Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

Over in Mr. A.B.'s "Religion and Politics" thread, I just made a post where I compared George W. Bush to the Biblical character Nimrod, who was himself quite a "CONQUERER" in the mold of George W. Bush.

In that post, "GOD" is said to have directly INTERVENED in Nimrod's plans to "TAKE OVER THE EARTH", THWARTING THOSE PLANS, and in that post, where this is said, in parenthesis, I put in the parallel to today, where George W. Bush's apparent plans to seemingly take over the earth are similarly being thwarted by what appears to be the HAND OF GOD acting to break up George W. Bush's "COALITION" in Iraq!

And now, we have George W. Bush himself saying, "IT IS NOT SO!"

Apparently to him, at least, "GOD" is still on his side!

SO!

We will see, I guess!
 
Politics - Reuters

"Bush Insists Iraq Coalition Not Crumbling"

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush insisted on Wednesday the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq was not crumbling and he shrugged off Italy's decision to begin pulling troops from Iraq by September.

"Quite to the contrary," Bush said when asked if the coalition was falling apart.

"I think the coalition has been buoyed by the courage of the Iraqi people."

The decision by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a close Bush ally, to start withdrawing Italy's 3,000 troops from Iraq was a blow to the U.S.-led coalition.

It came after U.S. troops killed an Italian secret service agent and wounded an Italian journalist in what Washington has called a tragic accident that remains under investigation.

Bush appeared in the White House briefing room almost two years after launching a war with the aim of toppling Saddam Hussein for not giving up weapons of mass destruction.

The weapons were never found and more than 1,500 Americans have been killed in a conflict against an insurgency that critics say has grown because of the U.S. presence.

Bush sought to clarify a comment he made on Tuesday in which he appeared to leave the door open to the Hizbollah guerrilla group having a political role in Lebanon if it disarmed.

Democrats had pointed out Hizbollah was responsible for a bombing that killed more than 200 U.S. servicemen in Beirut in 1983.

"Hizbollah is on the terrorist list for a reason, and remain on the terrorist list for a reason."

"Our position's not changed on Hizbollah," he said.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed)

1983!

What is that now, 25 years ago?

The barracks bombing in Lebanon!

Killed off a whole lot of Marines!

Also made a lot of people over here wonder at how a whole barracks-full of Marines could have been caught sleeping as they were, to have been killed in such a fashion as they were, 25 years ago, in Lebanon!

And then, like all things, we got over that "tragedy", as the PRESS would probably call it, or "cock-up" as some veterans would call it, a reflection upon the Commander-in-Chief at that time, and his failure to provide proper leadership in that situation.

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS!

And still the DEMOCRATS ARE SEETHING, apparently, or at least CHARLIE "Chuck" SCHUMER IS, which is interesting, as what is Charlie "Chuck's" angle in all of this, I wonder?

What exactly is Charlie "Chuck" proposing here?

Some kind of new American "HATE CAMPAIGN" against other peoples of the world, BUT THIS ONE CLEARLY INITIATED BY the Democrats, so as to prove them as vitriolic a bunch of haters as the REPUBLICANS are?

OR IS IT JUST EMPTY POSTURING BY CHARLIE "Chuck"?

And to what point?

[Livyjr]

I went back out in the woods on snowshoes today, for a couple of more hours, to get away from here, and thinking about what is going on out there in America these days, which seems to threaten everything I hold dear as an American, starting with LIBERTY, JUSTICE, and INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT!

HAS GEORGE W. BUSH EVER TOLD US THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING?

WHAT'S WITH THIS BUSH CO.?

I am an older American, AND I AM INCENSED THAT BUSH CO. WOULD TRY TO "BUY" US OFF, to have us turn OUR backs on the younger Americans who are just coming along, and so do not have "political awareness" to any great degree, yet, AND THIS IS TYPICAL BUSH CO. B*** S***!

TURN US AGAINST EACH OTHER!

Break us up into "FACTIONS", and then buy us off, a faction at a time!

"OKAY, OKAY, LOOK, all you OLDER AMERICANS OUT THERE, look, I'll do a deal with you, and I'll exempt you from the screwing that I'm going to make sure your children and grandchildren get, AND SINCE YOU CAN'T SAVE THEM ANYWAY, DO THE SMART THING, TAKE THE DEAL WHILE IT'S ON THE TABLE!"

Well, guess what, George, NO DEAL!

Go pound salt!

Or is it sand?

And in typical Bush Co. fashion, we have as follows, NO SPECIFICS!

Isn't OUR government supposed to be one based upon OUR "INFORMED CONSENT"?

Without being informed, WHY should we give OUR consent to anything that this Bush Co. proposes?

With his track record of lies, half-truths, evasions and deceptions that always seem to come back to bite us in the ***, wouldn't we be outright fools to agree to anything this Bush Co. proposes without him giving us all the specifics as to what he wants OUR approval on?

Politics - Reuters

"Bush Says Won't Offer Specifics on Social Security"

1 hour, 5 minutes ago

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday he would not send Congress a specific plan to change Social Security because it would be "dead on arrival" and admitted his idea of personal accounts would not fix the retirement system.

Overhauling Social Security is Bush's top domestic priority but polls show a lack of public enthusiasm even after he spent weeks traveling the country to promote the notion.

"The first bill on the Hill always is dead on arrival," Bush said.

"I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally."

"I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution."

"I'm not interested in playing political games," he added.

The centerpiece of Bush's Social Security plan is the idea that younger workers should be able shift part of their payroll taxes into stock and bond accounts.

Bush said he was "not going to go away" on his drive to restructure Social Security and said he thought it was important for Congress to discuss the personal accounts idea.

But he added, "Personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution."

Congressional Democrats have vowed to block any plan to overhaul Social Security that includes such accounts, arguing they will they drive up the national debt by requiring trillions of dollars in new borrowing.

Democrats and the AARP, the seniors' lobby group, plan to hold forums during the two-week congressional Easter recess to rally opposition to Bush's plan.

Bush plans events of his own, starting with a trip to Florida on Friday and to western states next week.

Democrats said they wanted to work with the president to shore up Social Security's finances, but they want him to take private accounts off the table first.

They argue that diverting Social Security taxes into the accounts would worsen the program's cash flow problems.

"If he were to take privatization off the table he would be setting up a circumstance where we could work together," said Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee .

A recent New York Times poll showed that 30 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the Social Security issue, while 57 percent disapproved.

The Times poll, conducted from last Wednesday to Monday, contrasted with a Jan. 7-9 poll that showed 41 percent approved of Bush's handling of Social Security and 52 percent disapproved.

Skepticism about Bush's plan is strongest among older Americans, who wield a lot of political clout because they vote in large numbers.

That has emboldened Democrats and left many Republicans reticent as they look ahead to the 2006 mid-term elections.

Bush suggested that laying out his own proposal on Social Security would be counterproductive to trying to hammer out a bill that would attract Democrats as well as Republicans.

"We're open for ideas," Bush said.

"And look, I can understand why people say, "Make -- force the president to either negotiate with himself or lay out his own bill."

"I want to work with members of both political parties," Bush said.

A largely symbolic vote on Tuesday in the Senate showed Bush would have a difficult time winning a majority to get approval for private accounts.

Five Republicans joined 44 Democrats and one independent to back a nonbinding resolution saying Congress should reject any Social Security plan that would require deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.

Even though the measure failed, the fact that it garnered 50 of the 100 U.S. senators was significant, backers of the resolution said.

(Additional reporting by Donna Smith)

[Livyjr]

And in typical Bush Co. fashion, we have as follows, NO SPECIFICS!

Isn't OUR government supposed to be one based upon OUR "INFORMED CONSENT"?

Without being informed, WHY should we give OUR consent to anything that this Bush Co. proposes?

With his track record of lies, half-truths, evasions and deceptions that always seem to come back to bite us in the ***, wouldn't we be outright fools to agree to anything this Bush Co. proposes without him giving us all the specifics as to what he wants OUR approval on?

Politics - Reuters

"Bush Says Won't Offer Specifics on Social Security"

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday he would not send Congress a specific plan to change Social Security because it would be "dead on arrival" and admitted his idea of personal accounts would not fix the retirement system.

"I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally."

"I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution."

"I'm not interested in playing political games," he added.

The centerpiece of Bush's Social Security plan is the idea that younger workers should be able shift part of their payroll taxes into stock and bond accounts.

Bush said he was "not going to go away" on his drive to restructure Social Security and said he thought it was important for Congress to discuss the personal accounts idea.

But he added, "Personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution."

A recent New York Times poll showed that 30 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the Social Security issue, while 57 percent disapproved.

The Times poll, conducted from last Wednesday to Monday, contrasted with a Jan. 7-9 poll that showed 41 percent approved of Bush's handling of Social Security and 52 percent disapproved.

Bush suggested that laying out his own proposal on Social Security would be counterproductive to trying to hammer out a bill that would attract Democrats as well as Republicans.

"And look, I can understand why people say, "Make -- force the president to either negotiate with himself or lay out his own bill."

Over in Mr. A.B.'s "Religion and Politics" thread, he wonders, as I do in here, exactly what is it with this George W. Bush, AND WHAT IS IT, INDEED?

Over here, where the thread is secular in nature, I wonder at George W. Bush's mental capacity, actually, especially in light of news stories like this one above, where George W. Bush says he wants to come up with a permanent solution to what HE SAYS are problems with Social Security, and then, HE OFFERS US EXACTLY NOTHING!

"Bush suggested that laying out his own proposal on Social Security would be counterproductive to trying to hammer out a bill that would attract Democrats as well as Republicans?"

IF you say that you want to WORK together with people to solve something, ISN'T IT FIRST NECESSARY TO LAY OUT FOR PEOPLE WHAT YOU THINK IS BROKEN?

Where does George W. Bush ever do that with respect to Social Security?

Where, oh where is there any leadership at all coming from this man?

He says he does not want to play "political games", EVEN AS HE IS PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES by not sending Congress, as worthless as it might prove to be in the end, ANY SPECIFICS ON WHAT HE IS PROPOSING AS HIS FIX TO WHAT HE ALLEGES IS WRONG WITH SOCIAL SECURITY, WHICH IS STILL A TOP-SECRET, apparently, as Bush Co. won't say a word about it!

"Bush said he was "not going to go away" on his drive to restructure Social Security and said he thought it was important for Congress to discuss the personal accounts idea, BUT he added, "Personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution."

"Personal accounts do not fix the solution!"

AND THERE IS THE PROBLEM, GEORGE!

They just jam OUR children's money down YOUR FRIENDS' POCKETS, and that, George, IS A GREAT BIG POLITICAL GAME THAT YOU ARE PLAYING HERE, ON US!

[Abu Beacon]

1983!

What is that now, 25 years ago?

The barracks bombing in Lebanon!

Killed off a whole lot of Marines!

Also made a lot of people over here wonder at how a whole barracks-full of Marines could have been caught sleeping as they were, to have been killed in such a fashion as they were, 25 years ago, in Lebanon!

And it is very interesting to get the facts on just why were our marines there in the first place?

A.B.

[Livyjr]

And it is very interesting to get the facts on just why were our Marines there in the first place?

A.B.

And I agree, Mr. A.B., especially with that part about "FACTS"!

Why are we always getting a bunch of "emotional manipulation" from the likes of this Charlie "Chuck" Schumer, and the others of his ilk down there in Washington, D.C., INSTEAD OF FACTS?

Why are we always being taught "HATE"?

Besides those who make money off of "HATE", who benefits from us being always taught to "HATE", BY WHAT IS ALLEGED TO BE "OUR" GOVERNMENT?

Any answers, Charlie "Chuck"?

CUI BONO, Charlie "Chuck"?

[Livyjr]

And speaking of the teaching and spreading of GOVERNMENTALLY SPONSORED AND SANCTIONED HATRED around this world of OURS, what is this?

The valiant and glorious C&IofA being questioned, and by mere mortals, to boot?

How very patriotic!

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"CIA challenged on suspects’ torture overseas - Allegations: System to assure legal treatment ineffective"

By Dana Priest

Updated: 10:53 p.m. ET March 16, 2005

The system the CIA relies on to ensure that the suspected terrorists it transfers to other countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and virtually impossible to monitor, according to current and former intelligence officers and lawyers, as well as counterterrorism officials who have participated in or reviewed the practice.

To comply with anti-torture laws that bar sending people to countries where they are likely to be tortured, the CIA's office of general counsel requires a verbal assurance from each nation that detainees will be treated humanely, according to several recently retired CIA officials familiar with such transfers, known as renditions.

But the effectiveness of the assurances and the legality of the rendition practice are increasingly being questioned by rights groups and others, as freed detainees have alleged that they were mistreated by interrogators after the CIA secretly delivered them to countries with well-documented records of abuse.

President Bush weighed in on the matter for the first time yesterday, defending renditions as vital to the nation's defense.

In "the post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack," he said at a news conference.

"And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured."

"That's the promise we receive."

"This country does not believe in torture."

"We do believe in protecting ourselves."

One CIA officer involved with renditions, however, called the assurances from other countries "a farce."

Another U.S. government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said:

"It's beyond that."

"It's widely understood that interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used."

The CIA inspector general recently launched a review of the rendition system, and some members of Congress are demanding a thorough probe.

Canada, Sweden, Germany and Italy have started investigations into the participation of their security services in CIA renditions.

The House voted 420 to 2 yesterday to prohibit the use of supplemental appropriations to support actions that contravene anti-torture statutes.

The measure's co-author, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), singled out renditions, saying "diplomatic assurances not to torture are not credible, and the administration knows it."

Rendition, a form of covert action that is supposed to be shrouded in the deepest secrecy, was first authorized by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and was used by the Clinton administration to transfer drug lords and terrorists to the United States or other countries for military or criminal trials.

After the 2001 attacks, Bush broadened the CIA's authority and, as a result, the agency has rendered more than 100 people from one country to another without legal proceedings and without providing access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, a right afforded all prisoners held by the U.S. military.

The CIA general counsel's office requires the station chief in a given country to obtain a verbal assurance from that country's security service.

The assurance must be cabled back to CIA headquarters before a rendition takes place.

‘There’s only so much we can do’

CIA Director Porter J. Goss told Congress a month ago that the CIA has "an accountability program" to monitor rendered prisoners."

But he acknowledged that "of course, once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do."

Asked to explain Goss's statement, an intelligence official said:

"There are accountability procedures in place."

"For example, in some cases, the U.S. government is allowed access and can verify treatment of detainees."

The official declined to elaborate.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said in an interview last week that, once a transfer occurs, "we can't fully control what that country might do."

"We obviously expect a country to whom we have rendered a detainee to comply with their representations to us."

"If you're asking me 'Does a country always comply?,' I don't have an answer to that."

In practice, though, the CIA has little control over prisoners once they leave CIA custody, said three recently retired CIA officials and other intelligence officials who have dealt with foreign intelligence services on detainee matters.

"These are sovereign countries," said Michael Scheuer, a recently retired CIA officer who favors the use of renditions to disrupt terrorist networks.

"They are not going to let you into their prisons."

"Once they are in the jurisdiction of another country, we have no rights to follow up," said Edward S. Walker Jr., a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and now president of the Middle East Institute.

The U.S. official who visited foreign detention sites said the issue "goes far beyond" the assurance:

"They say they are not abusing them, and that satisfies the legal requirement, but we all know they do."

For a country offering assurances, following up could imply the United States does not trust its leaders.

"We wouldn't accept the premise that we would make a promise and violate it," said the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, Nabil Fahmy, whose country has accepted rendered terrorism suspects.

He denied that Egyptian officers employ torture in interrogations.

"I don't accept the premise that if you want to torture someone, you send them to Jordan or Egypt."

"That would be the exception to the rule."

Egypt, he added, "is becoming more and more rigorous" in prosecuting officers who use excessive force.

Australian alleges torture in Egypt

But Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, has alleged he was tortured in Egypt for six months after U.S. officials sent him there.

Habib had been detained in Pakistan in October 2001 as a suspected al Qaeda trainer.

In Egypt, he alleges, he was hung by his arms from hooks, shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten.

He was then sent to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was released in February.

Another Arab diplomat, whose country is actively engaged in counterterrorism operations and shares intelligence with the CIA, said it is unrealistic to believe the CIA really wants to follow up on the assurances.

"It would be stupid to keep track of them because then you would know what's going on," he said.

"It's really more like 'Don't ask, don't tell.'"

Questions about assurances have stalled the release of prisoners from Guantanamo.

Guarantees of humane treatment by Yemen notwithstanding, a federal court in the District of Columbia prohibited on Saturday the transfer of 13 Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo to Yemen until a hearing is held on their attorneys' assertion that they could be tortured if returned there.

And despite assurances by China, State Department officials have been unwilling to send 22 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo to China for fear they would be tortured.

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

end quotes

GEORGE W. BUSH HAS NO CREDIBILITY!

WHATSOEVER!

[Livyjr]

And while we are being shut right out of OUR own government over here, BY THE BUSH CO.'S, and wierd stuff is happening vis-a-vis the END OF THE WORLD folks, and the Bush Co., what is happening in Mr. A.B.'s Lebanon, BECAUSE of the Bush Co.?

World - Reuters

"Syrian-Backed Hizbollah Rallies Against U.S."

By Kamel Jaber

NABATIYEH, Lebanon (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of people turned out for a Hizbollah rally against the United States Sunday, even as a U.N. envoy met the Lebanese president to press demands for a Syrian pullout.

SUPPORT FOR HIZBOLLAH'S ARMS

Hizbollah, the main guerrilla group which fought Israeli occupation of Lebanon's south, was allowed to keep its arms after the civil war to fight Israeli forces occupying the south.

It claimed credit for driving them out in 2000.

Foreign Minister Mahmoud Hammoud told reporters Lebanon's leaders had told Roed-Larsen they rejected the part of 1559 calling for militias in Lebanon to be disarmed.

"We said to him: We don't have any militias, we have a resistance that is supported by all the Lebanese people," he said.

Protesters, mostly Shi'ites but joined by Druze and others, came from across southern Lebanon to support Hizbollah's armed "Islamic resistance," witnesses said.

Over in Mr. A.B.'s "Religion and Politics" thread, I just made a post where I compared George W. Bush to the Biblical character Nimrod, who was himself quite a "CONQUERER" in the mold of George W. Bush.

In that post, "GOD" is said to have directly INTERVENED in Nimrod's plans to "TAKE OVER THE EARTH", THWARTING THOSE PLANS, and in that post, where this is said, in parenthesis, I put in the parallel to today, where George W. Bush's apparent plans to seemingly take over the earth are similarly being thwarted by what appears to be the HAND OF GOD acting to break up George W. Bush's "COALITION" in Iraq!

And now, we have George W. Bush himself saying, "IT IS NOT SO!"

Apparently to him, at least, "GOD" is still on his side!

SO!

We will see, I guess!
 
Politics - Reuters

"Bush Insists Iraq Coalition Not Crumbling"

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush insisted on Wednesday the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq was not crumbling and he shrugged off Italy's decision to begin pulling troops from Iraq by September.

Bush sought to clarify a comment he made on Tuesday in which he appeared to leave the door open to the Hizbollah guerrilla group having a political role in Lebanon if it disarmed.

"Hizbollah is on the terrorist list for a reason, and remain on the terrorist list for a reason."

"Our position's not changed on Hizbollah," he said.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed)

There's something happening here!

What it is becomes increasingly clear!

George W. Bush is standing over there,

With a lot of guns all around him;

AND because of HIM, I got to beware!

He just might BURN DOWN the whole earth

In his passing!

HHHhhhmmmm.

Does anyone see it?

Does anyone see what Bush Co. and Condo Rice are doing here?

Is it not obvious?

IS IT NOT QUITE OBVIOUS THAT GEORGE W. BUSH AND CONDO RICE ARE ACCUSING LEBANON OF HAVING A GOVERNMENT THAT HARBORS TERRORISTS?

REMEMBER WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH SAID WOULD HAPPEN TO ANY GOVERNMENT THAT HE ACCUSED OF HARBORING TERRORISTS?

WILL AN INVASION OF LEBANON TO DISARM HIZBOLLAH BE NEXT ON BUSH CO.'s AGENDA, when these troops leave Iraq?

Stay tuned!

Developments as they happen!

LIVE, LATE-BREAKING!

Top Stories - Reuters

"U.S. Likely to Soon Cut Troops in Iraq - Army General"

1 hour, 41 minutes ago

By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army expects to begin cutting troop levels in Iraq later this year, a move that would reduce the level of American forces there to below 138,000, an Army general said on Thursday.

"I think for the next force rotation, we'll start seeing that (the) force rotation coming in will be smaller than the force that's in there," said Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff.

"I know you're all waiting for a number here, and I'm not going to give you one because I don't know," Cody added in an interview with defense reporters.

The general said the next annual U.S. force rotation for Iraq would begin this summer and that the number of soldiers sent into the rotation later in the year is likely to be smaller than those coming out.

Another defense official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters on Thursday that the number of U.S. Marines in Iraq also was likely to decline in the new rotation.

There are 150,000 American troops in Iraq -- most of them Army soldiers -- but the number will go down to 138,000 before the end of this month.

The force was increased by 12,000 in December to provide security for the Iraqi elections in January.

But U.S. defense officials have said the number will likely begin falling below 138,000 as the Iraqi army and security forces are trained to take over security in the country.

Cody's comments came as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was accused in his country on Thursday of bowing to pressure from the United States after he apparently backtracked on an announcement that Italian troops would start withdrawing from Iraq in September.

Berlusconi said on a television talk show this week that he wanted to begin reducing Italy's 3,000-strong contingent in September, but he later said he had never set a fixed date for any pullout.

Italy has the fourth-largest foreign contingent in Iraq after the U.S., British and South Korean forces and any eventual withdrawal before other main partners would leave a hole in Iraq's international security network.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday he would not set any timetable for withdrawal of British troops.

[Livyjr]

GEORGE W. BUSH HAS NO CREDIBILITY!

WHATSOEVER!

TO ME!

And I suppose for the sake of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" that I should have had my declaration above here that George W. Bush has no credibility with me, read more exactly, to make it incandescently clear that that is what I was saying!

And here is a part of the reason why that just may be:

Politics - AP

"Government: Nuke Waste Papers May Be False"

Thu Mar 17, 6:39 AM ET

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The government disclosed that scientists on the Yucca Mountain project may have falsified documents, dealing the latest blow to plans to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada.

Supporters of the nuclear waste dump insisted the development wouldn't derail it.

Yucca Mountain has suffered so many setbacks that a top Energy Department official couldn't tell lawmakers a projected completion date Wednesday.

The disclosure about the documents could jeopardize the government's ability to get a federal license to open the dump or delay the license even more.

At the least, it hands Nevada one more weapon as it fights to kill the dump.

"This strikes at the very heart of the technical dispute between the state of Nevada and the Energy Department," said Joe Egan, Nevada's attorney in the dump fight.

"That's what we're preparing to litigate."

A statement Wednesday from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said that during preparation for a license application to nuclear regulators, the department found e-mails from May 1998 through March 2000 in which an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey "indicated that he had fabricated documentation of his work."

The development "proves once again that DOE must cheat and lie in order to make Yucca Mountain look safe," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.

The documents involved computer modeling for water infiltration and climate at the Yucca site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Nevada officials say water movement is critical in determining the possible spread of radiation from the proposed waste repository.

Bodman said the department was investigating what kind of information was falsified and whether it would affect the scientific underpinnings of the project.

"If in the course of that review any work is found to be deficient, it will be replaced or supplemented with analysis and documentation that meets appropriate quality assurance standards," said Bodman.

He said he was "greatly disturbed" by the development.

At a House hearing Wednesday, the official who recently took over the Yucca program in the Energy Department said the department remained "100 percent committed" to creating the permanent repository.

"I assure you we will not proceed until we have rectified these problems," Theodore Garrish told Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls the dollars for Yucca Mountain.

Garrish was not asked to elaborate.

After the hearing, he refused to answer reporters' questions.

Statements from Bodman and Chip Groat, director of the Geological Survey, indicated that multiple scientists were involved but not how many.

It wasn't clear what the workers' roles were or how they've been dealt with.

Hobson said the problem did not appear too serious and shouldn't hurt Yucca Mountain.

"As I understand it this is not a major impediment and can be corrected very easily," Hobson told reporters.

"Some people just don't want to do their job right, so they'll slip it through rather than doing their job."

"We don't have any evidence that somebody directed anybody to do this."

The documents were part of the papers required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to verify the accuracy of earlier work in the project.

The department has delayed filing its license application to the NRC and now acknowledges that completing the facility by 2010 no longer is possible.

Garrish couldn't provide a new completion date Wednesday.
___

Associated Press writers H. Josef Hebert in Washington and Ken Ritter in Las Vegas contributed to this report.
___

On the Net:

Yucca Mountain background: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/index.shtml

[Livyjr]

And I suppose for the sake of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" that I should have had my declaration above here that George W. Bush has no credibility with me, read more exactly, to make it incandescently clear that that is what I was saying!

And here is a part of the reason why that just may be:

Politics - AP

"Government: Nuke Waste Papers May Be False"

Thu Mar 17, 6:39 AM ET 

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The government disclosed that scientists on the Yucca Mountain project may have falsified documents, dealing the latest blow to plans to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada.
 
Supporters of the nuclear waste dump insisted the development wouldn't derail it.

Yucca Mountain has suffered so many setbacks that a top Energy Department official couldn't tell lawmakers a projected completion date Wednesday.

The disclosure about the documents could jeopardize the government's ability to get a federal license to open the dump or delay the license even more.

At the least, it hands Nevada one more weapon as it fights to kill the dump.

"This strikes at the very heart of the technical dispute between the state of Nevada and the Energy Department," said Joe Egan, Nevada's attorney in the dump fight.

"That's what we're preparing to litigate."

A statement Wednesday from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said that during preparation for a license application to nuclear regulators, the department found e-mails from May 1998 through March 2000 in which an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey "indicated that he had fabricated documentation of his work."

The development "proves once again that DOE must cheat and lie in order to make Yucca Mountain look safe," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.

The documents involved computer modeling for water infiltration and climate at the Yucca site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Nevada officials say water movement is critical in determining the possible spread of radiation from the proposed waste repository.

"Some people just don't want to do their job right, so they'll slip it through rather than doing their job."

"We don't have any evidence that somebody directed anybody to do this."

The documents were part of the papers required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to verify the accuracy of earlier work in the project.

The department has delayed filing its license application to the NRC and now acknowledges that completing the facility by 2010 no longer is possible.

Garrish couldn't provide a new completion date Wednesday.

Does it seem to anyone besides me that what is purported to be OUR government is actually a bit on what might be called the "SLIMY" side?

SO?

Is it OURS, then?

Are WE SLIMY, so that OUR government reflects us?

OR are we merely trusting fools?

Editorial: Some watchdog/The FDA lets industry trump the public interest

Monday, March 07, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

It seemed odd at the time.

An advisory committee of the federal Food and Drug Administration voted last month for continued marketing of three popular painkillers despite plenty of evidence that Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra create an undue risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Now The New York Times reports why the FDA's drug safety panel decided as it did.

It turns out that at least 10 of the 32 committee members have financial ties to the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

If those 10 had been forced to recuse themselves, the panel's deciding votes would have gone the other way, the Times reported.

The conflicts, involving previous consulting work for Merck, which makes Vioxx, and Pfizer, which makes Bextra and Celebrex, were documented in medical journals and public records.

The FDA's tactic has been to read a statement at the beginning of its advisory panel meetings acknowledging the members may have conflicts but absolving them since no products were being approved.

Several of the scientists responded feebly that it would be difficult to find advisers with no ties to drug makers.

Science policy experts say such conflicts are common at the FDA, which during the Bush administration has served [u]not as a consumer watchdog but as a rubber stamp for the latest pharmaceutical ventures.

Health and safety have become secondary to industry profits.

At the same time, the administration is pressing Congress to pass legislation limiting the right of individuals and groups to sue businesses over defective and dangerous products -- like drugs.

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see a disturbing pattern in which the industry's agenda is being advanced at the expense of the public interest.

[Livyjr]

Does it seem to anyone besides me that what is purported to be OUR government is actually a bit on what might be called the "SLIMY" side?

SO?

Is it OURS, then?

Are WE SLIMY, so that OUR government reflects us?

OR are we merely trusting fools?

Editorial: Some watchdog/The FDA lets industry trump the public interest

Monday, March 07, 2005

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Several of the scientists responded feebly that it would be difficult to find advisers with no ties to drug makers.

Science policy experts say such conflicts are common at the FDA, which during the Bush administration has served not as a consumer watchdog but as a rubber stamp for the latest pharmaceutical ventures.

Health and safety have become secondary to industry profits.

At the same time, the administration is pressing Congress to pass legislation limiting the right of individuals and groups to sue businesses over defective and dangerous products -- like drugs.

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see a disturbing pattern in which the industry's agenda is being advanced at the expense of the public interest.

And NO, it does not, does it, take a "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" to see this disturbing trend under this Bush Co. REGIME in which the industry's agenda, right across the board, it seems, IS BEING ADVANCED at the expense of the public interest!

All you need is eyes, and a bit of a brain, and it is right there in plain sight, and easy to see!

AND WE DO NOT COUNT, those of us in OUR America who comprise the serf and peasant class, which is the one here in OUR America without rights, THANKS TO BUSH CO.!

And why don't we have rights?

Because we don't know how to buy them, or we don't have the money to buy them, or we just don't care!

Those are largely the reasons, as I see them.

Having rights is a lot of hard work, for one thing, because you have to know about them, and the law, and how the law is supposed to work on OUR behalf as the POLICE POWER of OUR "state", and then, IF the law is not working as it is supposed to, then we as individuals are faced with the burden, and burden it is, make no mistake about it, the burden of taking on what is supposed to be OUR government to have OUR own laws enforced as they are supposed to be, TO PROTECT US!

And as if ALL of that were not already difficult enough, the Bush Co. is doing his damndest ON BEHALF OF BID-NESS to make sure that we will be all but foreclosed from ever having access to JUSTICE IN OUR OWN REPUBLIC, by his attempts to close off OUR COURTS, TO US!

Politics - Reuters

"Texas Study Casts Doubt on Need for Tort Reform

Thu Mar 10, 1:59 AM ET

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A study released on Thursday cast doubt on whether recent "tort reform" in Texas that limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits and is similar to what President Bush wants nationally was really needed.

The study looked at Texas Department of Insurance records dating back to 1988 and found claims that medical costs were soaring because of too many malpractice lawsuits, the supposed reason for the reform, were not true.

"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crisis that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states," said the study, conducted by law professors at the University of Texas, University of Illinois and Columbia University law schools.

Only a few states have comprehensive insurance databases like that of Texas, said David Hyman, one of the study authors, but similar studies elsewhere have found nothing to indicate a link between litigation and rising medical costs.

"Everyone who is collecting data is finding more or less the same thing -- there is no evidence of a tort crisis," he told Reuters.

"The clear implication is that 'runaway medical malpractice litigation' makes a poor poster child for the cause of tort reform," said the study, which was released at the Texas law school in Austin.

In 2003, in response to the alleged litigation crisis, Texas passed a law placing a $250,000 cap on certain damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

But the study found that insurance payouts, jury awards in malpractice lawsuits and costs of legal defense had changed little between 1988 and 2002

The only thing that jumped, they said, was the cost of malpractice insurance, which rose 135 percent from 1999 to 2003 likely because of financial pressures that had nothing to do with litigation.

Bush, who backed tort reform when he was governor of Texas, is now calling for a federal law imposing the same $250,000 cap in malpractice lawsuits.

Without a cap "excessive jury awards will continue to drive up insurance costs," he said in a recent speech.

[Abu Beacon]

QUOTE(Abu Beacon @ Mar 16 2005, 07:17 PM)

And it is very interesting to get the facts on just why were our Marines there in the first place?

A.B.

And I agree, Mr. A.B., especially with that part about "FACTS"!

Livyjr ----You may find this interesting.

A.B.


The United States in Lebanon: April 3, 1984
A Case for Disengagement
by Sheldon L. Richman

Sheldon L. Richman is an editor of Inquiry magazine and an associate policy analyst of the Cato Institute.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

With the recent failure of Lebanon's feuding leaders to agree to a national reconciliation, or to achieve even a durable cease-fire, it should not be forgotten that American ships float offshore carrying large guns and over 1000 Marines. That continued presence is especially noteworthy in light of the incessant fighting in Beirut and the kidnapping of American diplomat William Buckley in the capital's Moslem sector. Despite President Reagan's decision to "redeploy" the Marines from Beirut International Airport to the safety of the ships, and the hiatus in active diplomatic efforts, it would be premature to say the United States is out of the picture.

Paradoxically, the redeployment was both an implicit admission by Reagan that his Lebanese policy was misguided from the beginning and a wrong-headed attempt to stick to the general policy aims. While the president has decided to remove the Marines from the proximity of the fighting that threatens to reduce Lebanon to a smoldering battlefield, bringing down what is left of the government of President Amin Gemayel, Reagan's decision to loosen the restrictions on the gunboats and bombers could mean that deeper American military involvement lies ahead. Indeed, with the Marines out of the way, at least temporarily,[1] the 16-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey and the American bombers may even rain further destruction on Lebanese Moslems and Druze. Civilians are sure to be among the victims of the American strikes on the hills outside Beirut.

Once again, we must witness the sad spectacle of Americans scurrying from violence in a foreign country. The tragedy is not that they flee, but that the government puts them in such a position in the first place. Those in this country who have called for the withdrawal of the Marines all along had hoped to avoid this spectacle.

President Reagan sought to put the best light on his decision to move the Marines offshore, but this was a formidable task, indeed. The decision was combined with measures that "will strengthen our ability to do the job we set out to do and sustain our efforts over the long term." The measures include naval and air bombardment of Moslem and Druze areas from which fire on Beirut originates and stepped-up training and equipping of the fading Gemayel government. In other words, the removal of the Marines indicates little change in the basic Reagan policy of backing President Gemayel. But since Gemayel has done little or nothing to solve the problems his presidency created for Lebanon, Reagan continues to commit the United States to a dangerously unwise policy.

The sudden decision to move the Marines (Reagan only days before had characterized Democratic calls for such action as "surrender") vindicated the Pentagon's Long Commission, which investigated the October 1983 truck bombing of the Marine compound that killed 241 members of the contingent. The commission, arguably going beyond its charge, looked at the mission itself. It didn't like what it saw.

It concluded: "U.S. decisions regarding Lebanon taken over the past 15 months have been to a large degree characterized by an emphasis on military options and the expansion of the U.S. military role, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions upon which the security of the [Marines was] based continues to deteriorate as progress toward a diplomatic solution slowed."

The release of the report, though delayed by the administration in an attempt to blunt its impact, unleased a flood of criticism that had been pent up for some time. Congressional Democrats and Republicans, many of whom held their criticism when Congress and the president struck a War Powers agreement giving the Marines 18 months in Lebanon, again began questioning the mission. Seventy representatives, Democrats and Republicans, demanded a review of the War Powers agreement, while Senator Charles Mathias (R-Md.) offered an amendment to cut the length of the mission to six months.

As the president's policy came in for renewed critical examination, signals from Beirut, Damascus, and Washington occasionally gave hope that withdrawal was not far off. Statements by President Reagan or special envoy Rumsfeld, especially those following the Syrian release of Navy Lt. Robert Goodman, indicated that some modus vivendi would be struck with Syria that could lead to an agreement among the contending parties and the withdrawal of the Marines. But in each case, the conciliatory tones were followed by tough American language about the intentions of Syrian president Hafez Assad, his Soviet backers, and his Moslem and Druze allies. Hope of progress toward a U.S. disengagement soon faded.

And each time this happened, President Reagan responded that American credibility was at stake and that a withdrawal would not only leave Lebanon in a bad way, but would undermine the U.S. claim to being a reliable ally. President Reagan continued to espouse this line even after the decision to remove the Marines was made. On February 2 he told the Wall Street Journal, "If we get out, it also means the end of any ability on our part to bring about an overall peace in the Middle East and I would have to say it means a pretty disastrous result for us worldwide."

But the resignation of Prime Minister Wazzan, a Sunni Moslem, and the rest of President Gemayel's cabinet, the outbreak of fierce fighting in Beirut, and major defections from the Lebanese army underscored the hopelessness of American policy in Lebanon.

President Reagan appears to have put the United States in an impossible and trying situation. Lebanon is beset by old and complex internal and external problems that virtually preclude social cohesiveness and tranquility, yet such cohesiveness and tranquility are made the pre-conditions of an American disengagement. Moreover, the American presence further aggravates the Lebanese problems, making the conditions for disengagement even less likely. The Marines were never peacekeepers; they were partisans. The Reagan policy, then, is caught in a deadly net: by its very nature, success is unlikely.

President Reagan's defense of his policy goes beyond Lebanon and any direct link it may or may not have to American security. He has made Lebanon a matter of U.S. credibility, saying, "We cannot simply withdraw unilaterally without raising questions about the U.S. commitment to moderation and negotiations in the Middle East."[2] To leave, he argues, is to diminish America's standing in the world. He has said disengagement would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy.

The argument from credibility, rather than being persuasive, actually-calls into question the prudence of the United States' postwar foreign policy. By adopting a policy which holds that events anywhere in the world necessarily affect its interests, the United States has made virtually any development a test of its credibility. This is no exaggeration of the administration's position. The president said in October, "The struggle for peace is indivisible. We cannot pick and choose where we will support freedom. We can only determine how. If it's lost in one place, all of us lose."[3] Secretary of State George Shultz amplified Reagan's point when he speculated on whether there might be other "Lebanons" in America's future. Shultz said, "I think we are going to be presented around the world with a lot of situations that fall...between...massive deterrence on the one hand, and the neat, doable, Grenada-type operation on the other. Maybe...there aren't any circumstances between the extremes to which U.S. forces should be committed. If so, there are going to be a lot of U.S. interests that will be forgone around the world."[4]

What the administration ignores is that if one announces that something is a test of one's credibility, it becomes so. In the name of credibility, errors are prolonged, and anyone is invited to name the time and place of the next credibility test.

Critics of Reagan's policy may say that the credibility argument is a good reason not to get involved in situations such as Lebanon's. But this is not fundamental criticism. Reagan could easily have argued, before the Marines entered Lebanon, that to refrain from intervening would itself undermine U.S. credibility. It is part of Henry Kissinger's world view, for example, that avoiding opportunities to exert U.S. influence emboldens America's adversaries. So the credibility argument must be uprooted, not just pruned. The roots lie in America's bipartisan foreign policy. By forswearing the role of global policeman defending farflung "interests," and adopting instead a noninterventionist foreign policy, we would define most changes in the world out of the category of tests of our credibility.

The specific problems that make America's mission in Lebanon so poorly chosen are both external and internal, though there is considerable overlap between the two.

[jeffmoskin]

QUOTE(Abu Beacon @ Mar 16 2005, 07:17 PM)

And it is very interesting to get the facts on just why were our Marines there in the first place?

A.B.

And I agree, Mr. A.B., especially with that part about "FACTS"!

Livyjr ----You may find this interesting.

A.B.
The United States in Lebanon:  April 3, 1984
A Case for Disengagement
by Sheldon L. Richman

Sheldon L. Richman is an editor of Inquiry magazine and an associate policy analyst of the Cato Institute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

With the recent failure of Lebanon's feuding leaders to agree to a national reconciliation, or to achieve even a durable cease-fire, it should not be forgotten that American ships float offshore carrying large guns and over 1000 Marines. That continued presence is especially noteworthy in light of the incessant fighting in Beirut and the kidnapping of American diplomat William Buckley in the capital's Moslem sector. Despite President Reagan's decision to "redeploy" the Marines from Beirut International Airport to the safety of the ships, and the hiatus in active diplomatic efforts, it would be premature to say the United States is out of the picture.

Paradoxically, the redeployment was both an implicit admission by Reagan that his Lebanese policy was misguided from the beginning and a wrong-headed attempt to stick to the general policy aims. While the president has decided to remove the Marines from the proximity of the fighting that threatens to reduce Lebanon to a smoldering battlefield, bringing down what is left of the government of President Amin Gemayel, Reagan's decision to loosen the restrictions on the gunboats and bombers could mean that deeper American military involvement lies ahead. Indeed, with the Marines out of the way, at least temporarily,[1] the 16-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey and the American bombers may even rain further destruction on Lebanese Moslems and Druze. Civilians are sure to be among the victims of the American strikes on the hills outside Beirut.

Once again, we must witness the sad spectacle of Americans scurrying from violence in a foreign country. The tragedy is not that they flee, but that the government puts them in such a position in the first place. Those in this country who have called for the withdrawal of the Marines all along had hoped to avoid this spectacle.

President Reagan sought to put the best light on his decision to move the Marines offshore, but this was a formidable task, indeed. The decision was combined with measures that "will strengthen our ability to do the job we set out to do and sustain our efforts over the long term." The measures include naval and air bombardment of Moslem and Druze areas from which fire on Beirut originates and stepped-up training and equipping of the fading Gemayel government. In other words, the removal of the Marines indicates little change in the basic Reagan policy of backing President Gemayel. But since Gemayel has done little or nothing to solve the problems his presidency created for Lebanon, Reagan continues to commit the United States to a dangerously unwise policy.

The sudden decision to move the Marines (Reagan only days before had characterized Democratic calls for such action as "surrender") vindicated the Pentagon's Long Commission, which investigated the October 1983 truck bombing of the Marine compound that killed 241 members of the contingent. The commission, arguably going beyond its charge, looked at the mission itself. It didn't like what it saw.

It concluded: "U.S. decisions regarding Lebanon taken over the past 15 months have been to a large degree characterized by an emphasis on military options and the expansion of the U.S. military role, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions upon which the security of the [Marines was] based continues to deteriorate as progress toward a diplomatic solution slowed."

The release of the report, though delayed by the administration in an attempt to blunt its impact, unleased a flood of criticism that had been pent up for some time. Congressional Democrats and Republicans, many of whom held their criticism when Congress and the president struck a War Powers agreement giving the Marines 18 months in Lebanon, again began questioning the mission. Seventy representatives, Democrats and Republicans, demanded a review of the War Powers agreement, while Senator Charles Mathias (R-Md.) offered an amendment to cut the length of the mission to six months.

As the president's policy came in for renewed critical examination, signals from Beirut, Damascus, and Washington occasionally gave hope that withdrawal was not far off. Statements by President Reagan or special envoy Rumsfeld, especially those following the Syrian release of Navy Lt. Robert Goodman, indicated that some modus vivendi would be struck with Syria that could lead to an agreement among the contending parties and the withdrawal of the Marines. But in each case, the conciliatory tones were followed by tough American language about the intentions of Syrian president Hafez Assad, his Soviet backers, and his Moslem and Druze allies. Hope of progress toward a U.S. disengagement soon faded.

And each time this happened, President Reagan responded that American credibility was at stake and that a withdrawal would not only leave Lebanon in a bad way, but would undermine the U.S. claim to being a reliable ally. President Reagan continued to espouse this line even after the decision to remove the Marines was made. On February 2 he told the Wall Street Journal, "If we get out, it also means the end of any ability on our part to bring about an overall peace in the Middle East and I would have to say it means a pretty disastrous result for us worldwide."

But the resignation of Prime Minister Wazzan, a Sunni Moslem, and the rest of President Gemayel's cabinet, the outbreak of fierce fighting in Beirut, and major defections from the Lebanese army underscored the hopelessness of American policy in Lebanon.

President Reagan appears to have put the United States in an impossible and trying situation. Lebanon is beset by old and complex internal and external problems that virtually preclude social cohesiveness and tranquility, yet such cohesiveness and tranquility are made the pre-conditions of an American disengagement. Moreover, the American presence further aggravates the Lebanese problems, making the conditions for disengagement even less likely. The Marines were never peacekeepers; they were partisans. The Reagan policy, then, is caught in a deadly net: by its very nature, success is unlikely.

President Reagan's defense of his policy goes beyond Lebanon and any direct link it may or may not have to American security. He has made Lebanon a matter of U.S. credibility, saying, "We cannot simply withdraw unilaterally without raising questions about the U.S. commitment to moderation and negotiations in the Middle East."[2] To leave, he argues, is to diminish America's standing in the world. He has said disengagement would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy.

The argument from credibility, rather than being persuasive, actually-calls into question the prudence of the United States' postwar foreign policy. By adopting a policy which holds that events anywhere in the world necessarily affect its interests, the United States has made virtually any development a test of its credibility. This is no exaggeration of the administration's position. The president said in October, "The struggle for peace is indivisible. We cannot pick and choose where we will support freedom. We can only determine how. If it's lost in one place, all of us lose."[3] Secretary of State George Shultz amplified Reagan's point when he speculated on whether there might be other "Lebanons" in America's future. Shultz said, "I think we are going to be presented around the world with a lot of situations that fall...between...massive deterrence on the one hand, and the neat, doable, Grenada-type operation on the other. Maybe...there aren't any circumstances between the extremes to which U.S. forces should be committed. If so, there are going to be a lot of U.S. interests that will be forgone around the world."[4]

What the administration ignores is that if one announces that something is a test of one's credibility, it becomes so. In the name of credibility, errors are prolonged, and anyone is invited to name the time and place of the next credibility test.

Critics of Reagan's policy may say that the credibility argument is a good reason not to get involved in situations such as Lebanon's. But this is not fundamental criticism. Reagan could easily have argued, before the Marines entered Lebanon, that to refrain from intervening would itself undermine U.S. credibility. It is part of Henry Kissinger's world view, for example, that avoiding opportunities to exert U.S. influence emboldens America's adversaries. So the credibility argument must be uprooted, not just pruned. The roots lie in America's bipartisan foreign policy. By forswearing the role of global policeman defending farflung "interests," and adopting instead a noninterventionist foreign policy, we would define most changes in the world out of the category of tests of our credibility.

The specific problems that make America's mission in Lebanon so poorly chosen are both external and internal, though there is considerable overlap between the two.

And let us not forget who STARTED THAT CIVIL WAR...

Yep.

Yassir Arafat.

[Abu Beacon]

And let us not forget who STARTED THAT CIVIL WAR...

Yep.

Yassir Arafat.

Arafat, especially in later years did a great disservice to the Palestinian cause.

There is no question in my mind about that.

However, the civil war in Lebanon , its causes, its roots, excesses and inhumanity by ALL the players, including those from other countries, was far bigger than Yassir Arafat.

If you are willing, jeffmoskin to have a dialogue on this, I would be willing to exchange thoughts with you.

Arafat's influence in the Middle East encompassed more than his role in Lebanon's politics and his part in that awful civil war.

Aside from the main players, that is the Lebanese leaders, there were others who " aided and abetted " the continuation of this conflict.

Two of the outsiders whose part in this bloody conflict contributed to the inhumanity of this civil war were Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon.

Both of them have bloody hands.

There were others of course, including the incredible stupidity of the Americans, led by Ronald Reagan.

I value your input, jeffmoskin.

If you would rather not get into a discussion of this, I understand.

A.B.

[Livyjr]

Arafat, especially in later years did a great disservice to the Palestinian cause.

There is no question in my mind about that.

However, the civil war in Lebanon , its causes, its roots, excesses  and inhumanity by ALL the players, including those from other countries, was far bigger than Yassir Arafat.

If you are willing, jeffmoskin to have a dialogue on this, I would be willing to exchange thoughts with you.

If you would rather not get into a discussion of this, I understand.

A.B.

And once again, GOOD MORNING, America, and the world!

And once again, we are at it in here, all over again!

And here, I see the lingering topic is Yassir Arafat and whatever role he may have played in the Lebanese Civil War, which was quite a conflict for a while, that really tore aprart what I understand was quite a beautiful city, that being Beirut, Lebanon.

In fact, the term "Beirut" has come to stand as a euphemism for any place that is strongly divided and on the verge of violence, or actually into violence, as in "Beirut all over again!"

And why has this topic come up in here?

Well, hard to say, actually, since to me, Yassir Arafat is just a complete and total "non-starter" in here, which is to say that he is an irrelevency, especially now that he is dead and gone.

jeffmoskin, one of our valued "expositers" in here, holds out a belief that Yassir Arafat was responsible for the Lebanese Civil War, and I just don't accept that big a role for Yassir Arafat, to be truthful, that one man like him could have started that whole civil war over there.

He certainly might be a factor in that civil war, or a bit player, here or there, seen coming in from stage left or stage right from time to time carrying a tray of coffee and sweets, perhaps, BUT .....

Being responsible for the whole civil war?

It gives him way to much credit, as I see it, having studied the history of Lebanon from its roots in Phoenicia, and then coming forward to modern times, WHERE George W. Bush IS NOW THREATENING AND ACCUSING THE GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON OF GIVING SAFE REFUGE TO "TAY-RISTS", which can be interpreted as George W. Bush getting ready for another WAR OF AGGRESSION on another Middle Eastern country, especially as George W. Bush and Condo Rice have started up the LITANY again of "DISARM, OR WE'LL COME IN AND SMASH YOUR COUNTRY FLAT!"

And that is why we are talking about Lebanon in here, speculating as to whether this will be the next nation on the face of this green earth to face the WRATH OF GOD, as George W. Bush is lovingly known by those who cleave to his RELIGIOUS BANNER as KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS, everywhere on earth and in the heavens, to boot.

We are talking about the Lebanese Civil War as an off-shoot right now to some comments made in the news recently by New York State Senator Charlie "Chuck" Schumer, where he is apparently trying to whip up some emotions in America by blaming the Lebanese government for bombing the barracks in Lebanon in 1983 that caused extensive deaths among the U.S. Marines who were caught sleeping in that attack.

Those war-mongering comments by Senator Charlie "Chuck" Schumer then caused Mr. A.B. to amplify on the attack on the Marine barracks in 1983, which then caused jeffmoskin to come back and give credit for all of what happened over there, including the death of the Marines, if I have that right, to Yassir Arafat!

And so, to bring things in here right up to this present moment, that is where we are in here, and since I am just arriving, I guess I'll have to think on all of this for a moment, since it is our habit in here to get into history to flesh out OUR understanding of where we are in the world today, because of the manner in which the "PAST" can and does influence the "PRESENT" and the "FUTURE"!

In that regard, Mr. A.B. above makes reference to OUR stupid policies, and that is really what I like to focus on in here, as opposed to the stupid policies of someone like Ariel Sharon, or Yassir Arafat, who are to me like the head and tail on one single coin, a donkey on one side, and perhaps a "jack-ass" on the other.

"BE GLAD THAT THEY ARE NOT OURS", is my thought on that, although in a lot of senses, Sharon actually is, and that is what we talk about in here, WHO IS AMERICA IN BED WITH TODAY, AND WHY?

WHY, for example, was Ronald Raygun in bed with this Gemayel of Lebanon, back then, which is what caused the Marines who were killed in the barracks bombing to be in Lebanon so that they could in fact be killed!

Why was America IN BED WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN?

Why was America IN BED WITH the Shah of Iran?

Questions for OUR times, here, in OUR America.

SO!

Stay tuned.

[Livyjr]

And it is very interesting to get the facts on just why were our Marines there in the first place?

A.B.

And I agree, Mr. A.B., especially with that part about "FACTS"!

Livyjr ----You may find this interesting.

The United States in Lebanon: April 3, 1984

"A Case for Disengagement" by Sheldon L. Richman

Sheldon L. Richman is an editor of Inquiry magazine and an associate policy analyst of the Cato Institute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

With the recent failure of Lebanon's feuding leaders to agree to a national reconciliation, or to achieve even a durable cease-fire, it should not be forgotten that American ships float offshore carrying large guns and over 1000 Marines.

That continued presence is especially noteworthy in light of the incessant fighting in Beirut and the kidnapping of American diplomat William Buckley in the capital's Moslem sector.

Despite President Reagan's decision to "redeploy" the Marines from Beirut International Airport to the safety of the ships, and the hiatus in active diplomatic efforts, it would be premature to say the United States is out of the picture.

Paradoxically, the redeployment was both an implicit admission by Reagan that his Lebanese policy was misguided from the beginning and a wrong-headed attempt to stick to the general policy aims.

While the president has decided to remove the Marines from the proximity of the fighting that threatens to reduce Lebanon to a smoldering battlefield, bringing down what is left of the government of President Amin Gemayel, Reagan's decision to loosen the restrictions on the gunboats and bombers could mean that deeper American military involvement lies ahead.

Indeed, with the Marines out of the way, at least temporarily, the 16-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey and the American bombers may even rain further destruction on Lebanese Moslems and Druze.

Civilians are sure to be among the victims of the American strikes on the hills outside Beirut.

Once again, we must witness the sad spectacle of Americans scurrying from violence in a foreign country.

The tragedy is not that they flee, but that the government puts them in such a position in the first place.

Those in this country who have called for the withdrawal of the Marines all along had hoped to avoid this spectacle.

JINGOISM: Extreme chauvinism or nationalism MARKED ESPECIALLY by a belligerent foreign policy!

Understanding OUR world, AS IT IS TODAY, is a complicated business, and make no mistakes about that, whatsoever.

In fact, these days, especially if you live in a place like the corrupt Empire State of New York, just keeping up with, and understanding what is going on right down the block can be a quite time-consuming endeavor, and so, it comes as no suprise that people in America would likely be ignorant about what was really going on in Lebanon, back in 1983, when those Marines were caught sleeping, and so were killed for their carelessness.

And because of OUR national ignorance, alleged Jingoists and demagogues like Charlie "Chuck" Schumer can then attempt to once more work their "INFLAMMATORY ARTS" on us, to whip up OUR emotions and keep us off-balance, generally so that we will turn over the keys to the NATIONAL TREASURY to THEM and THEIRS, for some further looting, just in case there may be a few nickels or dimes left in there that they did not get the last time, since WAR IS BIG BUSINESS, and it is about as big as business can get!

PEACE DOES NOT PAY DIVIDENDS TO A WAR-MONGER!

To the JINGOISTS, this is the FIRST AND LAST COMMANDMENT of their blood-seeking religion, AND, we are supposed to be their willing slaves, especially today, where George W. Bush is said to have been sent directly by GOD to rule over not only this earth and Charlie "Chuck" Schumer and Joseph "BIG JOE" Lieberman, BUT the sun, moon and stars as well!

(Ed. note: For further clarification and understanding of how these JINGOISTS "derive" their "earthly" power over so many in OUR America today, SEE, 1 Timothy 6:1, for the "COMMAND" that they have allegedly sent out to the "masses" through the alleged agency of the "SPEER", or "ARCHITECT" of the REPUBLICAN PARTY, Karl Rove, and HIS "Office of Strategic Initiatives", which is alleged to be buried somewhere down deep in the very bowels of George W. Bush's BIG WHITE HOUSE down there in Washington, D$C$:

"ALL under the yoke of slavery MUST REGARD THEIR MASTERS as worthy of full respect, OTHERWISE, the name of GOD [GWB] and the church's teaching suffer abuse!")

And with that said, as it must be, let us go back in time to Lebanon, and see who is doing what to whom, on the day or two or three BEFORE the Marines, sleeping soundly in their beds as they were in 1983, were blown clean away in their sleep, so that WE may all better appreciate who Charlie "Chuck" Schumer is today, with his apparent joining of the JINGOISTIC JIHADIS of KARL ROVE and the AMERICAN REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE in Washington, D$C$!

PIERRE GEMAYEL

http:www.falangist.com/pierre.htm

Pierre Gemayel was a Lebanese statesman.

He is remembered as the founder of the Kataeb Party (also known as the Phalange Party), as a parliamentary powerbroker, and as the father of Bashir Gemayel and Amine Gemayel, both of whom were elected President of the Republic in his lifetime.

Gemayel was known for his opposition to foreign domination of Lebanon, whether by the Ottomans, France, or any other power, for his belief in the coexistence of Christians and Moslems in a single state, and for his abhorrence of Lebanon being used as a proxy battleground in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A controversial politician, he survived several assassination attempts.

Pierre Gemayel was born in Bifkaya, Lebanon, on 6 November 1905.

A Maronite Catholic, he was educated at Jesuit schools, and went on to study Pharmacology at the French Faculty of Medicine in Beirut, where he later opened a pharmacy.

It was often said of Gemayel that politics was in his blood.

His family was one of the traditional leading families of the Maronite Community, and had played a prominent role in the town of Bifkaya since 1540.

Pierre Gemayel himself got his first taste of politics at an early age, when his father and uncle, who had opposed Ottoman control of Lebanon, were sentenced to death in 1914 and were forced to flee into exile in Egypt.

The family returned to Lebanon at the end of World War I, and Gemayel's uncle became a delegate to the Paris Peace Conference, which led to the Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of the League of Nations.

In 1935, Gemayel was appointed to lead Lebanon's Olympic team at the Olympic Games in Berlin.

There he had a chance to study the organization of Germany's Nazi Party.

Gemayel strongly opposed Nazi ideology, but admired their formidable and efficient organization, and concluded that to have any hope of success, any Lebanese nationalist movement would have to be structured similarly.

Accordingly, on his return to Lebanon in 1936, he founded the Kataeb Party together with four colleagues, one of whom was Charles Helou, who later served as Lebanon's President from 1964 to 1970.

By the end of 1936, membership of the Kataeb Party had grown to three hundred.

Alarmed by the rapid growth of what they saw as a seditious movement, French authorities ordered Gemayel to disband the party in 1937.

He refused, and Kataeb members had their first skirmish with Senegalese French colonial police near Gemayel's Pharmacy in Beirut.

Gemayel was arrested, but was soon released.

The party continued to grow, and by 1943 its membership reached 35,000.

In that year, the National Assembly declared Lebanon independent of France.

Free French forces, who followed General Charles de Gaulle, responded by arresting Bishara Khoury, who had been proclaimed President of the new republic, along with other prominent figures.

Gemayel helped to organize a national uprising which forced the Free French, who were still fighting to regain control of their own country from the Vichy regime, to realize that holding Lebanon was a lost cause.

In the early years following Lebanon's independence, Gemayel's influence and that of the Kataeb Party was limited.

In the Civil War of 1958, however, he emerged as the leader of the Christian opposition to radical Nasserist elements trying to overthrow the government of President Camille Chamoun, and in the aftermath of the war was appointed a cabinet minister in the four-member Unity government.

Two years later, Gemayel was elected to the National Assembly, from a Beirut constituency, a seat he was to hold for the rest of his life.

By the ending of the 1960s, the Kataeb Party held 9 seats in the National Assembly, making it one of the largest groupings in Lebanon's notoriously fractured parliament.

Gemayel continued to hold cabinet posts intermittently throughout the remaining quarter-century of his life.

In 1969, Lebanon was forced by the Arab League to allow Palestinian guerillas to set up bases on Lebanese soil, from which to carry out raids against Israel.

Despite his misgivings, Gemayel believed that Lebanon really had no choice, and resolved to negotiate the best deal he could.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never observed the terms of the agreement, and Gemayel regretted not having stood up more firmly against the Palestinian intrusion.

In the 1970s, the Kataeb was to build a private army, which came to be commanded by Gemayel's son Bashir, to oppose the armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon.

This private army was secretly helped by Israel.

It is one of the many ironies of Lebanese politics that a party that initially drew inspiration from the virulently anti-Semitic Nazi movement in Germany (although it never stood for Nazi ideology), was later to become a close collaborator with the Jewish state.

In the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), Gemayel initially welcomed Syrian intervention, believing that the Syrian army alone was capable of disarming the Palestinian guerrillas, whom he had come to regard as terrorists.

It soon became clear, however, that Syria was occupying Lebanon for reasons of its own, and intended to use Lebanon as a proxy front for wars against Israel.

In 1976, he joined other mainly Christian leaders, including former president Camille Chamoun, the diplomat Charles Malik, and the radical Guardians of the Cedars Party leader Etienne Saqr, in forming the Lebanese Front to oppose the Syrian occupation.

In 1978, the Lebanese Front joined the Lebanese regular army in an unsuccessful 100-day war against the Syrian army.

On October 11, Gemayel bitterly denounced the Syrian military presence in Lebanon.

Gemayel saw his younger son, Bashir Gemayel, elected President of Lebanon on August 23, 1982.

Bashir was assassinated by pro-Syrian terrorists on September 14, nine days before his scheduled inauguration.

Bashir's older brother, Amine Gemayel was elected to replace him.

Pierre Gemayel himself initially stayed out of his son's government, but in early 1984, after participating in two conferences in Lausanne, Switzerland, aimed at ending the civil war and the occupation of the country by Syrian and Israeli troops (which had invaded the country in 1982), he agreed to served once more in a Cabinet of National Unity.

He was still in office when he died in Bifkaya, on 29 August 1984, at the age 78.

This post has been edited by Livyjr: Mar 18 2005, 09:02 AM

[Livyjr]

JINGOISM: Extreme chauvinism or nationalism MARKED ESPECIALLY by a belligerent foreign policy!

Understanding OUR world, AS IT IS TODAY, is a complicated business, and make no mistakes about that, whatsoever.

In fact, these days, especially if you live in a place like the corrupt Empire State of New York, just keeping up with, and understanding what is going on right down the block can be a quite time-consuming endeavor, and so, it comes as no suprise that people in America would likely be ignorant about what was really going on in Lebanon, back in 1983, when those Marines were caught sleeping, and so were killed for their carelessness.

And because of OUR national ignorance, alleged Jingoists and demagogues like Charlie "Chuck" Schumer can then attempt to once more work their "INFLAMMATORY ARTS" on us, to whip up OUR emotions and keep us off-balance, generally so that we will turn over the keys to the NATIONAL TREASURY to THEM and THEIRS, for some further looting, just in case there may be a few nickels or dimes left in there that they did not get the last time, since WAR IS BIG BUSINESS, and it is about as big as business can get!

PEACE DOES NOT PAY DIVIDENDS TO A WAR-MONGER!

To the JINGOISTS, this is the FIRST AND LAST COMMANDMENT of their blood-seeking religion, AND, we are supposed to be their willing slaves, especially today, where George W. Bush is said to have been sent directly by GOD to rule over not only this earth and Charlie "Chuck" Schumer and Joseph "BIG JOE" Lieberman, BUT the sun, moon and stars as well!

(Ed. note: For further clarification and understanding of how these JINGOISTS "derive" their "earthly" power over so many in OUR America today, SEE, 1 Timothy 6:1, for the "COMMAND" that they have allegedly sent out to the "masses" through the alleged agency of the "SPEER", or "ARCHITECT" of the REPUBLICAN PARTY, Karl Rove, and HIS "Office of Strategic Initiatives", which is alleged to be buried somewhere down deep in the very bowels of George W. Bush's BIG WHITE HOUSE down there in Washington, D$C$:

"ALL under the yoke of slavery MUST REGARD THEIR MASTERS as worthy of full respect, OTHERWISE, the name of GOD [GWB] and the church's teaching suffer abuse!")

And with that said, as it must be, let us go back in time to Lebanon, and see who is doing what to whom, on the day or two or three BEFORE the Marines, sleeping soundly in their beds as they were in 1983, were blown clean away in their sleep, so that WE may all better appreciate who Charlie "Chuck" Schumer is today, with his apparent joining of the JINGOISTIC JIHADIS of KARL ROVE and the AMERICAN REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE in Washington, D$C$!

PIERRE GEMAYEL

http:www.falangist.com/pierre.htm

Pierre Gemayel was a Lebanese statesman.

He is remembered as the founder of the Kataeb Party (also known as the Phalange Party), as a parliamentary powerbroker, and as the father of Bashir Gemayel and Amine Gemayel, both of whom were elected President of the Republic in his lifetime.

Gemayel was known for his opposition to foreign domination of Lebanon, whether by the Ottomans, France, or any other power, for his belief in the coexistence of Christians and Moslems in a single state, and for his abhorrence of Lebanon being used as a proxy battleground in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In 1969, Lebanon was forced by the Arab League to allow Palestinian guerillas to set up bases on Lebanese soil, from which to carry out raids against Israel.

Despite his misgivings, Gemayel believed that Lebanon really had no choice, and resolved to negotiate the best deal he could.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never observed the terms of the agreement, and Gemayel regretted not having stood up more firmly against the Palestinian intrusion.

In the 1970s, the Kataeb was to build a private army, which came to be commanded by Gemayel's son Bashir, to oppose the armed Palestinian presence in Lebanon.

This private army was secretly helped by Israel.

It is one of the many ironies of Lebanese politics that a party that initially drew inspiration from the virulently anti-Semitic Nazi movement in Germany (although it never stood for Nazi ideology), was later to become a close collaborator with the Jewish state.

And so ........

ROOTS!

Roots of conflict!

Seeds planted very deeply!

And by whom?

And for what?

Besides MONEY, and POWER, that is?

And where is Yassir Arafat in any of this?

A bit player, at best!

BUT ......

Stay tuned!

For as always, THINGS ARE NEVER OVER, either in here, or OUT THERE, and why?

Well, for starters, there is OUR NATIONAL TREASURY, and there still might be a few nickels or dimes that the LOOTERS did not get the last time through, and so ......

Live, late-breaking!

Of course, we don't do weather on the hour, or on the "nines", in here, as OUR America is just too big for a "one size fits all weather report", and so you will have to tune into your favorite TV weather channel for that, BUT ....

As for the rest, DEVELOPMENTS AS THEY HAPPEN!

[Livyjr]

And speaking of "SIGNS OF THE TIMES" that we are in these days, under the earthly REIGN of the "GOD-appointed and annointed Bush Co.", we have this following from the EARTHLY PARADISE of "GUBER-NATOR" and REPUBLICAN "STRONGMAN" AH-NOLD, the "George W. Bush" MAN out there in jeffmoskin's "sunny" California!

Tell us, jeffmoskin, IS THIS another sign of the "END TIMES" out there in PARADISE?

U.S. National - AP

"Dead Squid Wash Up in California Again"

2 hours, 57 minutes ago

DANA POINT, Calif. - Dead jumbo squid are again mysteriously washing up along Orange County's coastline, baffling scientists who are trying to find out why.

The Ocean Institute in Dana Point has conducted some of the research, shipping specimens to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History and Stanford University for further study.

Scientists at the institute this week dissected a 5-foot-long, 15-pound female Humboldt squid that was filled with parasites and sand.

More than a 100 squid have been spotted since Sunday between Dana Point and San Clemente.

Still, there are no answers.

"We still don't know what's killing them," said Linda Blanchard, lab director of the Ocean Institute who has dissected about a dozen squid since they first washed up ashore in January.

"All we have right now are theories."

Scientists believe the squid are swimming north from Mexico to follow food sources, forcing them to come closer to the surface and shore.

Squid normally live and hunt 3,000 feet below the water's surface.

Eric Hochberg, curator of invertebrate zoology with the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, said an active fishing industry in Mexico may be depleting the squid's diet, causing them to migrate into Southern California.

He said the squid possibly are discombobulated by sand churned up by tides.

Meanwhile, William Gilly, a biologist at Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove, is studying their stomach contents to determine whether the squid are being poisoned.

Even if scientists cannot discover why the squid are washing up ashore, they hope to learn about the mollusks' diet, where they spawn and the biology of their beaks.

"Before the squid were found dead on the beaches in the quantities that they have, we weren't studying them as hard as we are now," Blanchard said.

In January, about 1,500 Humboldt squid washed up on the Orange County coastline about a week after an oil spill from an undetermined source coated more than 1,000 seabirds off the Southern California coast.

The squid were found on the sands of Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and Crystal Cove State Park.

Some were spotted in northern San Diego County, at San Onofre State Beach.
___

Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com

end quotes

Or could it be that the squid, like many others on this earth, just cannot stand the agonizing thought of another FOUR YEARS of George W. Bush, and so, they are simply packing it in, and giving up the ghost here?

WHO GAVE OUT THE KOOL-AID TO THE SQUID?

A question for OUR times, here in OUR America, especially if you like to go to the beach in sunny California, THE LAND OF AH-NOLD, and, oh, yeah, PARADISE, of course, and well, yes, Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon and Ronald Raygun, too!

[jeffmoskin]

Arafat, especially in later years did a great disservice to the Palestinian cause.

There is no question in my mind about that.

However, the civil war in Lebanon , its causes, its roots, excesses  and inhumanity by ALL the players, including those from other countries, was far bigger than Yassir Arafat.

If you are willing, jeffmoskin to have a dialogue on this, I would be willing to exchange thoughts with you.

Arafat's influence in the Middle East encompassed more than his role in Lebanon's politics and his part in that awful civil war.

Aside from the main players, that is the Lebanese leaders, there were others who " aided and abetted " the continuation of this conflict.

Two of the outsiders whose part in this bloody conflict contributed to the inhumanity of this civil war were Yassir Arafat and Ariel Sharon.

Both of them have bloody hands.

There were others of course, including the incredible stupidity of the Americans, led by Ronald Reagan.

I value your input, jeffmoskin.

If you would rather not get into a discussion of this, I understand.

A.B.

I would be delighted to discuss this with you, Mr A.B. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are of Lebanese descent and therefore I presume come to the thread with some good information.

And once again, GOOD MORNING, America, and the world!

And once again, we are at it in here, all over again!

And here, I see the lingering topic is Yassir Arafat and whatever role he may have played in the Lebanese Civil War, which was quite a conflict for a while, that really tore aprart what I understand was quite a beautiful city, that being Beirut, Lebanon.

In fact, the term "Beirut" has come to stand as a euphemism for any place that is strongly divided and on the verge of violence, or actually into violence, as in "Beirut all over again!"

And why has this topic come up in here?

Well, hard to say, actually, since to me, Yassir Arafat is just a complete and total "non-starter" in here, which is to say that he is an irrelevency, especially now that he is dead and gone.

jeffmoskin, one of our valued "expositers" in here, holds out a belief that Yassir Arafat was responsible for the Lebanese Civil War, and I just don't accept that big a role for Yassir Arafat, to be truthful, that one man like him could have started that whole civil war over there.

He certainly might be a factor in that civil war, or a bit player, here or there, seen coming in from stage left or stage right from time to time carrying a tray of coffee and sweets, perhaps, BUT .....

Being responsible for the whole civil war?

It gives him way to much credit, as I see it, having studied the history of Lebanon from its roots in Phoenicia, and then coming forward to modern times, WHERE George W. Bush IS NOW THREATENING AND ACCUSING THE GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON OF GIVING SAFE REFUGE TO "TAY-RISTS", which can be interpreted as George W. Bush getting ready for another WAR OF AGGRESSION on another Middle Eastern country, especially as George W. Bush and Condo Rice have started up the LITANY again of "DISARM, OR WE'LL COME IN AND SMASH YOUR COUNTRY FLAT!"

And that is why we are talking about Lebanon in here, speculating as to whether this will be the next nation on the face of this green earth to face the WRATH OF GOD, as George W. Bush is lovingly known by those who cleave to his RELIGIOUS BANNER as KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS, everywhere on earth and in the heavens, to boot.

We are talking about the Lebanese Civil War as an off-shoot right now to some comments made in the news recently by New York State Senator Charlie "Chuck" Schumer, where he is apparently trying to whip up some emotions in America by blaming the Lebanese government for bombing the barracks in Lebanon in 1983 that caused extensive deaths among the U.S. Marines who were caught sleeping in that attack.

Those war-mongering comments by Senator Charlie "Chuck" Schumer then caused Mr. A.B. to amplify on the attack on the Marine barracks in 1983, which then caused jeffmoskin to come back and give credit for all of what happened over there, including the death of the Marines, if I have that right, to Yassir Arafat!

And so, to bring things in here right up to this present moment, that is where we are in here, and since I am just arriving, I guess I'll have to think on all of this for a moment, since it is our habit in here to get into history to flesh out OUR understanding of where we are in the world today, because of the manner in which the "PAST" can and does influence the "PRESENT" and the "FUTURE"!

In that regard, Mr. A.B. above makes reference to OUR stupid policies, and that is really what I like to focus on in here, as opposed to the stupid policies of someone like Ariel Sharon, or Yassir Arafat, who are to me like the head and tail on one single coin, a donkey on one side, and perhaps a "jack-ass" on the other.

"BE GLAD THAT THEY ARE NOT OURS", is my thought on that, although in a lot of senses, Sharon actually is, and that is what we talk about in here, WHO IS AMERICA IN BED WITH TODAY, AND WHY?

WHY, for example, was Ronald Raygun in bed with this Gemayel of Lebanon, back then, which is what caused the Marines who were killed in the barracks bombing to be in Lebanon so that they could in fact be killed!

Why was America IN BED WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN?

Why was America IN BED WITH the Shah of Iran?

Questions for OUR times, here, in OUR America.

SO!

Stay tuned.

First, Livyjr, while I cannot give Arafat "credit" for singlehandedly causing the Lebanese civil war, I must caution you never to underestimate the power of a single individual to do EVIL.

One need only look to 1600 Pennsyvania Avenue for proof of my statement.

There have always been "factions" in "Lebanon" and I put its name in quotes because it, too, was a bogus creation of the western powers after WW I, notably the French. And since it's constitution was based upon the fundamental assumption (which was fundamentally WRONG) that the number of Muslims was equal to the number of Christians, the government structure which split power between the two was doomed to failure. I believe the last official census was taken in 1938 or 39.

Arafat was always a troublemaker. A divider, not a uniter. Hmmm. I know someone else like that.

By funneling money (=weapons) into the various hostile factions, he was able to create a hot war which served to benefit HIMSELF, for he was the warrior in the soldier suit (even though he never was a real soldier).

But I digress.

"Why was America IN BED WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN?

Why was America IN BED WITH the Shah of Iran?"

A one-word answer:

OIL.

That is the reason for all the problems in the Middle East.

If their main resource was strawberries, do you think we would be having this conversation?

[Livyjr]

First, Livyjr, while I cannot give Arafat "credit" for singlehandedly causing the Lebanese civil war, I must caution you never to underestimate the power of a single individual to do EVIL.

jeffmoskin, when provoked, you can rise to quite high levels of eloquence, and that is not only good and healthy for this thread, it is stimulating and challenging in return, and always very educational!

And your point is made, jeffmoskin, about Arafat!

A strange man, to me, anyway!

I think I heard that he was an engineer, which may have had something to do with it.

I think a point that has to be made here, jeffmoskin, IS THAT IN MANY WAYS, you are point/counterpoint to me, and that is vital for balance in here.

I, AM A WARRIOR!

Not a fighter, a WARRIOR, which is a different thing.

And so I see Yassir Arafat in that light.

Was he a formidable enemy?

I truly don't know, and I never find any real evidence that he was!

His name is well known, BUT NOT HIS DEEDS!

With me, for whatever reasons, and they would be God's, as far as I am concerned, Yassir Arafat just comes across as a small man who was propelled by fate, apparently, into being this MONSTER who was fifteen feet tall!

PROPAGANDA!

You want to be the MEAN MAN on the block, then you need an enemy fifteen tall, and so, Arafat was "CREATED" to fit the "needs of the times"!

A "PUBLIC RELATIONS" success story in action!

But enough about Arafat!

Your point about the EVIL that just one man can do IN OUR WORLD is the point!

Indeed, Arafat is a stark and vivid example of that, as you point out, but as an example of what George W. Bush might be by comparison is going to be lost on people, is my point.

And jeffmoskin, thank you again as always for your "moxie" here, in framing your reply, AS ALWAYS, IT KEEPS THE ROUND-TABLE ROUND!

[jeffmoskin]

...I think I heard that he was an engineer, which may have had something to do with it.

Well, that is true, but since so are you and I, we can't use that as an excuse for his evil ways.

I think a point that has to be made here, jeffmoskin, IS THAT IN MANY WAYS, you are point/counterpoint to me, and that is vital for balance in here.

I, AM A WARRIOR!

Not a fighter, a WARRIOR, which is a different thing.

And so I see Yassir Arafat in that light.

I don't. I see a warrior as having a code of honor. I see none of that with Arafat.

Was he a formidable enemy?

I truly don't know, and I never find any real evidence that he was!

His name is well known, BUT NOT HIS DEEDS!

With me, for whatever reasons, and they would be God's, as far as I am concerned, Yassir Arafat just comes across as a small man who was propelled by fate, apparently, into being this MONSTER who was fifteen feet tall!

PROPAGANDA!

You want to be the MEAN MAN on the block, then you need an enemy fifteen tall, and so, Arafat was "CREATED" to fit the "needs of the times"!

A "PUBLIC RELATIONS" success story in action!

But enough about Arafat!

Your point about the EVIL that just one man can do IN OUR WORLD is the point!

Indeed, Arafat is a stark and vivid example of that, as you point out, but as an example of what George W. Bush might be by comparison is going to be lost on people, is my point.

And jeffmoskin, thank you again as always for your "moxie" here, in framing your reply, AS ALWAYS, IT KEEPS THE ROUND-TABLE ROUND!

You too, Livyjr. And Mr. A.B.

And to all of you out there in the blogosphere.