the use of funds available to C.I.A., defense, or intelligence agencies for "supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization or individual."

1985
June 6: The Senate authorizes nonmilitary aid to Contras. A 55-42 vote authorizes $38 million over two years.

June 18: At a press conference dominated by the hostage crisis, Reagan vows that the U.S. will never give in to terrorists' demands.

July 18: From his hospital bed, Reagan approves National Security Advisor William McFarlane's plan to reach out to Iranian Foreign Minister Ghorbanifar. MacFarlane is interested in an opening with Iran through influence with moderates by helping Iran in war against Iraq. Reagan is more interested in using any influence gained through better relations to free hostages being held in Beirut by extremist Iranian terrorists.

July 25: Israeli representatives meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Ghorbanifar for first time on arms deal. Israel will sell arms to Iran, U.S. will replace Israeli stocks.

August 20: 96 anti-tank missiles are sent to Iran by Israel. No hostages are released in return.

August 30: Israel ships 508 anti-tank missiles to Iran.

November 17: Colonel Oliver North is put in charge of the shipment of HAWK anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.

December 2: McFarlane quits his post as National Security Advisor. His deputy, John Poindexter, steps up to the position.

December 7: Shultz, Weinberger, and Donald Regan advise Reagan to stop Iran arms sales.

1986
February 16: The U.S. ships 1000 anti-tank missiles to Iran.

February 25: Reagan asks Congress for $100 million in aid for Contras. The House rejects appeal; the Senate approves his request. Bill returns to the House.

May 29: Colonel Oliver North tells McFarlane that profits of weapons sales to Iran are being diverted to the Contras.

June 25: The House finally passes the Contra aid package by 12 votes. Reagan calls it "a step forward in bipartisan consensus in American foreign policy."

July 26: Father Jenco, one of the hostages held by Muslim extremists, is released in Damascus.

August 27: Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law that bans arms sales to nations that support terrorism, and strengthens U.S. anti-terrorist measures.

September: Former National Security Advisor WilliamMcFarlane takes 23 tons of weapons to Iran.

October 21: American writer Edward Tracy is taken hostage.

October 30: 500 anti-tank missiles shipped to Iran.

November 2: American hostage David Jacobsen is released in Beirut.

November 3: Lebanese magazine "Al Shiraa" reports that the U.S. has sold arms to Iran. The Iranian government confirms the story. This marks the beginning of Iran-Contra.

November 13: In a nationally televised speech to defend against charges concerning arms sales to Iran, Reagan admits sending some defensive weapons and spare parts to Iran, but denies it was part of an arms for hostages deal. "Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands.... We did not -- repeat, did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." Polls show that the American people do not believe Reagan.

November 21: Attorney General Meese is asked to conduct an inquiry of the Iran affair to get facts straight.

November 22: Meese's office discovers the Iran-Contra connection. When searching North’s office, they found a memo dated 4/4/86 from North to Poindexter, which included an amount that to be sent to the Contras from the profits of the Iran sales. North, who had spent the night shredding papers, later called the diversion of funds, "a neat idea."

November 24: Meese tells Reagan that some proceeds from the sale of arms to Iran went to the Contras. Reagan is visibly shaken and according to Meese, surprised. He is aware that the diversion of funds could mean impeachment for violation of the Boland Amendment.

November 25: National Security Advisor John Poindexter resigns and Oliver North is fired. In press conference, Meese announces Iran-Contra: $10m to $30m of profits from sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to Swiss bank accounts for use by Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

December 1: Reagan appoints the Tower Commission to review Iran Contra.

December 19: Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh is appointed to investigate Iran-Contra.
1987
February 2: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised."

February 20: A Reagan memo to the Tower Board reads: "I don’t remember, period." "I’m trying to recall events that happened eighteen months ago, I’m afraid that I let myself be influenced by others’ recollections, not my own.... The only honest answer is to state that try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved an Israeli sale in advance or whether I approved replenishment of Israeli stocks around August of 1985. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, ‘I don’t remember, period.’"

February 26: The Tower Commission report is delivered to Reagan. The report could not link Reagan to diversion of funds from Iran to the Contras. But it concluded that Reagan, confused and unaware, allowed himself to be misled by dishonest staff members who organized the trade of arms to Iran for hostages held in Lebanon and pursued a secret war against the Nicaraguan government. The report charges that Reagan had failed to "insist upon accountability & performance review, " allowing the National Security Council process to collapse. Reagan’s approval rating is down to 42%.

March 4: On national television, Reagan acknowledges mistakes on Iran-Contra. "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. <b>My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind.</b> There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake." Reagan’s approval rating rebounds to 51%.

May 17: A missile from an Iraqi warplane hits the U.S.S. "Stark," killing the 37 sailors onboard. The frigate is part of a naval task force which was sent to the Persian Gulf to keep the waterway open during the Iran-Iraq war.

August 3: Congress completes its public hearings on Iran-Contra. "We may never know with precision or truth why it ever happened." Meanwhile, Reagan’s close aides Lyn Nofziger and Michael Deaver are convicted of influence peddling. Meese is investigated and cleared. Nofziger’s conviction is overturned on appeal.

1988
March 16: Oliver North, John Poindexter, and two others are indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. government by secretly providing funds and supplies to the Contra rebels fighting the government of Nicaragua.

May 5: Donald Regan’s memoir, "For the Record" is published. In it he reveals that Nancy Reagan relied on an astrologer to dictate her husband's public appearances.

MoonDog · 04-25-2005, 09:35 PM

Host,

I quoted 33 words from Lebell's post regarding his assessment of you; one that I happened to agree with. I felt that it was quite clear.

Tell you what - let's get down to brass tacks. What do you want - in plain, 9th grade English - from us Republicans regarding this thread? An admission that the people you listed in your first post are or are not traitors and/or war criminals? A vindication for Jane Fonda and Senator Kerry, along with condemnations of all the others on your list? Truthfully, would you accept any argument contrary to that to which you are predisposed? If so, what sources would you accept as "valid"?

You were very selective in who made that list...I wonder why? There were certainly other presidents who were in office in that span of years...why weren't they included? I suspect that Presidents Johnson or Kennedy might have some interesting skeletons in their closets that wouldn't enjoy close scrutiny.

But that is another issue. If you want answers, I'll give you a "no" to every one except Prescott Bush. For aiding the enemy in wartime, he should've hanged. Odd that only assets were seized, however, and yet no trials were ordered. Seems like there was a pretty cut and dried case there.

pan6467 · 04-26-2005, 06:49 AM

In all honesty, my opinion is the GOP loves to bash the Left and the Left bashes the GOP and both sides do not want to admit that people make mistakes in youth or the sins of the father SHOULD NEVER CARRY to the son.

This is just mental masterbation and bullshit. Better the fucking country TODAY. You put a foot in yesterday and a foot in tomorrow you piss and shit all over today.

It's not just here it's in politics in general, everyone wants to look at the past or the future and we are in desperate need of looking at today and preparing better for a future, but we need to fix today first, by learning from the past and not condemning or bringing up old wounds and hatreds.

My father once told me, "Presidents don't get to be presidents by being nice guys, they step on people and they do whatever is necessary to attain power."

The only possible saint we have had as president in my lifetime is Carter, and even then I'm sure he has skeletons. Every president from Washington to G.W. has done what they thought best for the country (no matter how warped or wrong the thinking was, they did what they felt was right.)

Can any of you or can Limbaugh or O'Reilly or whomever say the same, that you are bettering the country to the best of your abilities or are you spreading hatred, anger, prejudice and bitterness?

As for Vietnam........... GODDAMN IT PEOPLE GET THE FUCK OVER IT, HALF OF YOU CRYING ABOUT HOW EVIL AND TREASONOUS KERRY AND FONDA AND SUCH WERE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TRULY HAPPENED IN THAT ERA (BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T BORN OR TOO YOUNG TO KNOW), AND YOU MAY AT THE TIME HAVE DONE THE SAME THINGS. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS BRINGING UP OLD WOUNDS TO FURTHER YOUR OWN FUCKING POLITICAL AGENDAS.

Vietnam was wrong, the reason we were there, the way the government treated the troops, the lies the government fed the people, and so on. It wasn't the soldier's fault they did what they thought best, just as the protesters believed they did what was best........ GET THE FUCK OVER IT AND LET THE DAMN ISSUE DIE.

Learn from the past so that we may not repeat it, but do not EVER condemn a man for doing what he thought was best for his country. Goddamn you people want to make some of these people mentioned worse than Hitler.... something is fucking wrong.

moosenose · 04-26-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Goddamn you people want to make some of these people mentioned worse than Hitler.... something is fucking wrong.

Well, how many people did Hitler kill? 20 million plus? How many people did the Communists kill? 100 million plus?

Uncle Joe and the other assorted Communists made Hitler look like a Cubscout in comparison. And that's the kind of people Jane Fonda was supporting and working on their behalf....

Hitler BAD.
Communists FAR WORSE.

04-20-2005, 06:34 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i find it interesting in the above posts that take the ridiculous accusations of treason seriously that "treason" seems to be reserved in rightwingland for those who opposed particular wars, and vietnam above all others. funny how that works, isnt it? funnier still that this is associated with the reactionary claim that state sovereignty trumps international law, particularly when that law pertains to questions of war crimes. put the two together and you get a glimpse into the conventional "wisdom" of the right: so long as the actor is a "real american" (read conservative) anything goes: step out of line and oppose what the conservatives decide to be the Best Interest of Real Americans like themselves and it is treason. it seems to me that if there is a problem, it lay with the ridiculous viewpoint developed by the conservative apparatus on this. it is like they are practicing for a total clampdown on dissent from moderates and the left by obsessing about vietnam, about those who opposed it, by rewriting the past and casting those who exercized their freedom of speech in opposition to a an obviously foul colonial war in the role of enemies of the state. it seems like the idea is simple: get the brownshirts used to this kind of thing by practicing on signifiers framed by revisionist understandings of vietnam: when the shoe drops in real time, these same people will cheerlead the "purification" of the "real america" by the "elmination" of "traitors"--who knows, maybe some of these "traitors" will get to visit the system of outsourced torture the americans have set up already. one thing for sure, if this type of logic is followed, you can be sure the right will say nothing critical about it, will not care. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-20-2005 at 06:39 AM..

04-20-2005, 10:35 AM	#11 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I wish conservatives would be consistent on the reading of this law--adhering to "original intent." of course, then aid and comfort to the enemy would be limited to actually providing aid and comfort--as in, providing food, shelter, and physical/tangible assistance to people who were on our soil fighting against us. (along with the two witness requirement which was tossed not too long ago by "activist" judges) __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

04-20-2005, 04:28 PM	#16 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'd say it's treasonous because of what it precipitated(sp). He knowingly falsified testimony to garner support for the anti-war movement. As a result of it many American GI's were tortured, held longer in captivity, or executed because of the "war crimes" they committed. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-20-2005 at 04:30 PM..

04-20-2005, 06:04 PM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	isn't treason a crime? isnt someone presumed innocent until a charge has been brought, a trail carried out, and the accused found guilty? but there wasnt any trial for jane fonda or the other folk that have the right's panties in such a retrospective twist. there was no due process. there were no charges. so there is no treason. you, mojo (or anyone else who believes this nonsense) might have the opinion that x is guilty of treason--and i might (well i do) view that opinion as crackpot. you might find it therapeutic to wage symbolic warfare against jane fonda for whatever bizarre psychological reason--i doubt somehow that you were alive during the vietnam war, mojo---and it is your right to do that. yes it is. and it my right to view you, on this and the kerry matters, as a crackpot. period. but nowhere in any of this is there the slightest question of guilt. unless of course you really are true to the legal "logic" of bushworld and are trying at some level to blur what you imagine fonda did into the category "terrorist" or an equivalent--in which case, like for your boy in the white house, there is only the need for suspicion--for bushworld, suspicion is enough to send many folk into either the domestic or international legal black hole circuit, shuttled place to place on private jets accompanied by cia operatives and delivered to the secret service of egypt, syria, pakistan for torture--ooops, i meant "interrogation"---with no hope of coming to trial...for background, listen to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme..._4/4246089.stm or read this (a transcript) http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...renditions.pdf or if you read french, check out the lead article in this month's le monde diplomatique on the american outsourcing of torture--lots of documentation behind it--check the sources, mojo--be critical and look into the matter. funny how this works--on the one hand, conservatives like yourself are interested in doing away with due process at all and effectively convicting someone who was never charged with anything of treason--on the other hand, your conservative buddies in power are interested in doing away with due process altogether by interpreting human rights law (like the cia said once: human rights are very simple) in the narrowest possible sense and not ever bringing charges against suspects. you could combine this stuff with the recent far right assaults on the judiciary in general and see that everything converges on the justification of what amounts to vigilante pseudo-justice--which i am sure you would endorse, so long as people you agree with politically were carrying it out. why not, really--it is very john wayne. what a great bunch of folks there in bushworld. real champions of individual rights. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-21-2005, 04:15 AM	#21 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	You say that as if everyone was lining up to get into uniform and kill some asians. If thats the case what's with the draft? Why have a draft if everyone's ready to kill some vietnamese? Whats with folks fleeing into canada to avoid being drafted? Could it be that they don't want to die? Or kill someone? Or facilitate the killing of someone (enlisted noncombatant)? It's all a commie plot though? As for the North Vietnamese being glad that folks dont want to wage war against them i dont blame them. I'd be glad if folks didnt want to go to war against me too. __________________ We Must Dissent.

04-19-2005, 10:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm going to take a quick stab at this. Fonda, Yes. Kerry, Yes. Prescott Bush, dunno, if he was still selling to Hitler after we declared war yes, if not no. Dubya, no. Regardless of the pretenses of war, until anything binding establishes that Bush knowingly lied, he is allowed something called "Good Faith". Most of the facts put fourth by Mr. Ramsey are bull, in that they are twisted and not truthful. Nuremburg be damned because State Sovereignity trumps any flimsy International order or law, especially since Bush sought and recieved congressional approval, in good faith, Bush is beholden to America and it's laws, nothing and nobody else. I would respond in more detail buts it late, I just wanted to take a quick stab at this. Perhaps tomorrow. Oh aslong as you have Nixon and Reagen up there, might want to throw LBJ and Kennedy.

04-20-2005, 09:12 AM	#9 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Manx, as I've stated before, Bush is allowed good faith, it is only speculation on your part that he knowingly lied. Ann Clouter may be a nutjob, but she is not a traitor, even if you would like to label her as one it is just simply not true. Kerry admitted to the fact that he lied to congress in his testimony about American soldiers committing war crimes.

04-21-2005, 05:50 AM	#23 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	If they are flying to Afghanistan and holding meetings with him, facilitating his cause in the same manner as Fonda, then yes you would label them traitors.

04-21-2005, 05:56 AM	#24 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	You know, this just is nothing more than another thread for right and left to bash each other over past issues that just don't amount to shit. Prescot Bush, Jane Fonda, blah blah blah ....... the problem is we are not learning from the past both sides pick and choose what they want to discredit and hurt the other side. Talking about this crap is mental masterbation trying to prove that you are right and the other side is wrong over something that will not change anything. You want to better the US, take both sides equally, weigh what we have tried and what worked. Take what has worked and make it better and take what didn't work and find out why. Stop playing finger pointing bullshit and just work together to build a better future... because the future is passing us by and we're standing with our dicks in our hands having pissing contests to see what morals law we can pass, or who has a better moral history. We have let religion and morals become our prime targets and we have let financial growth, developing a better infrastructure and educational system be legislated by fucking big business lobbyists who pay both sides to keep our attention diverted on other things than what truly matters. WAKE UP and stop the fucking piss games and fight to better America, get us strong again. Cause we're dying and all we can focus on is who was or wasn't a traitor 40 years ago, and why gays should or should not be married, how bad Howard Stern is, abortion, blah blah blah..... Are any of those going to affect the betterment and health of America? Do those issues truly matter to you? Do those issues truly matter more to you than making sure your kids and grandkids can compete in a world economy and make decent livings? Maybe if we stop the finger pointing and having to blindly accept our party lines and follow a disgrace of a president or a party catering to extreme whackos.... (BOTH SIDES FAL INTO THIS) and we all worked to better society we'd see all our leaders have sold us out to big business, ultra rich lobbyists..... That both sides have not the true interests in the common working class American to better himself. And it's not just GOP, DEMS, it is LIB, GREEN, whatever party. The leaders in all parties have been bought and paid for by lobbyists because the people are blindly following minutia issues and not focussing on what truly is wrong. Wake up. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 04-21-2005 at 06:03 AM..

04-21-2005, 07:18 AM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if you start "working for a better tomorrow" within a discursive context that leans well into the realm of fascism, if you do it without thinking--with great focus--about that frame, the "tomorrow" that will result for may not be what you hoped for at all. calls for a busby berkeley moment without regard for context might make you feel better in the short term, like you are "doing something" and not engaging in the Bummer of Critique. "waking up" in a context unexamined is worse than remaining asleep. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-21-2005, 02:34 PM	#28 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	You remind me of someone I know. He also claims that the world is full of greys but then he goes on to present it in his own version of black and white. Take this example that you use to bolster your argument: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=87571 I read through the entire article and from what I read, nothing changed my mind as to rightness of our actions in the 80's and 90's. Yet to you, it is clear evidence that we were lied to by Bush. What I suggest is that you have your version of the "truth", but it is really just your own perception colored by your experiences. Once we realize this about ourselves, then we can truly move forward with reasonable debate. Until then, I decline being drug into a useless argument where we cannot even read the same article and get the same information. As to "walking the line", what I meant was that the thread is/was degenerating as usual with partisan politics, sniping, etc. and that if it continues, the usual warnings, bannings, blah blah blah. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-21-2005, 03:02 PM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	lebell: i have in the main stayed out of this thread but i have been reading it--and i have to say that i cannot understand how you could derive a rationale for american actions from the material presented above. i really dont--unless for you politics in general, and support for american actions vis-a-vis iraq in particular, are simple functions of prior disposition, not related to any evidences---politics in this case is deductive, in that you have a prior set of sommitments that you use to filter out dissonant information, as opposed to a more inductive relation that would test and retest general positions on the basis of evidence/data. a deductive politics is not really a political position at all. rather it is a variant of faith, of belief in the protestant sense, masquerading as politics. if you want to speak about rational debate, perhaps it would make sense to establish ground rules--like you need to route arguments through evidence--otherwise it might have the external form of rational debate, but is not rational. it is not deliberative. it is not about the exercize of power. it is not about anything. it is good to practice this kind of debate, even here, because were the united states a democracy such debate would be central to its functioning. if the united states were to become a democracy--perhaps after the implosion of the current order--it would be central. you could take from the simple fact that folk can elaborate political positions without any reference to evidence at all a good indication of the distance that seperates the american situation from a democracy.... it is pretty clear that the american system is best understood as a type of oligarchy that legitimates itself through the disourse of democracy. this discourse is central to its modes of opinion management---the public is dominated by setting them against each other across sometimes meaningful but more often trivial matters, deploying types of strategies in debates that are not the result of any prior agreement about rules, which devolve quickly and often into trivial pissing matches that operate to distract--the people who find themselves so dividewd confuse this with being free, with operating inside a democratic polity, because they get to use the words freedom and democracy alot. worrying about whether they refer to anything is nowhere near as much fun as using them alot. these words, in the united states, are like any other toy. meanwhile, of course, the folk in power do and say what they like---with impunity--because they know that even arguments presented with considerable evidence will not persuade anyone to even consider their politics, which are routed through disposition, are not falsifiable, etc. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-21-2005, 05:31 PM	#31 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Host, Nowhere in my post did I say ignore these issues. In fact I stated examine the past find out what worked use it, what didn't work and find out why. Look, I wasn't around in the 1930's and 40's, but if Prescott Bush dealt with the Nazis then he dealt with the Nazis, I refuse to hold the crimes of the father against the son. Not to mention we would also have to bust Ford, Chrysler (as they are part of Mercedes and they were Nazis), and so on. My guess is a lot of American companies did business with Hitler at first because Germany was the first country to bust out of the Depression that was hitting the world, and thus Germany was the place to sell your product and make profit. To point fingers at people wanting to do business with the only country that could truly afford to do business is pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA and self righteous BS and serves no other purpose. As for Fonda and Kerry, they did what many in that era did or would have done had they had the platform. Look at all the marches, riots, draft card burnings, draft dodging.... to yip about what Fonda and Kerry did is POLITICAL FINGERPOINTING and serves no other purpose than to try to be self righteous and push your own agenda. It's BS. As for Iran-Contra, I don't know. Our government has done many bad and illegal things in it's history to promote one party over another. What happened happened.... fingerpointing bullshit is not going to get anyone anywhere. LEARNING from the past however, can and will. Perhaps, IF Iran-Contra is all fact based we can learn that because of this, Saddam had issues with us, the Central American nations could feel used and we can learn that interfering with other nations politics and sovereignity leads to bad things. I"m sorry, I just honestly don't see a positive from finger pointing, rehashing old wounds and not looking for solutions but using past issues solely as an excuse to hurt another. There's nothing to learn there, except hatred and passing blame. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-22-2005, 12:29 AM	#33 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Manx, We've had this discussion before, you can learn from history without political fingerpointing. We can very look at the past say it happened and find out why and learn from it. You cannot keep hate alive for past events like Iran-Contra, it serves no purpose. But you can look to see what truly happened and make laws and make sure they are enforced to prevent it happening again. It's just my opinion, I just don't see what screaming and finger pointing about the past does if that is all you do. It was a different time and different administration. Same as the bombing of the Maine. No country's government is 100% pure and righteous, every country has a history of mistakes and being self serving while hurting another country. All you can do is learn what they did, and why they felt they had to do what they did and if enough deem it bad enough pass laws to make sure it never again happens..... but to just yell and try to create problems is doing nothing but dividng people and taking your eyes of problems that need attention today. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-22-2005, 09:31 PM	#34 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	Leave Pappa Bush out of this, or I'll have to educate (lay the smack down) on all of ya'll.

04-25-2005, 09:35 PM	#38 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	Host, I quoted 33 words from Lebell's post regarding his assessment of you; one that I happened to agree with. I felt that it was quite clear. Tell you what - let's get down to brass tacks. What do you want - in plain, 9th grade English - from us Republicans regarding this thread? An admission that the people you listed in your first post are or are not traitors and/or war criminals? A vindication for Jane Fonda and Senator Kerry, along with condemnations of all the others on your list? Truthfully, would you accept any argument contrary to that to which you are predisposed? If so, what sources would you accept as "valid"? You were very selective in who made that list...I wonder why? There were certainly other presidents who were in office in that span of years...why weren't they included? I suspect that Presidents Johnson or Kennedy might have some interesting skeletons in their closets that wouldn't enjoy close scrutiny. But that is another issue. If you want answers, I'll give you a "no" to every one except Prescott Bush. For aiding the enemy in wartime, he should've hanged. Odd that only assets were seized, however, and yet no trials were ordered. Seems like there was a pretty cut and dried case there.

04-26-2005, 06:49 AM	#39 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	In all honesty, my opinion is the GOP loves to bash the Left and the Left bashes the GOP and both sides do not want to admit that people make mistakes in youth or the sins of the father SHOULD NEVER CARRY to the son. This is just mental masterbation and bullshit. Better the fucking country TODAY. You put a foot in yesterday and a foot in tomorrow you piss and shit all over today. It's not just here it's in politics in general, everyone wants to look at the past or the future and we are in desperate need of looking at today and preparing better for a future, but we need to fix today first, by learning from the past and not condemning or bringing up old wounds and hatreds. My father once told me, "Presidents don't get to be presidents by being nice guys, they step on people and they do whatever is necessary to attain power." The only possible saint we have had as president in my lifetime is Carter, and even then I'm sure he has skeletons. Every president from Washington to G.W. has done what they thought best for the country (no matter how warped or wrong the thinking was, they did what they felt was right.) Can any of you or can Limbaugh or O'Reilly or whomever say the same, that you are bettering the country to the best of your abilities or are you spreading hatred, anger, prejudice and bitterness? As for Vietnam........... GODDAMN IT PEOPLE GET THE FUCK OVER IT, HALF OF YOU CRYING ABOUT HOW EVIL AND TREASONOUS KERRY AND FONDA AND SUCH WERE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TRULY HAPPENED IN THAT ERA (BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T BORN OR TOO YOUNG TO KNOW), AND YOU MAY AT THE TIME HAVE DONE THE SAME THINGS. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS BRINGING UP OLD WOUNDS TO FURTHER YOUR OWN FUCKING POLITICAL AGENDAS. Vietnam was wrong, the reason we were there, the way the government treated the troops, the lies the government fed the people, and so on. It wasn't the soldier's fault they did what they thought best, just as the protesters believed they did what was best........ GET THE FUCK OVER IT AND LET THE DAMN ISSUE DIE. Learn from the past so that we may not repeat it, but do not EVER condemn a man for doing what he thought was best for his country. Goddamn you people want to make some of these people mentioned worse than Hitler.... something is fucking wrong. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 04-26-2005 at 06:56 AM..