I found some interesting quotes yesterday.

Quotes 1 ,2,3, and 4 :
1) " My own view is that you can go to the extreme in either direction," he continued. "And when we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed."

2) " That is, when we set up this country, abuse of people by government was a big problem," he continued. "So if you read the Constitution, it’s rooted in the desire to limit the ability of government’s ability to mess with you, because that was a huge problem. It still can be a huge problem. But it assumed that people would basically be raised in coherent families, in coherent communities, and they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare."

3) "What’s happened in America today is, too many people live in areas where there’s no family structure, no community structure, and no work structure," he said. "And so there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom."

4) "When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it," .

KNOW WHO SAID THIS AND WHEN ?
The speaker was President Bill Clinton in 1994, on MTV's show, "Enough is Enough". Four years later, during Mr. Clinton's reign, we got the DMCA.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/farah.html

Now, on to more interesting quotes :
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
George W. Bush, talking about a parody website that criticized him that he moved to shut down. This was in 1999, while Bush was still governor of Texas.
www.gwbush.com/multimedia/index.shtml


" If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George W. Bush
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

Less than ONE later, the Patriot Act was passed
(Oct. 25, 2001), which has great capacity to limit freedoms.

---------------------SNIP---------------------------------
It concerns me that presidents are even MAKING these public comments.
Obviously, the remarks by President Clinton were made in public,
and were not meant to be a joke or said in humor.

The "there ought to be limits to freedom" said by George Bush, was also not said in jest. He was very angry that there was a parody website (www.gwbush.com) and he and his attorneys tried everything they could to shut Zack Exley's site down.

The trends in the last ten years, have in fact, and in operation, been to limit personal freedoms, and to subject us ALL to increased scrutiny and surveillance.

Whether one is republican or democrat, religious or atheist, young or old, we SHOULD look at this trend with great concern.

For those of us who try to monitor new, proposed legislation at the state , federal, and international levels, this trend is becoming more and more clear, and problematic, and I think begs the question,

"How much freedom do YOU need?"
~Code

the need for freedom can be measured, when people feel the lack of freedom they become angry, mean, and worse till there is change just ask the british. this country is just like a zoo, keep the animals happy and all is well, you don,t keep them happy you get bit the first time they get a chance. I feel we are living in a very unhappy zoo.

Even though I hate to say this, I have a feeling something radical will have to happen for this all to stop.

Thanks,
Freedom-Will-Come

How much freedom can you afford?

Even if you get off on a DUI charge, it's still gonna cost you about $10,000 overall - and the freedom fees start from there and go up!

A law abiding carpenter in Kentucky, gives a state trooper a couple of videotapes..one was a tape of Congressman Ron Paul on C-Span, and the other was a documentary by Alex Jones. The trooper arrested him and charged him with making a terrorist threat...hew as looking at a year in prison.

His trial was yesterday...the jury found him innocent.
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/cw_rushing.htm

actually he was found not guilty...BUT, if one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and they are not found guilty, isn't that a presumptive or affirmative finding of innocence...

I know..not guilty findings can mean we "think" he is guilty, but it wasn't proven...but should juries, in the absence of proof, be "thinking" that a person presumed to be innocent, is guilty?

Code; The sad part about it, is that it is so rampant in both parties. For every Bush (Clinton) example there is a Clinton (Bush) example.

I think I will just go out and cry.

so true Baldrocker..so true!

It really is about time that people in this country had a long serious discussion of the various dilemnas we face regarding Liberty Vs. Security, Rights Vs. Privledges, and Freedom and Responsibility. The overwhelming trend I see is that many Americans are unwilling to take responsibility for safeguarding their own rights and liberties and expect and empower goverments or PACS to do it for them, with out realizing that this very act of delegation erodes their freedom. On the flip side of the issue many Americans also believe that they should not have to face the consequences of their actions and believe that they should be granted both freedom and security. In the Case of the RIAA you see this mentality infiltrating the economic world, they want to make risky or questionable business decisions but want the goverment to limit the consequences of those poor decisions. Personally I think the problems starts with the individual, especially the one that says "there ought to be a law...." every time they encounter something they don't like.

An interesting definition of Politics:
Politics is putting private interests in Public interest terms.

On more concrete terms I think a good strategy for us would be to try to link Intellectual Property and Copyright reform to the TORT reform and Frivelous Lawsuit / Run Away Jury award movement or to pint out the Abuses of the RIAA to ally with these movements which are beginning to get a lot of attention.

It's really a shame that being a part of the government that creates these hypocritical laws, means also being above them.

These politicians are so deluded by their immunity, that they do not realize what effect these laws have on the general population. Either that, or they just don't care.

Freedom is everything, and they will always have it, so to hell with the rest.

On second thought, maybe i'm looking at this all wrong.

It seems that politicians, as a rule, have every aspect of their lives and history paraded in front of the world every day of their political careers.

What is privacy to a politician? Very little?

So maybe this whole thing has a small ingrediant of revenge as well. The idea that if they have to suffer under constant supervision and scrutiny, everyone will have to suffer as well.

The only difference, is that they are the ones with the teeth.

Let me point out how far immunity from proscution has traveled down the political ladder. Amarillo texas, 5 police personel are caught changing the odomiter reading on a police car, this is a felony, they get a slap on their wrist, the goverment is protecting it muscle and itself. The local police cheif statement was, Well it borders on illegal. No its south off the border way south.

I believe that the people that abuse the freedoms we have are the same ones responsible for us loosing them( or making society worse in every way they can). example- A welfare mother of two has more children because she knows that if she stays pregnant her checks will get larger, the LAW or freedom you could call it says we cant make her stop having kids. these kids will grow up with no father and cost tax payers countless dollars. I propose the simple act of taking away her freedom, by not letting her have more children. like my dad used to tell me, as long as you live under my roof. In a sense she is living under MY roof on metropolitan Ave. As you can see its Her freedom to destroy the nation, versus My freedom not to pay for her mistakes. (U.S taxpayers have spent 7 TRILLION dollars on welfare projects in the last 30 years) and the only thing that has happened is everything got worse. Its like enabling a drug addict with more money. So the meaning of this rant is : You MUST sacrifice some peoples freedom to ensure freedom for other people.

What's most wrong with politicians, corporate ceo's, and the rich & powerful in general (and most specifically those raised that way, however some people would adjust their personality if given the oppertunity), is that the only perspective of the world they have is ontop of their mountain of privledge. Like everyone, their perception of the world revolves around their personal experiences, however their experiences are very out of touch compared to the average person.

Bill Clinton seems to think that our social ill's come from an abudance of personal freedom, however...I STRONGLY DISAGREE. In a society that's been built so that the only personal freedom offered to one is the few short hours between work and bed, it's hard to imagine that this personal freedom can effect anything besides what primetime television becomes popular, or what films gross the most (durring our [sometimes] personally free weekends). Of course this is a huge generalization, however...the scenario is average, with insignificant variables changed depending.

There once was a time, not too long ago, where a family could survive in our economy with one parents income. As technology advanced, especially through the 70's and 80's, people imagined a day when technology would provide, the overall work load would be lessened, and the cost of living would decrease. So that one would have more time with his friends, family, and community.

However, the work load has increased as well as the cost of living, however wages remain stagnant. Where one factory worker could once provide for an entire family (as my grandfather did with 4 children), a household now requires two incomes just to put food on the table. Work hours increase, personal freedom decreases, and our social savior technology has us working harder to buy him up in the newest surround sound equipment, rather than ease our load.

With two parents requiring an income, children become pawned off on caregivers and babysitters...neglected. Stress piles ontop of job expectations, ontop of bills, on top of the natrual stress in maintaining relationships, until the foundations of marriage begin to crack. When we once occupied our time socially as a community, at gatherings or talking in coffee shops, or discussing news with neighbors at resturants; we now warm ourselves by the light of television. Shuffled away apart from the rest of our world in the box we call a home.

Suburb communities become tombs filled with bodies of people who do not know each other at all. Urban communities become warzones as people who don't make enough to live, or can't find a job resort to crime for income or drugs for escapism. The people in the suburbs turn on the news durring their personal freedom time, and see that an urban kid was arrested in a drug related crime and think "god, what is the world coming too". The kid is in handcuffs at the police station thinking "why do I have to resort to this so I can live above the poverty line, what is the world coming to?".

Children become neglected, marriages become to stressful to manage, communities no longer host celebrations and instead host rows of houses. Is this because of personal freedom? Is this what you would do with your personal freedom if it wasn't just another break in your work schedule?

If anything (and don't get me wrong, because there's a tremendious ammount of underlying conditions that contribute), LACK of personal freedom directly contributes to those problems. The rich and powerful dictate their own freedom...the economy dictates ours. For some reason, either they can not, or will not (because they dare not sacrifice their comfort to persue the truth about the degradation of society) look beyond the view offered by their economic class.

DMCA is just another instance of the upper class helping the upper class. Corporate lobbyists consult with politicians over what laws would best benefit each other. Personal freedom is gobbled up in work hours, and the rest in an undesirable side effect. Mussolini coined a term for a government that merged state and corporate interests. He called it Fascism.

Oh, and thank you to Code for writing another artcle to inspire me to waste your time with my politics. Though I'm always lurking around here, you manage to slip off topic now and again and give me a reason to post something besides "RIAA SUCKS".

...I'm just the canary in the coal mine
I always enjoy reading your input

Hey, remember 9-11? Because of 9-11 we should all be a little more patriotic and give up some of these freedoms that get in the way of capturing the bad guys.

(If you believe that, let me sell you some ocean front property on the moon.)

Our government has now become what our founding fathers sought and fought so hard to prevent it from becoming.........

Thanks Code, I enjoy your articles. This really got to me because my philosophy on freedom seems to be common sensical. As humanity evolves socially and intellectually, it would seem that economic classes would eventually level and the scope of personal freedom would increase as laws become obsolete. This would seem to be common sense, well to me at least, but power and wealth are not like that. However, it seems that due to consumerism, the media, the spirit crushing force we call our educational system, the ambition crushing force we call the job market--we are devolving into just complacent, hopeless, passive sheep (in a sense).

Whatever happened to the concept that freedom should not be obstructed unless it impedes on another person's rights? :igh:: Sic transit gloria mundi.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

So, LXI, do you want smart and duplicitous men like Clinton and Nixon to rule? Or would you rather have commonsensical, if less formally brilliant men like Bush and Reagan? Personally I feel that people like the latter are better for the country. Certainly they are more representative. Jimmy Carter was smart. No one will deny that. But as a president, he was an unfunny joke.

However, I highly doubt that someone with an IQ of 91 could get through Yale Business School. I think this "study" is bogus.

Harry Truman had the best of both worlds. He was smart. But also very down-to-earth. Bombed the Japanese into submission. A take-charge and take responsibility kind of guy. Like Bush.

But this thread is about freedom. What does your information have to do with freedom? Zilch.

We must not think about freedom without considering the freedom that is snatched away from us by taxes that eat away up to 50% or more of our income, when FICA, income tax, state income tax, property tax, excise taxes, and sales taxes are all considered. How much more freedom would YOU have, to educate your children in a better school, to move to another state, to pursue more education yourself, to travel or enjoy artistic pursuits, if you were not burdened with such horrible taxation?

There are many kinds of freedom, not merely the kinds that eminate from "rights" allowed or restricted by government law enforcement agencies.

As far as the IQ scores I found while surfing I thought it was funny.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm there is the site that I found the information.


Show me why Bush should be considered commonsensical. He lets God make his decisions not the people. There is no such thing as God in Government. (Do not get this statement wrong. I do believe in a form of God but it does not belong in a Government that is in charge of so many different Races, Religions, and Cultures. I also believe that who ever becomes our leader for this country will make mistakes but they will also have some common sence with Bush does not have. He seems to show this more and more for example:

" If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George W. Bush
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html


"It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet."—Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm





The list is so long on things that this guy has said. It is not funny anymore. Mr. Bush is all about Corporations. He also says Jobs are up and the economy is back on track. Does he just dream this or does he mean some other country. He has eroded

I believe that taxes are part of any government but at what cost…. Like you said most people could not afford to do anything anymore because of taxes and the way the government spends it.



Just my thoughts

I am going to really stir the pot and attack this whole notion of a ban on being religious and being capable of being in goverment, which is loosely based on a separation of church and state derived mostly from relatively recent case law than anything actually in the Constitution. If you advocate to have leaders and politicians who do not believe in any sort of God or don't derive their positions from some sort of Moral Code, and than get amoral and corrupt politicians, stop complaining you got just what you asked for.

For the budding class warriors out there a quick historical and philosophical reminder is in order. Our founding fathers fought the revolution to among other things gain class mobility (which certain politicians are anow working on destroying through the income tax) the war to gain class equalization was fought in Russia by men named Lenin and Trotsky, and history has shown that it didn't work so well.

Once again as I've posted before, the Revolution was fought over what amounted to a 3% income tax levied by parliament against the colonies, who had no seats in the House of Commons. Now the "Colonies" have 435 seats in our own House and we are taxed at 33% to over 50% depending on your production and place of residence.

I think our freedoms have been taken away since the beginning. There has never been any real freedom. Its all an illusion. Look at the racism, look at the war coverups, look at programs funded for the main purpose of misleading. I'm not some nut that thinks the aliens are going to get me, but I still believe the government lies, like any government. Lies lead us to bad places. Wars are based on lies. Our freedoms are complete lies and now they are actually telling us what we really have. As a nation we are ignorant and arrogant. We don't look at the outside world. I fail to see any news that really explains about events in other countries. Censorship is a horrible thing. The fighting between our politicians and maybe a story about military deaths and a flood in some asian country are the only things that ever hit our ears. I give praise to all you people who seek out other information and don't take everything without any questions. There is something going on in this country that really moves me. The smart are fed up with politicians and their propanganda. Also I would like to say that I am happy to see that Bush got rid of Saddam. He was a very bad person and he killed hundreds of thousands of people. Thats why we went in, to help, but you know all us Americans are assholes and should stick to our own country. I'm not saying we should police the globe, but what the hell is the U.N. for? It was designed to stop wars and help for the generally good. In closing (always wanted to say that in a reply) I think that we need a new group of leaders, a group that actually cares about america AND its people. Keep on fighting the good cause, and down with the riaa(lol).

stevebugge First off I enjoyed the post.


Never asked for a him and never would. You took the point wrong. I do not care if thinks there is a god or not. That is not the point. He is leading this country as if there is only one church. His. Some things the church sould be left out. For example. God told me to strike Iraq. He has no idea on how much he takes the freedoms away from his own people. He is just a Monkey doing his fathers work. I would never complain I just bit*h a whole lot. I hate the way this country is headed.


I also enjoyed your post zerotek

Well, LXI, Bush is common sense, only to a point. The economy is back on track by some measures, but there will be consequences. Since 2000, this country has piled on $6 trillion of debt (public, private, corporate) and economic growth in that period has been $1.25 trillion. Not a good ratio!

I don't think God told Bush to strike Iraq. But then, I don't think He needed to.

The real reasons to strike Iraq were not explicitly stated. The reason was that we got whacked by Arabs, and we needed to whack an Arab country back. Nothing more complicated than that. Saddam was the most visible target. That this taught other nations a desired lesson is evidenced in the response of Libya and Pakistan.

The other reason, a bit more dubious IMO, is that establishing a democracy in that part of the world would cause other fascist regimes and shiekdoms to suffer collapse, as their peoples seek like freedom. Hmmmmm. We'll have to wait and see on that one. If the plan succeeds, Bush will go down in history as much more brilliant than all those POTUS's with IQ's in the genius range. So, we'll wait and see.

nice post. We will wait and see what happens.

Autodidact, I pray that you are saying what you're saying out of pure ignorance. You're either A) very uninformed of the circumstances that lie, or B) you're a complete idiot.

"...do you want smart and duplicitous men like Clinton and Nixon to rule? Or would you rather have commonsensical, if less formally brilliant men like Bush and Reagan?"

Perhaps you don't remember the shambles Reagan left the country in with his Reaganomics program? Or the enormous ammounts of cocaine that flooded city streets (the Iran/Contra scandal ring any bells?)? The murderous regimes throughout South America that the Reagan and Bush administrations have supported to squash Democracy, because a totalitarian government isn't so bad when they let American corporations exploit their land and people. How about the LARGE ammounts of weapons INCLUDING biological and chemical agents that were given to Saddam durring the Reagan/Bush administration to goto war with the Islamic Fundamentalist Iran regime?

After 9/11, what would be the commonsensical approach? Well let's see, the commonsensical approach should have been taken BEFORE 9/11. Ya know, that wasn't the first time an Airliner has been hijacked on US soil. And in every instance, fighter jets are scrambled within 10 minutes after losing contact or deviation from course. This is federal law. Fighter jets weren't scrambled until 35 minutes after the last airliner lost contact. While at the same time, Bush found out about the attacks while reading to children in a school, and continued to read to them for another 20 minutes while everyone's idea of America crumbled before their eyes. I would say that the commonsensical approach would be to FOLLOW THE LAW, and act appropriately at the time.

Now, say that 9/11 was unpreventable (well, anyone that has done the most minimal research wouldn't conclude on that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), what would be the commonsensical approach? Well, with any crime, you find the people responsible, and you try them in front of a court. In this case, an international court. That would be the commonsensical solution. That is how we practice justice in our country, and this is the system that we helped set up to practice justice on an international level.

Now, after 9/11, not only did Bush use it as an oppertunity to undermind the basic consitutional rights of Americans, he also underminded the very system of justice throughout the world that we developed. We were once so proud of our FREEDOM and JUSTICE, both of which were tossed to the side as if they were obsolete. This is commonsensical? How is this hypocricy supposed to be interpreted?

Now fresh off of Afghanistan, without CIA asset bin Laden in capture yet, we have a new bad guy. Apparently Saddam is stockpiling biological and chemical weapons, and also buying up supplies to develop nuclear weapons. Well gosh, that's FRIGHTENING to hear after a terrorist attack the size of 9/11. Turned out to be exactly that, a scare tactic. Perhaps you need a refresher course on modern Iraqi political history?

(Forgive me for not supplying details as I'm writing this quickly, but using this basic outline and google, you should have no problem finding this information yourself)

In the 60's, or possibly late 50's, Saddam had to flee in exile to Egypt for an attempted assassination on Iraq's president (who's name escapes me now). While in Egypt he was picked up as a CIA assest. With Iraq in America's pocket, the natrual resources there would provide a significant advantage in the Cold War. So we help Saddam and friends stage a few coups (one of which was orchastrated by Saddam against his own cousin), Saddam is now the totalitarian dictator of Iraq. But we have a problem...Iran. With the wave of terrorist hijackings and attacks, and Iran being an extremely islamic fundamentalist regime, we need to put Iran in it's place. So we give Saddam weapons, and let him duke it out for a while (later it was found out that we were also dealing weapons with Iran courtasy of Oliver North & Friends). This war left Iraq with a pretty devistated economy, and with Kuwait flooding the market with oil at the time, the value of Iraq's only resource to recover the economy with is significantly undercut. Saddam infact asked for permission from Washington to invade Kuwait, got the green light, and then we turned on him. Iraq at that time was already an extremely weak military state. Then we pile a ton of barbaric UN Sanctions on Iraq which continually weakens them further. The result? Iraq is the weakest nation in the area. Kuwait even publicly stated that Saddam was not a threat to the AREA, let alone the world.

So what happens? Bush manipulates the still fearful people into believing that Iraq could pose a threat to us. A ton of evidence displayed, all of which has since been proven to be false or inacurate and we blame it on BAD INTELLIGENCE. Wow, first 9/11 and now Iraq...two huge intelligence screw ups durring the Bush administration. How can George Tenet still be employeed?

You think Bush did this to free the Iraqi people? Well, throughout our post-wwii military-industrial complex era, the United States has been pretty consistent in demonstrating that the only freedom acceptable is freedom that serves our interests. If you need more proof, why don't you look into the oppression of Iraqi demonstrators, the shutting down of newspapers that oppose the occupation, ect. Here's are EXAMPLES of our IRAQI FREEDOM:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/03/1674128.php
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1676712_comment.php#1677468

(the above links are provided by http://www.indybay.org/iraq/ which has independent reporters in Iraq reporting without the pressure of corporate sponsors)

You think Iraq posed a danger? That's funny because the UN, most every other country in the world, and even Iraq's closest neighbors didn't think so. You were the victim of a marketing campaign. Do you also drink beer because it surrounds you with beautiful women?

We certainly didn't goto war to better our economy. We have a small increase in economic activity, huge wars like WWII could greatly improve an economy, but not something like this. And GAS IS STILL EXPENSIVE!

If you want to know why we went to war, look at the corporations and people who are benefiting profit wise from the war. Cheney's Haliburton pals were offered most rebuilding contracts without public bid. That alone should raise a flag, since government contracts must be allowed to be bid on publicly by law. I live in Connecticut, our governor Rowland is currently being investigated for giving bids to friends. The Mayor of New Haven, CT was just thrown out of office and into prison for the same thing.

You complained about taxes. That's funny because Bush raised taxes for the lower and middle class, while giving a tax break to the rich. Also MOST of your tax money is going to the War you support, look at the budget, the majority is allocated to defense spending. There's a phrase...You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So yeah, I suppose Bush is doing the commonsensical thing, in an Enron sort of way. If you're passionate about poltics (as you appear to be) then you owe yourself to look into EVERYTHING, and to take government public relations efforts with a careful eye. You'll notice that now alot of mainstream media is becoming skeptical of what Bush has done, when a year ago it seemed as if it HAD to be done. This is because the mainstream journalists know their boundaries. Their boundary is the status quo. They have obligations to sponsors, share holders, ect. They can not push the limits and question to an extent that independent journalists can because of the pressure that would be put on their careers. But as the status quo begins to slowly shift, the same mainstream journalists are on top of it, because now they have more leg room to report. This is how corporate media works. Anyone who is passionate about politics knows to look beyond this, regardless of where you stand politically.

You stand here, on a forum about copywrite reform and support a government that is currently dealing out invasions of privacy that make the DMCA look pitiful. They're underminding the system of world justice that they created. They are making it shameful to be American. Allow me to promose an analogy. This situation seems as if the world's entire cattle population is on the verge of extinction, and you're trying to save one cow. Why? So you can have your milk.

Here's something to meditate on. American soldiers are dying in Iraq on an average of 2 a day. For every American that dies, an average of over 20 Iraqi's die. The belief here in America seems to be that outside of the country lives lesser people. However, they breathe, bleed, sweat, cry...they are host to the entire spectrum of human emotion, just as we are. So tell me, if someone killed your family, how would you feel about them? Do you believe this will stop terrorism? With every dead body we create new enemies. I'm sure alot of those Iraqi's are thinking that terrorism sounds pretty good right about now. I would suggest that you take a few dollars out of your Bush campaign donation and invest it in a bomb shelter, because the way we're going, I wouldn't think it too far fetched that it would come in handy.

AH, let me offer you another perspective. Let's see how greatful the Iraqi people are for the Freedom we're giving them. This was taken from a weblog of an Iraqi woman, living in Baghdad:

Saturday, March 20, 2004

The War on Terror...

I'm feeling irritable and angry today. It's exactly a year since the war
on Iraq began and it seems to be weighing heavily on everyone.

Last year, on this day, the war started during the early hours of the
morning. I wasn't asleep - I hadn't slept since Bush's ultimatum a couple
of days before. It wasn't because I was scared but because I didn't want
to be asleep when the bombs started falling. The tears started falling
with the first few thuds. I'm not very prone to tears, but that moment, a
year ago today, I felt such sorrow at the sound of those bombs. It was a
familiar feeling because it wasn't, after all, the first time America was
bombing us. It didn't seem fair that it was such a familiar feeling.

I felt horrible that Baghdad was being reduced to rubble. With every
explosion, I knew that some vital part of it was going up in flames. It
was terrible and I don't think I'd wish it on my worst enemy. That was the
beginning of the 'liberation' - a liberation from sovereignty, a certain
sort of peace, a certain measure of dignity. We've been liberated from our
jobs, and our streets and the sanctity of our homes - some of us have even
been liberated from the members of our family and friends.

A year later and our electricity is intermittent, at best, there
constantly seems to be a fuel shortage and the streets aren't safe. When
we walk down those streets, on rare occasions, the faces are haggard and
creased with concern - concern over family members under detention, homes
raided by Americans, hungry mouths to feed, and family members to keep
safe from abduction, rape and death.

And where are we now, a year from the war? Sure- we own satellite dishes
and the more prosperous own mobile phones - but where are we *really*?

Where are the majority?

We're trying to fight against the extremism that seems to be upon us like
a black wave; we're wondering, on an hourly basis, how long it will take
for some semblance of normality to creep back into our lives; we're hoping
and praying against civil war.

We're watching with disbelief as American troops roam the streets of our
towns and cities and break violently into our homes... we're watching with
anger as the completely useless Puppet Council sits giving out fat
contracts to foreigners and getting richer by the day- the same people who
cared so little for their country, that they begged Bush and his cronies
to wage a war that cost thousands of lives and is certain to cost
thousands more.

We're watching sardonically as an Iranian cleric in the south turns a once
secular country into America's worst nightmare- a carbon copy of Iran.

We're watching as the lies unravel slowly in front of the world- the WMD
farce and the Al-Qaeda mockery.

And where are we now? Well, our governmental facilities have been burned
to the ground by a combination of 'liberators' and 'Free Iraqi Fighters';
50% of the working population is jobless and hungry; summer is looming
close and our electrical situation is a joke; the streets are dirty and
overflowing with sewage; our jails are fuller than ever with thousands of
innocent people; we've seen more explosions, tanks, fighter planes and
troops in the last year than almost a decade of war with Iran brought; our
homes are being raided and our cars are stopped in the streets for
inspections- journalists are being killed 'accidentally' and the seeds of
a civil war are being sown by those who find it most useful; the
hospitals overflow with patients but are short on just about everything
else- medical supplies, medicine and doctors; and all the while, the oil
is flowing.

But we've learned a lot. We've learned that terrorism isn't actually the
act of creating terror. It isn't the act of killing innocent people and
frightening others™ no, you see, that's called a 'liberation'. It doesn't
matter what you burn or who you kill- if you wear khaki, ride a tank or
Apache or fighter plane and drop missiles and bombs, then you're not a
terrorist- you're a liberator.

The war on terror is a joke- Madrid was proof of that last week- Iraq is
proof of that everyday.

I hope someone feels safer, because we certainly don't.


The rest of her writing can be found at: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Saddam killed alot of people in his own country in the past. His party has an estimated 1 million murders, hitler had about 6 million. The U.N. should be ashamed of itself for letting this occur and letting him stay in power. Who cares if they don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction, its too late to see what damage he did, except for in the mass grave sites.


I agree that Bush isn't the smartest man out there but he has some good idea's and some balls to back it up. We should start a campaign aimed at Bush and get him on our side, he would kick some RIAA ass, lol.

Perhaps you are confusing your estimation of how many people Saddam killed with how many are estimated to have died because of sanctions. It's estimated that over 1 million people have died from sanctions. "Amnesty International estimates that over 100,000 Kurds were killed" by Saddam's regime. HUGE DIFFERENCE THERE.

Well, lets investigate this more. These attrocities commited by Saddam were durring his war with Iran, before our first Gulf War, WHEN WE WERE GIVING HIM THE WEAPONS. We were supplying him with them. WE KNEW ABOUT IT, WE DIDN'T CARE. Hitler was exterminating the Jews for YEARS, and we didn't do anything. We didn't get involved in the War until Japan bombed us. As if Pearl Harbor was some horrible tragedy in the light of the Holocaust.

We supported dictators and tyrants throughout our history. The humanitarian excuse does not work. Look at Siera Lionne in Africa. The country is run by a crooked regime, the counties main export is diamonds. It's well know that the diamond business is controled by rebels. The force their own people into slave labor to mine for diamonds. They have brutally amputed the arms of children. I've seen video footage. It's sickening. But these diamonds flood our jewelery market. DeBeers is the biggest purchaser of them. We don't care about the attrocities, we profit.

Most of Latin America, Cambodia, East Timor, Pakistan, and hundreds of other areas. East Timor was host to the most horrific act of genocide since Hitler was in power. We have done nothing in any case. Infact, we supported Indonesian aggression in East Timor. We supported death squads and repressive, murderous governments throughout Latin America.

If you believe our intentions were humanitarian in Iraq, then action would have been taken well before the first Gulf War. But instead, we sold Saddam & Co. weapons. If we have ANY humanitarian intentions...did we support Iraq, and Indonesia, and all those Latin American governments and coups?

Good luck getting Bush to help fight the RIAA. You see, Bush loves corporations and Bush hates ordinary people. So theres two strikes against that. I don't know, perhaps you can get a $2,000 plate at his next fundraising lunch and you can change his opinion. Start saving your extra cash!

~There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Patrick Henry


http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

Well, negatyve, I'm glad you got that off your chest. Of course, I am aware of the history of Saddam, bin Laden, etc. and the other items you mention.

Saddam and other despots were supported because, at the time, our "brilliant strategists" in CIA and the state dept thought it was a good idea.

International politics is a dirty business. We are in a position of judging relative degrees of wrong here. If you can't see that Saddam is more wrong than Bush, then we have no discussion.

You want to blame the U.S. for deaths because of sanctions against Saddam. But who administered the Oil-for-food program? That was the U.N., was it not? So why didn't the Iraqi people get food and medicine? Huh? huh? Of course, it is always our fault, never Saddam's fault, or the corrupt dogs who run the U.N.

And if you think the country was in shambles after Ronald Reagan... I don't know. After Reagan, there was a mild cyclical recession in the later Bush I years, which had turned into growth again by the time Clinton took office. When Clinton left, the country was in recession, though we didn't know it until months later. Actually, Greenspan has a lot more to do with how the economy is going than the president.

Oh well, I may not vote for Bush in the fall, but I do support the war in Iraq. THe only thing Arabs respect/understand seems to be force.

Of course Saddam and bin Laden were a good idea at the time. They served US interests. We teach bin Laden to fight middle eastern occupation (the Soviets), now we're the middle eastern occupation...what did they expect? A phrase comes to mind: "we taught that dog to squat, how dare he sh*t in our backyard".

As far as Saddam goes. What did he do wrong? Well, he's sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil and he's not doing us anymore favors. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. The excuses have been proven to be full of it. Do some research on the current occupation Iraq, or how we handled foreign policy throughout history, and you'll get a clear understanding that we certainly didn't do it to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

I don't understand why you support the war. Perhaps knowing that we're over there creating bastards and terrorists helps you sleep better at night? Or perhaps knowing that a draft dodger sent your neighbors kids overseas to die for his savings account balance is comforting?

"The only thing Arabs respect/understand seems to be force. "

That's like saying 'The only thing Americans respect/understand is absolutely nothing'...which pretty much hits the nail on the head in your case. Ignorant biggot.