Just in case you are interested, and I doubt you are, I wrote this BEFORE you wrote your cease fire, not AFTER. Which makes your cease fire ring all the more hollow, especially in the face of this..."Okay you want to keep the gloves off..." LOL. And if this dialing it back a notch...yes, frankly, I would suggest you go back and talk to that family friend because you haven't got the third person thing down yet. Every post flies in the face of what you try to say. You ARE angry. You DO need to feel superior. You want what you want, I want what I want. I make specific examples of specific Americans I have personal knowledge of who immigrated from Mexico and that is their experience, and the experience of many others. But you could care less. If it doesn't illustrate your point, you don't care about it. You don't care that it costs your fellow citizens millions every year to support illegal immigrants...money that could be going to the needs of citizens of this country. And where do you get that illegals don't stay anyway? Got any of those 4-letter words to support that?
Yes, my feelings extend to ANY nationality illegal immigrant. Why on earth do you think I hate Mexicans? I don't hate ANYONE. I just want them to come here legally like other immigrants have, get a green card, go through the process, become citizens if that is what they choose to do, or go back home when their visas expire. Draw and quarter me for that if you like. I couldn't, at this point, care LESS.
Again you completely missed the fact that I grew up and went to school with Mexican immigrant children and knew their families and keep in touch today. I have no problem with Mexicans. It is a fact that the biggest problem we have with immigration is from Mexico...welll duhhh...we share a border with them. Much easier for them to immigrate illegally, much easier because of the porous border for folks to get in that we don't really want to get in. But of course, you would
As to it takes a long time to become a citizen, yada yada yada...well, good things come to those who wait. It has always taken a long time to become a citizen. Since there are millions here who are citizens, obviously they thought it was worth the wait. Excuses, excuses, excuses. It is the LAW. Do you pick and choose what laws you want upholded and those you don't?
You say NONE of them want to change who we are or what we are. Did I miss the part where you were named national spokesperson for illegal immigrants? You don't even realize you said the same thing I said. Yes, they come here for a better life. That's fine. If I immigrated to Canada for a better life, I would not carry the American flag down their streets in protest, out of respect if nothing else, but I suppose that is something that does not matter to you either...it certainly is not present in your rants. If I immigrated to Canada to a part where they spoke predominantly French, I would learn French. I would be embracing of their culture. Because I chose to make that my country and my home. I would not have to be asked to do so. But obviously I am the exception and not the rule.
Again with the languages. I don't care how many languages are spoken here. My sole point is that for preservation and protection of the United States of America we should be united...and you don't see that either. I belive what I believe, you believe what you believe. And never the twain shall meet, it would appear. Does not make me wrong, does not make you wrong. I will hold my hopes for the America I long for and you hold the hopes for the America you long for. The years to come will tell the tale. And if all this comes back to bite you years down the road...and we are too old to care...that little voice in the back of your head that said "I told you so..." That will be me.
The Civil War...geez. It was all ABOUT preserving unity. If it had not been fought to preserve the union we would be two countries today fighting back and forth across the border like Iran and Iraq for example. Slavery was only part of the issue of the civil war. But a brilliant man (and Republican I might add) Abraham Lincoln saw the folly in splitting the union, and another fine man, Robert E. Lee, saw the same folly...but chose to be a Virginian before an American, though it broke his heart to do so (to use his own words), and we see where that led. After the civil war and the slaves were freed, we came back together as a country, stronger than before, and never since have Americans chosen to be anything but Americans first. So far. That is what I would like to preserve. That is all I am talking about. Unity. Read up on the civil war. Read up on Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. Both great men with great vision. The Civil War was about unity.
As to now who's arrogant? I am about the most UN-arrogant person you would ever meet. I wouldn't know how to be verbally condescending and you have it down to a fine art. For someone who is not angry and not needing to feel superior, your posts say the opposite.
All this aside, keep safe during the bad weather coming up. I know hurricanes don't go inland very far too often, praying that it won't get to you. Hoping tornados spawned won't get to either. Keep your head down and live to verbally slice and dice me another day. :)
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database Cease fire.
No canned text for me. The tone of our posts are set by these my-way-of-the-highway / scorched earth approaches to opposite views. I have very exhilarating exchanges when the 2 parties are respectful, informed, flexible, open-minded, focused and on task, more interested in finding common ground than sowing the seeds of division, looking for solutions as opposed to validation and understanding that no political problems will ever be solved without bipartisan participation, mediation and compromise.
Plagiarizing and paraphrasing an opponent’s text and ideas and trying to throw them back at them does not an effective argument make. Furthermore, it is childish…like those playground disputes between children…“you did, no you did, no you did”…etc. It is not your ideas that I find so distasteful, it is your presentation. Not to be cliché, but you attract more bees with sugar than vinegar. I am not intolerant of Hannity…watch him frequently. Cannot have an effective debate without becoming familiar with the “cons” side of the argument.
On the bigot thing. Remember me? I’m the one who is hawking inclusion, supportive of minority interests, and has the audacity to suggest that Americans are not the only ones who just might deserve some equality, dignity, respect and basic human rights…even if they are illegal. I suppose it is a positive sign that you at least take offense. There’s hope for you yet.
On racial purity. You are really big on maintaining American cultural integrity and identity. But when it comes to extending the same consideration to our immigrants you go ballistic…clear off the map, at times. They can walk and chew gum at the same time…it is possible to preserve ones’ native culture AND be a good American. These are not two mutually exclusive concepts. If our democratic principles are all they are cracked up to be, it would not be so painful to see them behaving like Americans.
Going to go out on a limb here and to use and example. Mexican-Americans gathered together (right to assemble) waving their flag in protest (freedom of speech) of harsh immigration laws or working conditions in the maquilidoras are trying to bring these issues to the doorstep of the government who created those conditions (right to redress grievances). What could be more American than that? You cannot look at that crowd and distinguish between which among them are legal and which are not…after all, those are issues of ALL Mexican natives. Should we deny all of them these rights, implying that such rights are reserved for the REAL Americans? Being American is not simply a matter of a piece of paper, some arbitrary degree of language proficiency, some certain level of income or education. They should not be required to melt into the pot and disappear, renounce their birthrights and turn their backs on their own people just to qualify. Can’t have it both ways. If you want them to be Americans, then you have to LET them be Americans.
Ask yourself this question. If you saw 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants doing the same thing in NYC, would your reaction be the same? The bottom line is this: Our new wave of immigrants does not look like the ones from the past. You seemed to enjoy the DAR bridge party swapping stories of how they all came from different countries and cross bred with one another …even had a occasional Indian in the wood pile…and produced this great nation of mutts. But the breed was selectively white. If it was okay then, it should be okay now. The problem you are grappling with is that the results would produce all these mongrel shades of God-knows what. If this make you uncomfortable in the least little bit…if you are now feeling driven to slap me up side the head…that’s the voice of bigotry.
On elitism. Your posts are full of strict, literal reads and “tudes” as you call them. Sue me if I took a page from your book. At least you sort of tried to address the “academics,” still not calling it by name. If you could stop slaying the messenger long enough to hear the message, you would understand that there is nothing condescending about wanting to engage in informed debate that orients itself around reaching mutual respect and understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with being angry or feeling superior. Think what you like, but I am neither of those. I simply enjoy using my language and have an affinity for broad vocabulary. It’s just who I am. Blame it on the docs. They certainly sent me to the dictionary too many times to count and I lingered there for a while, that’s all there is to it. This personal trait should not in any way exempt me from debate, nor should I be subjected to ridicule, name calling or unfounded accusations because of it.
There is something you and I have in common. We are 2 American gals coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, locked into the extreme divisions that plague our fellow citizens from shore to shore. If we cannot find our way past this kind of bickering in which we both find ourselves ensconced, we all are in big trouble.
Believe it or not, Sam, I actually enjoy our posts. Okay, go ahead if you like. Send me to the therapist again. Call me masochist, bipolar, schizo, whatever. I just think we could do better than this.
Speaking of therapy, I have a life-long friend, an endearing street thug / bad boy from younger days, who grew up and became a therapist. He works with drug addicts, adult children of alcoholics (being one himself) and dysfunctional families. He said something to me that made a lot of sense. One of the first challenging pieces of advice he throws out to a new patient is to “try to keep things in the third person,” in an effort to “dial back” nonproductive confrontations with family members. I thought he was crazy at first, but I started trying this with my husband and to my surprise, it really did seem to help us to better understand one another, even after 18 years. That is what I will be trying to do next time you and I visit the water cooler. If you want to chill on the immigrant dialog for a while, that works for me.
Thanks for the good luck wishes on the job search. Hope I can find a decent company that is not just another maquilidora masquerading as an MTSO! U.S., France join in cease-fire call in Lebanon war..sm
So we are back bumping elbows with France. If only we would have taken their advice on Iraq too.
fighting fire with fire doesn't work
We have been hitting each other over the head with clubs since Early Man. The American military has killed innocents, too. I do not think Americans are more deserving of anything than anyone else who inhabits this planet. We are all human beings with families and feelings and lives. Perhaps its time to drop the weapons and communicate for a change.
I didn't say she was long winded
Guess your one of her followers. You didn't even read my post before you acused me of saying something I didn't say.
Yeah, it didn't take him very long at all to
Dont forget one of the planes was headed for the White House.
Fine with me as long as he didn't have a Muslim
@
What if Obama didn't hang around with terrorists? What if he was not a long-time follower of a r
Then I would be voting for him.
fight fire with fire
We need to **take it there** more often and louder. We have been too quiet, too politically correct and where has it gotten us? The republicans have been smearing democrats and each election has had nothing but dirty tricks from the republicans. This past election, Kerry tried to be on the up and up, not personally attacking..What did the republicans do? Secretly paid for a group to smear Kerry and his Vietnam War record. When Bush was asked, he said he had nothing to do with the group. Baloney! It was backed by the republican party. That is the way Rove and Bush are, they smear their opponents. Time to fight fire with fire. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Wow. Never cease to be amazed...sm
But I can appreciate a person who says what's on their mind and not dance around the issue, however wrong she may be.
Outlaw abortion so we can have more cheap labor and then we won't need the Mexicans ~ That's what she's saying here. She's already chalked up the aborted to cheap labor.
Yeah...almost asridiculous as yours, I admit...so shall we cease and desist and stick to real issues
nm
You'll be waiting a long, long time, then, cuz she's going to do fire with fire
Tired of dirty fighting? It is the republican party who was the dirty fighters, not the democrats. and they continue to be dirty fighters and will win again and again if we dont stand up to them. Fight fire with fire. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In the political spectrum that is America, you dont get anywhere for being the up and up person, the good guy, you win with dirty tricks. If you dont realize that, you need to step back when it comes to politics..I bemoan the situation, for sure, but I will fight fire with fire and the democrats will win once again..and, clue to you, check on Bushs right hand man, Rove, look at his extremely dirty politics and then ask yourself can we ever win against something like that by being nice? I dont think so and the country depends on the liberals getting the country back on track. I will do everything it takes, of course, everything that is legal. I dont break the law like Rove and libby are now being shown that they did.
Please fire them all. sm
People are losing their jobs, homes, and on the streets - and a mouse gets 35 million.
He died a long, long time ago! (If he was ever
Don't force your beliefs on others. It further devalues your faith in the eyes of others.
Where there is smoke there is fire!!
xx
Well sh1t fire...ain't that the truth!
In America, anyone can be President. That's one of the risks we take.
Fire-and-brimstone campaign
You can go to your fire-and brimstone rallies, wallow in your misery, and try to think of more ways to smear the finest candidate this Country has seen in decades.
Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single party for 30 people?
As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals. Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood. But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire...sm
My take: If you make a person who does not hold the Bible sacred swear to uphold his office on it, then does that swearing in really mean anything. They don't follow the teachings of the Bible, so why would it be relevant for them to swear on the Bible? (article below)
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire
Decision to Take Oath on Koran Sparks Controversy
..
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
He should not be allowed to do so, Prager wrote, not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture.
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible -- which America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about.
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of very bigoted and racist e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' Colling said
Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
They can bring in whatever they want, says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.
12-01-06 11:28 EST
Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved. MTPockets posted about SP loving to fire people.
MTPockets could've just kept her post to the issue, but she had to throw in the barb about firing, so the next poster has every right to address it. Or is what she is referencing over your head?
I couldn't get in...crowd already exceeded the fire code.
So, after parking two blocks away and trudging to the party, the fire officials kept us out because the fire code only allows 300, of which there were more than that inside. Then the cops told us we couldn't congregate outside either due to traffic and not having a separate (outdoor) permit.
Just days after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Cheney, on “Meet The Press,” said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror organization not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
When asked if any evidence connected the Iraqis to the operation, Cheney said, no.
But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq and during cabinet meetings Cheney, expressed deep concern about Saddam and wouldn't rule out going after Iraq at some point.
That point started to come 11 months later, just before the first anniversary of 9/11.
The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad. So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration's rhetoric about Saddam changed.
On September 8, 2002, not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front page exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, five administration officials also went on the Sunday television shows that day to repeat the charge.
He is, in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, Cheney told Tim Russert on “Meet The Press.
But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.
The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror, said Bush on September 25, 2002.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases, said Bush a few days later on October 7. He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda.
In pushing the Saddam-Iraq-9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims. First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in the Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.
After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, Iraq apparently never responded.
The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April 2001.
Cheney stated, It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Confirmed or unconfirmed by Vice President Cheney the 9/11 Commission said, We do not believe such a meeting occurred. Why? Because cell phone records from the time show Atta in the United States.
None the less, the White House strategy worked. In March of 2003, one poll found 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.
On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, aided the 9/11 attacks.
Yet the Bush administration continues to say it never claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11.
I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim, White House Press Secretary McClellan repeated on Sept. 17, 2003.
The brutal irony is that while implications, innuendo, or false claims if you will about a 9/11 connection helped take us into Iraq. The Iraqi war itself has created a real al-Qaeda/Iraq link that may keep us from getting out.
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
Ireland: I wanted to slap him
George W Bush was so upset by Carole Coleman’s White House interview that an official complaint was lodged with the Irish embassy. The RTE journalist explains why the president made her blood boil
With just minutes to go to my interview with George W Bush, I was escorted to the White House library, where a staff member gave instructions on how to greet the president: “He’ll be coming in the door behind you, just stand up, turn around and extend your hand.”
I placed my notes on the coffee table, someone attached a microphone to my lapel, and I waited. The two chairs by the fireplace where the president and I would sit were at least six feet apart; clearly I would not be getting too close to him.
*
The room was well-lit, providing the kind of warm background conducive to a fireside chat. Several people had crowded in behind me. I counted five members of the White House film crew, there was a stenographer sitting in the corner and three or four security staff. I was still counting them when someone spoke. “He’s coming.”
I stood up, turned around to face the door and seconds later the president strode towards me. Bush appeared shorter than on camera and he looked stern and rather grey that day.
“Thanks for comin’, Mr President” I said, sticking out my hand. I had borrowed this greeting directly from him. When Bush made a speech at a rally or town hall, he always began by saying “Thanks for comin’” in his man-of-the-people manner. If he detected the humour in my greeting, he didn’t let on. He took my hand with a firm grip and, bringing his face right up close to mine, stared me straight in the eyes for several seconds, as though drinking in every detail of my face. He sat down and an aide attached a microphone to his jacket.
Nobody said a word. “We don’t address the president unless he speaks first,” a member of the film crew had told me earlier. The resulting silence seemed odd and discomforting, so I broke it. “How has your day been, Mr President?” Without looking up at me, he continued to straighten his tie and replied in a strong Texan drawl, “Very busy.”
This was followed by an even more disconcerting silence that, compounded by the six feet separating us, made it difficult to establish any rapport.
“Will Mrs Bush be seeing any of our beautiful country?” I tried again, attempting to warm things up by adding that I had heard that the taoiseach would be keeping him too busy for sightseeing on his forthcoming trip to Ireland.
“He’s putting me to work, is he? Have you not interviewed Laura?” “No, I haven’t met your wife.” I suggested that he put in a good word for me. He chuckled. By now he seemed settled and the crew looked ready, but still nobody spoke. I was beginning to worry that the clock may have already started on my 10 minutes.
“Are we all ready to go then?” I asked, looking around the room. The next voice I heard was the president’s. “I think we have a spunky one here,” he said, to nobody in particular.
MC, a White House press officer whom I’ve decided not to identify, had phoned me three days earlier to say that President Bush would do an interview with RTE. “Good news,” she had said. “It goes this Thursday at 4.20pm. You will have 10 minutes with the president and Turkish television will talk to him just before you.”
My initial excitement was dampened only by the timing, much later than I had hoped. The interview would take place just three hours before I was to fly back to Ireland to cover his arrival at the EU summit at Dromoland Castle in Clare and just 15 minutes before the start of RTE’s Prime Time programme on which the interview would be broadcast. It would be practically impossible to have the president on air in time for this.
“That’s fabulous,” I gushed, “but is there any way I could go before the Turks?” I had previously explained about the Prime Time programme, so MC knew the situation. “I’ll look into it,” she offered.
The interview sounded like quite a production. We wouldn’t be able to just saunter in there with a camera. It would be filmed by a White House crew, which would then hand over the tapes to me to be copied and returned the same day.
MC asked me for a list of questions and topics, which she said was required for policy purposes in case I should want to ask something that the president needed to be briefed on. The request did not seem odd to me then. The drill had been exactly the same for an interview I had conducted six months earlier with the then secretary of state, Colin Powell.
“What would you ask the president of the United States?” I enquired of everyone I met in the following days. Ideas had already been scribbled on scattered notepads in my bedroom, on scraps of paper in my handbag and on my desk, but once the date was confirmed, I mined suggestions from my peers in RTE and from foreign policy analysts. I grilled my friends in Washington and even pestered cab drivers. After turning everything over in my head, I settled on a list of 10 questions.
Securing a time swap with Turkish television ensured that I saw the president 10 minutes earlier, but there was still less than half an hour to bring the taped interview to the production place four blocks away in time for Prime Time.
Still, with the arrangements starting to fall into place, the sense of chaos receded and I returned to the questions, which by now were perpetually dancing around my head, even in my sleep. Reporters often begin a big interview by asking a soft question — to let the subject warm up before getting into the substance of the topic at hand. This was how I had initially intended to begin with Bush, but as I mentally rehearsed the likely scenario, I felt that too much time could be consumed by his first probable answer, praising Ireland and looking forward to his visit. We could, I had calculated, be into the third minute before even getting to the controversial topics. I decided to ditch the cordial introduction.The majority of the Irish public, as far as I could tell, was angry with Bush and did not want to hear a cosy fireside chat in the middle of the most disputed war since Vietnam. Instead of the kid-glove start, I would get down to business.
*
On Thursday June 24, Washington DC was bathed in a moist 90-degree heat, the type that makes you perspire all over after you have walked only two blocks. Stephanie and I arrived at the northwest gate of the White House that afternoon, and were directed to the Old Executive Office building, Vice President Dick Cheney’s headquarters, and were introduced to MC, whom I had spoken to only by phone. An elegant and confident woman, she was the cut of CJ, the feisty White House press secretary on The West Wing television drama.
A younger male sidekick named Colby stood close by nodding at everything she said and interjecting with a few comments of his own every now and then. Colby suggested that I ask the president about the yellow suit the taoiseach had worn the previous week at the G8 Summit on Sea Island in Georgia. I laughed loudly and then stopped to study his face for signs that he was joking — but he didn’t appear to be. “The president has a good comment on that,” he said.
The taoiseach’s suit had been a shade of cream, according to the Irish embassy. But alongside the other more conservatively dressed leaders, it had appeared as a bright yellow, leaving our Bertie looking more like the lead singer in a band than the official representative of the European Union. It was amusing at the time, but I was not about to raise a yellow suit with the president. “Really?” I asked politely. But a little red flag went up inside my head.
Then MC announced that she had some news for me. “There may be another interview in the pipeline for you,” she said.
“Me?”
“We’re not supposed to tell you this yet, but we are trying to set up an interview with the first lady.”
She indicated that the White House had already been in contact with RTE to make arrangements for the interview at Dromoland Castle, where the president and Mrs Bush would be staying. As an admirer of Laura Bush’s cool grace and sharp intellect, I had requested interviews with her several times previously without any reply. Now the first lady of the United States was being handed to me on a plate. I could not believe my luck.
“Of course, it’s not certain yet,” MC added. And then her sidekick dropped his second bombshell. “We’ll see how you get on with the president first.”
I’m sure I continued smiling, but I was stunned. What I understood from this was that if I pleased the White House with my questioning of the president, I would get to interview the first lady. Were they trying to ensure a soft ride for the president, or was I the new flavour of the month with the first family?
“I’m going to give the president his final briefing. Are there any further questions you want to pass on to him?” MC asked.
“No,” I said, “just tell him I want to chat.”
Stephanie and I locked eyes and headed for the ladies’ powder room, where we prayed.
Mr President,” I began. “You will arrive in Ireland in less than 24 hours’ time. While our political leaders will welcome you, unfortunately the majority of our people will not. They are annoyed about the war in Iraq and about Abu Ghraib. Are you bothered by what Irish people think?”
The president was reclining in his seat and had a half-smile on his face, a smile I had often seen when he had to deal with something he would rather not.
“Listen. I hope the Irish people understand the great values of our country. And if they think that a few soldiers represent the entirety of America, they don’t really understand America then . . . We are a compassionate country. We’re a strong country, and we’ll defend ourselves. But we help people. And we’ve helped the Irish and we’ll continue to do so. We’ve got a good relationship with Ireland.”
“And they are angry over Iraq as well and particularly the continuing death toll there,” I added, moving him on to the war that had claimed 100 Iraqi lives that very day. He continued to smile, but just barely.
“Well, I can understand that. People don’t like war. But what they should be angry about is the fact that there was a brutal dictator there that had destroyed lives and put them in mass graves and torture rooms . . . Look, Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, against the neighbourhood. He was a brutal dictator who posed a threat that the United Nations voted unanimously to say, Mr Saddam Hussein . . .”
Having noted the tone of my questions, the president had now sat forward in his chair and had become animated, gesturing with his hands for emphasis. But as I listened to the history of Saddam Hussein and the weapons inspectors and the UN resolutions, my heart was sinking. He was resorting to the type of meandering stock answer I had heard scores of times and had hoped to avoid. Going back over this old ground could take two or three minutes and allow him to keep talking without dealing with the current state of the war. It was a filibuster of sorts. If I didn’t challenge him, the interview would be a wasted opportunity.
“But, Mr President, you didn’t find any weapons,” I interjected.
“Let me finish, let me finish. May I finish?”
With his hand raised, he requested that I stop speaking. He paused and looked me straight in the eye to make sure I had got the message. He wanted to continue, so I backed off and he went on. “The United Nations said, ‘Disarm or face serious consequences’. That’s what the United Nations said. And guess what? He didn’t disarm. He didn’t disclose his arms. And therefore he faced serious consequences. But we have found a capacity for him to make a weapon. See, he had the capacity to make weapons . . .”
I was now beginning to feel shut out of this event. He had the floor and he wasn’t letting me dance. My blood was boiling to such a point that I felt like slapping him. But I was dealing with the president of the United States; and he was too far away anyway. I suppose I had been naive to think that he was making himself available to me so I could spar with him or plumb the depths of his thought processes. Sitting there, I knew that I was nobody special and that this was just another opportunity for the president to repeat his mantra. He seemed irked to be faced with someone who wasn’t nodding gravely at him as he was speaking.
“But Mr President,” I interrupted again, “the world is a more dangerous place today. I don’t know whether you can see that or not.”
“Why do you say that?”
“There are terrorist bombings every single day. It’s now a daily event. It wasn’t like that two years ago.”
“What was it like on September 11 2001? It was a . . . there was relative calm, we . . .”
“But it’s your response to Iraq that’s considered . . .”
“Let me finish. Let me finish. Please. You ask the questions and I’ll answer them, if you don’t mind.”
His hand was raised again as if to indicate that he was not going to tolerate this. Again, I felt I had no choice but to keep quiet.
“On September 11 2001, we were attacked in an unprovoked fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. There have been bombings since then — not because of my response to Iraq. There were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in Istanbul. There were bombings in Bali. There were killings in Pakistan.”
He seemed to be finished, so I took a deep breath and tried once again. So far, facial expressions were defining this interview as much as anything that was said, so I focused on looking as if I was genuinely trying to fathom him.
“Indeed, Mr President, and I think Irish people understand that. But I think there is a feeling that the world has become a more dangerous place because you have taken the focus off Al-Qaeda and diverted into Iraq. Do you not see that the world is a more dangerous place? I saw four of your soldiers lying dead on the television the other day, a picture of four soldiers just lying there without their flak jackets.”
“Listen, nobody cares more about death than I do . . .”
“Is there a point or place . . .”
“Let me finish. Please. Let me finish, and then you can follow up, if you don’t mind.”
By now he was getting used to the rhythm of this interview and didn’t seem quite so taken aback by my attempt to take control of it. “Nobody cares more about death than I do. I care a lot about it. But I do believe the world is a safer place and becoming a safer place. I know that a free Iraq is going to be a necessary part of changing the world.”
The president seemed to be talking more openly now and from the heart rather than from a script. The history lesson on Saddam was over. “Listen, people join terrorist organisations because there’s no hope and there’s no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom. And so the idea is to promote freedom and at the same time protect our security. And I do believe the world is becoming a better place, absolutely.”
I could not tell how much time had elapsed, maybe five or six minutes, so I moved quickly on to the question I most wanted to ask George Bush in person.
“Mr President, you are a man who has a great faith in God. I’ve heard you say many times that you strive to serve somebody greater than yourself.”
“Right.”
“Do you believe that the hand of God is guiding you in this war on terror?”
This question had been on my mind ever since September 11, when Bush began to invoke God in his speeches. He spoke as if he believed that his job of stewarding America through the attacks and beyond was somehow preordained, that he had been chosen for this role. He closed his eyes as he began to answer.
“Listen, I think that God . . . that my relationship with God is a very personal relationship. And I turn to the Good Lord for strength. I turn to the Good Lord for guidance. I turn to the Good Lord for forgiveness. But the God I know is not one that . . . the God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship.”
He sat forward again. “That doesn’t make me think I’m a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, ‘Don’t try to take a speck out of your eye if I’ve got a log in my own’.”
I suspected that he was also telling me that I should not judge him.
I switched to Ireland again and to the controversy then raging over the Irish government’s decision to allow the use of Shannon Airport for the transport of soldiers and weapons to the Gulf.
“You are going to meet Bertie Ahern when you arrive at Shannon Airport tomorrow. I guess he went out on a limb for you, presumably because of the great friendship between our two countries. Can you look him in the eye when you get there and say, ‘It will be worth it, it will work out’?”
“Absolutely. I wouldn’t be doing this, I wouldn’t have made the decision I did if I didn’t think the world would be better.”
I felt that the President had now become personally involved in this interview, even quoting a Bible passage, so I made one more stab at trying to get inside his head.
“Why is it that others don’t understand what you are about?”
He shrugged. “I don’t know. History will judge what I’m about.”
I could not remember my next question. My mind had gone completely blank. The president had not removed me from his gaze since we had begun and I wanted to keep up the eye contact.
If I diverted to my notes on the table beside me, he would know he had flustered me. For what seemed like an eternity, but probably no more than two seconds, I stared at him, searching his eyes for inspiration. It finally came.
“Can I just turn to the Middle East?”
“Sure.”
He talked about his personal commitment to solving that conflict. As he did so, I could see one of the White House crew signalling for me to wrap up the interview, but the president was in full flight.
“Like Iraq, the Palestinian and the Israeli issue is going to require good security measures,” he said.
Now out of time, I was fully aware that another question was pushing it, but I would never be here again and I had spent four years covering an administration that appeared to favour Israel at every turn.
“And perhaps a bit more even-handedness from America?” I asked, though it came out more as a comment.
The president did not see the look of horror on the faces of his staff as he began to defend his stance. “I’m the first president to have called for a Palestinian state. That to me sounds like a reasonable and balanced approach. I will not allow terrorists determine the fate, as best I can, of people who want to be free.”
Hands were signalling furiously now for me to end the interview.
“Mr President, thank you very much.”
“You’re welcome,” he replied, still half-smiling and half-frowning.
It was over. I felt like a delinquent child who had been reprimanded by a stern, unwavering father. My face must have been the same colour as my suit. Yet I also knew that we had discussed some important issues — probably more candidly than I had heard from President Bush in some time.
I was removing my microphone when he addressed me.
“Is that how you do it in Ireland — interrupting people all the time?”
I froze. He was not happy with me and was letting me know it.
“Yes,” I stuttered, determined to maintain my own half-smile.
I was aching to get out of there for a breath of air when I remembered that I had earlier discussed with staff the possibility of having my picture taken with the president. I had been told that, when the interview was over, I could stand up with him and the White House photographer would snap a picture. Not wanting to waste the opportunity, I stood up and asked him to join me.
“Oh, she wants the photograph now,” he said from his still-seated position. He rose, stood beside me and put an arm around my shoulder. Taking his cue, I put an arm up around his shoulder and we both grinned for the cameras.
In my haste to leave I almost forgot the tapes and had to be reminded by the film crew to take them. I and my assistants bolted out to the street. We ran, high heels and all, across Lafayette Park. Running through rush-hour traffic, I thought that this had to be about as crazy as a journalist’s job gets.
I had just been admonished by the president of the United States and now I was turning cartwheels in order to get the interview on air. As I dashed past a waste bin, I had a fleeting urge to throw in the tapes and run home instead.
At the studio I handed over the tapes. My phone rang. It was MC, and her voice was cold.
“We just want to say how disappointed we are in the way you conducted the interview,” she said.
“How is that?” I asked.
“You talked over the president, not letting him finish his answers.”
“Oh, I was just moving him on,” I said, explaining that I wanted some new insight from him, not two-year-old answers.
“He did give you plenty of new stuff.”
She estimated that I had interrupted the president eight times and added that I had upset him. I was upset too, I told her. The line started to break up; I was in a basement with a bad phone signal. I took her number and agreed to call her back. I dialled the White House number and she was on the line again.
“I’m here with Colby,” she indicated.
“Right.”
“You were given an opportunity to interview the leader of the free world and you blew it,” she began.
I was beginning to feel as if I might be dreaming. I had naively believed the American president was referred to as the “leader of the free world” only in an unofficial tongue-in-cheek sort of way by outsiders, and not among his closest staff.
“You were more vicious than any of the White House press corps or even some of them up on Capitol Hill . . .The president leads the interview,” she said.
“I don’t agree,” I replied, my initial worry now turning to frustration. “It’s the journalist’s job to lead the interview.”
It was suggested that perhaps I could edit the tapes to take out the interruptions, but I made it clear that this would not be possible.
As the conversation progressed, I learnt that I might find it difficult to secure further co-operation from the White House. A man’s voice then came on the line. Colby, I assumed. “And, it goes without saying, you can forget about the interview with Laura Bush.”
Clearly the White House had thought they would be dealing with an Irish “colleen” bowled over by the opportunity to interview the Bushes. If anyone there had done their research on RTE’s interviewing techniques, they might have known better.
MC also indicated that she would be contacting the Irish Embassy in Washington — in other words, an official complaint from Washington to Dublin.
“I don’t know how we are going to repair this relationship, but have a safe trip back to Ireland,” MC concluded. I told her I had not meant to upset her since she had been more than helpful to me. The conversation ended.
By the time I got to the control room, the Prime Time broadcast had just started. It was at the point of the first confrontation with the “leader of the free world” and those gathered around the monitors were glued to it. “Well done,” someone said. “This is great.”
I thought about the interview again as I climbed up the steps to RTE’s live camera position at Dromoland Castle to account for myself on the 6pm news next day. By now the White House had vented its anger to the Irish embassy in Washington. To make matters worse for the administration, the interview had made its way onto American television and CNN was replaying it around the world and by the end of the day it had been aired in Baghdad.
Had I been fair? Should I just have been more deferential to George Bush? I felt that I had simply done my job and shuddered at the thought of the backlash I would surely have faced in Ireland had I not challenged the president on matters that had changed the way America was viewed around the world.
Afterwards I bumped straight into the taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who was waiting to go on air.
“Howya,” he said, winking.
“I hope this hasn’t caused you too much hassle, taoiseach,” I blurted.
“Arrah, don’t worry at all; you haven’t caused me one bit of hassle,” he smiled wryly.
I don’t know what he said to the president, who reportedly referred to the interview immediately upon arrival, but if the taoiseach was annoyed with me or with RTE, he didn’t show it.
When I returned to my little world on the street called M in Washington, I felt a tad more conspicuous than when I’d left for Ireland. Google was returning more than 100,000 results on the subject of the 12-minute interview. The vast majority of bloggers felt it was time a reporter had challenged Bush.
At the White House, the fact that I had been asked to submit questions prior to the interview generated enquiries from the American press corps. “Any time a reporter sits down with the president they are welcome to ask him whatever questions they want to ask,” Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, told the CBS correspondent Bill Plante.
“Yes, but that’s beside the point,” replied Plante.
Under repeated questioning, McClellan conceded that other staff members might have asked for questions. “Certainly there will be staff-level discussion, talking about what issues reporters may want to bring up in some of these interviews. I mean that happens all the time.”
I had not been prevented from asking any of my questions. The only topics I had been warned away from were the Bush daughters Jenna and Barbara, regular fodder for the tabloids, and Michael Moore — neither of which was on my list.
Moore did notice RTE’s interview with the president and in the weeks that followed urged American journalists to follow the example of “that Irish woman”.
“In the end, doesn’t it always take the Irish to speak up?” he said. “She’s my hero. Where are the Carole Colemans in the US press?”
This article is extracted from the opening chapter of Alleluia America! by Carole Coleman, to be published by The Liffey Press on October 14 at €14.95.
Okay, as long as....SM
you don't mind you, your loved ones, or someone else's loved ones to be killed BEFORE we take action, we can sit around and see who attacks us next. But then of course, if Saddam had ordered an attack, or slipped the goods to someone to carry that attack out, you would have blamed Bush for not acting on all that intelligence we had before the war. You simply cannot have it both ways. In light of the fact that 3000 people perished in a couple of hours, I'm not afraid to stand behind a president brave enough to stand up to any threat.
What took them so long????
I heard the 34% was down to 29% for Bush and 18% for Cheney. It has taken this complete break down of our government for people to finally see what most of us have known all along. BUSH IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE ROTARY CLUB, LET ALONE THE U.S. The words incompetence and tin ear and arrogance are now coming out of the mouths of the staunchest of Republicans, senators, congressmen, strategists, advisors, etc. And the outright lies are finally coming to light, thanks to videotape. Of course we only have the pre Katrina tape but it shows those who absolutely refused to entertain the thought that his president was anything than honorable is, in fact, just a greedy arrogant politician like so many others. As I said before, time to storm the Bastille and throw them out, the whole sorry lot of them or we can always sell the country to the UAE. They would probably do a better job of running it than this poor excuse for an administration. As Isabel from Florida said on Lou Dobbs the other day, I could run this country better from my kitchen table. I believe her.
that is a long
string of words that is so illogical I just slap my rump and shout hallelujah. Not much more can be done other than that.
Does that stand for clueless or just 'can't spell my own name?'
I love Obama supporters. They're like children. Or really, really slow-learning monkeys. :)
Oh yes....and how long
did people scream and shout about how we were losing the surge in Iraq while we were successful? Obama didn't even want to admit we were successful when there was no way to dispute the fact. Just once, I would like to see you post something that isn't totally one-sided liberal, kool-aid drinking BS.
other than Islam, they will always perceive a threat to Islam. The threat is our very existence. Whether radical Muslims kill others outright - or breed, recruit/convert and infiltrate us out of existence, we are not to be tolerated as we are. They are not content to live side-by-side and allow everyone to worship whatever god (or no god) we wish in whatever way we please. The American ideal off Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religious living as neighbors along the same street is horrifying to these people. There is only one right choice!
They do not wish a settlement of the Palestinian issue, because this is the catalyst to stir up old conflicts when things seem to be settling down. I do not believe you can achieve peace through any amount of niceness and talking, or anything other than victory - and neither do they.
The best we can hope for is a temporary detente from time to time. This is not to be perceived as the end of the show, but intermission while they think of some other way to achieve their goals, (as we should be.) But instead, we get a Palestiniann and an Israeli to shake hands at Camp David, then start singing Ding-Dong The Witch is Dead. I have to wonder if it naivete or arrogance on our part.
That's just how it is and how it has been for a long time.
Doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it. As someone has said, it's a privately owned board and the political alliance appears to be very right-wing evangelical Christian. The Religion board used to be even worse than the Politics board until it got renamed Christian (now at least it's named for what it really is). I don't even look at that board anymore.
How long a truce?
Okay, lets see how long your ************ truce********* lasts, LOLOL..Humor me..Lets read your posts under a ********truce******..Wanna bet how long they will last from you one of the Queens of Judgment?? Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..
I haven't been here that long but
long enough to see clearly how immaturely they operate. PHEW!
Freepers have been around for a long while...
And I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you about the posts on FreeRepublic. I have the site bookmarked and I look at it pretty often. It's true that you can find liberals ranting on their own sites and some of that gets pretty hateful and scary sometimes too - but I can understand why. They've been threatened once too often and they're just not going to take it anymore.
Freepers don't have that excuse. Many of them are hateful and aggressive as a way of life and love spreading it around. What is their excuse for threatening the lives of liberals as often as they do? - a liberal might give them HEALTH CARE? Yeah I guess that's a killing offense.
But anyway if you haven't noticed any threatening posts by Freepers, obviously, you're not looking for them - and that must be a full-time job. Either that or you agree with the worst of them, in which case what's not to like?
Kudos to the Freepers for raising money for Katrina - puts them on par with the many liberal and bipartisan groups doing the same. It should be a group effort.
Now if they'd stop supporting torture, religious discrimination and intrusive anti-Constitutional government policies as well, maybe they'd lose their dumb-butt reputations.
This has been around a long time. sm
How and why someone would assemble WTC and the flight victims this way is beyond me. Oh well, to each his own, but I am thinking SOMEONE has a little too much time on their hands!
I don't think you can equate the two. (Long - sorry)
A tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency endangering the lives of both mother and embryo. Unfortunately, modern medicine does not yet provide any capacity to salvage the embryo, but the mother can be saved by removal of the blocked tube or removal of the embryo from the tube.
I've read articles describing nontubal ectopic intraabdominal pregnancies in which the embryo was able to implant near a blood-rich source such as the liver; in this rare instance, the fetus could be maintained long enough for successful delivery via laparotomy. If that were the case, I would certainly try to maintain the pregnancy for as long as possible to allow the fetus to reach viability. Interesting article here about an abdominal pregnancy not diagnosed until 38 weeks gestation - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_n1_v41/ai_8773331.
Just as a side note, the Catholic Church, which is officially staunchly anti-abortion despite the behavior of some of its members, makes an interesting distinction in terms of tubal pregnancies. It is considered morally licit - okay - to treat a tubal pregnancy with salpingectomy because the death of the embryo is considered an unfortunate side-effect but not the intent of the intervention, which is to remove the blocked section of tube to prevent rupture. The use of methotrexate to induce passage of the embryo, however, is considered illicit because this is considered to imply a direct intent to kill/abort the embryo. I've never been able to see a moral difference between the two, as the fetus cannot survive and either option saves the mother. Does anyone here believe one is more morally correct than the other?
marks the location of current message within thread
