From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V7 #322 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Saturday, November 6 2004 Volume 07 : Number 322 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [idealcopy] RE: The Road Ahead Is Uncertain...Interpol ["Jason Rogers" Subject: [idealcopy] RE: The Road Ahead Is Uncertain...Interpol I wish that I had more time to individually address the anti-Bush posts on here and talk further about why I voted for Bush, but time's short. Once again, none of this is personal...many of my close offline friends are Kerry supporters as well. Much of what I gather about the relationship between Al Qaeda (history of "Al Qaeda" nonwithstanding, I use the name to denote the cells following the directives of Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11) and Saddam Hussein was from reading the 9/11 Commission Report, from Thomas Friedman's research into Arab sentiment towards the U.S., and from the occasional overseas news sites. Perhaps I mistated in my first post, because there wasn't much of a "relationship" per say, but there was communication and common goal discussion. At one point, Saddam Hussein's government offered to harbor Osama Bin Laden, but Bin Laden didn't take up for strategic reasons. The point being that Iraq was a potential and willing harborer of Al Qaeda. Why did I not vote for Kerry? Well, as far as I'm concerned, John Kerry served his country faithfully during the Vietnam War. I didn't pay mind to the Swift Boat ads for this reason. See, I've never served in the military, I've never worn a military uniform, and I've never fired a gun at somebody in combat. The way I see it, it would be basic cowardice and hypocrisy for me to put down Kerry's service in the military when I've been fortunate enough to not have been in a similar situation. President Bush himself paid tribute to Kerry's Vietnam service, stating that Kerry displayed more courage serving his country than Bush did serving with the National Guard. My problem is with what Kerry stood for during his time in Senate after the Vietnam War. To watch Kerry during the Democratic National Conventions, one would think that the man had simply served in Vietnam, put himself into suspended animation for thirty years, and then suddenly appeared on a Presidential campaign saying, "Senator John Kerry, reporting for duty." No reports of Kerry repeatedly voting against national security interests or voting to penalize that ever elusive top 1% of earners in order to help the poor (I covered this in my previous post.) I take issue with the fact that most people who voted for Kerry didn't actually vote for Kerry; they voted against Bush. The bumper stickers that I saw every day proclaiming, "ANYONE but Bush", etc..... People who think that things can't possibly get worse than they are right now under Bush are wrong. Candidates like Adolf Hitler were put into power because their constituents believed that things couldn't possibly get any worse than they were. I don't hate Kerry and I don't feel the animosity towards him that people here and elsewhere feel for Bush. I just disagree with the man on many issues. I believe that multilateral discussions with North Korea are essential. I don't believe that the United States needs to bend over backwards to appease countries around the world (global test) that essentially want for the U.S. to be weaker. Kerry had some good intentions, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Jason _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 21:15:29 -0500 From: "Eric Klaver" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] [ot] how can 59 million be so stupid? Of the various articles I've read in the past few days I particularly liked Simon Scharma's piece in the Guardian today which postulates that America is now two utterly divided nations and calls not for healing but for a fight. Go for it. The link is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1344144,00.html another the Keith - ------------------------------------------------- There are so few people in the world like Schama-- a modern day Voltaire-- who can cut through the polemical crap and get to the heart of the matter. Anyone who believes Kerry and Bush are one and the same or "the lesser of two evils" should read that piece. They will come to realize there is actually a world of difference. Brilliant. Eric in Toronto ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:29:15 -0000 From: "Keith Knight" Subject: RE: [idealcopy] RE: The Road Ahead Is Uncertain...Interpol The Washington Post's summary (chosen only because it was first on Google) says with regard to the Sept 11 commission report: "The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Well, there have been people arrested in my home town of Luton on suspicion of al Qaeda links so on that basis I'm expecting to see the American military down the Arndale centre anytime. Seriously, there was no justification to attack Iraq on the grounds of supporting al Qaeda. It was because it was an easier option than hunting bin Laden down in the wilds of the Hindu Kush, because no-one actually liked Hussein and it was therefore easy to get patsies like Blair on board and to persuade the electorate that something was being done, and because there was unfinished Bush family business there - how dare he carry on upsetting us when had Dad whopped him once? Another the Keith - -----Original Message----- From: owner-idealcopy@smoe.org [mailto:owner-idealcopy@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Jason Rogers Much of what I gather about the relationship between Al Qaeda (history of "Al Qaeda" nonwithstanding, I use the name to denote the cells following the directives of Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11) and Saddam Hussein was from reading the 9/11 Commission Report, from Thomas Friedman's research into Arab sentiment towards the U.S., and from the occasional overseas news sites. Perhaps I mistated in my first post, because there wasn't much of a "relationship" per say, but there was communication and common goal discussion. At one point, Saddam Hussein's government offered to harbor Osama Bin Laden, but Bin Laden didn't take up for strategic reasons. The point being that Iraq was a potential and willing harborer of Al Qaeda. ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V7 #322 *******************************