|  |
|
| |
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/17/98 8:46:04 PM
# Replies: 61
(Caution: this message contains gratuitous profanity)
Friends, Romans, countrymen... give me your beers!
We are truly living in the most fucked-up time of all, er, time. Our President is being impeached. Yes, he stood there and wagged his finger at me and LIED to me... he said he DIDN'T get any pussy on the side when the facts clearly show that he DID. And he told a judge that there "is" no sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, when, in fact, time is clearly LINEAR, and there will ALWAYS be a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
Now, on the eve of the House vote on impeachment, conveniently, we're bitch-slapping Saddam Hussein again. Yes, he's a bad guy. He's done very bad things, and he's still in power. But I have to wonder if we haven't kept him there, in case of just such an emergency.
Two days ago I fired off an email to my House representative Bill Archer. I said, essentially, will you please STOP wasting our government's time going after MY president on this matter of lying about nookie. Today, two days later, after hearing high-ranking officials of foreign countries wondering aloud if this action against Iraq isn't motivated by a desire to delay the House impeachment process, I feel it would be in the best interest of our country AND the world if President Clinton would just resign.
Yes, I'll buy that this attack was actually planned for a month ago and called off at the last minute. Yes, Mr. Butler filed his report, and it was negative, and yes, on the surface, a swift response seems appropriate. But now I see that in the eyes of the world, our President... MY President... faces credibility issues as a result of his misdeeds. And *I* have reasonable doubts about the timing of this action myself, even as someone who thinks this nookie bullshit never should have been any of my business to begin with.
Oh, and I get home from work today and hear that the new Republican Speaker of the House has admitted to "several" instances of marital infidelity himself, but they're not the same as the President's, because he never had to testify about them under oath. Are we living in a time when the qualities most likely to get a person elected to a high-ranking political office are ALSO most likely to lead to flaws in moral character? Are all of our elected leaders destined to be fucked up? Should we maybe just get USED to it, or can we throw 'em all out and start from scratch? *I*'d run for President, but I’m afraid my *lack* of sex would be held against me.
And, to top it all off, I did laundry tonight, and I GAINED a sock. What the FUCK is WRONG with the world these days?
Response #1
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/18/98 8:06:39 AM
Here's what Clinton should do: he should address the nation at 7:00 pm this evening. He should be visibly upset. He should ramble from one unrelated topic to another as he speaks, and at some point he should refer to his dog as "Checkers." He should announce that prior to going on the air, he swore Al Gore into office, and he is certain that Gore will take good care of the country, and Hillary, and Chelsea. He should then begin to speak in tongues, twitch, foam at the mouth, and slam his hand down onto a big red button on his desk, which should sound a klaxson. At this precise moment the video feed from the White House should be cut, and replaced by a color bar test pattern.
This, I feel, is in the best interest of our country.
Response #2
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 12/18/98 5:02:49 PM
well let's face it, even ronald reagan the actor can't hold a candle to the entertainment value of bill 'the humidor' clinton
Response #3
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 12/19/98 3:16:55 AM
And its a game where even foreign countries can play along. Members of the lower house of the Russian Parliament put forth a resolution to ask Monica Lewinski to try to intercede with President Clinton and get him to call off the attacks on Iraq.
Those kRaZy Russians. I'm sure it was just a lark that didn't go anywhere, but still....
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #4
By: sooz
Date: 12/19/98 4:40:32 PM
I've notice that people who don't think lying about nookie in a sexual harassment case usually haven't been sexually harassed at work.
Suppose... just suppose you were sexually harassed at work. I dunno if Paula Da Ho was or not. But if you were, and it went to court, and the person who did it got off the hook because he lied about his penchant for doing young ladies that worked for him... wouldn't you call that perjury?
Response #5
By: sooz
Date: 12/19/98 8:37:33 PM
AND... mere MINUTES after the impeachment vote went through, Clinton called off the troops in Iraq.
Timing is everything.
Response #6
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/19/98 9:39:36 PM
Okay, I guess I'd pose the question that if you were married, and, say, the leader of the free world, and you were on trial for a CRIME, would you feel it's relevant for the prosecution to ask you about every act of consensual sex they may have heard about, simply because sex is *kinda* like sexual harassment, in a way, kinda....
And while I used the phrase "lying about nookie," I don't actually concede that he did under oath. I don't *know* what he said in the Da Ho deposition, but from what I saw of his videotaped testimony before the Starr grand jury, he was very lawyerly, and seemed to be a very skilled tapdancer.
Response #7
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 12/19/98 10:15:17 PM
Da Sissop Sez:
-------------------------
And while I used the phrase "lying about nookie," I don't actually concede that he did under oath. I don't *know* what he said
in the Da Ho deposition, but from what I saw of his videotaped testimony before the Starr grand jury, he was very lawyerly,
and seemed to be a very skilled tapdancer.
-------------------------
For the sake of information, the following is a section from The President's deposition under oath in the Paula Jones trial on January 17th,1998:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?
A. No.
Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?
A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.
Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.
MR. BENNETT: I object because I don't know that he can remember.
JUDGE WRIGHT: Well, it's real short. He can I will permit the question and you may show the witness definition number one.
A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never
had an affair with her.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A more complete text of the Paula Jones deposition available at The Washington Post
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #8
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/19/98 11:56:12 PM
Well okay, it *kinda* *looks* like it *might* be a lie...
Response #9
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 12/20/98 11:51:17 AM
You all do realize that this whole thing is without purpose, don't you?
Okay, the President has been impeached. It goes to trial in the Senate where it has to pass by a 2/3rds vote. Anyone have any idea what the split in the Senate is between Republicans and Democrats? It's like 55/45. If the Republicans can vote partisan, can't the Democrats? And then the trial will be for naught. Oh, other than to show that all them Democrats are bad bad piddys. Don't vote for them Democrats cause they'll all have affairs and lie about it.
Oh, right, but it's about the lying and not about the sex, right? So, uhm, why is the new Speaker of the House resigning?
Response #10
By: sooz
Date: 12/20/98 1:23:50 PM
The speaker of the house is resigning 'cuz he Clinton quite and Gore gets run over by the train, he'll be the president.
But now we have no speaker, moving it the presidential duties (after Gore, of course) to 82-year-old Strom Thurmond. Hoo boy. But he doesn't look a day over 105.
Check your facts, Gowan. Folks aren't ALL voting along partisan lines. 3 Democrats bailed and voted FOR impeachment. What's to say the same (and more) can't happen in this next round of voting?
So, it's ok to lie to a judge if you can get a lot of people to agree that it wasn't an important lie, right?
Response #11
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 12/20/98 1:57:56 PM
Gowan Sez:
------------------------------
Oh, right, but it's about the lying and not about the sex, right? So, uhm, why is the new Speaker of the House resigning?
------------------------------
Well it goes almost without saying that any Republican who has any blemish on his past is going to be targeted by those in the Democratic Party who are out to settle the score over Clinton. Under those circumstances, the new Speaker's past becomes a very serious political liability to the Republican majority and would undermine his ability to lead the House. So, to save everyone the headache (including himself and his family I'm sure) he resigned. Of course it probably won't end here. I'm sure every Republican in the House is sitting uneasy as people out to get even for the impeachment go through their lives with a fine tooth comb. Of course I'm sure they knew that when they voted for impeachment, so I can respect them for that.
And yes it *IS* about lying, UNDER OATH, about sex. The UNDER OATH part is the key. If he hadn't lied, UNDER OATH, we wouldn't be here. Hell if he didn't keep playing these legal games about "well, technically I didn't lie, but I may have gave the wrong impression" we wouldn't be here! But he lied about *SEX*, so for some reason that makes it okay to break the law. Just because it was a lie about sex, to save his ass. Well then...that makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it.
I realize the notion that people have to take responsibilities for their own actions is kinda' unpopular these days. Afterall, nothing is EVER anyones FAULT. And even if it IS your fault, you're not supposed to EVERY have to really pay a price for it. That wouldn't be fair. "Sure, I was speeding officer. But how dare you single *ME* out to give a ticket to when there were at least a dozen other people speeding too! You're just singling me out! You've got a grudge against me! Besides, it's not like I did something REALLY bad like kill somebody or steal something. Even if I did *technically* break the law, so what? Everybody speeds!"
Give me a break.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #12
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/20/98 10:45:20 PM
Quoth the Sorc:
------------------------
Well it goes almost without saying that any Republican who has any blemish on his past is going to be targeted by those in the Democratic Party who are out to settle the score over Clinton.
------------------------
See, in my thinking, this kind of ongoing Hatfield vs. McCoy feuding has led us to where we are now. I sincerely believe with all my heart that Republicans were out to get Clinton on SOMETHING... ANYTHING... and this was fueled and intensified by their frustration over repeated failures to have any charges stick. People who didn't like Bill Clinton didn't just "dislike" him, they hated him with a passion, that draft-dodging, dope-smoking, womanizing, shady-dealing murderer of Vince Foster.... Talk radio was a really scary place there for a while.
So I suppose that's why I was inclined to forgive the lying under oath about consensual sex. Mitigating circumstances. Folks with their own independent Get-Clinton agendas (Lucianne Goldberg, Ken Starr, et al) intervened in the Paula Jones case for, in effect, an ambush.
Response #13
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 12/21/98 7:55:33 AM
"Well it goes almost without saying that any Republican who has any blemish on his past is going to be targeted by those in
the Democratic Party who are out to settle the score over Clinton."
--Sorc
Henry Hyde, who's running the impeachment hearings, admitted to an affair, yet remained mysteriously untouched by any real attacks from democrats or the media.
Response #14
By: sooz
Date: 12/21/98 1:29:14 PM
HELLO? Anyone home? Having sex isn't illegal. The lying under oath was illegal. No one's going after Henry Hyde or the ex-speaker for affairs, because they didn't do anything illegal.
I'm with Sorc'. Personal responsibility is the key. That third grade mentality of "Yeah, but HE did THIS!" as a defense doesn't work.
If we say THIS lying under oath is ok, what follows, logically? Everyone that's in jail for perjury (or ever perjures themselves in the future) gets to yell that we have a LEGAL PRECEDENT that certain lying in court is ok.
Why do the "truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth" oath if you have no intention of doing just that? Why not swear to an adapted oath, like "the truth as I believe it relates to this case"?
Clinton could have saved all this trouble by doing the unthinkable: Being honest.
Response #15
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 12/21/98 9:21:53 PM
Jimbo Sayeth:
---------------------------
See, in my thinking, this kind of ongoing Hatfield vs. McCoy feuding has led us to where we are now. I sincerely believe with all
my heart that Republicans were out to get Clinton on SOMETHING... ANYTHING... and this was fueled and intensified by
their frustration over repeated failures to have any charges stick. People who didn't like Bill Clinton didn't just "dislike" him, they
hated him with a passion, that draft-dodging, dope-smoking, womanizing, shady-dealing murderer of Vince Foster.... Talk
radio was a really scary place there for a while.
---------------------------
Sure, there were certainly some Republicans who were just unable to stand the idea that Clinton was in the White House, and were just drooling over any chance that he would fuck-up. I, however, don't think it was something you could ascribe to Republicans overall. This President has actually been pretty good for the Republicans. They were able to get Clinton to buy into alot of their economic and other programs. This ensuring that Democratic opposition in Congress would be lighter than if you had a Republican President. A Republican President and a Republican majority in Congress would mean a united Democrat opposition, making getting their bills through alot harder.
But, while what you've said is somewhat true IMHO, it's not like this is the first time this kinda' stuff has been that way. The difference is that it's the Democratic president this time. From where I sat, the vicious hatered of Reagan by a good many of the "Left of Center" and segments of the Democratic party was just as mean-spirited and vicious. There were (still are) some people who almost seem to vibrate with hate, anger and indignation at the mention of Ronald Reagan and the 80's. I remember because I spent long hours arguing against this sort of Rhetoric on the Old Nunnery, Curiosity Shoppe, etc....
Jimbo also Sez:
-------------------
So I suppose that's why I was inclined to forgive the lying under oath about consensual sex. Mitigating circumstances. Folks
with their own independent Get-Clinton agendas (Lucianne Goldberg, Ken Starr, et al) intervened in the Paula Jones case for,
in effect, an ambush.
-------------------
There are five main reasons I find it hard to forgive the lying under oath. 1) If he lied to the court about his fling with Monica, then what about when he said he didn't sexually harass Paula Jones, and all the other women. 2)If he lied in court about having sex, then what about the when he said he and Jordan didn't tamper with witnesses or try to conceal evidence in the Jones case? 3)He lied to his friends and White House staff and advisors who were going out and speaking up for him and his integrity. Making them look like total chumps. 4)His arrogance in continuing the lie with the almost "How dare you question my integrity" attitude. 5)The fact that he does all this just to save his ass and cover-up his screwup, at the expense of the nation. He's had the chance for quite awhile to come clean on this and end it. But he'd rather muddy the water with coutner accusations and lie to his staff and advisors and throw them out to the wolves rather than come clean and say "Ok...I'm a Horndog and I fucked up." THEN I could at least still respect the man for having some sense of honor, loyalty, or sense of responsibility. Even assuming some grand Right Wing Conspiracy spending ungodly amount of money, around the clock, to find dirt on the guy. His handling of this whole affair has shown (IMHO) a lack on honor and integrity on his part and a selfish desire to do anything to save his ass.
Again...all comes back to...PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY....
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #16
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 12/21/98 9:36:49 PM
Sooz Sez:
-------------------
Check your facts, Gowan. Folks aren't ALL voting along partisan lines. 3 Democrats bailed and voted FOR impeachment.
What's to say the same (and more) can't happen in this next round of voting?
-------------------
It's also worth noting that at least three leading Democratic Senators, formerly strong Clinton supporters, have spoken very harshly about Clinton's acts and called for him to resign. (Senators Byrd, Moynahan, and Kerry).
The Senate is also usually less partisan than the House. The side effect of usually having been in "The Guvment Biz" longer and only having to stand for re-election every 6 years.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #17
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 12/25/98 4:28:59 AM
I'm glad to see all this happen. In other times and places, there would have just been a military coup early in the first term, and that would have been that.
Response #18
By: Da Sissop
Date: 12/25/98 7:28:50 AM
THAT's what we're missing. We should organize a coup.
We should forcibly insert a leader we can trust. Someone who speaks for the common man, and the really hot woman.
I shall be that leader.
Response #19
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 12/25/98 4:25:27 PM
On a side note, I have to wonder what the National Organization of Peach Growers thinks of all this impeachment talk.
Is an impeachment good or bad for buisness? Instead of the California Raisins, will we see the Arkansas Peaches? Will they smoke cigars?
Response #20
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 12/26/98 2:27:25 PM
Homer Sez:
--------------------
I'm glad to see all this happen. In other times and places, there would have just been a military coup early in the first term, and
that would have been that.
--------------------
And you know, thats the one cool thing about this whole sorrowful mess. In the end, the system still holds together. No coup, no civil war, no fighting in the streets. The Constitutional process and the rule of law prevails.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #21
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/3/99 2:46:03 AM
...sort of.
:-)
Response #22
By: Da Sissop
Date: 1/19/99 6:47:14 PM
I got my reply from my Congressman today....
Dear Jim:
Thank you very much for your E-mail message.
I noted your opposition to the impeachment of the President of the United States. I understand how strongly you feel and I hope you will give me the opportunity to explain the reasons behind my vote for impeachment.
The House Committee on the judiciary reported out four articles of impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. Based on the evidence, I voted to impeach the 42nd President of the United States. As a Congressman, my most basic duty is not to win elections, advance issues or even pass legislation. It is to defend the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution, I believe, would have been fundamentally undermined if we had now set a precedent that a President may break the law.
Frankly, I believe the House has no choice but to impeach. As Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley testified to the Judiciary Committee:
"When there is compelling evidence of criminal acts in the Chief Executive, an entire system of laws is undermined and demands some form of corrective action....The Allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, the President may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only on the company of all three branches of government in the well of the Senate." (Emphasis added.)In other words, the Founding Fathers did not empower the three co-equal branches of federal government to scold and chastise one another. Instead, their Constitution provides but one option for errant Presidents: impeachment.
A President of the United States stands accused of a series of knowing criminal acts in office, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of office. There is strong evidence, assembled by federal prosecutors and distilled this month by the House Judiciary Committee which was never refuted by the President's lawyers, that he took an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," and then he lied and lied repeatedly to a federal grand jury. There is therefore strong reason to believe the President has committed crimes; indeed, federal crimes, for which you or I could be sent to jail.
If the House had decided that this matter did not warrant a Senate trial, we would be establishing an extremely dangerous precedent: As long as a President is popular and the economy is doing well, he can commit major crimes, remain in office for years, exercise vast power and, likely, escape criminal prosecution of any kind. The House will have found, in effect, that the President is above the law. Our nation of laws may now be led by a leader who breaks those laws.
The Constitution is not some abstract ideal that is removed from everyday life. It is the foundation of the rule of law. In fact, the rule of law is what separates this nation from so many other nations around the world, making us a beacon of hope and freedom. The rule of law -- not of men -- is what distinguishes a democracy from a dictatorship. The rule of law requires one standard for both the rulers and the ruled. When someone testifies in court to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," there is no ambiguity in that oath. It doesn't come with loopholes for the rich, the powerful, the popular or the President. It doesn't have exceptions for embarrassing matters, nor does it apply to only "big things." There must be one standard for all.
Again, think of the situation if we had failed to impeach: The highest official in the country lies to a civil court, then lies to the public, then lies to a grand jury, then lies about lying, even explaining his technique for lying ("it depends on what the meaning of the word is is") before finally lying to the impeachment inquiry itself. And what's the reaction? The one authority in the land capable of holding him accountable -- namely, the House -- would have greeted all this, if we are to govern now by the opinion polls, in effect, with an indifferent shrug.
The fact that the President's lying is so transparent makes it uniquely corrupting. If the President had lied about something in which the facts were genuinely in dispute, those who stand with him could do so with an easy conscience -- because they believe him to be telling the truth. But in this case, with the President sticking by his story and continuing to deny his perjury -- all those who wish to support him are forced to accept an obvious lie. They're forced to reason: "We know he lied, but we don't want him impeached, therfore we need to convince ourselves that the lie wasn't real or important."
While the Senate may decide not to remove the President for a variety of reasons, the House must not falter in maintaining a bright line for Presidential misconduct. By doing nothing or enacting a meaningless censure against Mr. Clinton, the House would have endorsed a lower standard for our leaders and our country, for all time.
I served in the House when President Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment could be debated and voted. I had hoped to serve out the remainder of my term representing Texas' 7th District without ever having to cast a vote for Articles of Impeachment. I had hoped to spend this term focused on the goals I came to Congress to achieve: Social Security reform, cutting taxes and downsizing the power of Washington by eliminating unnecessary government spending.
With best regards,
Bill Archer
Member of Congress
Response #23
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/20/99 6:52:23 AM
Cool!
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #24
By: Da Sissop
Date: 1/31/99 10:29:45 PM
Latest developments: After several closed-door deliberations, the Senators, most sporting woodies in pup-tents, realize that they have it within their power to summon the HOTT SEXX-STARVED INTERN into their chambers. Oh they're not sure yet if We the People have any need to witness the testimony, but it will undoubtedly help them reach their decisions in their FUTURE closed-door deliberations.
I predict that after a fierce closed-door deliberation, the republicans will vote to show the tapes to the public over the objection of the democrats. Then it will be determined that Ms. Lewinsky should appear before the Senate LIVE and UNCENSORED so that we can all get a thrill (and they get live, gavel-to-gavel TV coverage and the rapt attention of the nation).
I'll bet a beverage at the Ale House. Any takers?
Response #25
By: sooz
Date: 2/1/99 8:21:43 PM
I would, Fang, but I'm on your side. THat's precisely what will happen, and the previously silent intern (except for those phone conversation clips) will have folks hanging on the edge of their seats.
Response #26
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 2/2/99 8:05:05 PM
Here's a funny bit of ironic news....
It seems there is this married Air Force (or maybe Navy) officer who was caught having an affair a bit ago with a subordinate. He wasn't allowed to retire from the service, and is facing a Court Martial for "conduct unbecoming", "fraternizing", "perjury", and "conspiracy to commit perjury" (he and the woman agreed to lie to investigators) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and faces a maximum of 20 years in Federal prison.
It appears that Pres. Clinton and his defense council used the argrument in the Paula Jones case that the President was granted a degree of protection from prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Maritime Regulations because he is the Commander-in-Chief.
It should be noted that the woman bomber pilot who faced similar charges a few years ago because of her affair was given the choice to resign or face court martial.
Sorc'(Rev)
Oh...I think that some edited bits of Monica's videotaped comments might be shown, but I don't think you'll see her brought before the full Senate *LIVE AND IN COLOR*.
Response #27
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 3/24/99 11:23:07 PM
Considering recent events I figured it apt to once again activate the "The Great Satan Strikes Again" message thread.
Err...if this had been a real post...you would have been instructed about something-or-other...yada yada yada....
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #28
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 3/28/99 11:09:20 PM
Damn! It sure has gotten pretty quiet around here lately....
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #29
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/1/99 2:34:02 AM
We're all busy moving to Canada.
Response #30
By: Ralf
Date: 4/1/99 10:25:25 PM
My outrage reflex is kinda worn out.
Response #31
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/2/99 12:33:18 AM
Homer Sez:
===================================
We're all busy moving to Canada.
===================================
Won't matter. Canada's involved too.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #32
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/2/99 9:34:25 AM
Slobodan. That's a funny name. Slobodan, Slobodan, Slobodan.
Response #33
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/2/99 7:13:03 PM
Bet all the other Serb kids made fun of him in school. "Oh yeah!? Well you just wait, one day I'm gonna be president and then I'll show you!"
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #34
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/2/99 10:19:48 PM
I always hear the voice of Curly, the greatest stooge, saying something like "Nnnnnyeah, so I hear we're bombing the soybeans!"
---------
Spam I had in my mailbox today:
LETTER TO STUDENTS WORLDWIDE
Dear colleges,
At this moment, while we write this letter, they are bombing us and we are hiding in basements, watching our dead and wounded friends. They demolished our schools and hospitals.
We are association of Belgrade students, fighting for equality of all people. A drama happened to Serbia and FR Yugoslavia, motivating us to address to You and all people of good will in the world. Every nation and state, no matter how many people counts and how big country is, has it’s own identity, culture and history. World-leading countries are obligated to protect these values. Doing that, leading country will remain great not as leaders of civilization and progress in the world. In other way, it’s a case of pure fascism and repression over other nations. As young people, our wish is to live in peace as citizens of the world.
Please, visit our web site www.barw.org.yu and look at contents, democratic issue and political message of AGREEMENT FOR SELF-GOVERNANCE IN KOSMET, which exposed in Paris by our delegation headed by our professor Ratko Markovic. We don’t ask You to condemn or defend somebody but we ask You to search the truth and honestly pass it throw. That will confirmed your intellectual honor and democratic dignity.
Pay attention on manipulation made by some media. Read our letter, read proposed agreement and as people who want peace, equality and freedom, and think is national minority in any democratic country have wider autonomy than offered one by our delegation in Paris. Shameless liars from NATO and some government had hidden the truth about peace negotiations in France from their own people.
Agreement signed in Paris by Albanian terrorists and members of NATO. Such agreement is unknown for International Law, and ironically it predict secession of southern Serbian province from Serbia and FR Yugoslavia. Imagine what would happen with Europe if that model would apply on whole continent!
These days, Serbia is presented as aggressor as our people are killed and our goods are destroyed. We remind You, suppose You as intellectual know, that Serbia never was aggressor. A contrary. On Kosovo, 1389, Serbs defend whole Europe from Osman Empire. Back to 1914, Serbia was attacked by Austro-Hungarian Empire, at 1941 Hitler’s Third Reich and at 1948 only Serbia opposed to Stalin. Now, NATO attacks us. Throw all history, we never asked for price of freedom and at the end we always won. Young people in Serbia don’t want war and blood, but peace and life together with all people in the world.
For all reasons, we ask that truth about us, about Kosovo and Metohia, about talks and agreements from France became part of Your conches.
We are apologies to You, if our message upset You, but please understand that we are also sad and unhappy about unwanted situation in our country.
Please send Your comments and thoughts to editors@barw.org.yu.
Sincerely Yours,
Belgrade Academic Association for Equal Rights in the World
Response #35
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/3/99 6:38:11 AM
Heh...heh.... SPAM War Propaganda! Who would have imagined.
I guess we'd be seeing a Kosovar counterSPAM soon to follow, but it's a little hard to run a website from a refugee camp.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #36
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/3/99 9:39:28 AM
Well guess what... I'm getting followup spam now:
----------
From: bam@flatland.dimensional.com To: editors@barw.org.yu Cc: peac11p4@barw.org.yu Subject: Re: LETTER TO STUDENTS WORLDWIDE Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:35:16 -0700 (MST) Sender: bam@dimensional.com
Please do not send me unsolicited mail again; I do not wish to recieve mail from a nation engaged in genocide.
Saying there are Abanian terrorists is no excuse for genocide against the residents of Kosovo.
It was a mistake to do what you did. NATO will make you regret it. We were too slow to act to prevent your genocide Bosnians.
--Ben Mesander
Response #37
By: rorschach
Date: 4/3/99 4:01:17 PM
ya know, like great fuck-ups before him ( LBJ and Ol george W's daddy comes to mind...), Ol' bill has stepped on his crank YET AGAIN! NATO is attempting to do the right thing but is tripping over it's crank so badly in doing it there has to be some major bonehead in charge cuz THAT many people couldn't come up with that fucked up a plan.... it has to be just one bozo.... YOU CANNOT BOMB PEOPLE TO THE PEACE TABLE! Did we learn nothing from linebacker I and II? YOU CANNOT HOLD OR CONTROL TERRITORY WITHOUT WARM BODIES ON THE GROUND! Did we learn nothing from Berlin or London? By coming out and saying from day one that we will not send in ground forces we have basically said just hole up in the bunkers, scatter your weapons and personell and just wait it out, eventually we'll get tired of it and go away.....WRONG MESSAGE. Nato is doing the right thing (or rather TRYING given the political limitations involved) because:
A:) This part of the world is rife with the seeds of civil war and have enough clout to drag the rest of europe into it.
B:) a SHITLOAD of US money is tied up in the area in the way of oil company money (yes, like kham ron bay in vietnam)
Response #38
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/4/99 6:59:46 PM
ror sez: >>A:) This part of the world is rife with the seeds of civil war and have enough clout to drag the rest of europe into it.<<
Uhm, yah. Exactly. That's why this is all happening to begin with.
The US is already universally reviled. It's better politically for our allies if we're the ones doing the hatchet-man job. Kind of like in the Arab nations.
Response #39
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 4/5/99 4:26:46 PM
What I completely don't understand is, why does russia feel such sympathy for milosovic? I mean, it's one thing to feel compassion for the slavs, it's another thing to feel compassion for the dictator of the slavs.
Response #40
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/5/99 6:58:56 PM
7o7 Sez:
=====================================
What I completely don't understand is, why does russia feel such sympathy for milosovic? I mean, it's one thing to
feel compassion for the slavs, it's another thing to feel compassion for the dictator of the slavs.
=====================================
The Serbs appear to be behind Molosovich right now, so Mo and the Serbian people are one-and-the-same from a diplomatic standpoint. That being said, you've got to remember there's alot of problems in Russia right now and its coming up on election time again. Ultra-Nationalists have been anti-west / anti-US for quite a while and gives them something to stump on. Russian national pride has been greatly wounded by the collapse of the old Soviet Union. "In the old days" NATO wouldn't have even considered any sort of military action like this in Europe for fear of upsetting the Soviets. Now? NATO is bombing the crap out of one of their former close Soviet allies right in Russia's backyard with barely an acknowledgement of Russia's existance.
This IMHO is a VERY bad thing. I think the US should make it a point to keep Russia involved in a very highly visible way in clearing up this mess. Hell, float the idea to have Russian troops be the bulk of the peacekeeping force (instead of NATO) to provide security for the Kosovars and see if Molosovich can balk at that! Whatever we do, we shouldn't publically humiliate Russia by acting like they don't matter or saying they won't do anything to endanger their financial aid.
The Ultra-Nationalists are playing this for all they're worth. "You See!! We TOLD you the US/NATO/WEST couldn't be trusted! We told you they don't respect us anymore! They helped destroy our country so they can make us puppets!" CNN reported a poll of Russian citizens this weekend where 60% the people believed that Russia was likely to be the next target of NATO. This is nuts, but it creates a sort of Circle The Wagons mentality such that "if NATO is against Molosovich...we must support him."
Oh yeah, CNN and MSNBC reported that the two official State run TV stations in Russia have been broadcasting the same pictures of refugees from Kosovo and the like that we see here, but their reporting is that the Refugees are running from the NATO bombing, not Molosovich's military and the para-military "Tiger Brigades."
Like I said, it's election time, so everybody is trying to stir up public support too.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #41
By: sooz
Date: 4/9/99 1:30:49 PM
How do we know that the Russains aren't being told the correct stuff, and WE'RE being fed a long line of b.s.?
Response #42
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/9/99 2:56:53 PM
Well, if you want to go that route, there *IS* no *absolute* proof either way unless we go slogging over to Kosovo and ask the Kosovars directly why they are fleeing their homes and into Albania and Macedonia where NATO ground forces are stationed. Anything beyond that is purely opinion based on second-hand information from those sources we each choose, for our own personal reasons, to believe are being more truthful than not. Feel better?
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #43
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/10/99 9:35:30 AM
Kosovo snerd! Who'll drive?
Response #44
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/10/99 10:37:13 PM
My local video store has been having trouble keeping 'Wag The Dog' in stock.
Response #45
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/11/99 12:56:37 PM
Da Sissop Sez:
============================
Kosovo snerd! Who'll drive?
============================
Whoever drives, just remember that your insurance has a clause against paying for damage cause by civil war, politcal unrest, and nuclear attack. So I think the best choice here is obvious. Rental Car!
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #46
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/11/99 1:00:18 PM
Homer Sez:
==========================
My local video store has been having trouble keeping 'Wag The Dog' in stock.
==========================
Gee... I can't imagine why that is... :)
I remember seeing on CNN that Belgrade TV was running 'Wag The Dog' during the second night of attacks.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #47
By: sooz
Date: 4/11/99 3:02:37 PM
It was also big during the bombing of Saddam-land. Uh, Wag The Dog, that is.
Response #48
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/11/99 11:29:53 PM
Uh, what exactly would we need a "Wag the Dog" type distraction from right now? Democrats don't want anyone to know that Clinton was cleared?
Response #49
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/12/99 12:59:27 AM
Gowan Sez:
===================================
Uh, what exactly would we need a "Wag the Dog" type distraction from right now? Democrats don't want anyone to
know that Clinton was cleared?
===================================
I think it's more a statement of general cynicism than anything in particular.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #50
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/12/99 4:21:50 AM
The real life war is in Kosovo. The movie war is in Albania.
Response #51
By: sooz
Date: 4/12/99 8:13:25 AM
Clinton was cleared? Did someone use Windex on 'im?
Response #52
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/12/99 1:27:55 PM
Ralf: "My outrage reflex is kinda worn out."
Are you still using a chicken to measure it?
Response #53
By: Ralf
Date: 4/12/99 11:15:04 PM
Bada-boom. But seriously, folks.
Response #54
By: sooz
Date: 4/13/99 9:02:09 AM
Oh, Gowan, about that Clinton-being-cleared thing... it's all good except for that little contempt of court matter that just came up. Thank God that judge did SOMETHING about all that lyin' in the Paula Jones case.
Response #55
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 4/14/99 12:59:06 PM
so you know, even croatia is a no-travel zone now. keep them americans out, or wear your thickest serbian accent.
Response #56
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/15/99 7:28:10 AM
sooz: "How do we know that the Russains aren't being told the correct stuff, and WE'RE being fed a long line of b.s.?"
The voice of reason speaks!! :) Perception can be a real bitch cain't it sooz?
Ralf: "Bada-boom. But seriously, folks."
Thank you, and good night!
Response #57
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/16/99 2:56:25 PM
So, since this is National Show Stuff About The Holocaust On PBS Month, I keep seeing this one documentary shot by Russian soldiers, also with footage shot by the Nazi PR machine. It's called 'Memories of the Holocaust.'
Also showing: an excellent episode of Frontline about anti-semitism in the US at the time, which prevented many Jews, fleeing for their lives, from immigrating to the US.
The late 30s and 40s were a crazy, fucked-up time. I can't help but wonder how doomed we are to repeat history.
Response #58
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/18/99 8:00:20 PM
Yup, everything thats old is new again...even ethnic hate.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #59
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/18/99 9:23:45 PM
Unfortuntely,I missed when that got old. Wished it would get old enough to die off.
Response #60
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/19/99 9:41:12 PM
I've got a cool new term for you Homer. (Well, new to *ME* anyway.)
NATO announced that its Web server in Brussels had been under a
PING-of-death (Packet INternet Groper) attack from somewhere within Serbia. John Pike labeled it "a textbook example that will be cited from now on as a low-cost, high-value attack."
[Source: Serbia launches cyberattack on NATO, *Federal Computer Week*, 31 Mar 1999, by Daniel Verton (dan_verton@fcw.com);PGN-ed]
The ease with which such attacks and other denials of service can be perpetrated is one more reminder of the general flakiness of our information infrastructures, but then RISKS readers are probably the last to be surprised.
In a spy-vs-spy-style retaliation, various Internet denizens sent half a million e-mail bombs to www.gov.yu, the main Yugoslav Web site, before it shut down on 3 Apr 1999. There were also reports *The Boston Globe* of a U.S. group called Team Spl0it and European and Albanian penetrators changing Web sites. On the other hand, there are also reports of Russian hackers going after U.S. Navy Web sites.
[Source: E-Strikes and Cyber-Sabotage: Civilian Hackers Go Online to Fight. 15 Apr 1999, by Patrick Riley, http://www.foxnews.com/stage11.sml; PGN-ed from a cypherpunks item courtesy of Dave Farber
Riley cited some concerns that vigilante hacktivism might be misinterpreted as sanctioned government action. On the other hand, given the existing system and network flakiness, there might also be concern that what might seem to be vigilante hacktivism might actually be government sponsored! Perhaps future wars will be fought by our-hackers-vs-their-hackers in purely electronic warfare. It would save a lot in armaments, and would inspire greater system robustness that otherwise seems impossible to attain!
Response #61
By: rorschach
Date: 4/21/99 9:35:33 PM
ok lemme see if i can keep all my verious replys straight... ok, on the subject of who is getting the real poop on refugees.... while not positive proof (the lead in stories could have been fabricated but the current administration cant seen to think that far ahead so i kinda doubt it....) there were news reports of kosovo refugees showing up in macedonia and montenegro and albania and bosnia before the bombing began. the fact that the numbers are higher could be logically attributed to NATO bombing, after all would YOU want to live somewhere where 500 pounders regularly fall? I'd skeedattle in a heartbeat. nevermind that there are alot of pissed off serbians wandering around with AK's and a bad attitude towards thier fellow man... as far as the Holocaust thing goes.... people seem to forget that both world wars started in this region. and that in the late 30's the allied forces knew of the millions of jews staying nice and roasty toasy in those neat little furnaces that germany built just for thier use but did not publish the info to begin with in the hopes that they could remain politically neutral. we have at least broken two historical cycles with the current action. A:) we are actually doing SOMETHING (admittedly not what NEEDS to be done...) about the killing. B:) we acknowledged that the murder was taking place and realized that it wasn't going to stop until we stopped it ourselves. on the subject of the contempt of court charge, that won't stand up under appeal because the trial judge no longer has standing to issue it. He'll weasel on this one too...