BUSH SUCKS

“What else is new? Allow me to expand my argument. The Jews have as much historical right to be there as the Arabs, and the Jews ended up with an arid, worthless piece of land that is less than 1% of the entire Middle East. The Arabs couldn't deal with even that and have tried several times to annihilate Israel from the map. They failed, and Israel, after being repeatedly attacked on its completely indefensible original borders, was forced to seize strategic land. Jordan occupies 80% of the land that made up the original Palestine Mandate, following the 'stealing land' logic, the PLO should be MUCH angrier at Jordan than Israel, since Jordan took far more of Palestinan land than Israel did, and with far more real violence. But the PLO isn't slaughtering Jordanian women and children.

How does one turn the Israeli response into land-stealing mass murder? The Arabs are incinerating Israeli children, but my God! -- Israel is building houses! What monsters!”

“hay bush sucks and i dont like him and what he stands for sooo.
ill get into my car with a sh!it load of TNT and drive in right upto to the white house and blow myself up and any other poor bastard that just happens to be near my car when i go to meet my god...


signed an a$$hole on my way to meet MY god”

“Maple Leaf, that's actually a little better than what Hamas does. Hamas doesn't target political figures. They purposely target innocent women and children.”

“I don't have time to rant about all the things in the Israel-Palestinian thing that piss me off. But just about all sides have plenty of blood on their hands.

Sharon is a creep. He has wanted to get the Palesentians out of the occupied territories for more than 30 years. He is complicit in mass murder in Beirut and he has schemed to stop peace and keep the conflict going at every turn.

Yet, comparing him - or the IDF under his leadership to the Nazis is wrong. The Nazis exterminated perhaps 10 million people (including 6 million jews) in their concentration camps in a few years. The total number of Palestinians who have died violent deaths in this conflict over decades is in the thousands. I think it is reprehensible that the US supports Sharon so much, and yet look at all the Arab leaders who play footsie with Hamas - which really does have genocidal intentions.

Check out this link if you have any doubt as to who has the genocidal agenda in this conflict:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm
" target="_blank"> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm
”

“Here is a quote from the Hamas covenant:

"Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree,(evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”

“white people, black people live in the middle east too. Deport them, and let themn all kill each other, so we don't have to to it for them.”

“Maybe we should start a thread called Sharon Sucks!”

“Good to see you posting here, Ped! I always like to read your stuff.

Buddha... Please. I could talk to you all day and you wouldn't hear a word.

My opinions on Sharon have become harsher out of this discussion. I need to do some research on the guy.

Hamas is what it has always been.

The palestinian cause is that of the average of the extremist arab groups in the region - the ones funding Arafat.”

“"Sharon is a creep. He has wanted to get the Palesentians out of the occupied territories for more than 30 years. He is complicit in mass murder in Beirut and he has schemed to stop peace and keep the conflict going at every turn."

I think this is missing the big picture. I'm no Sharon apologist. But Israel the nation is what we should be considering, not Sharon's cult of personality.

If you look objectively at the history, it is painfully clear that Israel is a tolerant democracy, self-judging and aware of mistakes. They are defending, not aggressing. If the PLO would stop terrorism tomorrow, Israel would stand down, and there would be a Palestinian state within a few years. Indeed, one was offered a few years ago. There is no question, at least no question for anyone without an agenda, who is the one initiating terror and slaughter a rule, as a deliberate tool, and who is the generally good, but flawed, state.

The Palestinians have schemed to stop the peace. Even if they accepted a Palestinian state, they would just use it as a larger base for their main goal: kill every jew in the region. The Israelis know this. They wanted Sharon's heavy-handed, if not brutal, tactics to stem the flow of innocent Israeli blood for a while.”

“Gear Slut, have you no argument to defend your position?”

“"hay bush sucks and i dont like him and what he stands for sooo.
ill get into my car with a sh!it load of TNT and drive in right upto to the white house and blow myself up and any other poor bastard that just happens to be near my car when i go to meet my god...


signed an a$$hole on my way to meet MY god"
Maple Leaf

You want to be a little careful, threatening the President is a felony and the SS take it very seriously, that balck sedan outside your Liberal hovel is a sign.”

“Yup. Even in jest it can land you jail time.”

“"outside your Liberal hovel "
and this means what to me???

you are correct and sometimes the truth hurts does it not?”

“You won't be laughing when the Feds show up at your place of business with a warrant. This happened at a place I used to work. The guy posted a menacing message threatening the president on an internet forum from his computer at work. They traced it to his work station. He's still in prison.”

“sorry but if the feds show up outside my place of work for what ive written then so be it. i was just saying what ever one of the idoits that have killed them selves have said. there were no threats on my part. just saying what they have said in the press.”

“This is way better than being banned on two boards. You are bad bad bad!”

“there coming to take me away haha”

“You should turn yourself in and be a good American. It will save us all the tax dollars of hunting you down and apprehending you in a dark parking lot behind the porn store.

USSS FIELD OFFICES
Index of locations:

NEW YORK
ALBANY 518-436-9600
2ND FLOOR, 39 NORTH PEARL STREET, ALBANY, NY 12207


BUFFALO 716-551-4401
610 MAIN STREET, BUFFALO, NY 14202


JFK 718-553-0911
JOHN F. KENNEDY INT. AIRPORT, JAMAICA, NY 11430


MELVILLE 631-249-0404
35 PINELAWN ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 11747


NEW YORK 718-722-0712
335 ADAMS STREET, 32ND FLOOR, BROOKLYN, NY 11201


ROCHESTER 716-263-6830
100 STATE STREET, ROCHESTER, NY 14614


SYRACUSE 315-448-0304
ROOM 1371, 100 S. CLINTON STREET, SYRACUSE, NY 13261


WHITE PLAINS 914-682-6300
140 GRAND STREET, WHITE PLAINS, NY 10601”

“All they have to do is set up a sting and offer her a free kayak.”

“NEW YORK 718-722-0712
335 ADAMS STREET, 32ND FLOOR, BROOKLYN, NY 11201

hay i know this place
its right near my house.”

“I think i would be in more trouble if they arrest me for the company i keep (hint hint)
DWG”

“Oh, you mean Brian!”

“brian and gizmo”

“When they lock you up, can I have your Pepsi can stove?”

“uuumm
ok”

“only if you promise to bake me a cake with a file in it”

“Heck, they'll probably confiscate it as evidence.

"Your honor, the government would like to enter into evidence this device which the accused planned to use in her crime."”

“By Ted Rall, Yahoo

NEW YORK - A year has passed since September 11th. Yet we, the American people, still don't know exactly what happened. There are still no plans for a public investigation of how more than 3,000 Americans lost their lives, what could have been done to prevent the attacks or reduce their impact.

Secrecy has been the watchword of the obsessively inscrutable Bush administration. So preoccupied are they with keeping the people's business away from the people that, rather than spark a national discussion of what went wrong and what we could do better, these public servants are asking members of Congress to take lie-detector tests-to find out who's been leaking plans to attack Iraq.

Without a doubt, military intelligence requires secrecy. But there is no conceivable national security interest in keeping Americans in the dark about September 11th, a horribly public mass murder that devastated our national sense of invulnerability.



A crisis whose first few weeks were marked by patriotic unity rapidly devolved into a divisive "war on terrorism" marked by opportunistic assaults on the Bill of Rights, old-fashioned oil wars and a cynical neo-McCarthyism whereby those who question Bush and the Republican Party are smeared as "anti-American." "United we stand" bumper stickers aside, the terrorists have skillfully turned us against each other: citizen against immigrant, Republican against Democrat, Christian against Muslim. Secrecy only deepens those divisions.

To hell with closed-door Congressional hearings. America needs a full, open, publicly-televised investigation into 9-11, and it needs it last October. Using the post-JFK assassination Warren Commission as a model is a start, though that panel's lack of openness fed conspiracy theories that continue to cause Americans to distrust their government four decades later. The best way to avoid alienating the public from its public servants is to keep an investigation 100 percent transparent.

During times of crisis both the electorate and the elected forget that this country belongs to the former. The latter are lackeys, not the other way around! As American citizens and taxpayers, therefore, we deserve-and should demand-honest answers to the following still-unanswered questions:

What did Bush know and when did he know it? A few months ago it was revealed that, while vacationing in Crawford, Texas on August 6, 2001, Bush had received an "analytical report" warning from National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that a terrorist attack was imminent. What was the exact nature of that warning? How detailed was it? Should Bush have cut short his vacation and headed back to Washington? The administration has stonewalled on this issue, but they can only allay suspicions of a September Surprise by coming clean now about the briefings he received before 9-11.

Did Echelon cough up the 9-10 warnings? The National Security Agency acknowledges that it "intercepted" two messages (one said "tomorrow is zero hour") from terrorists indicating that the next day, September 11th, would be the date of a major attack. Unfortunately, those messages weren't processed and evaluated until it was too late, on September 12th. The NSA maintains a sophisticated voice- and keyword-recognition computer system called Echelon. A former NSA director told the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur that Echelon uses automation to monitor every phone call, fax transmission, e-mail and wire transfer in the world. Did the 9-10 warning come from Echelon? Is Echelon being used to monitor ordinary Americans? Is there any way to speed up the rate at which the NSA processes important intercepts?

Why didn't our Air Force shoot down the hijacked planes? Air traffic controllers lost contact with all four aircraft within minutes of takeoff. Two were off course and ignored controllers for more than an hour and a half, yet the mightiest air defense network in the world failed to prevent the suicide bombers from striking their targets. Did overworked air traffic controllers fail to notice the errant planes? How long did it take them to get the word to military authorities? Did a bureaucratically inept Air Force fail to react quickly enough?

Why were only 12 jets patrolling U.S. airspace? According to The New York Times, only 12 Air Force National Guard planes, most of them on the ground, were assigned to patrol the entire continental United States at the time of the attacks. Whose judgment determined that this level of protection was adequate? What would happen in the event of a nuclear first strike against the U.S.? Would an increased budget have increased that number, and what is our current field strength?

What is American policy concerning hijackings? Had an Air Force jet successfully intercepted one of the doomed flights, would its pilot have been ordered to shoot it down? If so, would that order have had to come from the president, or would a lower-ranked official be sufficient? If a shooting were authorized, would it ever be implemented over a densely-populated area? Passengers need to know where they stand before they board a plane.

Was United Flight 93 shot down over Pennsylvania? The Pentagon has neither denied shooting down United 93 nor confirmed that its heroic passengers caused the flight to crash while trying to wrest its controls from the hijackers. The flight was airborne some two and a half hours before crashing outside Shanksville, leading many to speculate that it was fired upon to protect the White House or other likely targets in Washington. It seems unlikely that a cockpit voice recording of a struggle between passengers and jihadis exists; if it did, why not release such an inspiring artifact to a public hungry for inspiration? All 9-11 flight information, including any Flight 93 recordings, ought to given to the media. And it's time for the military to indicate whether or not they, rather than the passengers, brought down the jet.

Why didn't federal law require reinforced cockpit doors? This common-sense proposal had been adopted by carriers in other countries years earlier, but not in the United States. Did the airlines lobby against the move because of increased costs? If so, which airlines? And which federal officials and/or members of Congress are criminally responsible for jeapordizing the safety of the flying public for the sake of a few bucks?

Who locked the roof doors at the World Trade Center? During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, hundreds of workers escaped smoke by going to the roofs. On September 11th hundreds died when they went up dozens of flights of stairs only to find those same roof doors locked. Why did city fire officials order those doors locked between 1993 and 2001, and more importantly, why didn't they post notices through the World Trade Center complex to advise that roof doors would no longer be unlocked? Prosecutions may be in order for criminal negligence.

Who skimped on FDNY communications? Scores of New York firefighters died in the stairwells of the World Trade Center after they'd been ordered to evacuate the buildings-because they couldn't hear those orders on their antiquated radio system. The fire department had requested up-to-date equipment years earlier. Which city officials refused to allocate the necessary funding, causing firefighters to die needlessly? Do the FDNY and other urban fire departments now have better communications?

How much asbestos was released by the World Trade Center collapse? World Trade was one-third completed when builders stopped using asbestos fire retardant, which means that the equivalent of four normal-width 60-story skyscrapers full of a banned carcinogen was pulverized and released in a cloud that blanketed lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. The Environmental Protection Agency has never come clean on what may eventually become known as America's Chernobyl, but New Yorkers deserve to know the full extent of their exposure.

Why was the Pentagon so vulnerable? Not only did Defense Department employees perish at the Pentagon, the attack revealed that even the headquarters of American military power can be successfully targeted. Does the Pentagon have a surface-to-air missile system that could avert similar catastrophes in the future? If not, one should be constructed.

What about the other knives? After American planes were grounded, investigators found box cutters attached under seats on Delta flights out of Boston's Logan airport and from Atlanta bound for Brussels. Was anyone ever arrested in connection with would-be hijackings of these other flights? What were the intended targets of those aborted hijackings? Were those box cutters, and those on the four hijacked flights, placed there by personnel who service aircraft ("These look like an inside job," a U.S. official told Time magazine) or were they smuggled aboard through lax security checkpoints by would-be hijackers?

Were there other plots? American officials have questioned thousands of individuals in connection with 9-11. Have they uncovered other schemes intended for that day, or for later on?

Did anyone take responsibility or make demands? It's difficult to imagine that the group that carried out an act as expensive and carefully-planned as 9-11 chose not to claim credit for it. Furthermore, terrorist organizations typically make demands-requests for changes in policy, say, or the release of political prisoners. Secretary of State Colin Powell initially promised to provide proof of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group's leading role as instigators of 9-11, but have since reneged on that pledge. Moreover, that assertion doesn't fit bin Laden's known methods; rather than plan or carry out operations himself, he usually agrees to fully or partially fund plots conceived and executed by other Islamist groups. If the Bush Administration received communiquÚs from a group or groups claiming responsibility for 9-11, Americans need to know that.

When did the U.S. decide to invade Afghanistan? As recently as April 2001, the Bush Administration funneled millions of dollars in aid to the Taliban in order to reward the hardline Islamic regime for virtually eliminating opium production. By June, however, relations had cooled noticeably and invasion plans were being prepared. Would we have invaded Afghanistan if September 11th hadn't happened? Were there any discussions between future U.S. puppet Hamid Karzai and the Bush Administration before or immediately after 9-11?

Where was Osama on 9-11? Afghans told reporters that bin Laden and his entourage fled Afghanistan for Kashmir on September 10th, yet military officials were saying as late as January that the world's most wanted man was holed up in the Tora Bora region. Did the U.S. really know where Osama was on 9-11, and if so, where was he? Why weren't American commandos inserted into Afghanistan or Pakistan in order to apprehend him? If the U.S. knew that he had left Afghanistan, is this why it refused to negotiate with the Taliban for his extradition?

How many civilians died in Afghanistan? Perhaps the most deliberately underreported story of 2001-2002 was the number of Afghan civilians killed by American bombs, missiles, mines and bullets. (Estimates begin at CNN's conservative 3,500.) While the Pentagon's argument that it's difficult to track these things from satellites and high-flying planes rings true, there's no doubt that they know more than they care to admit. We deserve to know how many innocent people our taxdollars have killed, and how many of their relatives now have reason to despise America.

Is the government spying on American citizens? Not only is the federal government asking postal workers and meter readers to report on anything unusual they see in our homes, anecdotal evidence suggests that opponents of administration policy are being targeted for wiretaps and other forms of harassment and intimidation by government intelligence agencies. Obviously there is no place for such retro-Cold War behavior in this country; the FBI, CIA and NSA must reveal and cease all such unconstitutional activities against Americans.

Why doesn't the Bush Administration want a real investigation of 9-11? The House and Senate, whose intelligence committees are now meeting in private, are considering bills that would set up limited, closed-door independent investigative panels, but Bush has stymied even those watered-down efforts at openness, arguing they "would cause a further diversion of essential personnel from their duties fighting the war." What is he hiding? Americans pay Bush's salary, and Americans deserve to know what he's doing.

BUT HE DOESN'T WANT US TO KNOW THAT HE'S INCOMPETENT.”

“Jr your as clueless as ever... Maybe next time you could use some factual information instead of the paraniod delusions of some idiot on the web.”

“Well one thing is clear. If the Supreme Court hadn't appointed Bush, we might not have suffered the 9/11 attacks.

Is TIME magazine mainstream enough for you, DOM?”

“WOW - What stunning pieces of journalistic excellence! It's almost like they had a crystal ball.”

“bpjr - If B.S. were music, YOU WOULD BE A BRASS BAND!!!!

Go to bed little girl...”

“You IDIOTS refuse to acknowledge the fact that this pretender has USURPED the presidency and is using it for his own personal gain!

"DRill for oil in Alaska"

"Buddy-buddy the Saudi boys"

"Invade Iraq so we can put a government in that will give us a volume discount on oil"

"Knock out a taliban government so we can throw up an oil pipeline from Russia and Uzbekistan to the ocean."

He's pulled the WOOL OVER YOUR EYES! and the wool is OIL-COATED!”

“Usurper?... buddy you dont know much about american elections.

Time magazine? oh now theres a monument to journalistic integrity.

What a joke!”

“Thebackpacker Jr., I don't like Bush at all. He's a crooked scumbag in my eyes. But, I'd like to know why you consider U.S./Saudi relations to be 'buddy-buddy.' It's a funny thing, but everything I've been reading over the past year or so has pointed to worsening relations between the two.

The idea of invading Iraq as an essential step in the war on terrorism is government propaganda. There are two overarching reasons why the U.S. wants a U.S. friendly Iraq gov't: oil and China. You seem to believe Bush just wants to hand his oil-cronies cheap oil from Iraq, and while this may be resultant of regime change, the more important reasons are security of energy resources and containment of China. China has been exporting WMD materials to Iraq and Iran and has been strengthening diplomatic relations with the countries in order to expand its burgeoning industrial base. China needs foreign energy resources. The U.S. has no intention of letting them compete in the region. Invading Iraq will not only solve any secondary Iraq problems, but will also give the U.S. powerful leverage over Iran and Saudi Arabia - and by extension, China. If this doesn't convince you, then look what has been going on in Africa over the last decade. China has been aggressively courting African nations (e.g. Nigeria,
Sudan, Angola, Algeria, Gabon, Cameroon, Libya and Egypt) that it imports oil from to increase oil production/exportation. China has had an advantage over Western democracies in that its foreign policay is completely divorced from ethical considerations. Only recently have the U.S. and various European entities started playing catch-up in the region. The last thing the U.S. wants to see is a Chinese monopoly on oil resources and trade. You can count on dramatically increased importation from oil-producing African states in the next decade.

That the war on Iraq is only to combat terrorism is a big dumb lie. But Bush needs American popular support for his war, and fear-mongering is his best chance to achieve it. There are plenty of ignorant suckers out there who have no idea what the more Machiavellian reasons for the war are. But even if they were to know, I would have to believe that they would support the goals of the war. Now whether any of these goals are worth sacrificing 18 year old Americans is worth debate....”

“I haven't posted here lately because most of the sensible non-leftists seem to have abandoned the site. I just have a couple of comments on this thread. Bush is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position concerning Iraq. If we wait for Saddam to obtain WMD's and use them against the US he will be blamed for allowing Americans to be killed (as he is now being blamed by leftist loonies for Sept. 11). If we wage war on Saddam to prevent such a scenario he will be blamed for allowing Iraqi civilians to be killed.

As for the Time article, why didn't Clinton take the initiative earlier in his presidency? Why is it unreasonable that Bush did not take action in 8 months, when Clinton tolerated terrorist attacks for 8 years without retaliating? What kind of public support would Bush (or Clinton, for that matter) have had for initiating aggression against Afghanistan if it had not been for the attacks of September 11?”

“most of the sensible non-leftists seem to have abandoned the site

It seems most people capable of having a substantive discussion of current events have abondoned the site as well.”

“Now whether any of these goals are worth sacrificing 18 year old Americans is worth debate....

This is the crux of the issue, along with the air of secrecy that the administration is keeping. What it says is that the American public is a tool to be controlled and sacrificed if necessary in order to accommodate big business's needs. Not a new concept by any means.

The assertation that the majority of Americans would support the aggression toward Iraq if the information were available to all is moot - we are ignorant of the actual motives due to the bush administration's propaganda campaign.

Have you seen any of the commercials that have come out recently from the ad council? Big business is on board this campaign, as would be expected. The commercials don't advertize any product other than the rah-rah patriotic attitude that keeps people from looking too deeply at the issues currently surrounding the presidency.

You're either with us or against us, eh?

A similar point of view is put forth in the idea that there are only two choices in regard to Iraq: Invade or allow them to obtain WMD. Show me the evidence, please. Also, since we have such creative and intelligent people in office, shouldn't there be - perhaps - a third option? Gosh, if they think hard about it, maybe they'll even find a fourth!

The other options, no doubt, are less politically feasible in the current nationalistic climate.

Time will tell, but my hope is that the "liberals" (aka anyone who refuses to tow the part line) will make enough dissenting noise to allow for productive discourse on the issues.”

“I haven't seen any statistics lately on what the American public thinks about invading Iraq.

I find it interesting the Cheney has come out from dodging the big business fiasco in order to beat the war drum. The clip I saw of him on the news a couple of nights ago made him look like a rabid dog calling to engage Iraq. I guess anything to take the heat off of his corruption ties. I also find it interesting that the Joint Chiefs, who until last week were against military action against Iraq, have been cajoled into supporting it. Promotions on the line?

I'm also quite interested in what seems to be a trend in the latter half of the 20th Century and now into 21st Century of not declaring war on countries and just initiating action. I began with Korea and every major action since, which has been termed a "war" has not involved a Congressional vote on the matter. Isn't this what the whole balance of power is about? I guess the upper eschelon has decided it can just commit military forces where and when it wants without declaring war. They seem to have gotten very good at circumventing the process and frankly, that makes me and a lot of the world a little uncomfortable.”

“The joint chiefs aren't going to get promoted. They are at the four-star pinnacle of their careers.

It would be nice to get back to the constitutional provision of the president asking congress for a declaration of war.”

“Geo, then why the change of heart? I mean, from everything I read, they were pretty adamant about NOT engaging Iraq. I think that says something when the top military leaders are saying it's a bad idea. Something had to have changed their minds.”

“Whatever it was, it wasn't promotion because they can't go higher that four stars.”

“There's promotion and then there's promotion.

When there's no more promotion in the military, there's always the private sector... Don't worry, though. By the time these clandestine promises are kept, we'll all have forgotten.”

“70% of the American public want to go in and smack to snot outta 'em....Time mag should stick to Kournikova pantie shots and Kostner interviews.”

“I, for one, would like to stick to Kourikova pantie shots. :)”

“Noted and approved.”

“It seems most people capable of having a substantive discussion of current events have abondoned the site as well."
Mutt
08:14:10 AM
08/09/02


it seems to me that people come in here for light-hearted, happy trails kinda stuff more than political disscusions(sp?).


you people would fry this guy and find fault no matter what and your minds are made up. there's a fact for ya. maybe hillary will get elected next time & you wont have to worry bout anythang anymore.


socialism is not a family value.”

“Fascism is not a family value.”

“socialism is a stepping stone to facism.”