Cape Cod and Islands Peace Community

Too bad the people who had to jump off the World Trade Center on 9/11 wont be able to attend the March. The killers who watched babies being brought on the plane knowing they were going to fly the aircraft into buildings are the vermin that President Bush has vowed to wipe out. We have built the greatest country in the World over the last 400 years. The Al Queda groups of the world choose to not work as hard as we have to make their own lands great but to decimate ours and bring us down to their level. They are jealous of our success. So do we sit around and let them bomb our embassies and ships like Clinton did? No way we will take the fight to them and preserve our way of life. Even the Left Wing loonies at CNN just did a show called War Within about the trouble England has with radical Muslims. Bush will not let that happen here. Protest if you want but the vast majority of people who dont participate in these fake polls support the President. Viva Bush!!!

Stop being such a wet blanket, umassjsp, can't you see what a groovy happening this rally's gonna be? Hurray, we're losing!!

Well, I might as well jump in here. Sarah: thanks for standing up for the thousands of us who can't get to WDC ask our federal government to listen to us. We spoke in November, and, silly us, we thought Bush might have heard our message.

The thousands there this weekend, of course, represent millions and millions of the rest of us, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. That's you, John and Diane. And Margo in Wellflet, and Brian, Barbara in Provincetown, and Judy in Eastham, and all the rest of you.

Silly you, Len, apparently you've forgotten that Bush waited all of a day to sack Rumsfeld after the election, has acknowledged failures in the war and his responsibility for them, and has embarked on a new strategy -- one that critics like you appear a tad eager to label a failure before it's had a chance to succeed.

Democratic partisans want to see Bush fail in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for the rest of humanity, because success for Bush consigns the Democratic Party to oblivion.

Thanks Jack...you are right on target.

Let's win the war first and then everyone can argue about who made the largest or least contribution.

Hope you and family are well. Have a great evening.

Regards,
Jack

thanks, Cap'n, appreciate it. The law of averages dictates that I can't always be wrong ;). Hope things are well with you and yours too.

Jack: you know absolutely nothing of this democratic partisan's desires, motivations or values, so don't try to get away with your sweeping statements ("Democratic partisans want to see Bush fail...").

Here's what I want: I wanted Bush not to lie about the rational; I wanted Bush not to order the invasion or occupation of Iraq; I now want Bush to get it that none of us support staying the course or escalating.

These are the things this partisan democrat wants to see.

Do I "want Bush to fail?" Failure is horse I suspect is out of the barn, but is really immaterial to what I want, and I believe others want.

In fact, declare success, I don't care. Declare "mission accomplished" again; and again; and again. I don't really care what you call it. There's a used banner printed with those words available for press events.

Just put an end to it all, and let's put the next $300 billion towards something that matters to us. Put an end to senseless death of American GI's. Put an end to colonialism is a post-colonial world.

That's what I "want."

BTW, so what Rumsfeld's gone.

Porcupine - how do you make this stuff up? You're correct that the article is wrong in stating, "But in November, the state of Massachusetts randomly chose Harwich to place a nonbinding Iraq question on the ballot."

But you are wrong in saying it was a private group - it was a bunch of volunteers that hate seeing innocents slaughtered for Haliburton profits, and we had nothing whatsoever to do with Sarah Peake's candidacy.

Having said that, I think it's wonderful that we have a state rep who recognizes the importance of this war and the will of her constituents, and who is willing to be proactive about it.

umassjsp: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, DOH! 9/11 was a failure of the Bush administration, DOH! And you refer to our November elections as 'fake polls'? I can see you understand democracy about as well as you understand current events.

Jack / maverick: 'Win this war'? Don't you remember? Bush announced that we won it back in '03 - mission accomplished! Create a civil war, then increase our troops by 10% - another brilliant plan for success.

Impeach Bush/Cheney!

Yes Jack, like Len said "let's put the 300 billion towards something that matters to us".

Like extra security screening at airports, or better technology to detect "dirty bombs" in our cities. Or more ambulances, body bags and trauma centers. Did you ever think of those things JACK?

Because you see Jack, those are the things we're going to really need when the Jihadist's and extremists come after us again on our own soil like they say they will and as they've done before.

I pray to God it's not this weekend in Washington when all those innocent people will be gathering.

So Jack, it's time to bring the war and our boys home to us.

Listen to this quote that was posted on channel 17, and said by Adolf Hitler: "How easy it is for leaders that the people don't think"(or something to that effect)And that big boob was all bluster and bs. Same thing is going on here. Remeber the "mushroom cloud" and "total nuclear annihilation"? I believe that could happen, but not from Iraq-obviously! They have no nuclear capabilities!And no doubt the muslim fanatics are horrible, and a threat. But damn- they have to go after the right ones!! Like how bout Saudi Arabia? Can't do that, can we? Or can't we as thinking adults come up with some other way to solve problems than war, war, war? So, let's think!
Who exactly is benefitting from this conflict? And what the hell exactly are these soldiers and civilians dying for? Cause so far, I don't believe anything we've been told. It's all smoke and mirrors, and too many people are dying. I say whoever supports this war is un-American..how do you like that?

Len, working in the mainstream media is the best preparation anyone can have for deciphering how Democratic activists think.

KMA writes that "it's time to bring the war and our boys home to us," revealing far more than intended. Wrong, KMA -- bringing the war "home to us" would be really, really bad. Try a Google search of "9/11" to see what I mean.

Better to fight Islamic fanatics at a place of our choosing than theirs.

Jack, we didn't "choose" Iraq as the battleground, the Arab militants picked it for us because we were there to avenge Bush's daddy and/or control more oil, which is now lost to us forever due to the zero planning and incompetence of thinkers like you and the NeoCons.

The people here complaining about how Bush has waged the War on Terror would be complaining just as loud if Bush had done nothing with the military after 9/11. There are a certain group of people that dont feel like working that love the Democrats because they know they can sit on their arses and collect a check from the government. People like myself have worked everyday since I was 16 and dont want the government in my pockets and would LOVE to be able to invest my OWN Social Security money. I support the President and I support the sending of our troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to put a stop to the terrorists and to change the cultuire of the Middle East. The French didnt think the Germans were a threat and the next thing they knew Hitler was goose stepping in Paris. We dont roll like that here. We will fight to preserve our way of life and the cost will be high but the World will be safer and richer for the actions of our country and leaders. Protest all you want....but we all know that deep down you know you are WRONG!

News-gal, if the rationale for the war was to avenge "Bush's daddy," what was Clinton's rationale for bombing Iraq in June 1993, and again in December 1998? For maintaining the no-fly zones in Iraq and a US military presence in Saudi Arabia? For repeatedly warning us of the threat posed by Saddam? Couldn't have been a "daddy" thing; Clinton's died before he was born.

If oil was the other principal rationale, why didn't we just call for an end to the sanctions against Iraq that were in place before the war? This would have flooded the market with oil -- and it was the UN that imposed sanctions, not the US.

Jack, you're dissembling and you know it;
there is a 3,000 dead soldier & the $1.2 TRILLION dollar difference between using the UN authorized "NoFly Zone" bombing and inmvading a soverign nation which had nothing whatever to do with 911 ACCORDING TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

The woman's right - according to a business article in the January 16, 2007 International Herald Tribune "Cost of raq war ($1.2 trillion) changes economic perspectives" For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children's lives.

Combined, those programs wouldn't use up even half of our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every three- and four-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.
Other economists believe the cost will EXCEED 2 TRILLION.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/16/business/leonhardt.php

Actually, News-gal, you're the one dodging awkward questions and it couldn't be more obvious. I'll convey them one at a time, so as not to overburden you -- if the rationale for the war was in large part to acquire Iraqi oil, why didn't we simply call for an end to the sanctions on Iraq imposed by the UN?

A Bush hater working in the media -- go figure.

I really take exception to the left wing media references. They weren't very left in the beginning of this fiasco of Bush's. They were doing what they do best, which is being the most sophisticated propaganda machine the world has ever seen. The bourgeois bordello mediascape is nothing more than a device to hypnotize monkeys with shiny objects and weird sounds and getting them to buy things that they don't need.

I'll bash Bush, no problem. Superstitious religious fanatic, pretend cowboy (courtesey of the bloodsucker pop culture/screwing machine) Rich boy/groomed puppet.

I mean for chrissakes, does someone really believe this was about bringing democracy to the middle east? Com'on, it's oil, duh. It is an unbelievable mess that these bozos in the administration created and no matter what happens a lot more people are going to be killed.

The US had the no-fly zone. The US had a strong presence in Saudi Arabia and the most sophisticated 1st strike machine in the world at its disposal. Containment was working. But the world-wide corporations wanted more.

videopaul, I'll try asking you the same question -- if "it's oil, duh" that's the reason for the war, why not just end the sanctions against Iraq before the war, thereby flooding the market with oil?

None of Saddam's leftist apologists appear capable of answering this, perhaps because they're too busy chugging champagne in anticipation of America's defeat and humiliation in Iraq. Hurray, we're losing!!

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm is a good place to start to understand that it is not as simple as that, Jack. There are plenty more detailed examples out there on the subject. American companies were not getting the deals they wanted from the Iraqi government.

"Hurray we're losing"? Now everybody's losing. Even the big corporations, god forbid. Of course there are exceptions of significant war profiteering.

I mean com'on Jack. Do you think it was really about spreading democracy?... really?

The fact remains, videopaul, that ending the sanctions would have given us plenty of Iraqi oil without need of military intervention. So much for the war being all about oil. Agreed, it makes for a catchy bumper sticker.

The rationale for the war was to depose a murderous regime that threatened the region for decades, flouted UN resolutions to disarm for more than a decade and threatened global stability by virtue of the oil wealth in the Middle East. Stability precedes democracy; one has to come before the other.

If Iraq was not a threat, why the sanctions? The no-fly zones? Our military's presence in Saudi Arabia? The UN weapons inspections?

Do you really think Iraq was not a threat, videopaul? ... really?

It's not a fact, Jack. Google "Iraqi Oil Ministry" and read on. Get the real history, not Limbaugh/Rove talking points.

I'll just agree to disagree. This will go nowhere obviously.

A threat? Yes. Contained. Threatening enough to risk inciting a global war on manufactured intelligence serving the corporate elite? No.

China will be the region to watch in the 21st century. The middle east conflict will pale in comparison. Who knows, China might consider repossesing the middle east after the west credit card payments' checks bounce.

A fine mess.

That you refuse to acknowledge it makes this no less of a fact, videopaul.

Nice to see you come around on acknowledging Iraq was a threat, however. As far as Iraq being "contained" before the war, most of the crowd down in DC today was claiming back then that containment was costing the lives of 100,000 Iraqi children a year, or have you conveniently forgotten?

The interests of America's corporate elite would have been much better served selling blue jeans and bubble gum to those children. Their deaths served only the interests of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant you can't bring yourself to loathe more than you loathe Bush.

The Iraq War costs absoulutely nothing in real dollars. Another 9/11 attack and every American would see their 401K value cut in half. That makes the money spent in Iraq a GREAT investment on Bush's part. Maybe there a few people on this board that could use a class in economics over at CCCC. If confidence is lost in our economy because of terrorist attacks then we are in big trouble. Thanks to W and Cheney that confidence has risen over the last 5+ years thus most Americans support the President no matter what the fake polls the new media pedals say. I for one have never been asked my approval of the President....maybe because the polls are only taken in P Town and Cambridge.

Simply not true. Believe whatever ya want.
Man - talk about your voodoo economics. That's quite a projection. Sounds like it's already Jr. college curriculum. Maybe take a class in trickle down theory while your at it... Worked on the dinosaurs.

Sorry Jack,

My point in my earlier blog was a bit of sarcasim. If we don't fight the fight, the war will come here.