Trent Lott

[david]

aaaaah..get out, prick!

 

[master bates]

ditto!

 

[Caleb's Bloody Bride]

> aaaaah..get out, prick!
He's gone! Not out of the Senate but in his leadership role.

 

[LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud]

> He's gone! Not out of the Senate but in his leadership role.

He should leave the f***ing senate.

 

[Notastitchtowear]

> He should leave the f***ing senate.

He has, but I'm sure he's not the only one that shares his beliefs.

 

[LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud]

> He has, but I'm sure he's not the only one that shares his beliefs.

No he hasn't left the senate. And now they're trying to say he was
"courageous" for stepping down as Senate Majority LEader. hahahaha!
All I saw was two weeks of pathetic bullshit from a jack ass.

 

[Caleb's Bloody Bride]

Re: Senator Patty Murray-did you see this LoafingOaf?

> No he hasn't left the senate. And now they're trying to say he was
> "courageous" for stepping down as Senate Majority LEader.
> hahahaha!
> All I saw was two weeks of pathetic bullshit from a jack ass.
Friday, December 20, 2002 - 02:41 p.m. Pacific

Sen. Murray asks students to ponder bin Laden’s popularity

The Associated Press

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search web archive

VANCOUVER, Wash. — Why is terrorist leader Osama bin Laden so popular in some parts of the world?
Perhaps, said Sen. Patty Murray, it’s because he and his supporters have spent years building goodwill in poor nations by helping pay for schools, roads and day-care facilities.

At an appearance before a high school honors class, Murray, D-Wash., offered what her spokesman called an intentionally provocative challenge for students to ponder.

"We’ve got to ask, why is this man (bin Laden) so popular around the world?" Murray asked during an appearance Wednesday at Columbia River High School. "Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?"

The answers may be uncomfortable, but are important for Americans to ponder — particularly students, Murray said.

"He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that," Murray said.

"How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?"

Chris Vance, chairman of the Washington state Republican Party, called Murray’s comments offensive.

"It is absolutely outrageous and despicable to imply that the American government should learn a lesson from the madman who murdered thousands of American citizens," Vance said. "I know Senator Murray has a habit of sticking her foot in her mouth, but this goes way beyond a simple gaffe."

Murray’s comments "sent the message to these students that the United States somehow deserved or brought on the September 11 terrorist attacks," Vance said. "I think all decent people can agree that we most certainly did not, that this was an unprovoked attack of terrorism."

Vance called on Murray to retract her comments and apologize.

An expert on terrorism, who co-wrote a book profiling bin Laden and al-Qaida, said Murray’s comments, published yesterday in The Columbian newspaper, were mostly on the mark.

"That’s kind of a generalization, but mostly accurate," Michael Swetnam, chairman of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Va., said yesterday.

Since about 1988, bin Laden, believed to be the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, has been on a mission to build schools, roads and even homes for widows of those killed in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Swetnam said.

There is even a rumor that bin Laden helped build an Afghani orphanage, although Swetnam said he has been unable to confirm that.

"Mostly he did underwrite — and so did many Arab charities — several fundamentalist Muslim schools throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan that teach a very, very, fundamentalist, right-wing version of Islam that preaches hatred for the West," Swetnam said.

Bin Laden’s version of Islam tells Muslims that "people in the West are trying to attack your religion (and) oppress you, and the only way to fight that is to rise up against the United States and its crusader buddies, Israel and Europe," Swetnam said.

Murray, in her remarks to students, said she doesn’t know where she comes down on the question of whether to try to counter bin Laden. Building infrastructure in Third World countries would "cost a lot of money, and we have schools here and health care facilities here that are really hurting," Murray said.

"War is expensive, too," she told the students. "Your generation ought to be thinking about whether we should be better neighbors out in other countries so that they have a different vision of us. It is a debate I think we ought to have."

Murray, the state’s senior senator, supported sending U.S. troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida. But she was among 23 senators who voted against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force in confronting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The state’s junior senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, voted for the resolution.

Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company

More local news headlines

Read the Rev. Dale Turner's columns online or order your copy today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SeattleAreaHomes.com
Search For Homes. Free Professional Assistance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[david]

> He should leave the f***ing senate.

he should leave the f***ing planet..these days its so "cool" and "brave" to make racist remarks confident in the knowledge that many racists support you. Well, Trent, its not. And you are a loser.

 

[LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud]

Re: Senator Patty Murray-did you see this LoafingOaf?

Um, ah, what is your point in this posting????

Senator Murray is obviously the dumbest bitch in the world.

Usama building schools????? LOLOLOL!!!!!! Yeah, um, freakazoid Islamic terrosist schools!!!

Are you trying to make me puke here, or what????

As far as Saddam, I saw Hans Blix was rather upset about Saddam's declaration.
Now, ahh.....is Hans in on the big conspiracy theory I've seen posted around here??????

Anyway, if we're posting articles again, I liked this one, from the Slate.com, the other day......

========
Multilateralism and Unilateralism
A self-canceling complaint.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 11:48 AM PT

I recently had a debate on The Charlie Rose Show with, among others, Professor Harold Koh. The subject was regime change in Iraq and the related question of intervention in its favor. (If the name Harold Koh is unfamiliar to you, it is because he was President Clinton's undersecretary for human rights.) In the course of the exchanges between us, he must have pronounced the words "multilateral" or "multilateralism" several dozen times. Whoever taught him these terms did a thorough job. He could fit them into any sentence at any time. If he will allow me to summarize his view (and the transcript would bear me out here), Professor Koh had nothing much against regime change or indeed against intervention, so long as it was brought about in a "multilateral" manner.

One could have stooped, of course, and been "partisan." The Clinton administration, served by Koh, allowed itself to bomb Sudan without demanding inspections, without resorting to the United Nations, without consulting Congress, and without even telling several of the Joint Chiefs. The same administration bombed Baghdad from the day that the impeachment trial of the president began until the day that the trial was over, again without troubling to pass any of the above tests. In another episode, Madeleine Albright was instructed to veto a Czech motion calling for strengthening U.N. forces in Rwanda to "pre-empt" the genocidal plan prepared by Rwanda's racist government.

But let us rise above such petty temptations. If the United States had supported the Czech proposal, then that proposal would have automatically ceased to be unilateral and become, just like that, bilateral or (since bilateral carries the implication of two contrasting parties) well on its way to becoming multilateral. That's if you agree to forget that multilateral means "many-sided," whereas the recruitment of more nations or forces to any one "side" means that the cause may remain "one-sided" but has at least succeeded in attracting multiparty or multiple-country support.

Tautology lurks here. In October, I went to speak at a meeting at the Labor Party conference in Blackpool, England. Tony Blair had carried the day in the plenary session, but many delegates were muttering darkly about the "unilateral" or "go-it-alone" attitude of the United States. I suggested that, if this was indeed the problem, the solution was ready at hand. Simply support the U.S. position against the Iraqi or Russian or French one and—presto—the U.S. position would no longer be "unilateral." I was promptly made aware of what I already knew—that the true objection to the policy has little to do with its "unilateral" character.

The supporters of German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder were the next to make the same mistake. Of course, they said, something must be done about Iraq. But how can America expect to do this without European support? A good question, but posed by people who would not stay for the answer. The most dada version of the dilemma was stated by Sen. Tom Daschle, who for weeks appeared to say that if only more people would endorse the president's policy, why then, he might be induced to support it himself! But in the meanwhile, he could only frown upon anything "unilateral."

This self-canceling complaint echoes the non-distinction on Capitol Hill between the terms "partisan" and "bipartisan." A proposal is partisan if made by one party, but becomes "bipartisan" (while remaining exactly the same as a proposal) if it is endorsed by enough members of the other party. There's no trick to it really. It's all a matter of wooing rather than principle.

Thus, the United Nations is now committed—multilaterally if not unanimously—to an inspection program backed by the threat of force, which had to originate somewhere and was actually put forward—therefore "unilaterally" by definition—by the American team. But does that stop anyone from persisting in saying that the implied other shoe of enforcement must not be "unilateral" either? Apparently it does not. Thus, an accusation of "unilateral" behavior can be made to stick, almost by axiom, by any power that withholds consent. When that consent is eventually given, the prize of "multilateralism" has been attained, again by definition. But the charge of acting "unilaterally" may not, for some reason, be laid against (say) France.

There are diminishing returns to this false antithesis. And they partly arise from the sad fact of its being a false definition in the first place. The American attitude toward the Middle East could well be "one-sided" and still enjoy or attract wide support from other countries. A majority can in theory and practice act one-sidedly, just as a single state may have more respect for pluralism than a dozen rival states put together.

This also raises the related question of how decisions are actually made. The Syrian vote on the crucial U.N. resolution was not a fragment or component of another country's vote. It was a decision made, at least to all outward purposes, by Syria alone and for reasons congruent with Syrian interests. And this is Syria's perfect right. What could be more "unilateral" than that? But the vote happened to coincide with the expressed views of 14 other delegations, which gave it a nice "multilateral" feel. Yet the Iraqi delegation, for some reason, has been flagrantly in breach of a number of overwhelmingly passed resolutions for more than a decade. And yet one never seems to read any well-reasoned denunciation of this "unilateralist" attitude on the part of Baghdad. Add another clause to the regime-change manifesto: Intervention will put an end to Saddam Hussein's unilateralism.

Part of my intention in writing this has been to make the reader thoroughly sick of both terms and the empty usage to which they have been put. Are you sick yet? I predict that you soon will be.
=========

 

[suzanne]

Re: Senator Patty Murray-did you see this LoafingOaf?

yeah but who would you like better? someone who shows up to blow up you and your friends or someone who gives you money?

 

[LoafingOaf - The Official Online Stud]

Re: Senator Patty Murray-did you see this LoafingOaf?

> yeah but who would you like better? someone who shows up to blow up you
> and your friends or someone who gives you money?

I think Usama bin Laden and the United States have both blown a lot of things up and thrown a lot of money around. It's a question of what they're targetting for money and what they're targetting for destruction. Usama only gives money to efforts which support worldwide terrorism and fascist fundamentalism. And Usama specifically targets innocent people for death.

Now, in Afghanistan, the international coalition, including the USA, is pumping tons of money (but perhaps still too little) into genuinely humanitarian efforts there. And when the international coalition, including the USA, was blowing up things last year, they carefully tried to target only the common enemy of that coalition and of the Afghan people.

Anyway, I'll give that dopey senator a chance to ammend her comments on a second thought before I completely condemn her. She was probably just trying to say something interesting and forgot to turn on her brain. The Afghan people were on the brink of mass starvation when Usama was the welcomed guest of the Taliban enslavers.

 

[CoughingRough - The official online Slut]

Re: Senator Patty Murray-did you see this LoafingOaf?

Hell I'm not a fanatic.

Other people can have ideas as well.

But they are all wrong.