Marine Corps Dollar limit raised.
tomde...@aol.com
sales limit on the Marine Corps dollar from 500,000 to 600,000.
However, this group, which is normally quick to jump on any affront
from the Treasury, real or imaginary, has given the news a mighty
ho-hum. I am curious why.
Remember the hoopla over suggestions to raise the limits on the
Indian/Buffalo dollar after it sold out? Is the difference the fact
that the Marine Corps dollar has not yet sold out, so that nobody who
did buy some has no reason to complain?
Tom DeLorey
PC
<tomde...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118882436....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm the Mint must think it is going to be quite popular. I wonder what
makes them think that? A lot of people calling about when it goes on sale?
Bob Flaminio
I think that's just it -- there's a big difference between setting the
limits higher before the coin is released versus piling on more after
it's sold out.
In this case, I doubt it matters, as I don't think it will even hit
500K.
--
Bob
Phil DeMayo
>I see that the Secretary of the Treasury has arbitrarily raised the
>sales limit on the Marine Corps dollar from 500,000 to 600,000.
>However, this group, which is normally quick to jump on any affront
>from the Treasury, real or imaginary, has given the news a mighty
>ho-hum. I am curious why.
Uuuuh....this is the first I've heard of it.
>Remember the hoopla over suggestions to raise the limits on the
>Indian/Buffalo dollar after it sold out? Is the difference the fact
>that the Marine Corps dollar has not yet sold out, so that nobody who
>did buy some has no reason to complain?
I don't see a legislation link for this particulat commem at the Mint
website and am too lazy to search the Thomas site. Did the legislation
authorize the Secretary to change the limits?
>Tom DeLorey
Frank Provasek
scarcity of the item. Adding 20% to the announced mintage after they
started
accepting orders would likely get a commercial firm shut down for fraud.
--
RARE COIN AUCTIONS NO MINIMUMS www.frankcoins.com
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZfrankcoins Texas Auction License 11259
Board member of Texas Coin Dealers Association, Fort Worth Coin Club.
Member: Texas Numismatic Assoc, American Numismatic Assoc
<tomde...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118882436....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob Flaminio
> I think it stinks. Collectors make buying decisions based in part on
> the scarcity of the item. Adding 20% to the announced mintage after
> they started
> accepting orders would likely get a commercial firm shut down for
> fraud.
Orders have not yet started for the Marines buck.
--
Bob
stonej
that
requested the limit be raised.
I guess they feel the demand will be larger than the 500,000 limit.
It is a good design based on a very famous picture from WWII. Whether
that
will increase demand I'm not sure.
Attitudes toward the military in general these days are not exactly
pleasant with
some parents threatening physical violence if recruiters contact there
sons
or daughters. The news from Iraq is rather sobering with 5 marines
dying from
wounds yesterday I heard on the radio this morning.
I don't know if any current world politics would affect demand for the
coin however.
How well have other recent military themed commemorative coins sold?
CoinDude
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Marine corps dollar won't sell 500,000 in the Mint's wildest pipe dreams so
it's not an issue. It's just an amateurish attempt to snooker speculators
into believing that these are going to be hot so as to drive sales. Also,
this is different than the Buffalo situation where an item was marketed as
a "limited edition" of however many coins and then they wanted to defraud
everyone who bought one by saying - "we lied in our marketing. Production
won't be limited and we're going to make a whole bunch more. Thanks for
your money *suckers*".
Edward McGrath
they can afford. This Commem will be "hot" because Marines are not the
brightest.
Jud
Trolling Ed? This former Marine would be happy to match wits with you,
but it wouldn't be fair because you would come only half armed. <g>
Aram H. Haroutunian
<SpammersAre...@softhome.net> wrote:
>On 15 Jun 2005 17:40:36 -0700, tomde...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>I see that the Secretary of the Treasury has arbitrarily raised the
>>sales limit on the Marine Corps dollar from 500,000 to 600,000.
>>However, this group, which is normally quick to jump on any affront
>>from the Treasury, real or imaginary, has given the news a mighty
>>ho-hum. I am curious why.
>
>I would guess the reason is that it hasn't gone on sale yet.
>
>>Remember the hoopla over suggestions to raise the limits on the
>>Indian/Buffalo dollar after it sold out? Is the difference the fact
>>that the Marine Corps dollar has not yet sold out, so that nobody who
>>did buy some has no reason to complain?
>
>I think that's it. The American Indian Dollar limit raise proposal
>was after-the-fact while the Marine Corps Dollar is before.
Tangentially, I just got a piece of mail with a postmark announcing
June 14th as the 230th "birthday" of the US Army. Is there any
plausible rationale for "celebrating" the Army's 230th birthday with a
PO cancellation and the US Marine Corps with the issuance of 600,000
one dollar coins? Has anyone figured out the significance of 230
years to celebrate?
Aram.
Jud
there is something new. July 20th for ordering.
Edward McGrath
our freedom in Iraq. <snip> We are not defending our freedom by being in
Iraq. We are viewed by the people of Iraq and the Arab world as invaders
and occupiers. There was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that
threatened America, BUSH lied to us. Almost every fu%king day you hear
more American soldiers are being killed in Iraq and for what?, so Bush
can control Iraq's rich oil reserve and rob the money the US is sending
to Iraq. Leo, the war with Iraq, it's not about freedom or terrorism,
it's about money and Bush and his buddies like Haliburton have made
millions on this war. Leo you can wrap yourself in the American flag if
you want to. Patriotism is ok as long as you don't turn the flag into a
blind fold. Ed
LeRoy
Alan Williams
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:38:09 -0400, dahli...@webtv.net (Edward
> McGrath) wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> >We are viewed by the people of Iraq and the Arab world as invaders
> >and occupiers.
>
> think.
>
> I think it's condescending and racist to believe the Muslim world is
> incapable of being civilized. We shall see the day, hopefully in our
> lifetimes and it will be as glorious a thing as the fall of the Berlin
> Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Without endorsing or condemning US actions in Iraq, I'd say please be
careful of painting whole time zones with one brush. Certainly the
Kurds are not unhappy to see US troops where only Baathists had been.
Relatives of those buried in mass graves do not misunderstand the
consequences of the US occupation.
Moderates in other Arab countries see a new opportunity for advancing
secular rather than religious agendas.
It's very convenient for Arab extremists to blame the West, and the US
in particular, for their inability to solve Arab problems. I think it
would be a mistake to impose US solutions. But it would also be a
mistake to tolerate mass murderers, exporters of terror, oppressors of
women, thieves, cutthroats, madmen, bandits and religious nutjobs. They
*are* the minority.
It's a complicated region. That's no reason to tolerate a bully who
scuds his neighbors and gasses dissidents.
Longterm, all the Iraqi people and the Arab world is better off without
the Saddam regime. The Taliban had it coming for harboring a mass
murderer of innocent civilians at the WTC. Both Afghanistan and Iraq
are effective object lessons for wackos entertaining similar delusions
of actions without consequences.
Alan
'no one spends American lives lightly'
PC
"Alan Williams" <will...@atlanticbb.net> wrote in message
news:42B59A25...@atlanticbb.net...
>
> Longterm, all the Iraqi people and the Arab world is better off without
> the Saddam regime. The Taliban had it coming for harboring a mass
> murderer of innocent civilians at the WTC. Both Afghanistan and Iraq
> are effective object lessons for wackos entertaining similar delusions
> of actions without consequences.
>
> Alan
> 'no one spends American lives lightly'
Yes there are some real positive benefits that are starting to be seen. I
just didn't think it was necessary to trump phony intelligence to make the
case. IMO a decision was made that it would be for the benefit of all to
get rid of Sadaam and ensure stability in the region. I just wish they
hadn't lied. A lie of omission is still a lie and they ignored anyone who
told them that the uranium from Africa story was bogus, among other things.
That being said I think everyone hopes for the best possible outcome. I
sure do.
Alan Williams
Here's where I am on the 'WMD lie'. If it can be shown that Bush,
Cheney and that crowd *knew* that no nuclear weapons program existed, or
even strongly suspected there was none, they should be impeached,
posthaste. Run them out of town on a rail.
When W. gave his 'State of the Union' claiming that Iraq was only days
away from being able to launch a nuclear strike, he alarmed me, he
alarmed the nation, he alarmed the world. The s.o.b. had better have
been truly alarmed himself!
But it pays to remember that Saddam was playing a stupid, dangerous game
at the time. On one hand he denied that any WMD existed, but still
would not cooperate with UN inspectors. He wanted to give the
impression that Iraq *did* have WMD and stay the 'Arab Strongman' even
while denying publically that he had anything leftover or up his sleeve.
Sadly, it worked. I know that Saddam lied. If Bush lied too, rather
than just being duped by the Iraqi stance, then he's no better and
deserves a regime change of his own.
Alan
'no fence straddling'
PC
*most text snipped because I basically agree*
> If Bush lied too, rather
> than just being duped by the Iraqi stance, then he's no better and
> deserves a regime change of his own.
>
IMO, Bush is on the duped side and it was others in his Administration that
fall on the lied side. I think Bush really felt he was doing the right
thing.
Anita
<will...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
...
>Here's where I am on the 'WMD lie'. If it can be shown that Bush,
>Cheney and that crowd *knew* that no nuclear weapons program existed, or
>even strongly suspected there was none, they should be impeached,
It probably won't happen unless he has a tryst with an intern --
y'know something *really* serious.
Funny how some presidents can trade weapons for hostages, sell weapons
to antagonistic countries, sell drugs to support Contra efforts,
invade Iraq without an apparent legitimate cause and there are no
charges. Others have a sexual tryst and get impeached.
The US seems upside down. Someone once told me that the government
doesn't really run the country, that the country is governed by a few
people whose name we wouldn't even recognize. Thinking this does make
everything make more sense. It is what these people want that matters,
and the government leaders are only their puppets.
Anita
Scott Stevenson
<will...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
The other thing of course is that the Bush administration was not the
only group who thought that they had WMD. The Clinton administration
certainly did, as did the UN. If Bush "lied" about Iraq having or
developing WMD, then so did Bill Clinton. So did Kofi Annan.
You're right, of course, that Saddam was playing a stupid game, but
it was one that we (meaning the world) had put up with for several
years.
take care,
Scott
PC
"Scott Stevenson" <almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:42b701a7...@news.giganews.com...
>
> The other thing of course is that the Bush administration was not the
> only group who thought that they had WMD. The Clinton administration
> certainly did, as did the UN. If Bush "lied" about Iraq having or
> developing WMD, then so did Bill Clinton. So did Kofi Annan.
>
This is not correct. The UN weapons inspectors, most notably Hans Blix,
repeatedly asserted that Sadaam did not have any WMDs. He was denounced and
then ignored. Turns out he was right.
It turns out that the weapons inspections instituted after the first Gulf
War were working.
Any information that did not point to an immediate need to invade Iraq was
ignored. And the Bsuh Administration very cleverly made an association
between 9/11, Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden, Iraq, and Sadaam Hussein. Iraq
was not a haven for terrorists save for the Kurds in the US protected
northern "no-fly" zone. It is now though.
> You're right, of course, that Saddam was playing a stupid game, but
> it was one that we (meaning the world) had put up with for several
> years.
No doubt and if we had gone in soley under that pretext I would have no
objections.
Jud
Anita wrote:
Others have a sexual tryst and get impeached.
Correct me if I am wrong (I am sure that you will). Clinton was not
impeached for his indiscretions. He was impeached for lying under oath
and hindering an investigation. Its too soon to start rewriting a
revisionist history.
Frank Provasek
news:10hte.30561$k43....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> I just wish they hadn't lied. A lie of omission is still a lie and they
> ignored anyone who told them that the uranium from Africa story was bogus,
> among other things.
>
lie
of omission. It's just a lie.
When President Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that
woman," that was a lie
of omission. It was technically true, because a blow job does not fit the
strict legal definition
of "sexual relations."
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>
>"Scott Stevenson" <almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:42b701a7...@news.giganews.com...
>
>>
>> The other thing of course is that the Bush administration was not the
>> only group who thought that they had WMD. The Clinton administration
>> certainly did, as did the UN. If Bush "lied" about Iraq having or
>> developing WMD, then so did Bill Clinton. So did Kofi Annan.
>>
>
>This is not correct. The UN weapons inspectors, most notably Hans Blix,
>repeatedly asserted that Sadaam did not have any WMDs. He was denounced and
>then ignored. Turns out he was right.
Part of the reason that Blix was "denounced and then ignored" is
that he doesn't have a great track record in the region. Just to site
one example, he was the head of the IAEA in 1981. It was that
agency's job to make sure that countrys like Iraq did not develop
nuclear weapons programs. Right under his nose, Iraq did just that.
It took the Israelis to bomb the reactor that they were going to use
for weapons production.
Blix even admitted that the Iraqis weren't cooperating with the WMD
inspections, yet when he couldn't find anything, his word was supposed
to be gospel?
Frankly, I suspect that Blix is currently employed by "you know who"
as a process server--it would certainly explain how people in plain
sight couldn't be found.
>It turns out that the weapons inspections instituted after the first Gulf
>War were working.
And yet, we have this Bill Clinton quote:
"The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of
chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type
missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program
and build many, many more weapons." (from a 1998 speech at the
Pentagon). I couldn't find anything more recent than that, and
frankly, I don't feel like spending several hours wading through
Google results to find anything more current
So the UN did think there were WMD's in Iraq, certainly as late as
1998. So either UNSCOM was wrong in 1998, and there weren't any, or
he managed to get rid of them sometime between then and the time we
rolled in. Another possibility is that he stashed them somewhere (it
is, after all, a pretty big country, and it is possible to hide a
suitcase sized container of weaponized smallpox)
>> You're right, of course, that Saddam was playing a stupid game, but
>> it was one that we (meaning the world) had put up with for several
>> years.
>
>No doubt and if we had gone in soley under that pretext I would have no
>objections.
I hate to sound patrician, but he really needed to be treated like a
spoiled child--every time he'd misbehave and mess with the inspectors,
he should have lost some of his expensive toys.
take care,
Scott
Frank Provasek
> It's very convenient for Arab extremists to blame the West, and the US
> in particular, for their inability to solve Arab problems. I think it
> would be a mistake to impose US solutions.
Here is a US solution that was slightly modified by Anwaar Hussain,
an ex-F-16 fighter pilot from the Pakistan Air Force, who, after his
military service,
earned a Masters in Defense and Strategic Studies from Quaid-e-Azam
University Islamabad,
and now resides in United Arab Emirates. See if these words seem familiar.
::
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
break the bonds of tyranny which have enchained them brutally, and to assume
among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to declare their independence.
We, the Iraqi nation, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, like that
of our previous master Saddam Hussain's did, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Though prudence, indeed, dictated that Governments long established should
not have been changed for false and sham causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils
are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. Our's was, nevertheless, changed for spurious and
wicked reasons and our will having been taken for granted.
Now under these new masters, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce us under
absolute Despotism, it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such
masters, and to provide new guards for our future security -- Such has been
the patient sufferance of us Iraqis; and such is now the necessity which
constrains us to alter our present state of serfdom. -- The history of the
present master is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having
in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over Iraqi nation.
To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Our present master, The United States of America, has refused its Assent to
Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
The United States of America has forbidden its Representatives in Iraq to
pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their
operation till its Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, it has
utterly neglected to attend to them.
The United States of America has refused to pass other Laws for the
accommodation of large provinces of people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of Representation in the forthcoming sham Legislature,
a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
The United States of America has dissolved representative political parties
and heroic Iraqi resistance, repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness
its invasions on the rights of the people.
The United States of America has obstructed the Administration of Justice,
by refusing its Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
The United States of America has made some sycophant Iraqis dependent on its
Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of
their salaries.
The United States of America has erected a multitude of New Offices, and
sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and plunder our
resources.
The United States of America declared war on us without there being any
provocation on our part, subjected us to a brutal occupation and has kept
among us, Standing Armies without our Consent.
The United States of America has affected to render its Military independent
of and superior to the Iraqi Civil Power.
The United States of America, in the past as well as now, has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our religion, culture and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended
Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting their troops, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any
Murders which they have, and are, committing on the Inhabitants of Iraq:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For killing our men, women and children mercilessly and depriving us in all
cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing all our laws and attempting to establish therein an Arbitrary
government, and enlarging it's Boundaries so as to render it at once an
example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into all
countries that it has designs for:
For taking away our dignity, violating our most valuable ethos, and
desecrating our places of worship:
For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
The United States of America aims to pillage our resources and has, thus
far, ravaged our lands, burnt our oil wells, destroyed our towns and
devastated the lives of our people.
The United States of America is at this time transporting large Armies of
foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny,
already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled
in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of civilized
nations.
The United States of America has constrained our fellow Citizens to bear
Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and
Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
The United States of America has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,
and has endeavoured to bring on savages, whose known rule of warfare is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we, the Iraqi nation, have Petitioned
for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been
answered only by repeated injury. A master, whose character is thus marked
by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our World brethren. We have warned
them from time to time of attempts by the United States of America to extend
an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of our
circumstances. We have appealed to their collective sense of justice and
magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our humanity to
disavow these usurpations. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice
and of consanguinity.
We, therefore, the entire Iraqi nation, appealing to the Supreme Judge of
the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by
Authority of the good People of Iraq, solemnly publish and declare, that the
Iraqi nation is, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Nation; that
we are absolved from all Allegiance to the United States of America, and
that all political connection between us and the United States of America,
is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent
State, we have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances,
establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent
States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to other brotherly
nations our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Frank Provasek
>
> Here's where I am on the 'WMD lie'. If it can be shown that Bush,
> Cheney and that crowd *knew* that no nuclear weapons program existed, or
> even strongly suspected there was none, they should be impeached,
> posthaste. Run them out of town on a rail.
>
From the excellent progessive news site http://www.opednews.com
"You can't just say the President is lying." That was the opinion of New
York Times reporter, Elizabeth Bumiller recently when discussing honesty in
today's press. It also highlights a serious flaw in the current logic with
today's press that has led to the erosion of any possible faith people have
in media anymore. I would proffer that you most certainly can say the
President has lied, if you meet one condition, that being he lied. It is a
disservice to this country to have a media that either is protecting the
President, or too scared to tell the truth.
While we are at it, you can also call the President a criminal, if that is
what he is. It brings me no joy to say that it is fairly obvious at this
point, that George W. Bush is exactly that. In the late 1990's the
republicans harangued this nation about the importance of the rule of law.
We were lectured to about the sanctity of the rule of law and how because of
the lies that Bill Clinton offered up, in defense of a personal sexual
indiscretion, he had to be impeached. It was the vilification of Bill
Clinton and the abuse of the rules of impeachment that dragged this country
through the most partisan attack we will ever see, all for political
retribution.
Fast forward five years and apparently the republicans no longer are
concerned about the rule of law when it applies to their boy. That hypocrisy
has become crystallized with the unveiling of the Downing Street Memo. Due
to the corporate media blackout, many have not even heard of this memo,
which are actually meeting minutes from Britain. These minutes, taken from a
meeting held six months before the Iraq invasion, clearly spell out that
George W. Bush is indeed a war criminal who lied this country into a war we
did not need to be involved in. The resulting 1,700 + deaths of American
soldiers can be laid at the feet of Bush. The 100,000 + deaths of Iraqi
citizens can also be laid at his feet. In the run up to the war George Bush
promised us that war was his last option. That was a lie. He promised us
that Iraq was an imminent threat. That was a lie. He promised us that Saddam
Hussein possessed the most lethal weapons known to man. That was a lie.
Bush has done a masterful job of employing the Sergeant Schultz defense from
Hogan's Heroes. His cries of "I know nothing" however are starting to
unravel around him as more and more proof emerges that implicates him
directly. You must understand that lying is not necessarily illegal. Lying
to Congress however is. Lying to Congress to start a war is even more so.
There is a word for that. It is called treason.
Black's Law Dictionary defines treason as, "A breach of allegiance to one's
government, usually committed through levying war against such government or
by giving aid or comfort to the enemy." George Bush breached his allegiance
to this country when he chose to lie to Congress. This action has
essentially levied war against this country by forcing a war upon us, on
false pretenses.
The only issue then, is if it is provable that George W. Bush knew he was
lying when he convinced Congress to abdicate their responsibilities to wage
war. That is where the Downing Street Memo seals the fate of President Bush.
Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's intelligence agency reported in the
meeting minutes that after he met with the Bush administration:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy."
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even
if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of
Libya, North Korea or Iran.
The first quote proves that Bush had decided on the policy, war, and chose
to fit the intelligence and facts around it. This was primarily done by
cooking the intelligence through the Office of Special Plans, headed by
fellow Neocon, Douglas Feith. Despite what Elizabeth Bumiller may think,
there is a word for this. It is called lying. It matters not that the
President is the one doing the lying. The second quote proves some other
lies being spun by Bush at the time. Remember, this is six months before the
invasion when Bush was swearing to us all that he was going to try diplomacy
first and war as only the last option. This quote states that at that exact
time he was saying diplomacy in public, he had "made up his mind" to go to
war. It further admits that Bush knew the WMD angle was "thin", and that it
was less than the three other countries which represented potential threats
at the time.
So, despite corporate media whores such as Dana Milbank, who will sell you
the cover up and try to dismiss this story, it not only has legs, it has
handcuffs. Despite Scott McClellan's attempts to pretend that the President
has answered the Downing Street questions, he has done nothing but
obfuscate, distort and use his corporate media machine to ignore the
realities of the crimes he has committed.
These crimes have stolen much from us. They have stolen the lives of over
1,700 American soldiers who only ask that you not send them into harm's way
unless it is absolutely necessary. They have stolen our democracy by
assuming a Machiavellian attitude that allows a President to decide the
rationale for a war, after the fact. That Saddam was a bad guy has
absolutely no relevance to this war because that is NOT the reason we went
to war. We went to war based on the lies sold to us by George W. Bush about
WMD. Our democracy requires checks and balances. It requires that the powers
to wage war reside in the Congress, not the President. Three years ago,
George Bush stole our democracy and the principles upon which it was founded
and it is time to take it and our country back again.
Our collective soul has been stolen as well by the lies that have led us
into this war. Our fears were used against us to propagate bloodshed in our
name. It was illegitimate, as the Downing Street Memo now proves. Our soul
continues to be raped by a party that no longer cares about you or me. In
response to this memo proving the crimes that led our country to war, the
Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for the Democrats wanted to hold
hearings to investigate the charges discussed in this article. The response
from the Republicans was to not allow those hearings to take place in an
official room. Undeterred, John Conyers held his hearings in a room the size
of a closet. This is what has happened to our democracy. Last week the
Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee actually walked out of a
hearing on Patriot Act abuses. He shut down the committee, shut off the
microphones of the minority party, bullied witnesses, and walked out with
his gavel because he did not like what he was hearing.
Your country has been stolen from you by an administration that lies with
impunity and has a complicit press that tells you it is far more important
what is happening to the runaway bride than in the Iraq War. Your democracy
has been stolen by a party that thinks nothing of changing 200 year old
filibuster rules and are so rife with corruption that the people, who manage
ethics, will not investigate the least ethical man in DC, because they have
all contributed to his Political Action Committee. This corruption knows no
ends. For example, Robert F. Kennedy has just released an expose detailing
how this administration tried to cover up for the pharmaceutical lobby after
it was revealed that an ingredient in vaccines had contributed to high rates
of autism in children. Here is the frightening part. Senator Bill Frist
attached a rider to the bill that created the Department of Homeland
Security, called the Eli-Lilly Protection Act. Essentially, this eliminated
the rights of parents to sue vaccine makers for the autism they created.
Bill Frist received over $800,000 from the pharmaceutical lobby. Conflict of
interest anyone? This is how it works now in your democracy. It is sold
every day to the highest bidder. It was yours. It has been stolen.
America, our soul has also been stolen. We used to be the light for the
world. We used to be respected in the world, now we are hated. We used to
lead the world, now we invade it. We were told five years ago that the rule
of law was crucial to uphold our democracy. We were told that the lies of
William Jefferson Clinton would destroy the fabric of this country and the
only remedy was impeachment. Those lies were personal in nature, involving a
sexual indiscretion. Today we are faced with the prospect of a President
whose lies have led this country to war, killed over 1,700 American
soldiers, and countless innocent civilians. Suddenly the rule of law seems
to not matter anymore. Instead of impeachment hearings, the same republicans
will not even allow judiciary hearings to address the facts discussed here
today. They look you in the face, preach family values and then kill your
kids. They sermonize about the rule of law, but only when it does not
implicate their own. They moralize about a culture of life, when all they
embrace are the politics of death. When faced with the realities however,
they abandon all pretense. They bully the minority party. They take their
gavel and go home. They profit off the blood they spill and steal our
democracy. They profit off damaging the health of our children, and steal
our country. They profit off of the death of our kids and steal our
collective soul.
If the President lies, we should say the President lies. If those lies were
designed to deceive Congress into a war, we should say that is impeachable.
We should say it is treasonous. We should honor our dead and tell the truth.
As God says, the truth shall set you free.
Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to
educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a
37-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary
articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional
Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade
believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for
lies and excess.
Edward McGrath
these hardcore Bush supporters? Republicans are liars that's why they
love Bush. Imagine how much better America would be if we had a real
presidential election and not another fixed election were Bush gets in.
Jud
Edward McGrath wrote:
Republicans are liars that's why they
> love Bush. Imagine how much better America would be if we had a real
> presidential election and not another fixed election were Bush gets in.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You lose a lot of credibility posting stuff like this.
Edward McGrath
to take.
Jud
Edward McGrath wrote:
> Well Jud stick your head in the sand, the truth is to terrifying for you
> to take.
All Republicans are liars eh? Kind of a broad brush you are using there
Ed. Al Gore lost the election almost 5 years ago, guess you won't ever
get over that. Now tell me whose head is in the sand, or in a bodily
orifice. The truth is that Bush is the President and that terrifies
you, not me. What scares the hell out of me is the prospect of Hillary
running for President. No, I don't think that she could ever win, but
the mere thought of it...<shudder>.
Stephen M
Hey Ed. Are these all the liars you're referring to?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
Frank Provasek
news:bn9hb1da83lgj5l06...@4ax.com...
A lying map from a liar
The blue states may be small in area, but they are large in terms of numbers
of people, which is what matters in an election. We correct for this by
making use of a cartogram, a map in which the sizes of states have been
rescaled according to their population.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/statecartredbluelarge.png
bri
Take it to Oprah.