From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #417 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, November 2 2001 Volume 10 : Number 417 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: your mail [gSs ] Re: The vampire sensuously sank his teeth into Julius Erving's neck [Eb <] Re: San Francisco exodus [Viv Lyon ] Rattle and Cheep [The Great Quail ] Re: Rattle and Cheep [lj lindhurst ] Re: Rattle and Cheep [Eb ] Re: Rattle and Cheep ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Rattle and Cheep [Christopher Gross ] Re: Rattle and Cheep ["Jason R. Thornton" ] films about films about alcohol and caffeine [grutness@surf4nix.com (Jame] anyone know anything about... [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: films about films about alcohol and caffeine [Eb ] ralph, joe ["Voodoo Ergonomics" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:54:29 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: your mail On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, matt sewell wrote: > The last bit of your mail, though... I'm afraid I lost the thread a > little bit - I got the bit about making a whole email out of a throwaway > comment about socialism and firearms, but thereafter things got a bit > fuzzy. It's probably the contrast, which is usually right beside the brightness button and often near the position and or size adjustments but that of course depends on the make. > All that bit about the poor and edges and hitting... hmm... and > then that bit about women & children and leading... eh? The weak cannot normally move as fast as the others so your sighting and tracking must be adjusted to compensate. At little confusing at first but after the first couple ten thousand round days, you catch on. That is what got me on the whole idea of automating the machine gun nests and using heat and movement targeting systems. Much more efficient and when you compare the cost on a grains of powder per event level, the savings are enormous. Enough would be saved in the first 10 years to completely cover the intial cost of automating the existing machine gun nests with heat/movement automated long-range event target systems or HaMLETS, that based on these initial estimates we could have at least two hamlets on every intersection in North America by the spring of 2441. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:57:06 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: The vampire sensuously sank his teeth into Julius Erving's neck >"The Stunt Man" with Peter O'Toole is another good movie about a film-maker. It's quite possible that I've seen this more times than any other film. Seems like every damn time I stumble on it, I end up getting hooked again to watch. Fannnnntastic. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:04:46 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: San Francisco exodus On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Carole Reichstein wrote: > ..and in turn, when new San Franciscans tire of the high rent/high > unemployment rate, they all move to Portland. Word, sister. SA-NAP! > Viv, it's terrible to hear about your poor kidneys. Sounds just ghastly. > Please get well soon! Thanks! I am already much better, thanks to that old warhorse Cipro. And yes, kidney infections are nothing if not ghastly. Word to the wise: next time you think it might be fun to inject some septic waste directly into your kidneys...DON'T DO IT! Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:10:42 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Rattle and Cheep Carole asks, >And Quail...care to write a review about the U2 show in New York?? First of all, it should be kept in mind that I am a U2 fanatic. They are my favorite band, and I have never missed a concert of theirs since "War." I sing aloud to every song, I cheer until my voice gives out, I dance happily, I ecstatically hug other U2 fans around me. So my opinion is pretty biased. On the other hand, U2 consistently give fantastic concerts. I've never seen them have an "off" night. A U2 concert is truly an event for true fans -- there is lots of screaming and shouting and jumping and thousands of people singing along with Bono. That's part of why I like seeing them -- the energy level is amazing; and it's by and large a very positive energy. People are happy and shouting because, well, they really like U2. And Bono has the ego the size of a small planet, so it's always fun to watch him. He's quite the showman. So, of the seven-odd times I have seen U2, this was probably the best show. First of all, it was the last night in Madison Square Garden, and since U2 have more or less become New Yorkers, there was a real sense of joy and personal connection. They were fairly loose and even chatty, which is unusual for them. The songs heavily favored the new album, which was great, because it's an amazing album. I noted that just as many people sang aloud and knew the lyrics to all the new songs as the old; which I think is always a healthy sign for a band. The stage was surrounded by a heart-shaped walkway which defined in interior, "reserved" area directly in front of the stage. I'm not sure who occupied it on the other nights, but that night that area was stocked with NY firefighters and police officers. Part of the reason the show was so powerful was simply the time and place. Understanding that things have changed since the summer leg of the tour, U2 stripped away a lot of the more glossy elements and less relevant political critique -- the anti-gun control stuff, for instance, that they were doing for "Bullet the Blue Sky" was thankfully absent. The show was leaner, with emphasis on "all pulling together" and so on. The atmosphere was really very different than any other U2 show I've seen, and very charged, especially after "Sunday Bloody Sunday." That song took on entirely new meanings for New Yorkers, and U2 were certainly aware of it. In fact, I am sure it had new meanings for them as well, and they played it with a passion, energy, and edginess I haven't heard since the War tour. Only a mile or so from the rubble of the World Trade Center, with a war raging in Afghanistan, anthrax in the mail, and so many good people full of internal conflict -- the song had entirely new meanings. There was no doubt what we were all thinking as thousands of people sang the lyrics: I can't believe the news today I can't close my eyes and make it go away How long, how long must we sing this song? How long? Tonight we can be as one, tonight Broken bottles under children's feet Bodies strewn across a dead end street But I won't heed the battle call It puts my back up, puts my back up against the wall Sunday, bloody Sunday Sunday, bloody Sunday And the battle's just begun, There's many lost, but tell me who has won? Trenches dug within our hearts, And mothers, children, brothers, sisters torn apart How long, how long must we sing this song? How long? Tonight we can be as one Tonight, tonight Wipe the tears from your eyes Wipe your tears away Wipe your blood shot eyes And it's true we are immune When fact is fiction and T.V. reality And today the millions cry We eat and drink while tomorrow they die The real battle just begun To claim the victory Jesus won On a Sunday bloody Sunday Sunday Bloody Sunday... It really cut deeply, and I saw a lot of people crying. (I remember being especially struck by the last line, about the victory "Jesus" won. It had more controversial meaning, now, though I think the true spirit of the line is even more relevant.) Towards the end, someone down front (I think it was a firefighter) handed Bono an American flag, and Bono somberly held it up against his chest as the song ended. Some people began a Homer Simpson-like "USA! USA!" chant; most, perhaps seeing how the song was a bit more complex than that, just cheered hoarsely and emotionally. It was very cathartic. Bono draped the flag over the drum kit, saying "I'll take good care of this." They then went into "Stuck in a Moment," which was the perfect song to follow it. After that, the emotional cork was pulled, and the band really loosened up. I thought Bono would be more preachy, but he was actually quite restrained, with some heartfelt comments about terrorism and fundamentalism and so on. People went nuts for the song "New York," which Bono really jazzed up with all the showboating he could dish out, and numerous heartfelt compliments to the city he now called his home. (Or at least one of them ;) I was wondering if they would play "Bullet the Blue Sky," not the most pro-American song around; but they did, and played a really *intense* version. It reminded me of the line (from "Rattle and Hum," maybe?) where Bono says to the Edge, "Just put Nicaragua through your guitar." The song actually upset a few, less open-minded fans -- the guy in front of me wouldn't even cheer or clap, and gave Bono the middle finger during the "I can hear those fighter planes...." line. I for one applauded them for both showing the positive and darker sides of America; I was glad they didn't use the concert as an anti-War bullhorn, but I was also glad they didn't just wave the flag uncritically. The concert ended on "One," which had the names of all the victims of September 11th scrolling up the screens, grouped by flight number, FDNY, NYPD, and finally all the others. Although just relating it, it sounds a bit easy if not trivial; in actual effect it was pretty devastating -- there's no doubt some people saw names of loved ones. Again, I saw a lot of people crying as they sang along. It was a very moving gesture. For the encore, Bono invited up some of the firemen, who quickly took over the stage. It was obvious U2 weren't expecting that, but they rolled with it, and the last two songs or so had a crazed, party-like atmosphere with lots of comments about the fire department being very Irish and so on. The firemen began making short speeches, some of which were quite sobering -- one guy told about his friend who died on the 11th, a U2 fan who really would have wanted to be there. After it was obvious they weren't leaving the stage, the band struck up their final song, "Out of Control," a rare treat. Even after U2 left, the firemen were still addressing the crowd, one by one, as the house lights came up! The last one thanked U2 quite sincerely ("U2! They ROCK!!!!! Thanks, guys!") and then finally cleared the stage. As Bono said later on Letterman, "Those firefighters, they're not shy." After it was over, me & Lawndart went home happy. - --Quail - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Dan Quayle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:28:02 -0500 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: Rattle and Cheep hey goddamnit, that didn't mention my name once! What about ME?????? - -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LJ Lindhurst White Rabbit Graphic Design http://www.w-rabbit.com NYC ljl@w-rabbit.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:29:04 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Rattle and Cheep >For the encore, Bono invited up some of the firemen, who quickly >took over the stage. It was obvious U2 weren't expecting that, but >they rolled with it, and the last two songs or so had a crazed, >party-like atmosphere with lots of comments about the fire >department being very Irish and so on. The firemen began making >short speeches, some of which were quite sobering -- one guy told >about his friend who died on the 11th, a U2 fan who really would >have wanted to be there. After it was obvious they weren't leaving >the stage, the band struck up their final song, "Out of Control," a >rare treat. Even after U2 left, the firemen were still addressing >the crowd, one by one, as the house lights came up! The last one >thanked U2 quite sincerely ("U2! They ROCK!!!!! Thanks, guys!") and >then finally cleared the stage. As Bono said later on Letterman, >"Those firefighters, they're not shy." Were people holding up those cooooooooool Dead Fireman trading cards which I saw constantly waved around at the McCartney tribute show? I keep checking the local drug/liquor stores for them.... Sounds like a great show. I'm not quite a U2 fan, but I'd happily go see them if a ticket fell into my lap. Unfortunately, U2's popularity insures that their tickets don't really fall into ANYONE'S laps. :) I saw the Butthole Surfers, on the 30th. That's the most recent concert I've seen. The incongruity was funny, seeing the Butthole Surfers perform on sacred Disney ground. I think their gross videos were censored a bit for the night, though -- I saw a couple of obvious cutaways from the really gory stuff (for instance, footage of an African tribe performing one of those infamous female circumcisions...yikes). I saw much better Buttholes show in years gone by, but I did like this show better than their underwhelming new album. Eb, who's pretty sure that Lawndart has never seen U2 ;) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:31:02 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Rattle and Cheep At 04:10 PM 11/2/2001 -0500, The Great Quail wrote: >The stage was surrounded by a heart-shaped walkway which defined in >interior, "reserved" area directly in front of the stage. I'm not sure who >occupied it on the other nights, but that night that area was stocked with >NY firefighters and police officers. On most other nights, I believe it was just full of lucky fans - that was the case when I saw them here in SD this summer. - --Jason "when life gives you giant mirror-ball lemons, make giant mirror-ball lemonade" Thornton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 16:32:35 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Rattle and Cheep On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, lj lindhurst wrote: > hey goddamnit, that didn't mention my name once! > > What about ME?????? I always thought *you* were Lawndart! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:41:08 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Rattle and Cheep At 04:32 PM 11/2/2001 -0500, Christopher Gross wrote: >On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, lj lindhurst wrote: > > > hey goddamnit, that didn't mention my name once! > > > > What about ME?????? > >I always thought *you* were Lawndart! I'm almost certain that the Lawndart was Paul. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:39:12 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: films about films about alcohol and caffeine >oddly enough, there's one of these on I-17 north of Phoenix, AZ as well. >we used to go riding up there all the time. never could get over the >goofiness of the name. though i suppose i should take into account that >this is near the town of Carefree, famous for such street names as easy >st., ho and hum rds., wrong way rd., and (my favorite) a paved streed >known as dirt rd. my favourite stupid placename is in Christchurch, which for those who don't know is a little flatter than either Illinois or the Netherlands. One of it's least gravitationally challenging suburbs (rising in places to several inches above sea level) is called Bryndwr, which is Welsh for "steep hill". >"The Stunt Man" with Peter O'Toole is another good movie about a film-maker. I'd have to add the movie "Ed Wood" to the list. And one of my all-time favourite movies (Wings of Desire) has the production of a movie involved in it (although it's not the major plot-line). As for songs about the music industry, there have surely been some goodt songs on that theme, too. (now playing - Graeme Downes - "Rock'n'roll hero". Whaddayathink, Eb?) >> When I'm there, I buy a case of stuff called Regain... don't try drinking that in NZ - here Regain's a hair restorer. >What -is- the best combo of caffiene and alchahol? By that I mean-- what >tastes bests, carries a ferocious punch and dosnt give too bad a hangover? the simple ways are always the best. Irish coffee. 1/3 of a small cup of Baileys, then just pour hot coffee over it, as though you'd put the milk in the bottom of the cup first. The punch is remarkably much more tha you'd expect - I suppose it's got something to do with the way the alcohol is heated by the coffee. And the best hangover cure is to drink loads of water after the alcohol. Ninety percent of hangover effects are dehydration effects. James PS - get well soon Viv! James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:38:58 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: anyone know anything about... ...this site? James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:05:10 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: films about films about alcohol and caffeine > >"The Stunt Man" with Peter O'Toole is another good movie about a film-maker. > >I'd have to add the movie "Ed Wood" to the list. And one of my all-time >favourite movies (Wings of Desire) has the production of a movie involved >in it (although it's not the major plot-line). Some other good films-about-filmmakers, off the top of my head: Day for Night (love this one!) The Bad and the Beautiful (and I don't usually care much for "Golden Age of Hollywood" films) 8 1/2 Sullivan's Travels The Blair Witch Project? (no threads, please) For years, I've been curious about a supposedly 8 1/2-esque Paul Mazursky/Donald Sutherland film called "Alex in Wonderland"...the damn thing seems to be totally out of circulation. Any of you old-timers seen it? Martin Landau's Bela in "Ed Wood" might be my favorite acting performance of the past 10 years. I saw an absolutely *awful* , late-'60s film-about-a-filmmaker on the IFC channel, recently. I can't even recall the title, because it was some crazy pseudo-psychedelic phrase like "Psychosymbotaxis 2." Or something to that effect. Damn, I'm sorry I forgot the title, because I was meaning to look up this pretentious travesty on the Web. Anyone know the film I'm talking about? It was sort of a documentary shot entirely in Central Park, capturing a "visionary" black director's attempt to mindfuck his actors while making some dumb little romantic-strife film. It was astoundingly pointless and unrewarding. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 15:34:23 -0800 From: "victorian squid" Subject: Re: pizza pizza! On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 08:11:46 Jason R. Thornton wrote: >Has anybody seen this film? No. But I have seen: >>FUTURISTIC DRAGON (Chicago, IL) imitating T. REX/MARC BOLAN They're really good. I wouldn't say they "imitate". They're pretty much a really excellent one-band cover band. While they do dress up in "glam" clothes, they aren't really "the T. Rex experience" per se. The drummer/singer is an exceptionally nice guy. I notice they don't list "Adam and the Ants", which is odd because "Adam and The Ants" actually are (were? at this point it's probably were) much more of a tribute band in the sense of dressing up, recreating setlists, &c. "Adam" is actually married to a member of "Futuristic Dragon" so it can't be because the filmmakers didn't know about them. loveonya, susan Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 15:51:33 -0800 From: "Voodoo Ergonomics" Subject: ralph, joe Ralph Nader on Events since Sept. 11th (October 31st) As far as the last few weeks are concerned, every crisis of American history, international war and such, is followed by a constriction of civil liberties. Security collides with and erodes our liberties. As if security does not understand that liberty is very essential to security. And of course, all forces of autocratic mind-sets to move their own, long-opposed interests, those people who want to give search and seizure powers and surveillance powers, and others to the authorities seize on this kind of thing and propose to Congress vastly unnecessary erosions of our civil liberties and constitutional freedoms that have nothing to do with the fighting terrorism. And the definitions of terrorists, the definitions of who can be suspect, the definitions of how easy it is now to go to a court and get a search warrant and search your home under a "look-and-peak" warrant -- have search of your home without telling you that they do that. That is not necessary. Because it isn't a rigorous enough standard. They don't need to show "Hey, this is a terrorist den. We got to have a search warrant." So pretty soon it will expand to "Oh, did you go this meeting where somebody spoke, who linked with some group that is on some list?" Those of you who remember the Joe McCarthy days know that this is not something that is only a congective possibility. Unfortunately, the Congress panics. They become very cowardly. They assault their liberals. Last week the bill was passed. It was renamed the "US Patriot Act". [laughter]. It passed, with one opposing vote in the Senate, Senator Russell Feingold. [Interupted by applause]. Who was abandoned by his own liberal collegues and the Majority Leader Daschle. [inaudible phrase] Now his statement of opposition is on his website, he gave a 45 minute speech where he gives his reasons. And I know there were a number of Senators, at least twenty, who agreed with him, but didn't have the fortitude to challenge it. Now, why? The reason is that they felt they would be accused of obstructing the war on terrorism, of course. That's usual. But there is a second reason. They looked back home and looked at the polls. And they didn't get enough calls and letters, they didn't get enough support by an aroused public who says what the former CIA chief of Middle East operations said on 60 Minutes five weeks ago, when he was asked by Mike Wallace the following question: "Mr Anderson", his name was Frank Anderson, "how many of our Civil Liberties are we going to have to give up?" Answer: "Absolutely none! If we have to give up any of our Constitutional freedoms in order to have an end to this problem, then I'm not going to live in this country or offer up my son to it." End quote by Frank Anderson, former CIA [drowned out by applause]. So that is why we need a backbone to the Congress. That's why we need local Congress Watch and citizen groups who will shore up these people so that they don't allow [inaudible] to take advantage of this massacre and go out and get subsidies and bailouts and all kinds of fancy fast breaks while they are laying off hundreds of thousands of workers who ain't got the money. And that's what's going on with that crowd up on Capital Hill [applause]. Beware of any government, crisis or no crisis, that tells its people "Shut up. Get in line and obey.". That's a government that is going to restrict its own inputs. That's a government that is not going to get the benefit of our hard-fought-for constitutional freedoms of free speech and ideas and proposals and reviews. And that's the government that is going to be more likely to make bad policy and make serious mistakes. And you know who pays for it. Its the people abroad. And its the people here from working-class families who are sent abroad. [applause] We need to deliberate this issue. Look there is more internal debate in the government now, [inaudible], than there is public debate in this country. They are saying, well is bombing Afghanistan really, is that going to get us anywhere? Other than producing millions of refugees, some of whom are going to starve to death or get sick with tuberculosis and die and all the civilian casualties. You know, if you have a needle in a haystack, are you going to burn down the haystack? Remember the proverbial story of the father who said, "Quick, get me a hammer! There's a mosquito on baby's head." There's more internal debate as to whether this is going to work? And is it going to work also against domestic programs, that are life-saving programs, that are being shoved aside in Congress? And is it going to work in order to further aggregate corporate power to keep ripping off the government and the taxpayer? And is it going to work keeping us supporting unsavory operations overseas like people who turn against us? Who do you think helped train the Taliban? It was the US. [applause] Who do you think bolstered Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Iran, and equipped him with all kinds of military equipment [stopped and drowned out by applause]. So, read this book by Chalmers Roberts [note: actually Chalmers Johnson "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire"], from a few years ago called "Blowback". That's when our policy boomerangs against us. And the way to minimize bad mistakes by our government in these kinds of situations, is to recognize that it is more important than ever for people to speak their mind. To review what their government is doing. To use the best ideas of people who know those areas of the world, in order to suppress those who want to attack us. [last part of that somewhat inaudible] So, this is basically what we have to do. You have to let your members of Congress know, that they did not perform as we expected. American legislators to perform in defending our freedoms without that legislation. You have got to tell them, maybe they will then engage in Congressional oversight hearings so it doesn't get out of hand. We have a very fragile democracy. We are the most powerful country in the world, and we are the most vulnerable country in the world. The terrorist used, according to government estimates, five hundred thousand dollars to pull off their crashes on September 11th. I can almost guarantee you it is going to cost our economy a quarter of a trillion dollars as a result. And just think of every thing you read in the newspapers. Cancelled meetings, changed priorities, withdrawals, deferrals of things that need to be done, cancelling important domestic projects, cancelling appropriations that are meant to address key issues in our country, throwing campaign finance reform onto the back burners of Congress. And on and on. That's how vulnerable we are. And if we just think we are the most powerful country in the world, that we can bomb the bejesus out of these people. Then we better start thinking how vulnerable we are. How many ships come into our ports? How many vehicles come over the Mexican and Canadian borders? How many people are upset with us? How many people are vulnerable? And no matter how much of a police state is established, no matter how many millions of guards are posted, we cannot deal with this problem solely by conventional security apparatus. [applause] We have to go at the roots of the problems, heaven forbid. [applause] We have to ask ourselves, how to we [inaudible] what Secretary Don Rumsfeld, whom I knew as a student at Princeton years ago, what he said the other day, "Societies where there is extreme poverty, destitution, starvation and oppression are breeding grounds for terrorism." That's a real hope. And then President Bush told the US Congress in his speech after September 11th, that "The terrorists have attacked our freedoms. They are attacking our freedom to speak, our freedom of religion, our freedom to disagree with one another." So there you have it, the President! You feel you have to disagree, he's endorsing you! Freedom to disagree. We might get a better output if there is more input from more people around the USA. The Wall Street Journal October 29, 2001 Commentary After bin Laden, We Must Target Saddam By Joe Lieberman, a Democratic senator from Connecticut. In his historic address to Congress on Sept. 20, President Bush declared war on terrorism and clearly defined the purpose of that war. "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them," he said. "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . . . Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." In the days since that speech, concerns have been expressed that fully implementing the Bush Doctrine will cause some in this country and others in our international coalition to lose their nerve and loosen their support. But there is a far greater price to pay if we blur the bright moral line the president has laid down. Our international credibility as well as our national and personal security are on that line. The immediate priority must be to obliterate Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, because they have brutally attacked us and we, in self-defense, must respond. But as Mr. Bush made clear, eliminating bin Laden will not eliminate the terrorist threat. We are confronted by other dangerous terrorists who possess powerful weapons -- ballistic missiles, lethal chemicals and virulent biological agents -- and who are publicly committed to destroying us. Sept. 11 has shown that we ignore their threats at our peril. We are at war, and it is always better to go into battle with allies. The administration is right to have worked at building a broad-based coalition, but that coalition cannot become more important than our mission. The coalition is a means to an end -- defending our values and defeating terrorism. If in pursuing those means we compromise those values and leave terrorists or their supporters untouched, then in all likelihood many more innocent Americans will die. Throughout this war, we should remember three things: America is very strong; more than 3,000 Americans have been killed by terrorists; and, in the end, we -- not our coalition partners -- have the moral obligation to determine our response to terrorism. That is why it is imperative that we hold firm to the Bush Doctrine: to be unshakable in our support for allies who are steadfast, and unyielding in our challenges to those who are not; to be uncompromising in our demands that countries like Syria and Iran end their support of terrorism before we open our diplomatic and economic doors to them; and to be unflinching in our determination to remove a uniquely implacable enemy and terrorist, Saddam Hussein, from power before he strikes at us with weapons of mass destruction. We should focus on Iraq after we have dealt with bin Laden. We must, because Saddam has a special hatred for America and the capacity to do something terrible about it. His record is there for all to see. He established a brutal and corrupt dictatorship at home. He led his nation to war twice to conquer his neighbors, with disastrous consequences for them and the Iraqi people. [the first time encouraged by the u.s., weapons supplied by the u.s.. --et] He developed weapons of mass destruction and used them, firing missiles at American soldiers [uh, we expected them *not* to fire back at us during the gulf war? --et] and Israeli cities, using poison gas on Iranians, and employing chemical warfare against his own citizens. [supported by the u.s., chemical weapons supplied by the u.s. --et] Saddam's defeat in the Gulf War greatly weakened his military machine and set back his weapons-development programs, but it did not diminish his ambitions or improve his behavior. During the past decade he has continued to oppress and kill his own people [according to scott ritter, saddam kills about 1,800 people per year, while the u.s.-led sanctions kill 5,000 per month --et], to break agreements he made to end the Gulf War [actually it is the u.s., not iraq, which has repeatedly violated un resolution 632 --et], to deny United Nations inspections of his weapons [only when unscom was using the inspections as a cover for spying operations -- and only after iraq had been completely disarmed --et], to support international terrorism, and to seek ways to achieve revenge against the U.S. -- going so far as to try to kill former President Bush in 1993. He is in a class by himself, different from countries like Mohammad Khatami's Iran or Bashar Assad's Syria, because there is no hope of reconciliation with Saddam's Iraq. Did Saddam have a direct hand in the attacks on America that began on Sept. 11? The evidence at our disposal is circumstantial but suggestive. We do know that he has not just the motive and malevolence, but the means. And we also know that Iraqi intelligence officials have met at critical times with members of the al Qaeda network. Richard Butler, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector in Iraq, recently wrote in the New York Times that his rule of thumb for determining Saddam's interest in a particular weapons system was the vigor with which he conspired to hide it. "I concluded that biological weapons are closest to President Hussein's heart because it was in this area that his resistance to our work reached its height," he said. "He seemed to think killing with germs has a lot to recommend it." Whether or not Saddam is implicated directly in the anthrax attacks or the horrors of Sept. 11, he is, by any common definition, a terrorist who must be removed. A serious effort to end Saddam's rule over Iraq should begin now with a declaration by the administration that it is America's policy to change the Iraqi regime, and with greater financial and tactical support of the broad-based Iraqi opposition. In time, military support will follow. The goal of the war on terrorism is, as President Bush has said eloquently, to bring our enemies to justice or justice to our enemies. We have now begun to do both. But those 3,000-plus Americans will have died in vain, and even more of our fellow citizens will meet the same fate, if we do not steel ourselves to see this war to the finish by pursuing and defeating all those who target terror at us. After bin Laden and the Taliban, Saddam is at the top of that list. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #417 ********************************