What a brilliant idea: Bush / Saddam Duel

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

What a brilliant idea. I can’t see a downside to this. There’s just no way we could lose.

An Iraqi vice-president has proposed that Saddam Hussein and George W Bush should fight a duel to settle their differences.

“Bush wants to attack the whole [of] Iraq, the army and the infrastructure,” the Iraqi vice-president said.

“The American president should specify a group, and we will specify a group and choose neutral ground with Kofi Annan as referee and use one weapon with a president against a president, a vice-president against a vice-president, and a minister against a minister in a duel.”

Update: got a message from a fellow named Ron Pawlikowski in response: “If I recall my duelling rules, the one who is challenged gets to pick the weapons. So obviously, GWB should choose ICBM’s at about 20 million paces. Since Saddam doesn’t have any, we win!”

Of course, I replied to point out the error in his thinking: “If you recall all of the dueling rules, you’d realize that whoever chooses the weapons has to provide them to both parties on the morning of the duel, and then the other fellow, the challenger picks the time and place. So I don’t think the ICBM choice would be the best for GWB, although I can see him being brainless enough to make that choice.”

Continue ReadingWhat a brilliant idea: Bush / Saddam Duel

Americans For Victory Over Terrorism

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

There’s a brand-new group, headed by Bill Bennett, called [a href=”http://www.avot.org/”] American’s For Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT). They are targeting “threats” to America, both “external and internal.”

Who do they classify as threats? People who don’t support GW Bush’s intentions to invade Iraq. Now, where do I sign up to get on the list of people they consider threats? because I love this country, and I want to guard against terrorism, but I’m not going to blindly follow a fool as he jumps off a bridge.

2013 Update: Interestingly, the link to AVOT’s site is dead now. Guess we won over that terrorism, didn’t we?

Continue ReadingAmericans For Victory Over Terrorism

Bill Clinton on the Path to Peace

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

I didn’t realize until I read this piece on Salon Magazine how much I missed the man

Salon: The path to peace

Our security policy should include five major elements:

First, we should support President Bush and our military in finishing the job of getting Osama bin Laden and the other al-Qaida leaders out of Afghanistan.

Second, we must do everything we can to end the North Korean nuclear missile program. This is a very big deal: The North Koreans may not be able to grow enough food to feed their people, but they are world-class missile builders and they sell missiles to our adversaries.

During my administration, we succeeded in ending North Korea’s nuclear program and its testing of long-range missiles. At the end of my second term, we came close to an agreement to end its missile program entirely. The key to the final agreement was to be a presidential visit to North Korea. I was willing to go, but in the last few weeks of my administration we had to focus all our energies on the apparent chance to achieve a Middle East peace agreement. I decided not to risk this chance by taking a trip that would have had to include South Africa, China, and Japan.

I remain convinced that an end can be negotiated to the North Korean program if the Bush administration makes it a high priority.

Third, we must constrain the production and distribution of chemical, biological and small-scale nuclear weapons. We know that Saddam Hussein is a continuing concern because his laboratories are busy. His military is much weaker than it was at the time of the Persian Gulf War, but the threat of his labs is real. It is not as immediate as the need to restart the Middle East peace process and stop the violence there, and it may not require an invasion, but it must be addressed.

Fourth, we should increase the capacity of our friends to deal with terror. I support what President Bush is doing to help President Gloria Arroyo in the Philippines. I also believe Bush is right to broaden the uses of our aid to Colombia, in order to save the oldest democracy in Latin America from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The FARC are, in fact, terrorists in the service of drug traffickers who are trying to make Colombia the world’s first narco-state.

We should also support our friends in Africa who are trying to organize themselves into coherent societies. One of the best ways is to continue funding the Africa Crisis Response Initiative. Launched during my administration, this program provides U.S. support for a mixed African military force that can go wherever it is needed, so that Africans can be their own peacekeepers and deal with their own terrorists and tribal conflicts. I hope the Bush administration will not cut funding for this program.

Fifth, we have to improve domestic defenses and cooperation. I support the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security as long as it has the authority to keep all the related agencies in close cooperation and it has immediate access to all intelligence.

More partners, fewer terrorists. In addition to these five defensive steps, it is critical to our new foreign and security policy framework that we have a vision, as our predecessors did after the Second World War, for building a better world with more partners and fewer terrorists.

The guiding principle of this reordered world comes directly from the Third Way philosophy: Empowerment, opportunity and responsibility.

Continue ReadingBill Clinton on the Path to Peace

Overview of Changes to Legal Rights

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

In addition to the people we lost at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon a year ago, we’ve lost some things that are also fundamentally important to our nation. We are no long a free country… our basic rights as Americans have been eroded in the name of “security” when in reality our president seems to be attempting to overthrow our democracy and create a dictatorship. The most important values we have as a country are gone, not at the hands of Osama bin Laden, or of terrorists, but at the hands of the Terrorist who sits in the Oval Office today, a man who arrived there not because he was elected but because he stole the seat.
Overview of Changes to Legal Rights — By The Associated Press
September 5, 2002, 11:44 AM EDT
Some of the fundamental changes to Americans’ legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
* FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
* RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
READ MY LIPS MR. BUSH: NO WAR WITH IRAQ

Continue ReadingOverview of Changes to Legal Rights