Peace Themed Jerseys?

In article ,
(Keven Ruf) wrote:

Lindsay wrote in message
. ..
They are "anti-american" in a way because
they believe in an overthrow of our capitalist society.

That's great, capitalism and America are synonymous. Are capitalism
and democracy the same?

Turn right three times, you end up the same place if you had just
turned left.

--Keven.

We say it thus: "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do."
Or is that "Three wrongs do"?

--
tanx,
Howard

Said you hit Roddy Piper, and didn't get a hassle,
Promised your girl filet mignon, then took her to White Castle!
LL Cool J


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Keven Ruf wrote:


Are capitalism
and democracy the same?

Very likely, yes.

"Dan Connelly" wrote in message
m...
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
A negative cannot be proven.

Can you prove it?



Dumbass -


Surely a logician could prove it.

But not me.



K. Gringioni
dumb and proud of it

In article ,
gwhite writes:


Keven Ruf wrote:


Are capitalism
and democracy the same?

Very likely, yes.

But not Globalism and Democracy. Or Globalism and Capitalism.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Keven says:

Turn right three times, you end up the same place if you had just
turned left.


Not strictly true. You end up _facing_ the same way, but a bit behind your
buddy who simply turned left.

;-)

Steve

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...120959,00.html
Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'

Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq long
before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday January 12, 2004
The Guardian

In the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a class
of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too many
uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for the
president, the nerd is having his revenge.
Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book
published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a
startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead
president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers led by
vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit
their political agenda.

According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate
who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came
to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a
convenient justification.

As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings,
describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president
saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a
bad person and that he needed to go," Mr O'Neill told the CBS network
programme, 60 Minutes. In the book, based largely on his recollections and
written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O'Neill said that even as
far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in the NSC
questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.

In the book, The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush, the White House, and the
Education of Paul O'Neill, the author, Mr Suskind, quotes from memoranda
preparing for a war dating to the first days of the administration. "One of
them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,'" he told CBS
television.

Oil contracts
He quoted from a Pentagon document entitled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, talks about carving the country's fuel
reserves up between the world's oil companies. It talks about contractors
around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what
intentions on oil in Iraq," Mr Suskind said.

The administration, as described by Mr O'Neill, was equally fixated on
granting unprecedented tax cuts to the nation's richest people who had
bankrolled its election campaign. It was not prepared to listen to an
anxious Treasury secretary warning of dangerously ballooning deficits. The
president was "clearly signing on to strong ideological positions that had
not been fully thought through", Mr O'Neill says. Moderates like himself,
the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and Christine Todd Whitman, head of
the Environmental Protection Agency, "may have been there, in large part, as
cover" for a hardline agenda, he argues. Of that trio, only Mr Powell
remains in the administration and he has privately made it clear he will not
stay on for a second Bush term.

Mr O'Neill's memoir is one of the most damning White House exposés of recent
times, and is already being quoted with relish by Democratic presidential
contenders. It has sparked a furious damage limitation and denigration
response by the president's aides, one of whom told Time magazine in a
revealing comment: "We didn't listen to him when he was there. Why should we
now?"

White House aides have also pointed to Mr O'Neill's reputation as a
gaffe-prone Treasury secretary, who at one point triggered a run on the
dollar by suggesting that maintaining its strength was not a priority.

Mr O'Neill says the president often did not have much to say at key
discussions and it was the bullies of the Republican right who took over.
After perceptions spread early in the administration that Vice President
Dick Cheney and the Republicans' political mastermind, Karl Rove, were
really making policy, the White House publicity machine dedicated itself to
building Mr Bush up as a decisive leader. Presidential aides have "leaked"
anecdotes to the press showing Mr Bush making tough decisions. In Bob
Woodward's book Bush at War, based principally on the celebrated Washington
journalist's interviews with the president and top officials, there is no
doubt who is in charge as the nation faces its greatest challenge since
Pearl Harbor.

Mr O'Neill paints a very different picture. He describes Mr Bush as mostly
silent and inscrutable during policy debates in cabinet, and says there was
hardly any real interaction between president and his department heads.

He describes those cabinet sessions as being "like a blind man in a roomful
of deaf people". At the end of them, he said, cabinet members were left to
make policy like "blind man's bluff" guessing what the president's wishes
were.

When the Treasury secretary went to the Oval Office for weekly discussions,
he found he did all the talking. "I wondered from the first, if the
president didn't know the questions to ask," he tells Mr Suskind, "or if he
did know and just did not want to know the answers?"

The one time the president does become engaged in economic policy discussion
in Mr Suskind's book, it is to question the orthodoxy of his own
administration's policy during a White House discussion of a second round of
tax cuts in November 2002, following triumphal midterm election results.

According to Mr Suskind, who says he has a transcript of the meeting, the
president asks: "Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second
tax cut's gonna do it again."

The president suggests instead: "Shouldn't we be giving money to the
middle?" But Mr Rove, who has masterminded Mr Bush's election campaigns
since his days in Texas, jumps in at this point in the transcript to urge
the president: "Stick to principle. Stick to principle."

"He says it over and over again," Mr Suskind said. "Don't waver."

In his own account, Mr O'Neill discovers the hard line on tax cuts is coming
from Mr Cheney. Not knowing he was in his last weeks as Treasury secretary,
he went to see the vice president expecting to get a sympathetic hearing for
his concerns over the deficit. Instead he is told: "You know, Paul, Reagan
proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is
our due."

Mr O'Neill's disillusion personifies a latent split in the Republican party
between traditional moderates and followers of the president's father, and
the hardliners around the second President Bush. Mr O'Neill served in the
Nixon and Ford administrations before moving on to run the Alcoa aluminium
corporation, where he dedicated himself to improving worker safety. He
insists he continues to support the wider Republican cause but he is not
going to be silenced. He declares: "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And
there's nothing they can do to hurt me."

http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/
--
le Vent a Dos
Davey Crockett
Six-Day site: http://members.rogers.com/sixday/sixday.html

Please keep your political opinions to political newsgroups. Nobody
cares what you think.

B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...120959,00.html
Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'

Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq long
before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday January 12, 2004
The Guardian

In the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a class
of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too many
uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for the
president, the nerd is having his revenge.
Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book
published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a
startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead
president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers led by
vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit
their political agenda.

According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate
who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came
to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a
convenient justification.

As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings,
describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president
saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a
bad person and that he needed to go," Mr O'Neill told the CBS network
programme, 60 Minutes. In the book, based largely on his recollections and
written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O'Neill said that even as
far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in the NSC
questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.

In the book, The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush, the White House, and the
Education of Paul O'Neill, the author, Mr Suskind, quotes from memoranda
preparing for a war dating to the first days of the administration. "One of
them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,'" he told CBS
television.

Oil contracts
He quoted from a Pentagon document entitled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, talks about carving the country's fuel
reserves up between the world's oil companies. It talks about contractors
around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what
intentions on oil in Iraq," Mr Suskind said.

The administration, as described by Mr O'Neill, was equally fixated on
granting unprecedented tax cuts to the nation's richest people who had
bankrolled its election campaign. It was not prepared to listen to an
anxious Treasury secretary warning of dangerously ballooning deficits. The
president was "clearly signing on to strong ideological positions that had
not been fully thought through", Mr O'Neill says. Moderates like himself,
the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and Christine Todd Whitman, head of
the Environmental Protection Agency, "may have been there, in large part, as
cover" for a hardline agenda, he argues. Of that trio, only Mr Powell
remains in the administration and he has privately made it clear he will not
stay on for a second Bush term.

Mr O'Neill's memoir is one of the most damning White House exposés of recent
times, and is already being quoted with relish by Democratic presidential
contenders. It has sparked a furious damage limitation and denigration
response by the president's aides, one of whom told Time magazine in a
revealing comment: "We didn't listen to him when he was there. Why should we
now?"

White House aides have also pointed to Mr O'Neill's reputation as a
gaffe-prone Treasury secretary, who at one point triggered a run on the
dollar by suggesting that maintaining its strength was not a priority.

Mr O'Neill says the president often did not have much to say at key
discussions and it was the bullies of the Republican right who took over.
After perceptions spread early in the administration that Vice President
Dick Cheney and the Republicans' political mastermind, Karl Rove, were
really making policy, the White House publicity machine dedicated itself to
building Mr Bush up as a decisive leader. Presidential aides have "leaked"
anecdotes to the press showing Mr Bush making tough decisions. In Bob
Woodward's book Bush at War, based principally on the celebrated Washington
journalist's interviews with the president and top officials, there is no
doubt who is in charge as the nation faces its greatest challenge since
Pearl Harbor.

Mr O'Neill paints a very different picture. He describes Mr Bush as mostly
silent and inscrutable during policy debates in cabinet, and says there was
hardly any real interaction between president and his department heads.

He describes those cabinet sessions as being "like a blind man in a roomful
of deaf people". At the end of them, he said, cabinet members were left to
make policy like "blind man's bluff" guessing what the president's wishes
were.

When the Treasury secretary went to the Oval Office for weekly discussions,
he found he did all the talking. "I wondered from the first, if the
president didn't know the questions to ask," he tells Mr Suskind, "or if he
did know and just did not want to know the answers?"

The one time the president does become engaged in economic policy discussion
in Mr Suskind's book, it is to question the orthodoxy of his own
administration's policy during a White House discussion of a second round of
tax cuts in November 2002, following triumphal midterm election results.

According to Mr Suskind, who says he has a transcript of the meeting, the
president asks: "Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second
tax cut's gonna do it again."

The president suggests instead: "Shouldn't we be giving money to the
middle?" But Mr Rove, who has masterminded Mr Bush's election campaigns
since his days in Texas, jumps in at this point in the transcript to urge
the president: "Stick to principle. Stick to principle."

"He says it over and over again," Mr Suskind said. "Don't waver."

In his own account, Mr O'Neill discovers the hard line on tax cuts is coming
from Mr Cheney. Not knowing he was in his last weeks as Treasury secretary,
he went to see the vice president expecting to get a sympathetic hearing for
his concerns over the deficit. Instead he is told: "You know, Paul, Reagan
proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is
our due."

Mr O'Neill's disillusion personifies a latent split in the Republican party
between traditional moderates and followers of the president's father, and
the hardliners around the second President Bush. Mr O'Neill served in the
Nixon and Ford administrations before moving on to run the Alcoa aluminium
corporation, where he dedicated himself to improving worker safety. He
insists he continues to support the wider Republican cause but he is not
going to be silenced. He declares: "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And
there's nothing they can do to hurt me."

"B. Lafferty" wrote:
=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...120959,00.html
Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'
=

Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq l=
ong
before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse
=

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday January 12, 2004
The Guardian
=

In the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a cl=
ass
of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too ma=
ny
uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for =
the
president, the nerd is having his revenge.
Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a =
book
published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a=

startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figur=
ehead
president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers l=
ed by
vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fi=
t
their political agenda.
=

According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican mod=
erate
who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration=
came
to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks a=
s a
convenient justification.
=

As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings,=

describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The presi=
dent
saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
=

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein wa=
s a
bad person and that he needed to go," Mr O'Neill told the CBS network
programme, 60 Minutes. In the book, based largely on his recollections =
and
written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O'Neill said that ev=
en as
far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in th=
e NSC
questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.
=

In the book, The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush, the White House, and =
the
Education of Paul O'Neill, the author, Mr Suskind, quotes from memorand=
a
preparing for a war dating to the first days of the administration. "On=
e of
them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,'" he told CBS
television.
=

Oil contracts
He quoted from a Pentagon document entitled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, talks about carving the country's =
fuel
reserves up between the world's oil companies. It talks about contracto=
rs
around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what
intentions on oil in Iraq," Mr Suskind said.
=

The administration, as described by Mr O'Neill, was equally fixated on
granting unprecedented tax cuts to the nation's richest people who had
bankrolled its election campaign. It was not prepared to listen to an
anxious Treasury secretary warning of dangerously ballooning deficits. =
The
president was "clearly signing on to strong ideological positions that =
had
not been fully thought through", Mr O'Neill says. Moderates like himsel=
f,
the secretary of state, Colin Powell, and Christine Todd Whitman, head =
of
the Environmental Protection Agency, "may have been there, in large par=
t, as
cover" for a hardline agenda, he argues. Of that trio, only Mr Powell
remains in the administration and he has privately made it clear he wil=
l not
stay on for a second Bush term.
=

Mr O'Neill's memoir is one of the most damning White House expos=E9s of=
recent
times, and is already being quoted with relish by Democratic presidenti=
al
contenders. It has sparked a furious damage limitation and denigration
response by the president's aides, one of whom told Time magazine in a
revealing comment: "We didn't listen to him when he was there. Why shou=
ld we
now?"
=

White House aides have also pointed to Mr O'Neill's reputation as a
gaffe-prone Treasury secretary, who at one point triggered a run on the=

dollar by suggesting that maintaining its strength was not a priority.
=

Mr O'Neill says the president often did not have much to say at key
discussions and it was the bullies of the Republican right who took ove=
r.
After perceptions spread early in the administration that Vice Presiden=
t
Dick Cheney and the Republicans' political mastermind, Karl Rove, were
really making policy, the White House publicity machine dedicated itsel=
f to
building Mr Bush up as a decisive leader. Presidential aides have "leak=
ed"
anecdotes to the press showing Mr Bush making tough decisions. In Bob
Woodward's book Bush at War, based principally on the celebrated Washin=
gton
journalist's interviews with the president and top officials, there is =
no
doubt who is in charge as the nation faces its greatest challenge since=

Pearl Harbor.
=

Mr O'Neill paints a very different picture. He describes Mr Bush as mos=
tly
silent and inscrutable during policy debates in cabinet, and says there=
was
hardly any real interaction between president and his department heads.=

=

He describes those cabinet sessions as being "like a blind man in a roo=
mful
of deaf people". At the end of them, he said, cabinet members were left=
to
make policy like "blind man's bluff" guessing what the president's wish=
es
were.
=

When the Treasury secretary went to the Oval Office for weekly discussi=
ons,
he found he did all the talking. "I wondered from the first, if the
president didn't know the questions to ask," he tells Mr Suskind, "or i=
f he
did know and just did not want to know the answers?"
=

The one time the president does become engaged in economic policy discu=
ssion
in Mr Suskind's book, it is to question the orthodoxy of his own
administration's policy during a White House discussion of a second rou=
nd of
tax cuts in November 2002, following triumphal midterm election results=
=2E
=

According to Mr Suskind, who says he has a transcript of the meeting, t=
he
president asks: "Haven't we already given money to rich people? This se=
cond
tax cut's gonna do it again."
=

The president suggests instead: "Shouldn't we be giving money to the
middle?" But Mr Rove, who has masterminded Mr Bush's election campaigns=

since his days in Texas, jumps in at this point in the transcript to ur=
ge
the president: "Stick to principle. Stick to principle."
=

"He says it over and over again," Mr Suskind said. "Don't waver."
=

In his own account, Mr O'Neill discovers the hard line on tax cuts is c=
oming
from Mr Cheney. Not knowing he was in his last weeks as Treasury secret=
ary,
he went to see the vice president expecting to get a sympathetic hearin=
g for
his concerns over the deficit. Instead he is told: "You know, Paul, Rea=
gan
proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this =
is
our due."
=

Mr O'Neill's disillusion personifies a latent split in the Republican p=
arty
between traditional moderates and followers of the president's father, =
and
the hardliners around the second President Bush. Mr O'Neill served in t=
he
Nixon and Ford administrations before moving on to run the Alcoa alumin=
ium
corporation, where he dedicated himself to improving worker safety. He
insists he continues to support the wider Republican cause but he is no=
t
going to be silenced. He declares: "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And
there's nothing they can do to hurt me."

so... is Mr. O' Neill using Campy or Shimano?
(In other words, GORSSLY off-topic, depsite the fact I agree with the
subject matter)

Joe
-- =

#----------------------------------------------------------#
# Penguinix Consulting #
#----------------------------------------------------------#
# Software development, QA and testing. #
# Linux support and training. #
# "Don't fear the penguin!" #
#----------------------------------------------------------#
# Registered Linux user: #309247 http://counter.li.org #
#----------------------------------------------------------#

"Gary" wrote in message
...
Please keep your political opinions to political newsgroups.

OK, I'll hook it up to cycling for you. ISTEA has been killed as to funding
for cycling projects, some of which aid the racing community (particularly
in training in certain areas of the country). This is due, in great
measure, to all the money being spent on warfare and the deficit spending to
pay for it (O'Neil tried to raise the issue with Cheney to no avail) Not
much left over for such friendly programs as ISTEA.

Nobody cares what you think.

But you cared enough to respond. ;-)


B. Lafferty wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...120959,00.html
Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'
[snip]