In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

aspasia wrote in message
...

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.


Now let's think this through, campers.

Picture the scenario if Bush is successfully removed from office
(I'd - almost - die happy!)

Cheney's heart (? he has one?) finally gives out.

Hastert, next in line of succession, has been removed as Speaker via
Foley-gate and replaced by Boehner, who is, even as we speak, gunning
for his job.

So now we have Pres. Boehner, than whom no one in this whorehouse
called the U.S. Congress is deeper in the pockets of K Street.
Here is just a sliver of his record:

http://tinyurl.com/7uef5

Plenty more by Googling boehner + corruption, e.g.:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/...western-union/

This is the guy, campers, who was openly handing out checks from the
tobacco lobby ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!!!!

So do we still want to impeach Bush?


That would be President Pelosi. The probable speaker
of the house after the next election.

Bob

Err. Cheney is next in line..

" Cheney first or simultaneously"

That definitely ain't gonna happen except in the wettest Democratic
wet dream.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-

Err. Cheney is next in line..

" Cheney first or simultaneously"

That definitely ain't gonna happen except in the wettest Democratic
wet dream

Things could change when we get a congress that will
actually investigate something, althought Pelosi has said
she will not impeach.. Bush's actions are directly
responsible for getting us into a war without good reason,
resulting in the death of thousands of americans and the
maiming of tens of thousands, the deaths of up to 600.000
people of Iraq, and the creation and training of tens of thousands ]
of new US hating terrorists. Even government studies say
we are less safe now than we were before Iraq. Plenty of cause.

Bob

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-

Err. Cheney is next in line..

" Cheney first or simultaneously"

That definitely ain't gonna happen except in the wettest Democratic
wet dream

Things could change when we get a congress that will
actually investigate something, althought Pelosi has said
she will not impeach.. Bush's actions are directly
responsible for getting us into a war without good reason,
resulting in the death of thousands of americans and the
maiming of tens of thousands, the deaths of up to 600.000
people of Iraq, and the creation and training of tens of thousands ]
of new US hating terrorists. Even government studies say
we are less safe now than we were before Iraq. Plenty of cause.

Until the Dems get a veto-proof majority (in otherwords enough in the
Senate to where they can actually convict), it ain't nothing but
political masturbation. The Dems noted that when the GOP went after
Clinton. I am assuming they learned the lesson that impeachment is as
much a political act as a judicial/constitutional one. There is no real
consensus even in the polls, that anything GWB did has been raised to
the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Dems also have the problem with making the case that it REALLY
was anything other than bad intel when the GOP starts harping on the
fact that a Dem and Clinton hold over (with a history of
less-than-steallar information) putting the intel together at the CIA.
To think that impeachment, well okay conviction, is possible is
further indication of how deluded people can be.

the investigation and proscuetion will take longer than he is in
office.

but it will tie up his failed adminstration so much they wouldnt have
time to do too much more damage.

generally keep low profile avoid new issues.

stalemate is way better than king bush, sorry failed president bush

the investigation and proscuetion will take longer than he is in
office.

but it will tie up his failed adminstration so much they wouldnt have
time to do too much more damage.

generally keep low profile avoid new issues.

stalemate is way better than king bush, sorry failed president bush

clipped
less-than-steallar information) putting the intel together at the CIA.
To think that impeachment, well okay conviction, is possible is
further indication of how deluded people can be.

Unless a White House maid saves a speciment of semen, plants it on a
little blue dress, and sends it to Nancy Pelosi.

(Gotta give up reading newsgroups .. I was a normal person when I
started )

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:



To think that impeachment, well okay conviction, is possible is
further indication of how deluded people can be.


At least President Bush is trying to protect the US(his JOB!),while Clinton
was just trying to protect his own ass from his lying and Lewinsky affair.
Clinton was impeached for *lying in court*(and to the US People) while the
idiots would impeach Bush for doing his job.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article k.net,
Norminn wrote:

clipped
less-than-steallar information) putting the intel together at the CIA.
To think that impeachment, well okay conviction, is possible is
further indication of how deluded people can be.

Unless a White House maid saves a speciment of semen, plants it on a
little blue dress, and sends it to Nancy Pelosi.

Didn't work the first time. Why would it this time?

Bob F wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-

Err. Cheney is next in line..

" Cheney first or simultaneously"

That definitely ain't gonna happen except in the wettest Democratic
wet dream


Things could change when we get a congress that will
actually investigate something, althought Pelosi has said
she will not impeach.. Bush's actions are directly
responsible for getting us into a war without good reason,
resulting in the death of thousands of americans and the
maiming of tens of thousands, the deaths of up to 600.000
people of Iraq, and the creation and training of tens of thousands ]
of new US hating terrorists. Even government studies say
we are less safe now than we were before Iraq. Plenty of cause.

Bob


This thread has gone on pretty long, but one last thought. Muslim
traditions and mores are so doggone foreign to Americans that we have
little concept of many of the things that turn them against us. I'm not
defending the bombers and murderers, just making a point that nobody
considering war seems to have thought of. Rules of engagement sometimes
allow bombing private homes ... why in bloody hell would any of those
victims' families ever want to do anything but kill us?

Just a week or two ago, a guy flew his plane up over the East River and
into a highrise, not far from the UN. Hello?

In article .net,
Norminn wrote:


This thread has gone on pretty long, but one last thought. Muslim
traditions and mores are so doggone foreign to Americans that we have
little concept of many of the things that turn them against us. I'm not
defending the bombers and murderers, just making a point that nobody
considering war seems to have thought of. Rules of engagement sometimes
allow bombing private homes ... why in bloody hell would any of those
victims' families ever want to do anything but kill us?

But they can come into our area and mow down people willy nilly
and we aren't supposed to feel the same way?


Just a week or two ago, a guy flew his plane up over the East River and
into a highrise, not far from the UN. Hello?

So you are not really trying to equate a Yankee pitcher with the 9/11
crowd are you?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
The Dems also have the problem with making the case that it REALLY
was anything other than bad intel when the GOP starts harping on the
fact that a Dem and Clinton hold over (with a history of
less-than-steallar information) putting the intel together at the CIA.

Go see what Richard Clarke had to say about it.

Bob
..

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

At least President Bush is trying to protect the US(his JOB!),while
Clinton
was just trying to protect his own ass from his lying and Lewinsky affair.
Clinton was impeached for *lying in court*(and to the US People) while the
idiots would impeach Bush for doing his job.

Anyone who can compare a blowjob to lying us into a war resulting in
the deaths if 100's of thousands of people has a real morality problem.

Bob

"Norminn" wrote in message news:Lxw_g.14721
This thread has gone on pretty long, but one last thought. Muslim
traditions and mores are so doggone foreign to Americans that we have
little concept of many of the things that turn them against us. I'm not
defending the bombers and murderers, just making a point that nobody
considering war seems to have thought of. Rules of engagement sometimes
allow bombing private homes ... why in bloody hell would any of those
victims' families ever want to do anything but kill us?


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that if we go blasting into
a country riding a pack of lies, killing thousands, turning their
resources over to US corporations, destroying their infrastructure,
and leaving most of them unemployed, that people there are going to
learn to hate us.

To those who thing we are doing right - How would you respond
if it were your country occupied, your family killed, your home destroyed?

Bob

On 17 Oct 2006 22:56:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Big Al" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...



bush is worse than LBJ another failed president.......


What about Carter? He set the standard.

Al





US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

Jimmy Carter also negotiated the N.Korea "Agreed Framework" where they
agreed to not make nuclear weapons.(without any checks to see if they
actually would abide by their word.)

There were checks. In fact, up until bush fricked everything up the
N. Koreans were abiding by the agreements that were in place.

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
The Dems also have the problem with making the case that it REALLY
was anything other than bad intel when the GOP starts harping on the
fact that a Dem and Clinton hold over (with a history of
less-than-steallar information) putting the intel together at the CIA.

Go see what Richard Clarke had to say about it.

Now THERE"

Sev wrote:
wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East.

My mouse only has 3 buttons on it- which one does that?

Do we ever reflect on why we Americans are prone to this kind of
intemperate thinking? We are an impatient lot, but how many repair
jobs are helped by an outbreak of violent temper? I expect most of us
have tried it at least once, rarely with helpful results- just that one
or two times that make us, like gamblers, occasionally consider it.


Regarding Carter and the hostages, I've always considered his approach
basically a success, by this simple measu THEY ALL CAME HOME ALIVE
a minor point for some people, I realize. And there was some
evidence, which I found credible, that Reagan's people deliberately had
release delayed through secret dealings.

Nuke the middle east? We would save a lot of time if we just nuked
ourselves.

In article .com,
"tmurf.1" wrote:

Sev wrote:
wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East.

My mouse only has 3 buttons on it- which one does that?

Do we ever reflect on why we Americans are prone to this kind of
intemperate thinking? We are an impatient lot, but how many repair
jobs are helped by an outbreak of violent temper? I expect most of us
have tried it at least once, rarely with helpful results- just that one
or two times that make us, like gamblers, occasionally consider it.


Regarding Carter and the hostages, I've always considered his approach
basically a success, by this simple measu THEY ALL CAME HOME ALIVE
a minor point for some people, I realize. And there was some
evidence, which I found credible, that Reagan's people deliberately had
release delayed through secret dealings.

Nuke the middle east? We would save a lot of time if we just nuked
ourselves.

You could just cuddle up with a gun by yourself if you think that way.
No particular reason to bring me along for your particular ride..

clipped
The Dems also have the problem with making the case that it REALLY
was anything other than bad intel when the GOP starts harping on the
fact that a Dem and Clinton hold over (with a history of
less-than-steallar information) putting the intel together at the CIA.
To think that impeachment, well okay conviction, is possible is
further indication of how deluded people can be.

This is where the "support our troops" turns into such hypocritical
tripe! The ONLY issue seems to be whether the admin. lied or was just
plain "wrong", when the REAL issue is (should be) why we went to war
without incontroverible evidence. Yeh, Sadam is a devil. There are
many others, marching around Africa, hacking limbs off children to get
their parents' attention. Important allies were steadfastly against it,
IAEA was begging for more time, and Bush told them all to cram it. The
prevailing attitude, at least that which I heard or read, was to tell
France to go to hell because "we saved their asses and they owe us".
Bush and Co. made anyone who even wavered to be a traitor or
unpatriotic. That is is the worst of the pseudo-xtian *******'s
character. "I want what I want when I want it", just like he told his
dad on one of his drunk nights out.

Bush, the disappearing pilot during Viet Nam, used our troops as
backdrops for his idiotic speeches, like they were so much cardboard and
paint. Whistling the same tune, everyone who protested the VN war was
worse than unpatriotic .. damn war would still be going on if not for
the kids who protested. I thought for a long time that the sacrifices
of Viet Nam would keep us from EVER going into such a horror again. Our
military men and women fight and die for our freedoms, but then the idea
of dissent becomes, suddenly, unpatriotic. Fight terror? OBL has us
right where he wants us. Clinton was damned if he did, and damned if he
didn't and nobody cared about security or the massacre of muslims in
Bosnia as much as they cared about his sex live.

In article .net,
Norminn wrote:

clipped
The Dems also have the problem with making the case that it REALLY
was anything other than bad intel when the GOP starts harping on the
fact that a Dem and Clinton hold over (with a history of
less-than-steallar information) putting the intel together at the CIA.
To think that impeachment, well okay conviction, is possible is
further indication of how deluded people can be.

This is where the "support our troops" turns into such hypocritical
tripe! The ONLY issue seems to be whether the admin. lied or was just
plain "wrong", when the REAL issue is (should be) why we went to war
without incontroverible evidence. Yeh, Sadam is a devil. There are
many others, marching around Africa, hacking limbs off children to get
their parents' attention. Important allies were steadfastly against it,
IAEA was begging for more time, and Bush told them all to cram it. The
prevailing attitude, at least that which I heard or read, was to tell
France to go to hell because "we saved their asses and they owe us".
Bush and Co. made anyone who even wavered to be a traitor or
unpatriotic. That is is the worst of the pseudo-xtian *******'s
character. "I want what I want when I want it", just like he told his
dad on one of his drunk nights out.

This has absolutely nothing to do with support our troops. It is
politics. Dems saw that the GOP got nowhere and actually came out worse
off for trying impeachment because it was viewed by those outside the
beltway as just partisan BS. The same will happen if impeachment is
tried by the Dems. They can't win conviction and there is still a high
enough plurality backing GW that trying will be seen as purely political
and continuation of the partisan bickering that has most people fed up.
As things sit now, an important caveat, impeachment is a no win
situation for the Dems now as it was for the GOP with Clinton.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:29:34 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

To those who thing we are doing right - How would you respond
if it were your country occupied, your family killed, your home destroyed?

Bob

Let's see...I'd blow up my neighbors' churches, kill the police,
sabotage my country's infrastructure, kill women and children at the
market, then blow up myself and anyone else near me. Makes perfect
sense; doesn't it??

"GWB" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:29:34 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

To those who thing we are doing right - How would you respond
if it were your country occupied, your family killed, your home
destroyed?

Bob

Let's see...I'd blow up my neighbors' churches, kill the police,
sabotage my country's infrastructure, kill women and children at the
market, then blow up myself and anyone else near me. Makes perfect
sense; doesn't it??

And exactly how many residents of Iraq did that?
Idiot.

Bob

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
This has absolutely nothing to do with support our troops. It is
politics. Dems saw that the GOP got nowhere and actually came out worse
off for trying impeachment because it was viewed by those outside the
beltway as just partisan BS. The same will happen if impeachment is
tried by the Dems. They can't win conviction and there is still a high
enough plurality backing GW that trying will be seen as purely political
and continuation of the partisan bickering that has most people fed up.
As things sit now, an important caveat, impeachment is a no win
situation for the Dems now as it was for the GOP with Clinton.

The impeachment of Clinton was 100% partisan politics. Bush however
has committed many serious crimes against our constitution, soldiers,
and humanity in general, resulting in a much more dangerous world for
our citizens, and a much bigger risk that American democracy could
be destroyed. For what reason? The only one that makes any sense
is oil - to make his friends richer. Or maybe it was just to show up
his daddy.

Bob

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"tmurf.1" wrote:

Sev wrote:
wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East.

My mouse only has 3 buttons on it- which one does that?

Do we ever reflect on why we Americans are prone to this kind of
intemperate thinking? We are an impatient lot, but how many repair
jobs are helped by an outbreak of violent temper? I expect most of us
have tried it at least once, rarely with helpful results- just that
one
or two times that make us, like gamblers, occasionally consider it.


Regarding Carter and the hostages, I've always considered his
approach
basically a success, by this simple measu THEY ALL CAME HOME ALIVE
a minor point for some people, I realize. And there was some
evidence, which I found credible, that Reagan's people deliberately
had
release delayed through secret dealings.

Nuke the middle east? We would save a lot of time if we just nuked
ourselves.

You could just cuddle up with a gun by yourself if you think that way.
No particular reason to bring me along for your particular ride..

So we should do it to the rest of the world instead? What kind of morality
is that?

Bob

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
This has absolutely nothing to do with support our troops. It is
politics. Dems saw that the GOP got nowhere and actually came out worse
off for trying impeachment because it was viewed by those outside the
beltway as just partisan BS. The same will happen if impeachment is
tried by the Dems. They can't win conviction and there is still a high
enough plurality backing GW that trying will be seen as purely political
and continuation of the partisan bickering that has most people fed up.
As things sit now, an important caveat, impeachment is a no win
situation for the Dems now as it was for the GOP with Clinton.

The impeachment of Clinton was 100% partisan politics. Bush however
has committed many serious crimes against our constitution, soldiers,
and humanity in general, resulting in a much more dangerous world for
our citizens, and a much bigger risk that American democracy could
be destroyed. For what reason? The only one that makes any sense
is oil - to make his friends richer. Or maybe it was just to show up
his daddy.

Impeachment is politics no matter what else you want to bring into
it. Period Exclamation point underline. The list of stuff against Bush
is also partisan and political and is made clear by running out the old
oil chestnut.

clipped

This has absolutely nothing to do with support our troops. It is
politics.

It absolutely does. You, as a nurse, know better than some the horrific
injuries. Far more severely injured soldiers are being saved, and
amputations probably number in the thousands. Military personnel are
held to severe rules of engagement. The big boys should have equally
severe "rules" for committing combat troops anywhere, and asking them to
make the sacrifices our people are making. It is not a "Dem" vs. "Rep"
****ing contest, it is valuable human life forever altered or lost
because some dumb cowboy wants a fight.

In article .net,
Norminn wrote:

clipped

This has absolutely nothing to do with support our troops. It is
politics.

It absolutely does. You, as a nurse, know better than some the horrific
injuries. Far more severely injured soldiers are being saved, and
amputations probably number in the thousands. Military personnel are
held to severe rules of engagement. The big boys should have equally
severe "rules" for committing combat troops anywhere, and asking them to
make the sacrifices our people are making. It is not a "Dem" vs. "Rep"
****ing contest, it is valuable human life forever altered or lost
because some dumb cowboy wants a fight.

We will just have to agree to disagree. And see what happens.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article . com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

The deal that kept NK from even unsealing the reactor cores, never mind
extracting the plutonium from the spent fuel and making functional
nuclear bombs, until the Bushies decided no deals with Evil? You prefer
to let NK have nuclear weapons, because it's beneath you to deal with
Evil? That's the same attitude that the Arab states have towards
Israel, and it's just as dumbass there.
There is ample evidence that they kept going without looking back.
Also much of the original deal was in tatters because Clinton (and
others) couldn't stop fighting amongst themselves over the spoils of the
reactors to actually get them built. They were years behind on their
promises long before Clinton left.

Bottom line: When Clinton took office, NK was about to pull enough
plutonium out of the reactors to build maybe 50 bombs. When Clinton
left office, no plutonium had been pulled out of the reactors, which
were still sealed under UN inspection, and obviously no bombs had been
built. After Bush's "management" for 6 years, NK has an unknown number
of bombs and is undoubtedly making more.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:50:27 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


"GWB" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:29:34 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

To those who thing we are doing right - How would you respond
if it were your country occupied, your family killed, your home
destroyed?

Bob

Let's see...I'd blow up my neighbors' churches, kill the police,
sabotage my country's infrastructure, kill women and children at the
market, then blow up myself and anyone else near me. Makes perfect
sense; doesn't it??

And exactly how many residents of Iraq did that?
Idiot.


Before you go calling poster "idiot", look at the horrendous daily
stats of Iraquis doing just exactly that. People in Baghdad which used
to be a diverse city -- Sunnis, Shi'its, Kurds lived side by side for
centuries; intermarried, etc. are now being murdered in droves by
their former neighbors and by the armed militias which
have made a sad joke of the "government" of Iraq and the Iraqui forces
supposedly trained by the U.S.

In the name of whatever aspect of Islam they favor, these gangs have
literally cleaned out entire towns and areas of the Muslims they
oppose.

What part of the above listed actions do you NOT see taking
place in Iraq today?

Or do you swallow the White House's desperate line...?

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:51:22 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
This has absolutely nothing to do with support our troops. It is
politics. Dems saw that the GOP got nowhere and actually came out worse
off for trying impeachment because it was viewed by those outside the
beltway as just partisan BS. The same will happen if impeachment is
tried by the Dems. They can't win conviction and there is still a high
enough plurality backing GW that trying will be seen as purely political
and continuation of the partisan bickering that has most people fed up.
As things sit now, an important caveat, impeachment is a no win
situation for the Dems now as it was for the GOP with Clinton.

The impeachment of Clinton was 100% partisan politics. Bush however
has committed many serious crimes against our constitution, soldiers,
and humanity in general, resulting in a much more dangerous world for
our citizens, and a much bigger risk that American democracy could
be destroyed. For what reason? The only one that makes any sense
is oil - to make his friends richer. Or maybe it was just to show up
his daddy.

Impeachment is politics no matter what else you want to bring into
it. Period Exclamation point underline. The list of stuff against Bush
is also partisan and political and is made clear by running out the old
oil chestnut.

The list of "stuff" against Bush is hard, cold, facts. On the record.
Wait until the next Admin. makes them release what they're holding up,
like Cheney's meeting with the energy lobby.

The "oil chestnut" is also hard, cold, facts. Just for starters, see
April Glaspie's account of her meeting with Saddam when she,
representing the U.S. govt, said that we had "no position" on Saddam's
proposed invasion of Kuwait.

Dream on!

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:03:53 -0700, aspasia wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:50:27 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


"GWB" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:29:34 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

To those who thing we are doing right - How would you respond
if it were your country occupied, your family killed, your home
destroyed?

Bob

Let's see...I'd blow up my neighbors' churches, kill the police,
sabotage my country's infrastructure, kill women and children at the
market, then blow up myself and anyone else near me. Makes perfect
sense; doesn't it??

And exactly how many residents of Iraq did that?
Idiot.


Before you go calling poster "idiot", look at the horrendous daily
stats of Iraquis doing just exactly that. People in Baghdad which used
to be a diverse city -- Sunnis, Shi'its, Kurds lived side by side for
centuries; intermarried, etc. are now being murdered in droves by
their former neighbors and by the armed militias which
have made a sad joke of the "government" of Iraq and the Iraqui forces
supposedly trained by the U.S.

In the name of whatever aspect of Islam they favor, these gangs have
literally cleaned out entire towns and areas of the Muslims they
oppose.

What part of the above listed actions do you NOT see taking
place in Iraq today?

Or do you swallow the White House's desperate line...?


Here's a news article that details the sectarian slaughter that WE
helped unleash. Long, but worthwhile. (Let's see how the trogdolytes
whitewash THIS one!)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COLUMN ONE
Into the abyss of Baghdad
By Patrick J. McDonnell
Times Staff Writer

October 23, 2006

BAGHDAD — I keep seeing his face. He appears to be in his mid-20s,
bespectacled, slightly bearded, and somehow his smile conveys a sense
of prosperity to come. Perhaps he is set to marry, or enroll in
graduate school, or launch a business — all of these flights of
ambition seem possible.

In the next few images he is encased in plastic: His face is frozen in
a ghoulish grimace. Blackened lesions blemish his neck.

"Drill holes," says Col. Khaled Rasheed, an Iraqi commander who is
showing me the set of photographs.

He preserves the snapshots in a drawer, the image of the young man
brimming with expectations always on top. There is no name, no
identification, just a series of photos that documents the
transformation of some mother's son into a slab of meat on a bloody
table in a morgue.

"Please, please, I must show these photographs to President Bush,"
Rasheed pleads in desperation, as we sit in a bombed-out palace along
the Tigris, once the elegant domain of Saddam Hussein's wife, now the
command center for an Iraqi army battalion. "President Bush must know
what is happening in Baghdad!"

I covered Iraq for two years, beginning a few months after the March
2003 U.S.-led invasion. For the last year, I have been gone. I
wondered how the country had changed.

I found that this ancient byway of Islamic learning and foreign
invaders has gone over to the dark side. A year ago, car bombs,
ambushes, daily gun battles and chronic lack of electricity and
gasoline were sapping the city. But not this: the wanton execution of
individuals because of sect — a phenomenon so commonplace it has
earned a military shorthand: EJK, for extrajudicial killing.

Every day the corpses pile up in the capital like discarded furniture
— at curbside, in lots, in waterways and sewer lines; every day the
executioners return. A city in which it was long taboo to ask, "Are
you Sunni or Shiite?" has abruptly become defined by these very
characteristics.

Once-harmonious neighborhoods with mixed populations have become
communal killing grounds. Residents of one sect or the other must
clear out or face the whim of fanatics with power drills.

Gunmen showed up one day on an avenue where fishmongers have long
hawked barbecued fillets. They mowed the vendors down. Maybe it was
because of the merchants' beliefs — the fish salesmen were Shiites in
a mostly Sunni district, Dawoodi. Maybe it was revenge. No one knows
with certainty. No one asks. All that remains are the remnants of
charcoal fires.

"It's like a ghost city," laments Fatima Omar, a resident of the
Amariya district, which once abounded with street life. She is 22, a
recent graduate of Baghdad University, an English major — and, like
many of her generation, unsure of what future she can expect. "So many
of our men are either dead or have gone away," she says. "We may be
doomed to spinsterhood."

People are here one day, gone the next. Those who do go out often
venture no farther than familiar streets. In the sinister evenings,
when death squads roam, people block off their lanes with barbed wire,
logs, bricks to ward off the killers.

Many residents remain in their homes — paralyzed, going slowly crazy.

"My children are imprisoned at home," says a cook, Daniel, a Christian
whom I knew from better times, now planning to join the exodus from
Iraq. "They are nervous and sad all the time. Baghdad is a big prison,
and their home is a small one. I forced my son to leave school. It's
more important that he be alive than educated."

But homes offer only an illusion of safety. Recently, insurgents
rented apartments in mostly Shiite east Baghdad, filled the flats with
explosives and blew them up after Friday prayers. Dozens perished.

Even gathering the bodies of loved ones is an exercise fraught with
hazards. A Shiite Muslim religious party controls the main morgue near
downtown; its militiamen guard the entrance, keen to snatch kin of the
dead, many of them Sunni Muslim Arabs. Unclaimed Sunni corpses pile
up.

A year ago, many still extolled "Shiite restraint," the majority
sect's seeming disavowal of tit-for-tat reprisals for massacres of
Shiite pilgrims, policemen, clergy and lawmakers, among others. But
you don't hear much anymore about Shiite restraint. Its principal
proponent, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, now seems a septuagenarian
afterthought, his increasingly exasperated words from the southern
shrine city of Najaf reduced to near irrelevancy.

U.S. FORCES find themselves in a strangely ambiguous role. Troops
still battle mostly Sunni insurgents, especially in the western
province of Al Anbar. In Baghdad's Sunni districts, however, where
residents once danced alongside burning Humvees, American troops are
now tolerated as a bulwark against Shiite militias. But even that
acceptance has its limits.

"Some boys came up here and shook our hands the other day," a sergeant
recalls to me at a frontline base called Apache in the Adamiya
district, the last major Sunni bastion on the east side of the Tigris.
He is on his fourth tour: three deployments to Iraq, one to
Afghanistan, and has seen little of his own children. "But later I saw
that their fathers slapped the boys," the sergeant continues. "I guess
they told the kids never to greet us again."

On a recent patrol in Adamiya, one of the capital's oldest sections,
U.S. soldiers went door to door speaking with merchants and residents,
trying to earn their confidence. Everyone seemed cordial as people
spoke of their terror of Shiite militiamen. Then a shot rang out and a
soldier fell 10 yards from where I stood with the platoon captain; a
sniper, probably Sunni, had taken aim at this 21-year-old private from
Florida ostensibly there to protect Sunnis against Shiite
depredations. The GI survived.

Coursing through the deserted cityscape in an Army Humvee after curfew
empties the streets is an experience laced with foreboding. U.S.
vehicles, among the few on the road, offer an inviting target for an
unseen enemy. Piles of long-uncollected trash may conceal laser-guided
explosives. Russian roulette is the oft-repeated analogy.

"Everyone's thinking the same thing," a tense sergeant tells me.
"IEDs," he adds, using the shorthand for roadside bombs, or improvised
explosive devices.

ONE evening, I accompanied a three-Humvee convoy of MPs through
largely Shiite east Baghdad. Before leaving the base, the commander
performed an unsettling ritual: He anointed the Humvees with clear
oil, performing something akin to last rites.

The objective that evening was to patrol with Iraqi police, but the
Iraqi lawmen are hesitant to be seen with Americans, whom they regard
as IED magnets. The joint patrol never worked out. Still, good fortune
was with us: no attacks.

The next night, an armor-piercing bomb hit the same squad, Gator 1-2.
A sergeant with whom I had ridden the previous evening lost a leg; the
gunner and driver suffered severe shrapnel wounds. "Timing is
everything, especially in Iraq," the captain and unit commander wrote
in an e-mail informing me of the incident.

The U.S. mission here is now defined largely as training Iraqi police
and soldiers. But Sunnis don't trust the mostly Shiite security
forces, often with good reason. The question lingers: Are U.S. troops
equipping Iraq's sectarian avengers?

At this point, anything seems possible here, a descent of any depth
into the abyss. Militiamen and residents are already sealing off
neighborhoods by sect. Some have suggested district-to-district ID
cards. Word broke recently of a plan to build barriers around this
metropolis of 6 million and block the city's entrances with
checkpoints. The "terror trench," as some immediately dubbed it,
seemed to have a fundamental flaw: The killers already are in Baghdad.

An Iraqi colleague ventured recently to the funeral of two Sunni
brothers snatched from their homes near southern Baghdad's Dora
district and later found slaughtered. They had disregarded threats to
get out. Absent from the ceremony at a relative's home were the
traditional mourning tent, the loudspeakers blaring Koranic verses,
the elaborate banners honoring the departed.

With grief such a cheap commodity, most folks seem hesitant to call
attention to their sorrows. The funeral was behind walls, a hushed
affair. Few showed up. The family apologized for the muted ritual. You
shouldn't have bothered, the relatives told the few guests, it is too
dangerous these days. Visitors sipped sweetened tea, fingered beads,
smoked a cigarette or two and moved on.

*



*

"Sev" wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:
Yeah; the one posts on the Internet suggesting that millions of people
be nuked because some of them **** him off and he is too lazy to draw
any finer distinctions; then when they complain he feels justified
because they obviously hate "us" for no reason. And the other posts
here about what an asshole the first one is and he and bin Laden
should
go to Hell together and slug it out between themselves. Or I guess I'm
supposed to be happy that the first guy isn't ****ed enough at ME yet
to want to nuke ME. Yet.

I am looking forawrd to the movie about bush being assinated.........


Assinated? Is a proctologist by any chance a consultant on this
movie?
Actually, after 9/11 I had fantasies of bin Laden being dropped into a
very large, deep latrine, or the NYC sewer system,.but I think we're
both just ****ing in our beer.
There are some things I'd be careful about saying here, even in jest,
unless you are looking forward to a visit from the Secret Service. You
can't get them from your door by buying a couple copies of Watchtower,
you know.

I'm sure that's why he mis-spelled it.

Bob

aspasia wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:50:27 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


"GWB" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:29:34 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

To those who thing we are doing right - How would you respond
if it were your country occupied, your family killed, your home
destroyed?

Bob

Let's see...I'd blow up my neighbors' churches, kill the police,
sabotage my country's infrastructure, kill women and children at the
market, then blow up myself and anyone else near me. Makes perfect
sense; doesn't it??

And exactly how many residents of Iraq did that?
Idiot.


Before you go calling poster "idiot", look at the horrendous daily
stats of Iraquis doing just exactly that. People in Baghdad which used
to be a diverse city -- Sunnis, Shi'its, Kurds lived side by side for
centuries; intermarried, etc. are now being murdered in droves by
their former neighbors and by the armed militias which
have made a sad joke of the "government" of Iraq and the Iraqui forces
supposedly trained by the U.S.

In the name of whatever aspect of Islam they favor, these gangs have
literally cleaned out entire towns and areas of the Muslims they
oppose.

What part of the above listed actions do you NOT see taking
place in Iraq today?

Or do you swallow the White House's desperate line...?

They would not be taking place today, if we had not invaded Iraq
and created the chaos that allows it. Saddam didn't allow it. If we
had gone in with a plan of how to maintain order and get everything
working FAST, it wouldn't be happening. But this administratioin
didn't listen to anyone who wanted to plan for the aftermath of the
invasion. Bush didn't even know about shiite's and sunni's 2 months
before he invaded.

Bob

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
Thousands of years. Of course the Arabs screwed things up for
themselves long before anyone from West got there. That whole area has
been a basket case from the dawn of recorded history.

But now they are directing it at us instead of each other. Thank you george.

Bob

"Bawana" wrote in message
Are no-bid contracts capitalism?

You poor petty ignorant anti-American sack of socialist ****.

Is over the top deficit spending, repeal of habeas corpus, cohabitation
of church and state limited government?

In a few weeks, quite a few anti-Americans may be going to the polls...

"Quite a few" ain't going to cut it, you poor petty ignorant
anti-American sack of socialist ****.

And he's the ignorant one?

LOL

Bob

"z" wrote in message
ups.com...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Yeah, who can forget the disastrous foreign policy and series of wars
of the Clinton administration, eh? Let's not forget: blowjobs lead to
wars.


You can't ignor the 100,000's of deaths that his actions caused either.
All due to that BJ.

Bob

"z" wrote in message
ups.com...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

The deal that kept NK from even unsealing the reactor cores, never mind
extracting the plutonium from the spent fuel and making functional
nuclear bombs, until the Bushies decided no deals with Evil? You prefer
to let NK have nuclear weapons, because it's beneath you to deal with
Evil?

What's the deal about dealing with evil? Or do they just not like
their own kind?

Bob

"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Norminn wrote:


Not that I enjoy the thought of proliferation, but I think Iran would be
kind of stupid if they didn't want nukes. Evil empire? I tend to think
any empire that elects a cokehead fratboy president is evil .. a moron
with his finger on the button, and we encourage him. His thinking
hasn't changed since his dad caught him driving drunk, and little george
threatened his father .. mano y mano? More like "nino y mano". The
little video clip from the big econ conference was telling .. George
shooting the bull with heads of state, laughing his head off, groping
the German president, talking with his mouth full of food. Geesh.
Makes my skin crawl.

Well, that's the deal. Bush's "base" go to church every week and hear
about how the Devil is a deceiver who speaks to you with honeyed words,
then they turn on the tube and listen to Bush telling them they are
good and ______ (fill in the blanks) is Evil therefore it is their job
to destroy Evil and they will win because God is with them, and they
swallow it hook line and sinker. So much for their commitment to their
religious faith, I guess.


At the same time as the people in the white house are laughing at the
preachers they are manipulating.

Bob

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:39:56 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


"z" wrote in message
roups.com...

Norminn wrote:


Not that I enjoy the thought of proliferation, but I think Iran would be
kind of stupid if they didn't want nukes. Evil empire? I tend to think
any empire that elects a cokehead fratboy president is evil .. a moron
with his finger on the button, and we encourage him. His thinking
hasn't changed since his dad caught him driving drunk, and little george
threatened his father .. mano y mano? More like "nino y mano". The
little video clip from the big econ conference was telling .. George
shooting the bull with heads of state, laughing his head off, groping
the German president, talking with his mouth full of food. Geesh.
Makes my skin crawl.

Well, that's the deal. Bush's "base" go to church every week and hear
about how the Devil is a deceiver who speaks to you with honeyed words,
then they turn on the tube and listen to Bush telling them they are
good and ______ (fill in the blanks) is Evil therefore it is their job
to destroy Evil and they will win because God is with them, and they
swallow it hook line and sinker. So much for their commitment to their
religious faith, I guess.


At the same time as the people in the white house are laughing at the
preachers they are manipulating.

As described in new insider's book:

(from LA Times article):

"The assertions by David Kuo, the former No. 2 official in the
faith-based initiatives program, have rattled Republican strategists
already struggling to persuade evangelical voters to turn out this
fall for the GOP.

Some conservatives lamented Thursday that the book, Tempting Faith: An
Inside Story of Political Seduction, also comes in the midst of the
scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley's interest in male
congressional pages, another threat to conservative turnout in
competitive House and Senate races."

Pass it on to all your deluded evangelical friends who actually
bought Bush's shameless "Christian" pitch.

Great idea and it would solve the problem but government hasn't got
the guts to do it. Hitler would have. The real final solution.




On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:04:41 -0500,
wrote:

Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed. I say the US should just
nuke the entire middle east and end all the fighting and threats.
J

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Big Al" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...



bush is worse than LBJ another failed president.......


What about Carter? He set the standard.

Al





US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

He didn't get them killed. Bush would have probably.

Bob