NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor
Punish Cheney for war games
Monday, August 04, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
Dear editor, I just found out that the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh (Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist) reported at a Campus Progress journalism conference a few weeks ago that Cheney, in a meeting at the White House, discussed ways to provoke war with Iran.

Get this: Cheney suggested building fake Iranian-looking PT boats, dressing up U.S. Seals in Iranian garb and then having U.S. GIs shoot at them.
This is analogous to what came out in “The Manning Memo” (Jan. 31, 2003), where Bush himself was talking to Tony Blair about how to stage a provocation to start a war with Iraq.

I think this is grounds for arrest. When are the authorities going to pick up these two criminals (Cheney and Bush) and charge them with (at the very least) attempt to commit murder?
This just lends credence to why more than 50 percent of the U.S. population believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Debra Trojan
Napa
81 comment(s)

funnyme wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:01 AM:

" OMG...Saddam Hussein was an innocent man!
How could we ever live with the fact that Mr. President Bush and his "conspirators" planted a few "Al Qaida-Islamist terrorist" looking men in a few airplanes and made them blow up the WTC Twin Towers, crash into the Pentagon, attempt to destroy The White House, killing more than 3,000 people in the process, and all this because they wanted to play "war games" with Iraq?

Hmmmm...Is this still America?
Yeah!
Thanks God for Freedom of Speech! "

Rocketman wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:38 AM:

" wow............read an article and become an authority..........fantastic.........try reading the article by Herb Meyer at the World Economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. Besides the economic side of this paper, there is a excellent segment on why we should be at war. "

misfit wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:06 AM:

" Funnyme...You are so naive. You'd follow Daddy all the way over a cliff rather than question where the hell he's going. And your loyalty to a man like Cheney says a lot about you.
Admit they are no better than the terrorists that attacked us. They look different, they dress different, but the heart and soul underneath are NO different.
Cheney has proven himself to be ruthless and inhuman. He'd sacrifice human lives in order to satisfy his deranged lust for power.
If you can honestly look at the facts and still make excuses for this administration, it shows there are more like them out there.
Sadaam Hussein was not worth the lives we committed to killing him.
And...this just out...Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911.
Contriving a fake attack on a U.S. ship in order to provoke a battle, a war, a sacrifice of more American lives, is not patriotic. YOU GO FIGHT THAT ONE. Put your life where YOUR mouth is! This is just pathetic. "

Raven wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:21 AM:

" yeah funnyme, thank god for freedom of speech.....so Debra can express her view "

Common Sense wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Silly liberals. Just because you think it doesn't make it true. "

kevin wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:16 AM:

" Hey, you guys leave Debra alone. She may be on to something here.

And I have a video of B.O.'s Afgan vacation trip with him secretly meeting with Osama bin Laden.... "

Hear Ye wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:49 AM:

" All you guys and your zingers are great but how come no one addressed the Cheney idea that the letter talks about? What are your thoughts on his idea to provoke a war with Iran? "

barearms wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:56 AM:

" Punish Hell! They should be hung! To suggest or try implement False Flag Operations to lead a country into war is a treasonous act. The real terrorists are those who would try to mislead people in this way; the real terrorists are the ones who are now confiscating are freedoms and our privacy. To spend billions per month on a war that fattens their greedy, war-mongering coffers will warm their place in the afterlife.
To Rocketman: Go fight it yourself; put your assets where you mouth is. And by the way, while you're there, be sure to breath deeply the essence of DU (Depleted Uranium!)
To Funnyme: Was Saddam more innocent than the people who put him in power, armed him, gave him weather reports to assist him in toxic gassing his neighboring countries and supplied the gas for him to do it! And the people who would lie about yellowcake or the smoking gun of the nuclear cloud, all of which were lies, are war-mongers and terrorists. Their policy of instituting this phony war on terrorism is all meant to instill a lemming-like behavior to lead us over the cliff of war again with Iran, who hasn't attacked any country for 300 years. 911 Was an Inside Job! That's the news of the day; if you don't like it, go make your own. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:29 AM:

" HearYe - "All you guys and your zingers are great but how come no one addressed the Cheney idea that the letter talks about? What are your thoughts on his idea to provoke a war with Iran? "

The followers of these neo-con extremists never question their leaders. It isn't in their psychological makeup. They are very aggresive in their defense of them.

Think about what they would be doing if a Democrat was in the White House and pulled off even half of these criminal acts.

They would be demanding a public hanging because impeachment would be too lenient for them. "

wipemedown wrote on Aug 4, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Remeber when Cheney went hunting for quail and shot a lawyer instead. That was something. "

misfit wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Barearms...where have you been all this time. We need you here. Please continue to put these "Lemmings" in their place. "

kevin wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:21 PM:

" All you "tinfoil hat" wearers just can't stand the fact that President Bush was right all along, removing Saddam was the correct thing to do, the surge worked, the war in Iraq has turned in our favor and Iraq is on its way to becoming a stable, and functioning country.

B.O. was against the war from the start, was against the surge and says he wouldn't vote for it even if he knew then what he knows now!

But that's what you get with inexperience and youth... "

glenroy wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:55 PM:

" Funnyme….me too! "

freeport56 wrote on Aug 4, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Did BHO vote for it, before he voted against it. "

Hear Ye wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Still waiting for any of the usual suspects to give us their opinion on Cheney and his "idea". All I've seen so far is the usual silly off-topic insults. "

Raven wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:58 PM:

" sounds a lot what what ahppend in Poland at the start of world war II...German units dressed as polish military slipped across the border and then fired upon German soldiers providing the official justification for invading Poland and starting WWII....

Obama never got a chance to vote either way on Iraq as he didn't start in the senate until January 2005. "

misfit wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:50 PM:

" It's okay Raven...just like their candidate "Grampy McSame", they can't get the dates or the players straight. Can you believe what Kevin is smoking? "

Raven wrote on Aug 4, 2008 7:01 PM:

" I just wish I was able to remove unpleasant memories like some can....like remembering that removing Saddam was never the stated goal for going into Iraq.....but wait.....there I go again...wanting to deal with facts "

kevin wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:18 PM:

" You don't remeber "regime change" when President Bush wanted to remove Saddam? That funny, because the Democrat Party tried to use it a theme for the 2004 elections! "

funnyme wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:34 PM:

" OK, so Cheney wants to "provoke" or "create" a war with Iran (which by the way is saying wants to keep producing WOMD to wipe out Americans -didn't make a difference between BHO or JMC supporters)...

Uh...that reminds me of the time when Clinton was getting bj's and did the "wag the dog" with the Serbians...

Did you all liberals forget about it?
Well, of course you did. "

starchbased wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:37 PM:

" attention:
bush and cheney are over.
bush did a good job of protecting the country since 9/11. I was at a restaurant in the city today just thinking about the fact that we have had no suicide bombers since 9/11. take a look around the world my friends, we are living in a special time.
bush and cheney are over.
thank them and think about what you would have done in the position when 9/11 occurred. "

Dwayne wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:35 PM:

" Did y'all know that the moon landings were all staged on a Hollywood set...??? Really...!!!

Where do you people come up with all this crap...??? "

Raven wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:50 PM:

" regime change was not the initial reason, it was the search for the ever mythical WMD's.....regime change became the cause de jure after the myth of imminent danger from WMDs and aiding al Qaeda were revealed to be as hollow as opponents were saying.....

and take a look at the war crimes reports of what happened in bosnia and then say it was simply a wag the dog scenario "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:10 PM:

" Oh yes, Seymour Hersh . . . now there's an unbiased source [voice dripping with sarcasm] "

russ wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:11 PM:

" I think it is so pitiful that intelligent Americans fret so over such nutty baloney.

So the renowned liberal writer Seymour Hersh was sitting in the conference with Cheney? Confirmed news story by other sources? I would like to see the transcript.

Go to Huffington Post 6/29/2008 . Ms. Trojan has a different story.

Hey liberal folks, get a life. Go and try to elect Mr. Obama and have a blast. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:51 AM:

" Kevin - All you "tinfoil hat" wearers just can't stand the fact that President Bush was right all along, removing Saddam was the correct thing to do, the surge worked, the war in Iraq has turned in our favor and Iraq is on its way to becoming a stable, and functioning country.

B.O. was against the war from the start, was against the surge and says he wouldn't vote for it even if he knew then what he knows now!

But that's what you get with inexperience and youth... "


Kevin's comments just further illustrate my point about how many of the current "conservative" or neo-con will never, ever criticize their leaders, are very aggressive in defending them (no matter what they do) and are hypocritical in that what "their" President does is ok with them, but if the same exact thing was done by a "liberal" or "moderate" President they would be calling for blood. The strange thing is the inability to see this in themselves as others do. Little or no self reflection at all.

One could point out all the facts in the world about WMD being the reason given to invade Iraq, the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy for this, linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda when there wasn't one, torture, rendition, illegal spying on U.S. citizens and on and on it goes.

Facts don't matter, but calling someone B.O. (so funny, ha ha I get it) and repeating constantly some kind of alternate history of the last 8 years is somehow real and true.

I understand the psychology behind it, I just hope others do as well. "

misfit wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:09 AM:

" Well actually...John McCain has admitted that the occupation of Iraq was about oil. Now that American companies have received no bid contracts to manage that oil...it's proving ito be true. "

kevin wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:20 PM:

" alright misfit, I'll bite. Where did McCain say that?? "

misfit wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:25 PM:

" Town Hall Meeting in Colorado, May 2.

Here's what he said:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East".

There's video of it out there. "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:19 PM:

" misfit, your post of 9:25PM does not support your statement in your post of 8:09AM today.

I think if the war was about oil, then let's get some. In fact, I have said here on more than one occasion that we should make Iraq our 51st state. Gives us a supply of oil, gives the lefties in Congress a new pool of people to vote benefits for, and a whole new army of diversity trainers and bureaucrats can be put to work. Not only that, but the people of Iraq get a stable government with secure borders, just like we have here (notice I'm not really able to say that with a straight face).

One of my attempted posts yesterday evening did not make it past El Diablo's 'delete' button, probably because I took Hear Ye's comment - "All I've seen so far is the usual silly off-topic insults." and pointed out that a slight majority of silly off-topic insults are made by lefties. And also because I added a few more about the celebrity candidate, Hannah Obama. Now my post didn't make it but I noticed someone using 'Grampy McSame' which is just about on the same level as mine but it got through.

Point is, how about some consistency in what is to be allowed to point fun at the foibles of political candidates (which is a time-honored tradition of Americans from Day One - some of the things they called George Washington were pretty wild).

I say, if BHO wants to be a messiah or a rock star he better be able to take some criticism for it. Even Clinton was good natured about the ribbing he took for his saxophone playing ability. "

kevin wrote on Aug 6, 2008 4:46 PM:

" McCain's comment doesn't make any sense in the context given. America could be completely oil independent and we would STILL have to send troops to the middle east if Iran threatens Israel or other countries.

Oh well, what do you expect from an old guy? "

russ wrote on Aug 6, 2008 7:11 PM:

" Bausfahan,

Do you know the meaning and origin of "neo-con"? The real meaning does not seem to fit the context in which you use it. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:06 PM:

" Neo - meaning new or recent.

Conservative - a supporter of conservative political policies.

So the term could be new conservatives.

Prominent neo-cons: Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Scooter Libby, Robert Kagan.

I was describing their followers, who would also be classified as new conservatives, earlier and alluding to a certain tendency in them. John Dean wrote a book on the subject a few years ago, it's called Conservatives Without Conscience. I highly recommend it. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:09 PM:

" From Ron Suskind:

The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush — a man still carrying with $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush’s famous deck of wanted men — has been America’s secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger. The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, “resettled” Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.

In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.” "

wipemedown wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:20 AM:

" um.....I am fearful and now fretting over the existence of nutty baloney..... I will alert the department of defense if I see this UNAMERICAN Flavor of my beloved chicken/turkey/beef/pork sausage in any domestic supermarkets.......wait.....they prob have this stuff at whole foods..... "

14obama wrote on Aug 7, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Have ya seen that old,red chevy pickup with,"Morally Wrong--Impeach" on it ? That guy has been on top of the story from day one and is aware of the fact that most people believe the attack on Iraq was because of 911. NOT ! It was to get their oil,period !
The lives lost are many,but, the ruthless,greedy mass murderers must face the music and not get away with this. Cheney,your days are numbered ! "

14obama wrote on Aug 7, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Kevin,you missed the whole point ! We should not have gone there in the first place ! It was all fabricated ! Can't you see that ? You and others are basing your conclusions on bits and pieces of news that skirted around the facts from the onset. We.definitely,were not attacked by Iraq ! We attacked Iraq with a pack of lies for their oil. Why can't you see that,by now ? I know we should expect our president to be honest with us,but,not this time. Bring em to justice ! "

russ wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Bauhasfan,

re: neo-con

No, google neoconservative and check a couple of definitions, including Wikipedia. It refers to previously liberal Democrats and often times Jewish conservatives. Apparently they saw the light.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Libby would not fit. "

russ wrote on Aug 7, 2008 5:50 PM:

" I wish we could clone Richard Cheney. These past eight years have been great fun, watching the leftwingnutz go nutz.

I bet Mitt Romney would do the same thing if chosen VP.

Prediction, Obama will make a very BAD choice for veep. Just like Kerry did with Too Pretty Boy Edwards. What ever happened to John? The "2 Americas" John. "

14obama wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:04 PM:

" Looks like many of you have yet to receive any insight on questionable politicians. You just can't let go of your old notions,like all American presidents are next to God. I regret to inform you that we have a bunch of rats in there instead of law abiding,honest
and caring servants for good. You find it hard to swallow,don't you ? Sorry to pop your bubble ! "

russ wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:41 PM:

" 140 Bama,

Are you a fan of the Crimson Tide? I am. Remember Bear Bryant?

I think all of our presidents deserve respect. Some are more difficult to like than others. I happen to respect Mr. Bush and Cheney because we have been safe since 9/11, in a very dangerous world. Do you recall that 9/11 event? Why have we not been successfully attacked again...despite many attempts.

Work on your punctuation. "

Raven wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:46 PM:

" so...the Iraqis want a time table for American troops to leave, everybody out by 2010.....and guess who doesnt want a timetable....the Bush Administration.....for god's sake..it is their country ...if they want us to leave...we should leave... "

misfit wrote on Aug 7, 2008 10:15 PM:

" Russ...It's a shame they didn't keep us safe before 9/11. Remember the warnings they simply ignored, that Al Quaeda was planning an attack on the U.S. Hmmmm. And tell the 4000+ American soldiers about how much safer they have been since 9/11. "

russ wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:13 PM:

" misfit,

The run-up to 9/11 began in the early 1990's. There are no heroes or singular guilty. If you would to name names, I will go second.

500,000 Americans died after Pearl Harbor and there were no more attacks on the American homeland. Did they also die in vain?

We will leave Iraq on our terms and for the Iraqi's, and us, it will be a win-win. "

misfit wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Pearl Harbor was DIFFERENT than the occupation of Iraq and you know it. Iraq did not attack us. Keep telling yourself what you choose to believe but don't try to convince me that I'm stupid. "

misfit wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:23 PM:

" There is NO WINNING in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of our leaving. We have lost lives. Our government has lost it's credibility with the American people and with the rest of the world . There is no getting it back as long as we have war mongers in office. "

russ wrote on Aug 8, 2008 6:25 PM:

" misfit,

wait a minute, you changed the subject or missed the analogy.

Pearl Harbor ---- 9/11. Similarities, right. Attack on the American homeland.

After Pearl Harbor, World wide war against Axis powers, 500,000 Americans died, millions more wounded. US homeland was not directly attacked again. Enemy was accorded Geneva convention rights. United States and Allied power win victory.

After 9/11, World wide war against Islamic terrorism, 4,000 Americans killed, so far. thousands more wounded. US homeland not directly attacked again. Enemy was accorded Geneva convention rights. United States and (a few) allies win victory or run.

Seems like a direct analogy to me. "

russ wrote on Aug 8, 2008 6:30 PM:

" misfit wrote on Aug 8, 2008 4:23 PM:

" There is NO WINNING in Iraq"

Define winning. Who is winning NOW?

If I were still using the term "leftwingnutz" I would use it now, but I don't.

I totally and 100% reject your comments. I have far more respect and faith in the American people.

You sir, are wrong. "

napadad wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:16 PM:

" I beleive that was a reference to the Tonkin gulf incident where we accused the north vietnamese of shooting at our warships and then went on to participate in the highly successful vietnam police action. you guys remember that one dont you? It turned out so well Cheney just went for the old tried and true! And I thought lawyers were in season year round in the south, (or is that just aclu lawyers, I cant ever remember) anyhow I vote for full scale nukeler attack cause that will bring down the price of glass imported fron the middle east "

Raven wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Actually Russ, it was 418,000 total military and civilian deaths for the US in WWII. as for being attacked again......-did you forget that US forces were attacked on June 25, 1950 in Korea? Another 54,000 died in that police action which hasn't finished yet as we are still in a cease-fire there.

9/11- 2974 died in the attack and more than 4,500 in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have won?...The Iraq government says they want the US out by 2010. "

russ wrote on Aug 10, 2008 1:35 PM:

" Raven,

My estimate on WWII deaths was pretty close.

Our homeland was not attacked in the Korean War. North Korea attacked South Korea on June 25, 1950. The US entered South Korea soon thereafter to defend the South.

We are still in Kosovo too. I do not know why. Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys there? What is our national interest there? "

Raven wrote on Aug 10, 2008 8:36 PM:

" how about prevention of genocide?....that a good enuff reason for you...and Russ, if American troops are attacked, as far as I am concerned , the homeland has been attacked...I would send troops anywhere to try and prevent that from happening again. Face it, the days of hiding behind our oceans and not being involved in the world are long gone....time to come out of the rabbit hole and see what is really happening out there. "

russ wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:08 PM:

" Raven, come on,

Prevention of genocide? You are arguing for intervention in Rwanda, Iraq, Darfur, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, Burma, and others. Are you an interventionist?

Attacks on the American homeland must be the highest priority and deserving of retribution. "

Raven wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:17 PM:

" regarding the wanton slaughter of hundreds of thousands to possibly even millions of people, damn straight I am.....why is it okay invade Iraq to depose a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands but not okay to do the same in Darfur, Rwanda, Zimbabwe....if you have the means to stop a slaughter, a genocide, and do nothing instead...in my book you are almost as guilty as the ones doing the killing.....we are THE superpower in the world, why should we step in to stop the slaughter?...because we can!


and what about the USS Cole....was that an attack on the homeland? "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:56 AM:

" How many of you know that 50% of Americans believe 911 was an "inside" job?

THat should give even the most rabid of you bush supporters at least a moment to pause. WHY? WHY so many? WHY do we as Americans ( well 50%) could believe something so horrible? Why did a building fall down that hadn't even been severely hit by debris collapse? WHY, did a so called missing hijackers passport come out of the wreckage unscathed and then he was found to be alive?
WHY when we could find Saadam in a hole in the ground in the desert, can't find a 7 foot tall Arab that needs dialysis?
Why do we have millions of FEMA coffins that can hold three people all over the UNITED STATES and in public view?.
WHY did the house for the first time ever have a closed session from the media and the American Public?

WHY are there really Black choppers flying over OakVille grade?


WHY ?WHY?WHY?

And now back to our regular deprogramming.... "

kevin wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:44 PM:

" LOL. Adark1, I had NO IDEA you were a tinfoil hat wearer!

It appears to me that you answered your own question: "WHY so many?"

Because there's another one born every minute.... "

mystery commentor wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:03 PM:

" First of all, insulting people isn't going to help your own point of view.

Second, I strongly believe that a law should be created for the top levels of our government concerning conflict of interest. If you are an active member of the oil industry or military industry you should not be allowed into office.

Lastly, Common Sense, just because you don't think it, doesn't make it not true. "

14obama wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:45 PM:

" funnyme's remarks are very typical of the Republicans view of it is always a connection of Sadaam Husein to the 911. Back up ! It's obvious that they got their info after work in bits and pieces. Most Americans were asleep at the wheel when it took place. The news was politically biased causing much confusion. Even after so much disclosure that points to this administration,still,these people refuse to admit that their President could deceive them into believing otherwise. This is Our country,folks ! "

14obama wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:04 PM:

" Work on your own Godgiven insight russ. Don't sit there pointing out my punctuation. Have you asked yourself why we're in Iraq ? Oil maybe ? Must have rocks in your head if you believe GW is why no more attacks on us.I'd say that somebody's doing their jobs like they're supposed to is more like it,not the administration. You must have air in yo head. You've been deceived and still deny it. Can I help you ? "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:48 PM:

" In answer to your glib point if that was what it was kevin, I don't wear the tin foil hats I hand em out..lets see yours would be an extra large? "

russ wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:39 PM:

" 140 Bama,

We are in Iraq to kill Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists and to demonstrate America will not allow threats against the American homeland regardless of where they are.

We have a very large footprint in the Middle East and will keep it if we need it.

Forget the connection to 911 and forget the war for oil. Combine the threat to America and the threat to American energy supply and that is cause for action.

Liberals like Obama just do not understand the importance of America's national security. "

ADark1 wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:45 PM:

" Dabnabit! Russ,

You almost had me agreeing with you to the truth of the matter until you stated in part..." Liberals like Obama just do not understand the importance of America's national security" That is simply unfounded, and untrue. Why is it when someone may have a different point of view on an issue, the Right or Neo -Cons seem to deride their intelligence? Are you so naive to believe that even I ( A Liberal in some things)doesn't understand the inportance of national security?

I STILL say mine the borders! I trust that is Hawkish enough for most of you Liberal hating warmongers out there. And no , I don't mean putting little mines that blow off toes..I mean mines that take out the person (s) invading our country by NOT entering the right way. I mean mines that take out all of them....period. From a conservative viewpoint its very cost effective, and what remains of the carcasses should be enough to deter those foolish enough to attempt it again. "

kevin wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:26 AM:

" adark1:

Lev Grossman published this in Time:

"There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting."


I for one try to avoid the conspiracy groupies; heaven knows there are plenty on both sides of the political aisle. I didn't believe Bill Clinton ran a drug ring out of Hope Ark. and I don't believe President Bush personally blew up the WTC... "

russ wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:15 PM:

" AD1,

We Conservatives do not hate Liberals, we FEAR their policies.

I said that Obama and other liberals do not UNDERSTAND national security.

Liberals continually state that the highest national security issue is TO CAPTURE USAMA BIN LADEN. I disagree.

Do you agree that is the highest priority. "

Raven wrote on Aug 12, 2008 11:52 PM:

" russ, if the attack on 9/11 was such an outarge against the US, why wouldn't capturing bin laden be the highest priority? "

ADARK1 wrote on Aug 13, 2008 2:19 PM:

" Looks like hairs are being split on this one.
I'm pretty much a Liberal on most things ,VERY Hawkish on National Security.

National security is our FIRST priority. If it INCLUDES capturing Osama so be it.


The reason we won't capture Osama is because we really don't want to. We had a chance to have Pakistan hand him over, the Bush WHitehouse turned down the offer.

Need I add that Clinton FIRST tried to have him captured ?
Funny thing, the Pakis suposedly our allies are one of the biggest supporters of Al Queada today. WHY haven't we done anything about that?

Why did Bush commit TREASON by signing the NAU? PLEASE,PLEASE, PLEASE LOOK IT UP!

The fact that we continually support the policies of BIG Oil by even sending in troops so they can stick it to us annoys me.

Our so called democracy should not be a shill for big business.

No kevin Bush didn't personally blow up the towers, however too much is pointing towards a whitehouse involvement. Looking at the track record of Bush and Chaney?, its not inconcieveable there hands are dirty one way or another.

These are partially some of the reasons why I feel the right is WRONG! "

russ wrote on Aug 13, 2008 6:30 PM:

" ADark1,

When the words BIG OIL and"shill for big business" rolled off the page at me you lost my interest.

Typical liberal carp. "

kevin wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:45 PM:

" "The reason we won't capture Osama is because we really don't want to. We had a chance to have Pakistan hand him over, the Bush WHitehouse turned down the offer."

adark1, WHERE did THAT come from? I try to monitor fringe Lib web sites, and I have never came across that particular claim before...

As far as Pakistan supporting Al Quada, yes it is frustrating that they are allowed to remain in the country, but on the other hand, unlike some around here, I remember when Pakistan was virulently anti-American and I am very impressed with how far President Bush has managed to bring that country back from "the dark side".

How do you feel about B.O.'s stated intention to invade Pakistan to "get" Osama? "

russ wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:24 PM:

" raven,

I do not think Bin Laden is the greatest danger to America.

I think killing Bin Laden now would be sweet revenge. Great! Important, don't think so.

How many big terrorist attacks can you arrange from a cave in Wajiristan when a Predator drone with a missle with your name on it is circling overhead? "

ADARK1 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:18 AM:

" Kevin,

google it or look at the gaurdian Uk, or the smoking gun etc. "

misfit wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:35 AM:

" Once again...The war in Iraq had NOthing to do with 9/11! The invasion of Iraq was planned well before Bush took office and was carried out by Bush and Cheeeney. Read PENAC! "

ADARK1 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:50 AM:

" Kevin,

What he said was ..."as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists." I'm not sure if that is the statement you are talking about.
If that is what you are referring to, then with our troops already being exhausted, then I'm sure he;ll do the smart thing and have India give him a hand. They HATE Pakistan as it is and should make the job easier. I don't believe Osama is still there. What we DO KNOW, is that Pakistan has allowed al queda to set up many training bases there and we haven't given the Pakis the smackdown they deserve. What are YOUR thoughts? "

ADARK1 wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:52 AM:

" BTW guys what are YOUR thoughts on the NAU? "

Raven wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:00 AM:

" ...ahh...so the man who actually led the attacks on 9/11 was not as dangerous to the US as a man who we said had WMDs but didnt...

We must fear that he can do many attacks....after all look at the liberties we have given up in the name of fighting bin laden's war? "

kevin wrote on Aug 14, 2008 1:37 PM:

" adark1, now YOU'RE scaring me if you actually believe B.O. would align with India to move against Pakistan! Can you say "nuclear annihilation"? Those two countries HATE each other and it would be a DISASTER.

Osama promulgated the Islamofascist war against the Infidels, claimed credit for the attack on 9/11, but he was wrong in agreeing to make Iraq the prime battleground between Al Quada and the Coalition. According to Iraq, Al Quada has pretty much been vanquished. Osama has been humiliated and is not currently a major threat. With the recent US Supreme Court decision, I hope the Pakistanis kill him and DON'T capture him. Can you imagine if he goes on trial, defended by the ACLU? It would be a circus.

BTW, I STILL can't find anything about President Bush not accepting Pakistan's capture of Osama. Guess I'm not up to your standards at web surfing. (But I did accidently find a couple of great "adult" sites while looking, so thanks!) "

misfit wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:53 PM:

" That's okay Kevin...that puts you right up there with McCain and his web surfing abilities. (He can't even use a computer you know). Wouldn't you say that's kind of "Elitist" of him, "Out of touch" or just "Lazy"? "

russ wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:25 PM:

" ADark1,

You said that Pakistan allowed Al Qaeda to set up there.

As I understand it, Pakistan has no control over that area and the military is afraid to go there. Half of Pakistan is sympathetic to Al Qaeda, half do not care and the other half IS Al Qaeda.

Pakistan is a shaky place with nukes....and it is not George W. Bush's fault. "

napabrat wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Okay russ, I can't resist, how many halves are there in a whole?

"Half of Pakistan is sympathetic to Al Qaeda, half do not care and the other half IS Al Qaeda."

Gotta live up to my name once in a while! "

russ wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:38 AM:

" napabrat, You took the bait,

There are four halves in a whole, some people call them quarters, I just thought I would round down to three.

:) "

kevin wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:33 AM:

" russ, you have been hanging around ateacher too much... "

Raven wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:51 AM:

" hmm...four halves to a whole...then we can use that system for any numbers you present? "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy