An Inconvenient Truth: GOP fantasies threatened by global Gore

Comments

27 comments posted
Nice piece

Hey Madgirl,

I like your style. But you seemed to leave out a very important piece of info from that acedemiacs article (Schwiezer). Do you remember what it was? Ah yes the Gore connection to the Occidental petroleum corp. I know how easy it is to pick on these uptight yuppies(Schwiezer), but the thing is when you leave out pertinent info just to have a fun attack piece on a fella, then you betray what it is I hope you hold dearest, the truth sista. The truth is AlGore is the product of big oil, he influenced the sale of Native Lands in California (Elk Hills 1997 http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468),which in turn increased the size of his families personal holdings in Oxy tremendously. I know that people like Chenny may be currupt and contemptiuos, but when people such as yourself who pride themselves on accurate critical analysis refuse to aknowledge information, information you must know from reading that Schwiezer article, then you are just as currupt and contemptuois as those that you attack.I know it how everybody does it now, but its still wrong. So even though I do like your style, its pretty obvious that you just dont get it. Good Luck and keep on Truckin.

sincerely

Drew

Drew's picture
Posted by Drew (not verified) on 11 August 2006 - 1:12pm
Oh, and that bastard Tom Jefferson

owned slaves, so lets ignore the Declaration of Independence. Hell, lets burn the University of Virginia to the ground while we're at it.

FDR was a rich fucker ... time for all vestiges of the New Deal to go. Who needs Social Security? After all, it was foisted on us by a rich politician who didn't need it.

How many insights should we ignore, how many advancements should we reject, because an agent for change isn't perfect?

Really, it's a moronic argument.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 11 August 2006 - 8:21pm
And it's also the new conservative ideology

And Republicans like Barry Goldwater and Dwight D. Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln are spinning in their graves.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 11 August 2006 - 8:27pm
I think you're the one missing the point

Schweizer thinks that shooting the messenger makes the message invalid. It seems that you buy into that false logic, too. Since they cannot attack the science any more -- they got a few years out of that, though, so it wasn't a total loss for them -- now they attack the man whose voice is the most prominent these days about global warming.

What are they after? Improving the public image of Al Gore by pointing out his family investment history?

No, they are after discrediting global warming altogether, because it gets in the way of their money making. And it seems that they -- and you -- are offended that poor old Al hasn't spoken out in his best financial interest.

Some people believe that when someone speaks up about something where they have a financial interest, then it's just bullshit. Funny how that bullshit is what these oiligarchs love and respect.

And anyone who isn't getting paid to say something is somehow suspect.

I think you're the one missing the point, Drew.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 11 August 2006 - 1:31pm
Missing the point.

No no media girl. The point is do you except moral relitivisism from someone who is imoral? When someone participates in action that they later ridicule and blame others for, then they are a hipocrat. To be a owner of one of the largest petroleum organizations and act as if you are not part of the global warming problem is to be a hipocrate. If Al wanted too he could use his controlling shares of oxy to make a change in that companies direction. He could force them down the ethonal road he has that ability. But to continue to collect milloions in oil profits then lecture everyone on global warming, is the pot calling the kettle black. I dont want to discredit him because I dont believe in global warmming. I want to discredit him for making a profit on global warming and making people like you think he is a savior. I notice that once again you attack me attack what I said about Gore, yet you ignore his connections to big oil, more connections then georgy boy i might add. Maybe if you were to research back in the 1990's when Clinton released strategic oil reserves to help with north east heating oil supplies, what company do you think got the no bid contract to refill those reserves, I'll tell you, Oxy. To ignore this and to ignore his federal program whtch stole Native lands in california(Elk Hills), is to bury your head in the sand for pure political partisenship reasons. So once again I dont want to shoot the messenger, he has a good message, we must make changes soon. But is it to much to ask to have someone who hasn't corrupted the system for there own gain be the messenger? If we are to condem Chenny and Haliburton for there no bid contracts, then logic dictates we must condem Al gore for the same, unless your logic is so clouded that it only allows you to condemn those whome you already hate. I'll tell you what, I like Al Gore, but when he came to New Hamshire in 1999 and had a dryed lake flooded for a photo shoot,so his boat didnt get hung up in the shallow water, I lost all respect for him. If he truely was an environmentalist, worthy of respect, he would not have done this during the largest drought in that area's history. Perhaps this is information you already know, perhaps not. But considering you seem to be able to attack people while leaving out the majority of pertimnent information ie. a so called environmentalist who's millions come from leach mining, and petroleum production and sales, then it seems you are fighting for one side rather then promoting the truth. I find it interesting that when the president of the Sierra Club had fifty acres of his property clear cut, he was forced to resign. How can we listen to Gore tell us the evils of oil the evils of internal combustion, while he continues to make millions off of this evil. Once you commit a crime you automatically lose the right to judge others for commiting the same crime, unless your Al Gore. So do me a favor dont take this as an assult on Gore, take as an assult on any self proclaimed environmentalist, who doesnt practice what they preach. When you get hung up on partisenship, and become unable to condem somones action , then you lack the ability of thinking outside of the box. So since Al has done so many good things we cannot attack any of his bad decisions? That doesn't make any sense,yet niether does leaving out the crux of an argument. This has nothing to do with people of money offending other rich white elitists, this is about a hippocrate telling us how to save the world, yet he is unwilling to sever his own multimillion dollar connection to that environmental evil, oil. Maybe next time you should read the artical I posted for you and address the facts I laid out, anybody can ignore the facts and just participate in redoric and personal attack, based on hating the ultra rich. But when a person can actually speak on the facts of the matter and make acase for or against it, then they are truely rightous. In your case I think it's not rightousness, but self rightous indignation. Stop the the hate girl it's bad for everybody.

Drew

PS

Do me a favor if you can't speak on the points given, dont speak at all, to react to someones writings and only adress the points you can defend or none at all and ignore the rest, as you do, then you do them the same disrespect that you claim is being done by them. People can have apposing perceptions and both be correct, but when we promote hatered and seperatism among people then we all lose in the end,and thats what you don't get.

Drew's picture
Posted by Drew (not verified) on 14 August 2006 - 12:35pm
If all you can offer are illiterate versions of GOP talking poin

...you're wasting your time here. Frankly it's patently ridiculous to assert that this is about Al Gore. He could be an ax murderer but if what he's saying about global warming is true, then it's true.

You're getting all hung up on personalities and, it seems, letting Rush tell you what to think.

Do me a favor if you can't speak on the points given, dont speak at all, to react to someones writings and only adress the points you can defend or none at all and ignore the rest, as you do, then you do them the same disrespect that you claim is being done by them.

In case you didn't notice, Drew, this is my house. If you don't like it, you can go play with yourself elsewhere. This is America, and I don't owe you squat.

People can have apposing perceptions and both be correct, but when we promote hatered and seperatism among people then we all lose in the end,and thats what you don't get.

Now who's being the "hipocrate"? Who's talking about "hating the ultra rich"? You really should try laying off that FoxNews kool-ade.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 August 2006 - 12:55pm
You said it

Your contention was that the rich republican elitists are mad at Al Gore for not promoting what is best for them, and not being one of them.

"No, they are after discrediting global warming altogether, because it gets in the way of their money making. And it seems that they -- and you -- are offended that poor old Al hasn't spoken out in his best financial interest."

"My own guess is that Schweizer is accusing Gore of simple class betrayal. After all, being rich and powerful, Al Gore should be a Republican, right? How dare he"

You cannot stop yourself from personal attacks.. what kind of person are you. I dont listen to rush, these are not republican talking points, i am an Independant.yet you labling me is obviosly some attempt to discredit me.

To use your own words on you,"Schweizer thinks that shooting the messenger makes the message invalid" and so do you.

"In case you didn't notice, Drew, this is my house. If you don't like it, you can go play with yourself elsewhere. This is America, and I don't owe you squat."

Spoken like someone who repects the tennents of the free exchange of information and Idea's, as long as it jibs with your own that is. As an american I think we owe it to everybody to be respectful. But I guess you dont practice what you preach. You follow virtually every point with an insinuation that I am some crazy conservitive, why is that. Why cant you stay away from personal attacks and labels? You see in the real world,outside of your blogosphear, when you are having a debate and resort to personal attacks you are admitting to everyone that you no longer have any valid points or information on that subject, in essence you just lost. And being that you obviosly cannot talk on the majority of my points and go right to the personal attack shows just how cruel you are.

"Frankly it's patently ridiculous to assert that this is about Al Gore. He could be an ax murderer but if what he's saying about global warming is true, then it's true."

I have never contended that global Warming isnt real, but to think that Gore is doing this for any other reason then his potential running for president next election is to be blind to reality. If he truly believed what he preaches he would sell Oxy. Why wont he sell it.

Probably for the same reason you won't address any of my main points, because he is as selfish.

The Ax murderer thing is apples and oranges, would you let an Ax murderer babysit you children? Thats about as crazy as letting big oil lecture you on global warming, which is exactly what your doing. If there was a murderer who helped the police catch other murderers would you look at them as a savior or a hero, would you forgive them for murdering your family? Because when you look at Gore as an enviromental savior you are ignoring the facts that he initially was, and with connections to Oxy, still is a threat to the environment on some level. All he has to do is sell Oxy and I will follow him to the end of the earth, but he wont. Go figure

Drew

ps

I am a former Earth First member, until they started tree spiking and booby trapping innocent loggers equipment, causing amputations mutilizations and death. I used to belong to Green Peace, until a sail boat in pudged sound ment to block an aircraft carrier, collided with a family boat and killed a young girl. I promote all peacfull and respectful methodes of civil disobediance, and i deplore hypocracy. And i am sad at your constant hate speach.

Drew's picture
Posted by Drew (not verified) on 14 August 2006 - 2:10pm
Oh, I'm just weeping with concern for your victimhood

You talk about courtesy, but look at your comments here. 'Nuff said.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 August 2006 - 2:47pm
Once again you will not address the topics discussed.

Hey if you look at my comments they were very curtious, I just disagreed with your logic, i did not personally attack you. Yet once again you take so little from what i sad, and attack. Perhaps if you could just refer to one point I have made, but that would require you paticipating in a debate. I am not a victum, I am defending my beliefs, without labeling you as you lable all who dissagree with you. If you feel I have been discourtious to you then I truely oppologize, I do not feel that attacking someones Ideas is wrong, just attacking them personally. So if you feel me telling you you dont get it by way of your hate speach, is attacking you then I'm sorry, but using that logic, how many do you owe appologies too I wonder. Interesting that you don't comment on the points though, very telling. Especially on the rich republican connotations that you deny, very telling. Have a nice day

Drew

ps

I may be secretly in love with you

Drew

your name here's picture
Posted by your name here (not verified) on 14 August 2006 - 3:13pm
What points are you making?

I failed to notice any, except assertions about Al Gore. I've already explained why that's irrelevant in the original post.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 August 2006 - 5:21pm
Failed to notice eh?

So you didnt notice how you labled the elitist who are against Al because he is betraying them , or did you fail to notice that you denyed such accusations, then I repeated them for you. Or did you fail to notice that Gore is a person who could make a difference by sending his company in an opposite direction. Did you also fail to notice that he stole land from native americns to further his holdings in oxy or did you fail to notice that without books like earth in the balance and movies like inconvienient truth that Gore as an environmentalist is no different then Cheny. Did you fail to notice that without this movie Gore wouldn't have a chance at running for office again, or did you fail to notice that Gore's leach mining has polluted his own property with cyenide. Maybe you failed to notive the increased desertification on the planet that has helped along our tempurature increases, or have you failed to notice that the increased square footage of concrete and asphlat accross the globe is increasing the tempurature as well.Did you fail to notice that you and I and all of our friends and families can car pool turn off light conserve water and the like or did you fail to notice that even with increased global warming we cant stop people from buying suv's. Maybe you also failed to notice that no matter what Al has done it doesnt matter. maybe you didnt notice that I agree with him, i just wish we could have someone with more credibility promote the message. We are a country of almost 300,000,000 people, is it to much to ask that our environmental leaders be people who havnt committed these attrocites against nature themselves? I guess so.. in your case at least. It is sad that when we look at our world leaders whether they be dem or rep, we dont see the best person for the job. But with such low standards, as with Gore and his personal environmental practices, its no wonder.

ps.

thanks for not resorting to a personal attack on me with that last reply, even if you wont discuss the points, or fail to notice them, at least your being a little nicer....and thats good, because being puposefully unkind never gets us anywhere.It just creates more devisiveness and hate.

Drew's picture
Posted by Drew (not verified) on 14 August 2006 - 11:23pm
You are quite amusing

I sincerely hope you're successfully entertaining yourself, striving to rid the world of hypocrisy before saving it. I believe it's called the Children's Crusade. Quite noble, as I understand it. Congratulations.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 August 2006 - 11:41pm
Another personal assult for the trouble

For all you know I may be doing many things to save the world, my job could involve human rights,social work,and legal representation. for all you know. But the fact is the only crusaders being sold into slavery here, are the crusaders that rely on nothing but rhetorick and personal attack. All though they may be fighting the good fight, if their methodes are insult, and character assassination, then they have gone against the very values of fairness,equality and rightousness. Its easy to sit back and lable everybody, it saves you from making your own decisions, or thinking to deaply. But when you those decisions force you to participate in only denigration, belittlement and political personal acedemic snobbery, then you truely do go against the basic premisis of the liberalism ideology, under the belief you are protecting it.

Drew's picture
Posted by Drew (not verified) on 15 August 2006 - 2:28am
media girl, the cruel webmistress

When will I let you not return and not comment on this thread? The horror! The horror!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 15 August 2006 - 8:09am
Inconvenient Truth : GOP Fantasies

Warming is not the fault of politicians or manufacturers. It's Al, me and you. It's us.

Gore failed include the increase in population in his "CO2 and Temperature chart"

2B people in 1945 and 6B people now?

People(demand)---->Increased Manufacturing---> warming.

The enemy is us, not Bush or Enron.

The movie correctly stated the problem but not the solution. The movie made us guilty/angry (polar bears), it made us scared (flooding in Malibu), and it made us mad (Regan and Bush).

Then it took all that emotional energy and politicized it. People in the theater were clapping: they still get to buy the Hummer and fly to Vegas. Just like Al. Whew!

JL's picture
Posted by JL (not verified) on 11 August 2006 - 2:34pm
Don't look at me

I don't spend 10 bucks to see movies, and I drive a Subaru, which may not be a hybrid or a bicycle, but does better than triple the Hummer mileage.

And I'm a registered independent. :D

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 11 August 2006 - 4:05pm
Possible factual error

Like Gore, I live in Arlington, VA. My power company is Dominion Virginia Power, which does not offer its customers the option of switching to green power. Schweizer's column presumes that everyone in the Washington, DC area has access to wind energy, but millions of Virginians don't. Does Schweizer make a false assumption? Does Gore even have the option of switching his Arlington home to renewable energy?

Miles's picture
Posted by Miles (not verified) on 11 August 2006 - 5:17pm
Al & Tipper Gore

If all you look for is the negative, that's likely all you'll see!

Diana's picture
Posted by Diana (not verified) on 11 August 2006 - 5:25pm
Looking for the truth

If all you look for is the truth, is that all that's you'll see?

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 14 August 2006 - 9:29am
For a politician, he beats the alternatives, imho

...but really, what's more important is the message about global warming. That's more of a threat to civilization than even Ann Coulter, as difficult as that may be to believe.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 11 August 2006 - 6:36pm
Machiovelian

To contend that the message is more important than the facts is to make the same mistake as as GW in Iraq. Sure Sadaam had legislatively enabled juducially mandated Rape, Tourture, and Murder(artical 111,112,113,114 Iraqi constitution), and that should be enough to go to war, yet because the WMD thing was so far off, who cares if hundreds of thousands are in mass graves, because Bush is a liar. So your right Al gore does have a good message, but should we really ignore him being part of the problem? If I polluted your neigborhood then came over and told you that you needed to change your life to fix what I did, how would you feel? Would you look at me as a savoir as you do Gore, or part of the problem, everyday Gore and Oxy are connected then he is part of the problem. If I was a vegitarian and promoted the vegetarian lifestyle, claiming my health and stamina come from being a vegitarian, and it is the healthyist way to live. Yet it turned out I was eating steak for dinner every night, would I still be a reputable vegitarian? Of course not. The why is Big Oil Al Gore so easily excepted by you as an environmental savior, despite the millions in Oil revenue he gets every year? I guess denial is more then just a river in EGypt.

Drew

ps

Notice that I stayed away from personal attacks, trying to rally people around hatred, even if its nutty Ann Coulter, is the same way the Nazi's turned there own against the Jews. I respect all who care enough to research and have an opinion, no matter what it is. So, Once again, I implore you...Stop The Hate. It goes against all liberalist idiologies, and continues to drive the wedge between all.

Drew's picture
Posted by Drew (not verified) on 14 August 2006 - 1:20pm
Alternate realities
To contend that the message is more important than the facts is to make the same mistake as as GW in Iraq.

No, the facts are the message. You want to focus on the messenger. Go ahead, knock yourself out. Have a ball.

Sure Sadaam had legislatively enabled juducially mandated Rape, Tourture, and Murder(artical 111,112,113,114 Iraqi constitution), and that should be enough to go to war,

Apparently not, since Bush and his neocon handlers made up all sorts of other excuses first. "Saddam was a bad man" was way down the list, after the others didn't fly. Now they've even given up on "winning the hearts and minds" and have realized that they done fucked up.

But we wouldn't be here now if they were honest, because there are a lot of bad men in the world, and we don't go to war over it.

Besides, there's this little thing called the "war on terror" that was a priority at the time. Imagine if we had pursued that with full vigor, instead of this little sidetrack breaking Iraq.

yet because the WMD thing was so far off, who cares if hundreds of thousands are in mass graves, because Bush is a liar.

What WMD?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 August 2006 - 2:52pm
To contend that there are

To contend that there are other bad people in the world and we dont do anythimng about is to pretend Iraq didn't exist prior to 911.

"But we wouldn't be here now if they were honest, because there are a lot of bad men in the world, and we don't go to war over it."

Thats like saying since I can only afford to give money to one charitable organization then I shouldn't donate money to any of them. And unlike many of those bad people we don't get, we had already won a war against Saddam, and he signed agreements to behave a certain way, if he didnt the result could be war UN1441.

"Besides, there's this little thing called the "war on terror" that was a priority at the time. Imagine if we had pursued that with full vigor, instead of this little sidetrack breaking Iraq."

This shows your lack of understanding and knowledge of historical events. In 1992 a unsuccesful assassination attemp on GeorgeH.W. Bush was prevented by the saudi's. They found a bomb in a car ment to kill Bush. This bomb along with bombs usesed in assissination attemps on burgeoning democratic leaders in the MIddle east, North Africa, South East Asia, and Indonesia. How do we know this? Well three different independent forensic groups;one based out of Europe , one out of the U.S, and one from the middle east,all agreed that these bobms used to thwart democracy, were all comming from the same facility in.....you guessed it, Iraq. This lead to a UN backed bombing mission in Iraq in 1998 that destroyed what was deemed a baby food factory, but was in reality a bomb making facility. By the way the destruction caused by the bombs built in that facility, were claimed by such groups as Hezbolla, Hammas, the muslim brotherhood, and the Musihadeen. Combine this with the known fact that Saddam was paying sucide bomer families $28,000 a piece, to blow themselves up throughout Isreal, killing hundreds of women and children, and we can see that Saadam himself was a viable target in the war on terror, since his actions were ment to create so much turmoil in the middle east that he would be forgotten about. So when you talk about the war on terror, unless you are talking about specific connections to Alqeda, then Saddam was a main contributer to that terror. And to ignore this information, for political pourposes, as many of our polititions have goes beyond contempt. By the way, you do know what you life would be like in Saadams Iraq? Being a women, i would say not too good. Unless you like subseviency. So as far as being sidetracked, thats a hard case to make given the facts I just outlined. But I'm sure you can come up with some snappy personal attack, ment to discredit me without, once again, talking about any of the facts. But hey its your blog.

Drew

your name here's picture
Posted by your name here (not verified) on 14 August 2006 - 4:11pm
Life seems so simple

...when you think you have all the answers.

The situation America finds itself in right now in Iraq is rebuttal to all this simplistic analysis of history.

Saddam was an enemy of Osama bin Laden, and once was an ally of the US because he was convenient. Witness the photos of him and his buddy Rumsfeld laughing it up.

Saddam was not an imminent threat. Osama was and is, and yet we've thrown nearly all of our military resources into Iraq, while ignoring for the most part Afghanistan, where the Taliban is back on the rise and where the US has done little to live up to its big promises back in the initial counterstrike.

When I was little, there was this boxer, Mohammed Ali, who was famous for taunting his opponents and working them into a rage so that they'd make mistakes. Well, Bush was provoked into a rage, and made some huge mistakes, including Iraq, which was stupid. Anyone without blinders on could see the trouble there.

There's a reason why Bush the Elder, Schwarzkopf and Powell declined to invade Iraq. Of course, they were all veterans, unlike the chickenhawks running the government now.

Talk about hypocrisy!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 14 August 2006 - 5:30pm
I only know what I know, not all the answers..,just some

I dont think I have all the answers I am just a student of history and fact. You make a valid point as to our strengthening Saadam in the 1980's, yet are you denying his connection to the terrorists bombings which resulted in Clinton destroying his bomb making facilities? Or the Fact that he tried to assassinate one of our presidents, or the fact that he was paying suicide bombers in Isreal, these are the types of points you constantly ignore. As far as our military resources go, you prove once again that you know not of what you speak. Our active duty troop strength is 1.4 million troops, we have 1.2 million in reserves and national gaurd. So with approximately 400,000 being administrative jobs that leaves over 2 million in our Army Navy Air force and reserves. Now perhaps someone has told you we are over extended, but if you research it yourself you'll find that not to be true. With onley about 130,000 troops in Iraq I find it hard to believe we are overextended.By the way we also have 7,632 tanks 10 Aircraft carriers, 27 crusers 30 frigates 49 destroyers and an undisclosed amount of subs. We spend over 300 billion anually on the military which is approximatelt 3% or our total GDP. So the over extended argument only works on people who dont have the facts. Your mohammed ali story is a good one but alittle off base. You see even though Saadam wasnt supposed to rebuild his military Clinton and Bush believed he was. Our sattelites were taking pictures of squadrens of jet fughtes and divisions of tanks, this combined with the phoney chemical production facilities up north had us believing Saadam was re-arming. Clinton, Bush ,and the rest of the global community thought this to, but we were all wrong. The jets and the tanks were a deception, they were made out of paper mache' and ment to fool us, which they did. The phone calls in the chemical plants telling solders to move chemical weapons around were fake as well, yet all believed. So just as if a convicted murderer were holding you and your family at gun point and threatening to kill you, if you shot and killed him it would be self defense, but what if the gun he was waiving around wasnt loaded? Did you do the right thing or are you a murderer.

As for Bush Powell and Shwartzkofts belifs you are absolutely correct. Those guys knew that the whole thing could turn into civil war, or an even worse dictator.As Shwartzkopf wrote in his book " A time for war".But that was ten years ago. In that time saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. if there was disent in a neigborhood the fedayeen sadaam would kill everbody in the negborhood or town, just as hitler did in his time. The sad thing is, and you eluded to it earlier, he couldnt make the human rights case. Niether could Kerry Ried and Durban in their 1998 letter to Clinton demanding he do something about iraq including military intervention. The fact is that the world and people like you have the same apathy towards the oppression and destruction of innocent human lives as the world did prior to WW2. Many sat by while Hitler did these same things to his people, and at some point the world decided that his behavior would not stand. Unfortunatly many hundreds of thousands even millions had to die before we relized this. So when you get in the boat of this being a uneccesary sidetrak, then you join the ranks of those who sat in Europe doing nothing while Nazi's raped murdered and pilliged. So yes Bush did what his father and others didnt want, but tell me , how many hundreds of thousands of people had to die under Saddam before it becomes worth it. 300,000 in Iraq..not enough,500,000 in Darfur...not enough,800,000 in Rwanda...not enough. When is it enough? There are some cities in this country that if you are being mugged 200 people will walk by and not even think of helping you, they just keep walking strait, eyes forward. That is how the Iraqi people must have and still feel. They were being butchered and no one would help.Even though it would take relitively little to do so. Even if we shouldnt have gone there its too late know, to leave would be like commiting a hit and run accident. And if you believe that the war is costing too much, thats like refusing to pick up someone shippwrecked because it will cost to much in gas to go out of your way to help them. When I think of the country we were after WW2 I am sad to see us now. Even when we have every reason on a humanitarian level to end the suffering of Iraqi's committed by Saddam, we are more then willing to forget those reasons becuase they dont effect us.

I was well aware of Saddams activities thruogh many Amnesty International publications in the 1990's, 2000 & 2001. If you truely belive that there are so many bad people that why Saadam and why Iraq, then the values of those who truely freed the oppressed in ww2 are surely lost. And the rights of women in the middle-east, well your not doing them any good either. But how could you understand, you were probably born and raised in America, and know nothing other then the freedom we have here. How else could you defend a regime that made the honor killing of women, the right of any male family member. I dont know maybe you don't really support the soveriegn rights of women, or maybe thats only American women. The simple matter is, for you to say I think I know everything would be a misnomer, to say I only write on those topics that I am well educated and informed on would be much more accurate, as to your understanding of what it would take to overextend our military,you are not well informed nor well educated on the facts, its just plain wrong. Oh and by the way if you really want to learn something and see where all the trouble in the middle east started, before we started screwing things up, you should read up on the history of there colonization by France,England, Belgem and many other euro countries. There implimentation of limited monarchies applied a land ownership ideology that never existed in the middle east. This combined with useing minorities as the ruling class, lead to great oppression and suffering by those minorities. This inturn created a social structure that has lead to much of the turmoil there today. Many want to return to the old Caliphitic methode of government, and others want democracy and to join the modern global community. So to act as if this is something souly created by one governments interaction is to ignore the 100 year history of european empiralism in the middle east. But since they dont teach that in public school in America, most people have no clue. If we had been taught a comprehensive history of the middle east, as we are about the western European nations, then many people may have a different opinion as to whether we shoulod be there or not.

Drew's picture
Posted by Drew (not verified) on 15 August 2006 - 12:55am
the real truth

Great piece media girl! And while you hit on every poor motivation by the right's pundits, it also ends up that each of Scweizer's claims was wholly innacurate, including the claims about the zinc mine, occidental, and the Gore's use of green energy for their home. I put together a blow by blow on my blog for those interested.

odiyya's picture
Posted by odiyya (not verified) on 28 August 2006 - 11:23am
The corrections to those claims
media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 28 August 2006 - 2:59pm