CIA Plans to Purge Agency

11-14-04, 09:20

Sources say White House has ordered new chief to eliminate officers who were disloyal to Bush

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow.

But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet.

More...

11-14-04, 10:04

The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

That statement came from a CIA source, their opinion of how that agency was viewed by the White House. I felt it should be pointed out that the House is not credited with that terminology.

11-14-04, 10:06

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

That statement came from a CIA source<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
proly on that list to be fired

11-14-04, 10:14

Prob right.

"The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Nov. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. "

More...

I doubt if there will be any earthshaking news given the influence the govt has over the media.

11-16-04, 15:17

The DEA is the agency in need of cleansing

11-17-04, 10:09

abolishing
would work too

11-19-04, 11:36

Bush will only strengthen, reinforce, and grow the DEA. god is on his side, he is on god's, and god HATES drugs - everybody knows that. All of us sinners are going to hell if we don't go to jail first. It's the best thing for everyone concerned. What are you talking about hippie? As much as you love Bush and he loves your vote, he hates you and me and everyone like us even more or he would end the persecution. Other politicians might would if they had the guts to go against the moral majority.

11-19-04, 11:40

BASTARDS!!

11-19-04, 11:51

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

much as you love Bush<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
don't be silly
i have no love for bush
he just serves my purposes
better than the alternative
that was offered.

11-19-04, 11:51

But he believes the way they do, that jail is the best place for people who choose another drug over the Chrisian-approved alcohol as their preferred method of intoxication. Its just so stupid, it seems like it HAS to be over money. It is only in the sense that people with money have a louder more influential voice over the public, and it doesn't matter to them anyway, I guess they usually either prefer or are content with alcohol or they are above the law so they can still smoke the good stuff if they want. Hippie, you should know the whole reason for the govs initiative to outlaw weed was based on Dupont's need to defeat hemp as a competitor to their logging industry, lies and racial propaganda (REEFER MADNESS) were used in public and in the courthouse to get their way. It was't popular then, so noone really cared except the hemp farmers and maybe a few companies set up to make shitloads of paper from hemp. The truth has been set straight in the media in my opinion except for the DEA ads, but the gov suppresses what they can and lie as much as possible and take bribes not to change the status quo. Bush would rather chop down the sequoias than legalize hemp. I wonder why.

11-19-04, 11:52

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

politicians might would if they had the guts to go against the moral majority. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
a politician would never go against the majority,
he gets elected by the majority,
serves the majority.

11-19-04, 12:06

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Hippie, you should know the whole reason for the govs initiative to outlaw weed was based on Dupont's need to defeat hemp as a competitor to their logging industry, lies and racial propaganda (REEFER MADNESS) were used in public and in the courthouse to get their way.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
maybe,
i've read the book
but i'm unconvinced that it's gospel truth,
many complicated factors in play,
puritanism, racism, economics,
not as simple as portrayed.
and the simple truth is that kerry offered
no better alternative on drugs,
just more of the same.
so the drug war was a non-issue for me
this election.

(Message edited by admin on November 20, 2004)

11-19-04, 12:12

i HATE the majority

11-19-04, 13:16

the drug war was a non issue with me

I can understand that, nat'l security is more important to you just as the environment is more important to me. And the dems have yet to do anything serious towards decriminalization, and I was content with the reps and their environmental policy until Bush Jr. started authorizing businesses to go back to their old ways of destroying the planet. I guess I feel just as safe with the Democrats as the republicans, I mean our military can and will always be able to kick ass, no matter who the president is. I wish the reps and dems would all contract some deadly disease that only attacks scared little power hungry politicians.

11-19-04, 13:49

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I mean our military can and will always be able to kick ass, no matter who the president is.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
true
but i do think
the parties differ
on their willingness
to use military force.
i think the dems tend to be more passive,
reactionary
rather than proactive.
here's the diff i see-
if the dems were in power
i think they'd funnel vast amounts of $$ [pork]
in the name of homeland security
to their own various states,
trying to create a fortress america
which is the exact opposite of bush's strategy
which is to take the focus overseas.
by fighting a successful war overseas
bush hopes to save $$ on homeland defenses
and at the same time
re-shape the political equation in the
middle east, which is after all
the root of the problem.
all in all
i think that bush's strategy has a better chance of succeding
while i feel that what kerry offered was
a delayed catastrophe.

11-19-04, 19:59

First of all I'd like to say I've come to the realization that the last presidential election really didn't matter either way. We're pretty much screwed regardless, but I still am captivated by your reasoning for supporting bush.

For his war to be successful, he would have to kill every single terrorist on earth. He said that himself. But just try to think about it, is that ever going to happen?

If you have a minute here's an excerpt of a 60 minutes write-up on cbs.com, sparked some intense thought in this lil' whipper snapper brain of mine..

"One of the Central Intelligence Agency's foremost experts on Osama bin Laden has stepped out of the shadows and joined the public debate over past mistakes and future strategy in the war on terror.

Michael Scheuer is the senior intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996. He's also been at the center of a battle between the CIA and the White House over Mideast policy and the war on terror."

a more interesting part of the article...

" 'After Sept. 11, Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by Muslim clerics for launching such a serious attack without sufficient warning.......He secured from a Saudi sheik named Hamid bin Fahd a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans. Specifically, nuclear weapons," says Scheuer. "And the treatise found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans.'

Scheuer says the fatwa was issued in May 2003, 'and that's another thing that doesn't come to the attention of the American people.' "

So basically these muslim leaders condemned Bin Laden's acts in 2001. But once our lovely commander in chief decided to "smoke em outta their holes", he gained full permission to use nuclear weapons against us.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I just cannot see how you don't realize that this administration's actions are fueling the fire. Yes we have attracted a great deal of "insurgents" to Iraq with our little cat and mouse game, but those are merely pawns, poor and angry muslims that are trying to do their part with the little that they have.

The real threat that is going to bring this country down (and the reason you have enough supplies packed away for 2 months of survival in the wilderness), is those who have received hundreds of millions of dollars from muslims throughout the world. These are the highest operatives in the al-Quaeda ranks. And I guarantee the donations have skyrocketed since our "campaign to free iraq". Bin Laden mentioned in one of his released tape recordings that he had the idea for toppling the towers in 1982! Now this is a guy who has an innate ability to maintain deadly grudges.

He waited 20 years to plan september 11. But if provoked enough, and if funded abundantly enough, I don't think he's going to wait that long this time around.

Basically I believe we screwed ourselves the second we stepped onto iraqi soil. We sparked a worldwide disdain for america, and a worldwide hatred among muslims. We are so fucked...

(Message edited by theother on November 20, 2004)

11-20-04, 08:25

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

For his war to be successful, he would have to kill every single terrorist on earth. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
that's a false premise,
everyone, including bush, knows better than that,
you are just giving yourself an easy argument to win by basing it on a false premise
but if the premise is false
then the argument falls apart too.
all your predictions of doom & gloom
are really just camouflage for your fear,
which i suppose is understandable.
but i refuse to accept the premise
that 'we are just fucked'
and wait for bin laden to come finish the job.
but remember
it's very easy to talk trash like bin laden does,
but the bark of a dog is not what kills.
hatred and anger do not win wars,
as the muslim extremists can easily see in iraq.
in a way it is good that they are full of
anger and hate,
their emotions cloud their judgement
and makes them easier to kill.
while they wait for allah to win the war for them,
we are beating the snot out of them on a daily basis.
i say let's provoke bin laden until he's got veins bulging out on his forehead the size of garden hose,
i like to see my enemy get mad.
i prefer to get even.

11-22-04, 21:15

ok so lets tear my premise to shreds
what will win this "war" then?

"we are beating the snot out of them on a daily basis."

wow talk about false premises.. lol. You probably still think we were victorious in vietnam. out of the 100,000 we've killed there, most of them are women and children. While we were beating snot in Fallujah, in Mosul, two of our new "iraqi security force" members were beheaded in front of a roaring crowd. But you'll probably just deny that too huh?

Rather than fear I think my views are driven by anger, and pure humiliation of being a part of this country. Your views seem to be driven by the false hope fueled by the american media. Its so easy to be courageous when you aren't doing the fighting.

Why is our administration putting a gag order on all employees / soldiers and other people involved closely with the conflict? So they don't tell the press how much snot we are kicking out of them?

and wait for bin laden to come finish the job.

I'm definitely not waiting. I'll be leaving late 2006, never to come back. you're welcome to visit, I've narrowed my destination to somewhere in central america. I have a house in panama / or costa rica waiting for me but I'm still deciding. Before you twist that one around to the whole fear thing again, my reason is not fear, but rather not having any part in this country, simply living here is helping "the cause" in my view.

i prefer to get even.

for what may I ask?

You can call me fearful / disillusioned / unrealistic all you want, although it does look like an effective argument. I'll leave your emotions to you, as I definitely want no part in them.

11-23-04, 06:32

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

of the 100,000 we've killed there, most of them are women and children<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
you have no proof of your assertion,
in fact you have no real way to even collect such data, no one has.
so plz refrain from
'making up facts'
to support your argument.

11-23-04, 06:36

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

waiting. I'll be leaving late 2006, never to come back. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
good,
america needs the extra space
and won't even notice you're gone.
but if you think south america is free of american influence,
guess again.
ever heard of the monroe doctrine ?

11-23-04, 06:38

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Its so easy to be courageous when you aren't doing the fighting. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
it's also easy to mouth off
when you are out of reach.

11-23-04, 08:03

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

two of our new "iraqi security force" members were beheaded in front of a roaring crowd. But you'll probably just deny that too huh? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
why should i ?
people die in wars,
that's rule 1.
but 2 deaths are insignificant
in the grand scheme of things,
even 2,000.
no one ever won a war using terror,
you cannot conquer a country with fear.
sure,
they can blow up folks shopping for supper
or gun down police , etc.
but they cannot take or hold territory,
and that is what war is all about.
despite all their car bombings, kidnappings and beheadings
our boots are still firmly planted on their ground.

11-23-04, 18:10

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Michael Scheuer is the senior intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

which pretty much makes him
the guy to blame,
he already had 4 years of failure under his belt
when bush took office the 1st term.
small wonder they tossed his ass to the curb.
i saw him on tv,
easy to see him grinding his axe.
i hope they fire a few more just like him,
he struck me as awfully arrogant for a failure.

11-23-04, 21:38

struck a chord did i?

don't worry I won't miss america either.

although I may be leaving the country
I will definitely stick around this forum
for a very long time. So don't get too sad hip!
I can see you crying right now..lol

11-24-04, 18:34

time will tell
who cries
and who laughs

11-26-04, 07:22

I actually agree with you on that one fully

i thought you might think this is funny so I'll add it here...
when I visited the folks today,
they out of the blue approached me with
the idea of moving to mexico a few years down
the line...
totally blew my mind
So i really think it has a lot to do with how
you are raised,

and just for the record hip,
I want you to know that despite i
naturally lose a little respect because
of your views,
I still don't lose much
this is a dope site,
and you let people spout their opinions
whatever they are...
and dont forget the fungi
so short and simple, i like you even though you're a war mongering bastard..

11-26-04, 07:28

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

when I visited the folks today,
they out of the blue approached me with
the idea of moving to mexico a few years down
the line... <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
not unusual,
i've been considering that myself,
but for economic/legal reasons
not political.

11-26-04, 07:29

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

i like you even though you're a war mongering bastard..<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
& i
you, even though you're a naive gullible bastard...

12-01-04, 19:22

lol

12-01-04, 19:50

Rather than fear I think my views are driven by anger, and pure humiliation of being a part of this country

I often feel that way before god as a human being: the guilt of all men's action, then I try to forgive them and accept that I can only control my self and I am not that good at that even. So then I am mad at myself too. I think when I am not mad that I have an undercurrent of fear that is manifested in different ways: anger and humiliation and more anger then maybe depression. What seems most logical to me is that ultimately I fear being separate from god, which is impossible (so crazy), to make myself feel more secure I seek out people and things which are different from my vision of what is god-like and condemn them while imagine myself as being more godlike therefore somehow closer to god. It is an insane trap where I cling to that which "separates" me - my ego, attachment to possesions and my beliefs, my idea that I am separate from anything, the idea that man can be guilty in the eyes of god - but as I contemplate - the ego, which I imagine as my true self, is what is percieved as the separating factor, evil, and I feel guilty because I cannot let go of it, so I try to pretend that I have a "better" (read: more god like) ego than other peoples ego which is crazy. I know logic will probably never solve the mystery of life, but that's how my mind works (somewhat, imo at least). I guess what I should say is that what "makes sense" to me is that the spirit, our true selves, gain and shed egos throughout many incarnations in lower dimensions, we have made it to the third, the forth (heaven, but not the last) is a place where our reality is created before us as we wish with no time delay. Here our reality is created as we wish, only with a time delay. After loss upon loss upon loss as the taoists say, we lose attachment to our ego and the things that support its existence, and we can move on safely to the next dimension where we can create reality like responsible mature beings.

(Message edited by mindovermycelia on December 02, 2004)

12-01-04, 22:49

or maybe we must accept the ego for what it is and truly love it, maybe the word ego is derivitave of egg. Like I said logic continues to fail me as I am truly demanding and constantly reassessing my take on why we are here and what should I be focusing on (which is probably not finding out why we are here). I haven't made anything up but I have made jumps in logic that I later found other people had also made and ended up with similar conclusions, but the people who write of this (or were reported to say) have lived at various times throughout all parts of the world and have experienced directly, or met someone who has. Or may have mathematically proved the existence of these other possible dimensions - at least the forth or the existence of god and the idea that son of god is man, that we create our own realities with our expectations even if we expect things not to go as we think we really want them to. sounds weird and I know its off topic. sorry for such long off topic posts. but I just love to ramble sometimes, helps me straiten things out in my mind, practice writing ect. excuse me again.

(Message edited by mindovermycelia on December 02, 2004)

12-02-04, 08:01

yeah I wonder what we're here for sometimes also..

We've made a real mess of things thats for sure

12-02-04, 08:13

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

You probably still think we were victorious in vietnam.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
we were,
while we stayed.
of course it really depends on what is meant by 'victorious'.
we failed to defeat communist north vietnam,
but a nuclear-armed china really deserves the credit for that,
fear of chinese intervention, as happened in korea, kept american power muzzled.
but iraq has no nuclear-armed superpower backing them against us like vietnam did.
we aren't fighting soviet Migs flown by chinese pilots over iraq.
all the artillery pieces, anti-aircraft guns, tanks and aircraft iraq once had are gone,
and no more are coming anytime soon.
further
our own technology has improved by leaps and bounds, the digital age is here and that changed everything, things we were just beginning to learn in vietnam like precision guided weapons and remote sensing devices have now become battlefield realities, night vision and body armor.
just as in vietnam,
the only way we can lose
is if we give up.
vietnam didn't fall until a year or two AFTER we left, so technically we 'won' while we there.
the government we had backed, and left behind,
they & the people of south vietnam are who
lost that war.
our own country was never in danger.
but today it is,
which i think will give the public the incentive needed to hang on until the bitter end.
but even if not
remember that today
vietnam is a very different place than it was after the fall of saigon,
it is now coming our way.
the same may well prove true in iraq,
it may be 30 years before we really see
the beginnings of the changes we desire.
but time is on our side,
every day we get stronger, richer, smarter
and they are running out of the only asset
they have, the oil.
their culture is running back into the Dark Ages,
ours is pushing ahead into the new millenium.
barefoot mujahadeen versus armored battle 'bots
& cyber-warriors.
time will tell.

(Message edited by admin on December 02, 2004)

12-02-04, 15:59

The only problem with your theory is that you assume that the format of war will remain the same as it was during the last century.

I'm definitely not afraid of being defeated in Iraq, it won't happen. As of right now, there's nothing on this planet that can get in the way of the u.s. army in traditional combat. But, and its a big but, victory in the "war on terror" is impossible, even you know that.

So in effect the u.s. has declared a war that will never end. Really though you gotta hand it to them, its a genius plan to keep the war machine moving forward well into the next century.
Here's how it works: they strike u.s. soil, kill a few hundred/thousand "innocent civilians", then the u.s. decides whose fault it is, finds a good reason to invade, whether it be true or not, and the rest is history.

Lets look forward now, what will be our "retaliation" for their next move on u.s. soil? And what alliances will we destroy in the process?
Or am I naive and gullible for believing that we'll be hit again.

Let me clarify why I stated earlier that this whole situation breeds anger towards us. Of course an angry enemy in standard combat could possibly be clouded by this anger, good. But a child that grows up in war torn Iraq is going to find terrorism very appealing as a career. So we're effectively getting the next generation ready to keep this little game moving along smoothly.

12-02-04, 16:05

our own country was never in danger.
but today it is,
which i think will give the public the incentive needed to hang on until the bitter end. 

Iraq is only a small part of the plan..
As I explained above, there won't be an end,
so you can hang on as long as you like..}

12-03-04, 06:45

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

in effect the u.s. has declared a war that will never end.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

ever read orwell's 1984?

12-03-04, 06:47

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

what will be our "retaliation" for their next move on u.s. soil? And what alliances will we destroy in the process? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

iran,
and it'll proly mean the
end of the UN.
ah, well.
c'est la guerre

12-03-04, 06:49

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

there won't be an end, <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

yes, there will.
the day the oil runs out
we'll lose interest in the middle east.
all we have to do is hold on to it
another 20-30 years...

12-03-04, 06:51

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

victory in the "war on terror" is impossible<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
not at all.
we just have to define victory properly.
you mean it in such as way as to make it impossible, thus 'winning' the argument.
and i daresay
you must be one very smart talented fellow if you can predict the future with absolute certainty.

12-03-04, 18:09

thats interesting, so the u.s. just has to define a point that = "win" and then once they get there its "over"?

btw I don't think there can even be a winner in this argument. No matter what side we are on we all lose something no matter what happens.

you must be one very smart talented fellow if you can predict the future with absolute certainty.
Why thank you sir.
</sarcasm>

12-03-04, 18:17

sorry for the sarcasm,
you deserve better .

but really,
once the oil is all gone
what will we have left to fight over in their part of the world ?
sand is cheap & plentiful everywhere.
when the oil is gone
we will leave
and their jihad will lose steam.
if they want to live in a closed off world stuck in the 15th century
no one will care enough to stop them.

12-03-04, 22:45

I was actually referring to my sarcasm...I wasn't offended at all by the way. Most of my best jokes involve me making fun of myself.

Honestly I really don't know what the hell is going to happen anymore,
I'd like to thank you for giving me insight into the idea of supporting this war. I think I understand better where you're coming from.

Unfortunately we have to ride it out, like you say
and preparing for the worst is not a bad idea.
From what I've read it definitely seems like you got your shit together in that department.
Me on the other hand..no guns, no food / supplies, and 10 bucks in the bank. I need to get my ass in gear.

[Home]	[The Vaults]	[Glossary]	[Sponsors]	[Affiliates]
[Search]	Today's Posts	Mark Forums Read	[Register]	[Activate]	[Resend Email]

11-14-04, 09:20	#1 (permalink)
~sweetness Guest Posts: n/a	<font color="0000ff">Sources say White House has ordered new chief to eliminate officers who were disloyal to Bush WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources. "The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda." One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow. But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet. <u>More...</u></font>

11-14-04, 10:04	#2 (permalink)
~sweetness Guest Posts: n/a	<font color="0000ff">The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda." That statement came from a CIA source, their opinion of how that agency was viewed by the White House. I felt it should be pointed out that the House is not credited with that terminology. </font>

11-14-04, 10:06	#3 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> That statement came from a CIA source<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> proly on that list to be fired

11-14-04, 10:14	#4 (permalink)
~sweetness Guest Posts: n/a	<font color="0000ff">Prob right. "The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Nov. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. " <u>More...</u> I doubt if there will be any earthshaking news given the influence the govt has over the media.</font>

11-16-04, 15:17	#5 (permalink)
~kmkmyco Guest Posts: n/a	The DEA is the agency in need of cleansing

11-17-04, 10:09	#6 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	abolishing would work too

11-19-04, 11:36	#7 (permalink)
~realschmeal Guest Posts: n/a	Bush will only strengthen, reinforce, and grow the DEA. god is on his side, he is on god's, and god HATES drugs - everybody knows that. All of us sinners are going to hell if we don't go to jail first. It's the best thing for everyone concerned. What are you talking about hippie? As much as you love Bush and he loves your vote, he hates you and me and everyone like us even more or he would end the persecution. Other politicians might would if they had the guts to go against the moral majority.

11-19-04, 11:40	#8 (permalink)
~JT Guest Posts: n/a	BASTARDS!!

11-19-04, 11:51	#9 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> much as you love Bush<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> don't be silly i have no love for bush he just serves my purposes better than the alternative that was offered.

11-19-04, 11:51	#10 (permalink)
~realschmeal Guest Posts: n/a	But he believes the way they do, that jail is the best place for people who choose another drug over the Chrisian-approved alcohol as their preferred method of intoxication. Its just so stupid, it seems like it HAS to be over money. It is only in the sense that people with money have a louder more influential voice over the public, and it doesn't matter to them anyway, I guess they usually either prefer or are content with alcohol or they are above the law so they can still smoke the good stuff if they want. Hippie, you should know the whole reason for the govs initiative to outlaw weed was based on Dupont's need to defeat hemp as a competitor to their logging industry, lies and racial propaganda (REEFER MADNESS) were used in public and in the courthouse to get their way. It was't popular then, so noone really cared except the hemp farmers and maybe a few companies set up to make shitloads of paper from hemp. The truth has been set straight in the media in my opinion except for the DEA ads, but the gov suppresses what they can and lie as much as possible and take bribes not to change the status quo. Bush would rather chop down the sequoias than legalize hemp. I wonder why.

11-19-04, 11:52	#11 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> politicians might would if they had the guts to go against the moral majority. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> a politician would never go against the majority, he gets elected by the majority, serves the majority.

11-19-04, 12:06	#12 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Hippie, you should know the whole reason for the govs initiative to outlaw weed was based on Dupont's need to defeat hemp as a competitor to their logging industry, lies and racial propaganda (REEFER MADNESS) were used in public and in the courthouse to get their way.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> maybe, i've read the book but i'm unconvinced that it's gospel truth, many complicated factors in play, puritanism, racism, economics, not as simple as portrayed. and the simple truth is that kerry offered no better alternative on drugs, just more of the same. so the drug war was a non-issue for me this election. (Message edited by admin on November 20, 2004)

11-19-04, 12:12	#13 (permalink)
~JT Guest Posts: n/a	i HATE the majority

11-19-04, 13:16	#14 (permalink)
~realschmeal Guest Posts: n/a	the drug war was a non issue with me I can understand that, nat'l security is more important to you just as the environment is more important to me. And the dems have yet to do anything serious towards decriminalization, and I was content with the reps and their environmental policy until Bush Jr. started authorizing businesses to go back to their old ways of destroying the planet. I guess I feel just as safe with the Democrats as the republicans, I mean our military can and will always be able to kick ass, no matter who the president is. I wish the reps and dems would all contract some deadly disease that only attacks scared little power hungry politicians.

11-19-04, 13:49	#15 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I mean our military can and will always be able to kick ass, no matter who the president is.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> true but i do think the parties differ on their willingness to use military force. i think the dems tend to be more passive, reactionary rather than proactive. here's the diff i see- if the dems were in power i think they'd funnel vast amounts of $$ [pork] in the name of homeland security to their own various states, trying to create a fortress america which is the exact opposite of bush's strategy which is to take the focus overseas. by fighting a successful war overseas bush hopes to save $$ on homeland defenses and at the same time re-shape the political equation in the middle east, which is after all the root of the problem. all in all i think that bush's strategy has a better chance of succeding while i feel that what kerry offered was a delayed catastrophe.

11-19-04, 19:59	#16 (permalink)
~theother Guest Posts: n/a	First of all I'd like to say I've come to the realization that the last presidential election really didn't matter either way. We're pretty much screwed regardless, but I still am captivated by your reasoning for supporting bush. For his war to be successful, he would have to kill every single terrorist on earth. He said that himself. But just try to think about it, is that ever going to happen? If you have a minute here's an excerpt of a 60 minutes write-up on cbs.com, sparked some intense thought in this lil' whipper snapper brain of mine.. <font color="0000ff">"One of the Central Intelligence Agency's foremost experts on Osama bin Laden has stepped out of the shadows and joined the public debate over past mistakes and future strategy in the war on terror. Michael Scheuer is the senior intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996. He's also been at the center of a battle between the CIA and the White House over Mideast policy and the war on terror."</font> a more interesting part of the article... <font color="0000ff">" 'After Sept. 11, Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by Muslim clerics for launching such a serious attack without sufficient warning.......He secured from a Saudi sheik named Hamid bin Fahd a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans. Specifically, nuclear weapons," says Scheuer. "And the treatise found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans.' Scheuer says the fatwa was issued in May 2003, 'and that's another thing that doesn't come to the attention of the American people.' "</font> So basically these muslim leaders condemned Bin Laden's acts in 2001. But once our lovely commander in chief decided to "smoke em outta their holes", he gained full permission to use nuclear weapons against us. Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I just cannot see how you don't realize that this administration's actions are fueling the fire. Yes we have attracted a great deal of "insurgents" to Iraq with our little cat and mouse game, but those are merely pawns, poor and angry muslims that are trying to do their part with the little that they have. The real threat that is going to bring this country down (and the reason you have enough supplies packed away for 2 months of survival in the wilderness), is those who have received hundreds of millions of dollars from muslims throughout the world. These are the highest operatives in the al-Quaeda ranks. And I guarantee the donations have skyrocketed since our "campaign to free iraq". Bin Laden mentioned in one of his released tape recordings that he had the idea for toppling the towers in 1982! Now this is a guy who has an innate ability to maintain deadly grudges. He waited 20 years to plan september 11. But if provoked enough, and if funded abundantly enough, I don't think he's going to wait that long this time around. Basically I believe we screwed ourselves the second we stepped onto iraqi soil. We sparked a worldwide disdain for america, and a worldwide hatred among muslims. We are so fucked... (Message edited by theother on November 20, 2004)

11-20-04, 08:25	#17 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> For his war to be successful, he would have to kill every single terrorist on earth. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> that's a false premise, everyone, including bush, knows better than that, you are just giving yourself an easy argument to win by basing it on a false premise but if the premise is false then the argument falls apart too. all your predictions of doom & gloom are really just camouflage for your fear, which i suppose is understandable. but i refuse to accept the premise that 'we are just fucked' and wait for bin laden to come finish the job. but remember it's very easy to talk trash like bin laden does, but the bark of a dog is not what kills. hatred and anger do not win wars, as the muslim extremists can easily see in iraq. in a way it is good that they are full of anger and hate, their emotions cloud their judgement and makes them easier to kill. while they wait for allah to win the war for them, we are beating the snot out of them on a daily basis. i say let's provoke bin laden until he's got veins bulging out on his forehead the size of garden hose, i like to see my enemy get mad. i prefer to get even.

11-22-04, 21:15	#18 (permalink)
~theother Guest Posts: n/a	ok so lets tear my premise to shreds what will win this "war" then? <font color="0000ff">"we are beating the snot out of them on a daily basis."</font> wow talk about false premises.. lol. You probably still think we were victorious in vietnam. out of the 100,000 we've killed there, most of them are women and children. While we were beating snot in Fallujah, in Mosul, two of our new "iraqi security force" members were beheaded in front of a roaring crowd. But you'll probably just deny that too huh? Rather than fear I think my views are driven by anger, and pure humiliation of being a part of this country. Your views seem to be driven by the false hope fueled by the american media. Its so easy to be courageous when you aren't doing the fighting. Why is our administration putting a gag order on all employees / soldiers and other people involved closely with the conflict? So they don't tell the press how much snot we are kicking out of them? <font color="0000ff">and wait for bin laden to come finish the job.</font> I'm definitely not waiting. I'll be leaving late 2006, never to come back. you're welcome to visit, I've narrowed my destination to somewhere in central america. I have a house in panama / or costa rica waiting for me but I'm still deciding. Before you twist that one around to the whole fear thing again, my reason is not fear, but rather not having any part in this country, simply living here is helping "the cause" in my view. <font color="0000ff">i prefer to get even.</font> for what may I ask? You can call me fearful / disillusioned / unrealistic all you want, although it does look like an effective argument. I'll leave your emotions to you, as I definitely want no part in them.

11-23-04, 06:32	#19 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> of the 100,000 we've killed there, most of them are women and children<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> you have no proof of your assertion, in fact you have no real way to even collect such data, no one has. so plz refrain from 'making up facts' to support your argument.

11-23-04, 06:36	#20 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> waiting. I'll be leaving late 2006, never to come back. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> good, america needs the extra space and won't even notice you're gone. but if you think south america is free of american influence, guess again. ever heard of the monroe doctrine ?

11-23-04, 06:38	#21 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Its so easy to be courageous when you aren't doing the fighting. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> it's also easy to mouth off when you are out of reach.

11-23-04, 08:03	#22 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> two of our new "iraqi security force" members were beheaded in front of a roaring crowd. But you'll probably just deny that too huh? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> why should i ? people die in wars, that's rule 1. but 2 deaths are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, even 2,000. no one ever won a war using terror, you cannot conquer a country with fear. sure, they can blow up folks shopping for supper or gun down police , etc. but they cannot take or hold territory, and that is what war is all about. despite all their car bombings, kidnappings and beheadings our boots are still firmly planted on their ground.

11-23-04, 18:10	#23 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Michael Scheuer is the senior intelligence analyst who created and advised a secret CIA unit for tracking and eliminating bin Laden since 1996.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> which pretty much makes him the guy to blame, he already had 4 years of failure under his belt when bush took office the 1st term. small wonder they tossed his ass to the curb. i saw him on tv, easy to see him grinding his axe. i hope they fire a few more just like him, he struck me as awfully arrogant for a failure.

11-23-04, 21:38	#24 (permalink)
~theother Guest Posts: n/a	<font color="0000ff">struck a chord did i?</font> <font color="0000ff">don't worry I won't miss america either.</font> <font color="0000ff">although I may be leaving the country I will definitely stick around this forum for a very long time. So don't get too sad hip! I can see you crying right now..lol</font>

11-24-04, 18:34	#25 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	time will tell who cries and who laughs

11-26-04, 07:22	#26 (permalink)
~theother Guest Posts: n/a	I actually agree with you on that one fully i thought you might think this is funny so I'll add it here... when I visited the folks today, they out of the blue approached me with the idea of moving to mexico a few years down the line... totally blew my mind So i really think it has a lot to do with how you are raised, and just for the record hip, I want you to know that despite i naturally lose a little respect because of your views, I still don't lose much this is a dope site, and you let people spout their opinions whatever they are... and dont forget the fungi so short and simple, i like you even though you're a war mongering bastard..

11-26-04, 07:28	#27 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> when I visited the folks today, they out of the blue approached me with the idea of moving to mexico a few years down the line... <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> not unusual, i've been considering that myself, but for economic/legal reasons not political.

11-26-04, 07:29	#28 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> i like you even though you're a war mongering bastard..<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> & i you, even though you're a naive gullible bastard...

12-01-04, 19:22	#29 (permalink)
~realschmeal Guest Posts: n/a	lol

12-01-04, 19:50	#30 (permalink)
~realschmeal Guest Posts: n/a	Rather than fear I think my views are driven by anger, and pure humiliation of being a part of this country I often feel that way before god as a human being: the guilt of all men's action, then I try to forgive them and accept that I can only control my self and I am not that good at that even. So then I am mad at myself too. I think when I am not mad that I have an undercurrent of fear that is manifested in different ways: anger and humiliation and more anger then maybe depression. What seems most logical to me is that ultimately I fear being separate from god, which is impossible (so crazy), to make myself feel more secure I seek out people and things which are different from my vision of what is god-like and condemn them while imagine myself as being more godlike therefore somehow closer to god. It is an insane trap where I cling to that which "separates" me - my ego, attachment to possesions and my beliefs, my idea that I am separate from anything, the idea that man can be guilty in the eyes of god - but as I contemplate - the ego, which I imagine as my true self, is what is percieved as the separating factor, evil, and I feel guilty because I cannot let go of it, so I try to pretend that I have a "better" (read: more god like) ego than other peoples ego which is crazy. I know logic will probably never solve the mystery of life, but that's how my mind works (somewhat, imo at least). I guess what I should say is that what "makes sense" to me is that the spirit, our true selves, gain and shed egos throughout many incarnations in lower dimensions, we have made it to the third, the forth (heaven, but not the last) is a place where our reality is created before us as we wish with no time delay. Here our reality is created as we wish, only with a time delay. After loss upon loss upon loss as the taoists say, we lose attachment to our ego and the things that support its existence, and we can move on safely to the next dimension where we can create reality like responsible mature beings. (Message edited by mindovermycelia on December 02, 2004)

12-01-04, 22:49	#31 (permalink)
~realschmeal Guest Posts: n/a	or maybe we must accept the ego for what it is and truly love it, maybe the word ego is derivitave of egg. Like I said logic continues to fail me as I am truly demanding and constantly reassessing my take on why we are here and what should I be focusing on (which is probably not finding out why we are here). I haven't made anything up but I have made jumps in logic that I later found other people had also made and ended up with similar conclusions, but the people who write of this (or were reported to say) have lived at various times throughout all parts of the world and have experienced directly, or met someone who has. Or may have mathematically proved the existence of these other possible dimensions - at least the forth or the existence of god and the idea that son of god is man, that we create our own realities with our expectations even if we expect things not to go as we think we really want them to. sounds weird and I know its off topic. sorry for such long off topic posts. but I just love to ramble sometimes, helps me straiten things out in my mind, practice writing ect. excuse me again. (Message edited by mindovermycelia on December 02, 2004)

12-02-04, 08:01	#32 (permalink)
~theother Guest Posts: n/a	yeah I wonder what we're here for sometimes also.. We've made a real mess of things thats for sure

12-02-04, 08:13	#33 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> You probably still think we were victorious in vietnam.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> we were, while we stayed. of course it really depends on what is meant by 'victorious'. we failed to defeat communist north vietnam, but a nuclear-armed china really deserves the credit for that, fear of chinese intervention, as happened in korea, kept american power muzzled. but iraq has no nuclear-armed superpower backing them against us like vietnam did. we aren't fighting soviet Migs flown by chinese pilots over iraq. all the artillery pieces, anti-aircraft guns, tanks and aircraft iraq once had are gone, and no more are coming anytime soon. further our own technology has improved by leaps and bounds, the digital age is here and that changed everything, things we were just beginning to learn in vietnam like precision guided weapons and remote sensing devices have now become battlefield realities, night vision and body armor. just as in vietnam, the only way we can lose is if we give up. vietnam didn't fall until a year or two AFTER we left, so technically we 'won' while we there. the government we had backed, and left behind, they & the people of south vietnam are who lost that war. our own country was never in danger. but today it is, which i think will give the public the incentive needed to hang on until the bitter end. but even if not remember that today vietnam is a very different place than it was after the fall of saigon, it is now coming our way. the same may well prove true in iraq, it may be 30 years before we really see the beginnings of the changes we desire. but time is on our side, every day we get stronger, richer, smarter and they are running out of the only asset they have, the oil. their culture is running back into the Dark Ages, ours is pushing ahead into the new millenium. barefoot mujahadeen versus armored battle 'bots & cyber-warriors. time will tell. (Message edited by admin on December 02, 2004)

12-02-04, 15:59	#34 (permalink)
~theother Guest Posts: n/a	The only problem with your theory is that you assume that the format of war will remain the same as it was during the last century. I'm definitely not afraid of being defeated in Iraq, it won't happen. As of right now, there's nothing on this planet that can get in the way of the u.s. army in traditional combat. But, and its a big but, victory in the "war on terror" is impossible, even you know that. So in effect the u.s. has declared a war that will never end. Really though you gotta hand it to them, its a genius plan to keep the war machine moving forward well into the next century. Here's how it works: they strike u.s. soil, kill a few hundred/thousand "innocent civilians", then the u.s. decides whose fault it is, finds a good reason to invade, whether it be true or not, and the rest is history. Lets look forward now, what will be our "retaliation" for their next move on u.s. soil? And what alliances will we destroy in the process? Or am I naive and gullible for believing that we'll be hit again. Let me clarify why I stated earlier that this whole situation breeds anger towards us. Of course an angry enemy in standard combat could possibly be clouded by this anger, good. But a child that grows up in war torn Iraq is going to find terrorism very appealing as a career. So we're effectively getting the next generation ready to keep this little game moving along smoothly.