Thank you for writing this heartfelt article, Linda. Welcome to Canada! You are one more person to help us try to promote humane and democratic values against the burgeoning corporate state and we value you.

WE just watched a American Citizen telling us that he watched George Bush admit there was no connection between Iraq and the guys who destroyed the twin towers in New York. His son was killed in the Iraq war. He stated that he had always supported the President but now knows him to be a liar. The guy was devastated. lots of US citizens don't believe George anymore. The new York Times had a article today, Chaney can no longer say what he wants as people are questioning him. Politicians that lie their country into a war and now are trying to keep control in the upcoming mid term elections should be chucked out of office.

ABC is showing their much ( Democrat ) disputed program on 911. Many disclaimers, over and over and over.
Where is the ACLU on this one?
Censorship by a political party? I am suspicious. It can't be this easy to score points against liberals, can it?
This MSM stuff is refreshing.
Watch out for the Democratic Google Bomb on Monday. I know that inaction by the administration in 1990's was a factor.

And what, or whom is your authority Ron?

Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh

Thanks Linda for a first-person reminder of that terrible day. It is at times hard to remember how shocking the 9/11 attacks were but it is powerful to hear from someone who was there.

It is also a strong reminder of the various forces of evil at work in our world.

- Bill Tieleman

Alci' did you watch it? It was incredibale, I never expected MSM to put out such a reasoned depiction of those times.
Or is it science fiction?

No. I read Joe Conasen in Salon and then decided I'd give it a pass. Reasoned? When the stuff from the Clinton era is all invented, I don't think so!

Thank you Linda for this first class piece, I shall be using it to help convince other Americans to shake off their lethargy and either depart or resist more at home.

Re: 9/11 et al...

Anyone catch the cornucopia of 9/11 related stories on TV last night ???

CBC had the 2 hour " SECRET HISTORY of 9/11." Good background

Followed by " 9/11: THE TOXIC LEGACY " The toxic chemical aftermath and the medical effects on NYC citizens, especially emergency workers...

PBS had " THE ROAD TO 9/11 " . This one was very good...explaining the Middle East regions history and the various political factions that arose in the 20 th Century and why.

NEWSWORLD had " WHY WE FIGHT " re: the Military Industrial Complex

If one was rather adept at channel surfing and the remotes' batteries held out....quite an immersion course on the path that led to 9/11. Fascinating connect- the -dots history....with all the shows quite interconnected even if on different networks.

Seems all these aforementioned stories point to what happpened was so predictable that Bin Laden etc may as well have rented a billboard advertising it all at NYC's Times Square.

Seems Clinton and Co. had good intelligence sources aka advice to deal with the problem early...but advisors were blown off.

Classic : When about 50 Americans were killed globally via terrorist attacks at that point within a decade ... and an advisor was trying to hint "the problem" should be taken out...some others in Gov't blew a high ranking official off saying that every long weekend about 50 Americans get killed and not to get overly excited about it . Huh???

ALSO: All the U.S. Middles East policy flip flopping ie Saddams our ally vs Iran ....now Saddams our enemy re Kuwait ....Bin Laden's our ally in(Afghanistan)vs Russia.... now our enemy. Hard to keep score.

All told, it seems Clinton and Co. let the fire burn and had the best early- intervention opportunity to put it out. By the time Bush vs Gore was finished counting the "dangling chads" in the 2000 election ...Bush was in office for less than a year... when 9/11 happened.

Regardless, if you get a chance,I recommend to catch these shows if they repeat.

Wasn't it fascinating, when they said that there were a million people marching in Teheran in sympathy with the U.S.A., the day after "9/11"?

That, in fact, "the whole world" had stood in sympathy (not quite true, but I get the point)?

And to think that the Forces of Evil within the U.S.A. still managed to turn all that goodwill into more hatred?

Frankly, I think there's something sick about the way the U.S. keeps revisiting their so-called Ground Zero ... much as they revisit JonBenet's murder ... and O.J. Simpson's trial ... did they ever show that kind of empathy for the British during the Battle of Britain? For the Jews of Nazi Germany? For Rwanda? For the poor souls in Iraq?

Only one U.S. anniversary program seem respectful and constructive: the young widow and now-single Mom whose determined quest is to drag the truth out of the George W. Bush administration.

She was interviewed by Larry King. She didn't blubber. She didn't tear her hair or show photos of her now-fatherless kids. She just kept her chin up ... and kept asking the hard questions ... explaining that her kids themselves would need the truth if they were to have a healthy future. There were others like her, too. Thank goodness. That's the kind of U.S.A. I'd like to see again.

Until then, no more callous manipulations goading the viewers into wanting to fight, fight, fight whatever, whoever, whenever, if the U.S. Commander-in-Chief said Go, they'd GO ... just like that poor disillusioned ex-NY cop said.

Right blame Clinton for the fact that Bush hesitated to make an appearance on 9/11
Blame clinton for the fact that it took forever for Bush to get an enquiry set up, and refused to fund it properly.
Strange nobody has blamed the NDP yet!

BCMary
send me an email if you have a moment

"All told, it seems Clinton and Co. let the fire burn and had the best early- intervention opportunity to put it out."

The only way to put the fire out is a radical change to American foriegn policy. You take out one Bid Laden, 10 more spring up to take his place.

Militarily supporting and in many ways dominating repressive monarchys, dictatorships, and oligarchies as in Saudi Arabia to guarantee oil supplies; and militarily supporting the slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel, are what lit the fires in the Middle East in the first place. The fires won't go out until those actions cease, and a more equitable and just foundation is settled upon for the region.

Once the people in the region see that kind of progress, and see that western powers are willing to deal equitably, instead of resorting to mass murder to dominate the region, the people there will take out extremists like Bin Laden themselves.

Of course one of the biggest obstacles in the Middle East is the entrenched and extremely corrupt elite. But then again, that's a problem here in the west as well.

If Bush had spent less of his first year on vacation he may have had time to respond to Al Quada reports. 42% of his first 9 months on vacation seems to be a tad excessive.

Via a metafilter thread:

Number of documents directly and conclusively linking Sadaam Heussein to Al Queda. 0

Number of american war dead in Iraq ~2669

Number of civilian's killed in Iraq due to the military intervention 41650 to 46530

Amount of money Haliburton has made off of no bid contracts: Over $10 billion dollars

Ring leader / chief architect of 9/11: Osama Bin Laden

Osama's location: Pakistan

US Ally: Pakistan

Number of US troops currently allowed in Pakistan: <1000 number of us troops in iraq:>100000

Posted in this thread: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/54682

Imo, a good summary of how off the rails the current US Government is.

But hey, if it makes people feel better to blame Clinton...

Interesting...Hmmm

THE NDP were responsible for 9/11 BINGOOOOO !!!!

....or that also makes as much sense as " alive " 's stretched implication (unless trying to be funny ) that it can be extrapolated from my comments that Clinton gets the blame for BUSH's hesitation re 9/11 appearance etc.???

I am simply making an objective statement reflective of what was reported on the various 9/11 TV documentaries last night.

Clinton's administration was given a number of intelligence reports, yet waffled with bogus excuses and non pro-active responses. Bush's administration was a 180 - degree turn from Clinton's course of action and much of it was a pre-emptive response to 9/11 etc..

A terrorist leader was later captured and spilled the beans.

Just to clarify further...I am not implying Clinton could have fixed the bigger Middle East problem. We are discussing the 9/11 issue and what lead up to it. It seems that 9/11 was no overnite event nor a big secret to those in power.

Recall Clinton was in power from 1992 to 2000. The World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, but the terrorists were ultimately successful in 2001. (Hmmm however, the BC NDP were in power for very much the same time period as Clinton ...maybe "alive" is onto something...give Dubya a call )

" James Burns " blog (ABOVE)gives a pretty good handle on the bigger and the much more deeply rooted broader issues...

Again, I highly recommend the TV documentaries previously noted if and when they repeat.

As I see it, there were problems that perhaps Clinton swept under the rug, but the big question is who really conspired to bring down those towers?
The fact that Bushbaby did not show his face for so long after the incident tells me he was awaiting the opinion polls.
I see it as an evil plot to get the american public to believe the need to invade foreigh countries.
History shows us that Hitler "created" an incident where he equipped germans in polish uniforms and "caught" them invading germany---------so he could be justified in overrunning Poland.
I am sorry if I am more cynical than most, but i have seen it all, and no evil plot surprises me anymore

I wouldn't claim the Clinton administration did everything right (far from it) but this quote by you is simplistic, at best.

I also watched the cbc last night and there is plenty of unanswered questions surrounding those pre 9/11 days. No one was "blown off", there were reasons why some of the operations against Laden were called off, such as questionable sources, risk of heavy casualties on both the civilian and CIA side as well as legitimate fears of blowback...

Clinton did act... hence his stupid move to destroy a pharmaceutical factory believed to be a Chemical weapons facility in the Sudan.

By the way, if it's an accounting of past president's were doing why stop with Clinton? How about the Laden friendly Bush Sr? Or even further back to Reagan?

IAMC that movie you are so in love has been throughly trashed... educate yourself:

http://mediamatters.org/

maestro... there's plenty of info on this page you may or may not find relevant.

I think you're right..or what they allowed to happen to serve their own ends and interests....namely to stoke a highly profitable imperialistic policy of endless war...that comes with such monetary dividends for Cheney's KBR and Halliburton et al.

And BC Mary, good to see you back. Didn't that young 9/11 widow totally outclass the shrill and mean-spirited Ann Coulter?

Interesting article - while this may excite every left wing loonie that visits this site - there are probably no more than a few of these people that exist - and I welcome them to our country (sort of)....

Compare this to the foolish number of Canadian professionals - who are living and working in the USA for greater opportunity.....

While I do appreciate her concerns, which despite most of the political rhetoric - are real - this is indeed very rare.

If the USA was such a scary place - full of scary people - you wouldn't have thousands of Canadians moving there every year for increased opportunity...

The other thing I can't stand is how these people continually point the finger at President Bush - while I am no fan of his, she makes reference to the 9/11 attacks and his policy in (pretty much) the same sentence.

The 9/11 attacks occurred 4 months after Bush was inaguarated - and were by no means an attack on his administration - in fact, the pilots were being trained while Clinton was still President. 9/11 was an attack on the United States (irregardless of the political party in power), it was an attack on the western way of life and an attack on the perceived influence of the western way of life on middle eastern values.

Give it up lady!! You hate your country, you hate the way it operates, you are ashamed of the right-wing American way of life - you came to Canada, because you wanted a slower lifestyle, where you can work a little less - yet get a whole lot more!!

No problem...

Good comments....

I think one of the first Rules of Engagement (ie for ones' own military forces to start or enter a war )is to #1 FIRST get your own citizens on side first.

If not, you, the Gov't in power, are fighting two battles(internal and external) = a losing battle.

I vividly recall the Gulf War in the 1990's and the young Arab lady claiming that Saddam Hussien's troops were unplugging incubators in maternity wards...apparantly NO PROOF...but it sure got the US public support. Seem to also recall this young lady was no civilian but actually a member of the Kuwait elite.

CONCLUSION = Draw you own conclusions.

The conspiracy realities /conspiracy theories are often mind - boggling with respect to WHY? ...WHO? etc.

Also remember the old " First casualty of WAR is TRUTH ".

Also : " Winner gets to write the truth".

As far as I am concerned, those in charge or responsible for these wars etc. should have a duel at dawn (like in the good old days) with UZI's ...or AK 47's in the old Roman Coliseum and broadcast on global TV....and leave the billions of the rest of us out of it.

Verso:
By my term " blown off " I refer to silly excuses like " if they miss the target it will make them look bad...PR wise"....or " possibly putting dents in mosques" ... I interpret the lack of action as avoidance of action at any cost was the actual Clinton agenda....they would have come up with more beauties .

ALSO: Remember the one advisors' comments about "sleeping with dogs and you will get fleas"...parties sheltering known terrorists and the collateral effects of doing so ?

Anyway ...much food for thought however we individually saw it.

Verso:

Thanks for the link:

However, I didn't see the "ABC 9/11 special" (link) or the other ones .......other than the ones I quoted (ie CBC, PBS or Newsworld )which I did watch .

Point again is much of the seeds that reaped 9/11 were sown during WHOEVER was US President prior to the current one.

PS ALSO: No pun intended re: the previous "Blown off" comment.....not sure if M. L. was " seated " in the National Security advisory loop.

bc mary wrote...

Well BC, you got 5 out of 6 correct.
Obviously you don't watch TV or go to movies. There is an annual (at least) story involving the Holocaust.

maestro,

Yes, I realize...

The link I included was directed to IAMC, in regards to the ABC movie:http://mediamatters.org/items/200609110001

I mentioned it to you because there was some cross over with our discussion -- thought you might be interested.

The Clinton Administration has to owe up to its serial failures in national security. Face it, Clinton miserably failed in his most important duty as Commander-in-Chief, which was to protect national security at all costs. And that cost includes your popularity. Unlike Canada, the US leader is called Commander-in-Chief for a very real reason. The Constitution says that that President's most important job is national security. It isn't the economy, popularity and getting your pole smoked in the White House.

Naturally, all the Clinton officials are raising holy hell at the ABC movie about 911 and its portrayal of how key Clinton officials failed to do something about Osama. It touches some raw nerves. People are more scared of the truth than lies. Clinton regularly took a pass on his daily briefing by the National Security Advisor. That is unbelievable. Like many of his generation, he is scared and ashamed and unable to reckon himself with the necessary use of US military power as a force for good.

So you have the Mogadishu incident where he and Sandy Berger didn't want to authorize the use of AC130 gunships to protect the Rangers because it might offend other countries. And then there was WTC's first bombing. Instead of taking military action, Clinton's whole national security strategy was to declare it a law enforcement problem. This effectively takes it off his plate and shoves it over the the Justice Department. Then he failed to take strong action on Khobar Towers bombing. Then, he did nothing about the bombing of the USS Cole. Bottom line- someone, some people declared war on the US and he didn't want to go to war. Lobbing a few cruise missles at an empty pharma factory isn't impressive.

I'm not saying that Bush is a military genius or our saviour, but he's trying alot more than what Clinton did. Bush understands one thing about Arab culture and the Middle East - those people only respect you if they know and fear that you will use force.

Problem often is "the nipping it in the bud":

If a person feels ill...and then goes to Doctor "A" who sees a small tumour yet chooses to do nothing... but the patient then get worse...

Then the patient has Doctor B take over the case,...Dr. B sees the tumour has grown out of control..Doctor B tries any/all means to try and save the patient..but unfortunately the patient dies...

Who do you blame...?

Many would blame Dr B. Same with these 9/11 issues. Dr. B is Bush and Dr A is Clinton.

One of the documentaries I mentioned earlier also talked about the dropping of the Nuclear Bombs on Japan. The documentary claimed the Japanese were ready to surrender...much earlier, but President Truman wanted to send Stalin a message of what the US had in its arsenal..also how close they were to Russia.

Bobby Peru:
and ---- god bless america! ---- right?
suppose america just minded its own business for a change? and i mean actual business, not the interest of the powerful oil-industry.
Americans has managed to piss off the entire world ever since WW2!
You are a member of the UN (even if you do not pay), so let UN try to resolve conflicts!
Here we see first hand how US interferes with NAFTA making it a meaningless agreement!
So go ahead and sing the praises of your beloved country, because nobody else will.
What amazes me is that it took so long for the poorer countries to realize that negotiating with the USA is a waste of time, as you get the short end of the stick every time.

Your analogy isn't correct here... Bush didn't act (however ineptly) until after 9/11 or, to fit your analogy, until the patient died.

So that would make both Doctors culpable.

There's no reason to believe Bush had any less intelligence (I speaking information here) than Clinton:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Bush did absolutely zero before 9/11... in fact, it was noted above that he spent most of his pre-9/11 days vacationing.

Okay, slight correction not quite most, according to Frank above:

Verso:

Analogy was more aimed at Dr A.(Previous administration )

Bush seems to be blamed...
His military actions were inspired due to 9/11 and seeded before he became President.

Question is: What if there was no 9/11...or more importantly, if 9/11 was nipped earlier.

Leave it too long...makes it worse for any successive..."Physician" /President.

History is littered with warnings left unheeded too long.

Jack's ... normally, I'd take a 5 out of 6 ... B+ any old exam day ... but in this case, I want a 6.

Of course I mean empathy for these tragedies at the time they were happening. And how maddeningly safe and easy it is to salute the survivors now ...

I'm now lost on your anology.

The only obsession the Republicans had pre-9/11 was with Bill Clinton's penis, not terrorism. The only fight Republicans were looking for pre-9/11 (or had "seeded") was with Saddam, 9/11 became the catalyst to do that. We all know now how strong those "ties" with Al-Qaeda were.

Bush is wearing exactly what he deserves. There plenty of blame thrown at Bush and co. in the The 911 Commission report... the same report the Republicans fought hard to undermine and underfund.

Why do so many Bush supporters point at Clinton for not delivering Bin Laden pre-9/11 when the Bush couldn't deliver Laden post-9/11 with the thousands of troops he had looking in Afghanistan?

Why did Bush virtually stop the hunt for Laden and go into Iraq? How has being Iraq made America any safer? Wouldn't the money spent on the war in Iraq been better spent improving homeland security, and/or rebuilding Afghanistan to win over the hearts and minds of its citizens?

okay maestro... on a re-read I see the point your trying make w/your analogy. I still think it's a weak analogy, more so that you want to pull Bush out of it. Either way my points above still stand.

I'm done posting in this thread now, I've said enough... I'll be sure to read any follow up you post.

Ditto:

Likewise see your points.

Main point,...as I said...something left too long leaves a mess for the next person or administration ...

That may be the domestic political "albatross " strategy as well, but we'll leave it at that.

Polls, popularity, upcoming elections, these are not important to a true leader. A true leader should have killed Osama when they had the chance.
It's not the person in this case, it's the money. If they had killed Osama, when they has a chance. all of his money would have been dispersed somewhere else. The politically correct bureaucrats in the State Dept. were only interested in spreading the Dems misguided message.
Kind of like those left over Lib's in our country. They must be fired immediately.

Well, from 7pm to midnight I watched the two documentaries re 9/11 and Why We Fight, which I had already seen at the Ridge. I am sure we all take something away from such showings and I can only say, once again, THANKS, CBC.

On Clinton (not from me, just pasting)

.All but one conspirator of the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993 have been arrested, convicted and are now serving life sentences at the SuperMax in Colorado.

-After the Nairobi and Kenya embassy attacks the Clinton directed a covert effort to get bin Laden and Al Qaeda. There were several classified memoranda authorizing the killing of bin Laden, expanded later to include several of his lieutenants. He ordered the Navy to station two Tomahawk SSN's off the Persian Gulf to target bin Laden. Clinton authorized three missile attacks on bin Laden. Two were called of when the CIA could not verify the intelligence. The other missed bin Laden by several hours. When this attack was made public there was a loud protest made by the Right and Republicans in Congress. Accusing the President of trying to distract everyone from the impeachment. There was no support to get bin Laden.

-In the aftermath of the 1993 WTC bombing Clinton asked Congress to pass new measures to combat terrorism amoung them special deportation measures and the death penalty for terrorists. Congress passed this measure. After the 1994 Oklahoma City bombing he asked for increased powers to combat terrorism; authority for roving wiretaps, money laundering etc. This time he was blocked by Congressional Republicans and civil libertarians from getting the measure passed. The Republicans said he was overreacting and his requests were unnecessary. A year later a bill was passed but without those requests. Another request to restrict encryption software was held back by Sen. Ashcroft and software lobbyists. This restriction was necessary to prevent terrorists from using 128bit encryption on their computers in an effort to frustrate investigators.

-A later effort by the President Clinton to increase airport security was blocked by Congressional Republicans on the Senate Aviation Committee. The security measures included computerized profile screening, high tech baggage screening and increased training for airport security.

-Republican Senator P. Graham of TX blocked a new measure to track and stop money laundering by terrorist groups. He said it was totalitarian

-In the 1990's the CIA under Clinton started a special al Qaeda group. During the Clinton presidency terrorists' attempts to blow up LAX, and plots bomb the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels in New York, as well as the UN building were stopped. An attempt to blow up the Israeli embassy in Washington was also prevented. The CIA began to get at terrorist cells overseas through cooperation with foreign governments using prosecutions, extraditions and executions.

Cap,

Bush was the president-elect since November 2000 and was inaugurated at the beginning of January 2001. That's about 10 months on the job by my count, not 4. Perhaps you're only counting the days he actually left his ranch and showed up for work? If so, my apologies, as you were.

Actually immigration to Canada far outweighs emigration from Canada. It would be even more lop-sided if Canada was more open to taking Americans, such as those not euphoric about fighting in Iraq for example.

Also, two of my best friends are working in the US, professionals looking for greater opportunity? Nope. One got transferred and moving was his only option, and the other happens to be married to the first one. Besides, now that we have Conservatives running the ocuntry and many of the provinces I thought the Right never mentioned "brain-drain" anymore? I know the papers don't, you must have missed the memo.

What's amazing to me is that I now have a different view of ABC. Perhaps they are not trying to destroy the United States like some of the other networks. And some of the people on this thread.

IAMC
Who on this thread is trying to destroy the United States? C'mon Ron, Who?

How can you make such an ignorant statement, even for 'you' it's incredible.

Well, isn't it interesting how one upset American was able to simply pick up and leave—and arrive in Canada without any problem? How fortunate and convenient. How many Canadians do you think could just up and leave to arrive without a problem in the US simply because they were unhappy or scared? In fact, very few people from any country can escape their fears or disgust with their government by simply knocking on the US's door and asking to come in. Isn't it fortunate that some Americans can easily flee their country's ignorant and misguided policymakers when in countries throughout the world so many others are subjected to American foreign policy on the ground and must simply suffer the consequences?

I, too, am a Brooklynite who has fled to Kitsilano. I went through a very similar experience, as Linda had, with one exception---I worked on the 60th floor of WTC 2. That morning, however, I had a dentist's appointment. I never made it to work.

Thankfully, though, everyone from my floor was able to escape relatively unscathed, but I only found this out 5 hours later.

Some memories of that day were "snow" coming down. Actually, it was ash raining down on our street in Cobble Hill, just across the river from downtown Manhattan. I remember the horrible smell of burning chemicals. I remember not caring about what happened because nothing was going to be the same anyway.

Over the next 4 months, my office moved to New Jersey, but my girlfriend moved to Canada. I decided that it was time to leave my (high paying, but) unrewarding job on Wall Street and go to grad school.

Here I am, five years later, married to my Canadian girlfriend, and still in school.

Happy you made it across the wall werdnagreb. Er, "security fence" I meant to say.

Linda

Thanks for your article, on such a significant day. I apologize for GAC; some us are glad to have thoughtful, talented persons move here to escape the madness now going on in the US.

But do keep up your efforts to restore sanity to the US government.

sorry, but you're not safe here either - though i welcome you! consider that perhaps currently you (we) are even less safe here than in nyc.

with canada stepping up it's forces in afghanistan, the possibility of vancouver (and canada in general) becoming a target for a mass-attack is increasing daily.

let's just hope canada's response would be radically different to the usa's response to 9/11 - i'm certain it would be and that it would lead to positive change.

folks - let's write to pm harper, your mp, the media etc. again and again - canadian foreign policy needs to change or more canadians will die. and that is only the selfish way to look at it. let's not forget the rest of the world our policy decisions could influence however slightly.

if something happens, i would argue that canadian culture deserves it because of our collective apathy.

Philwill;

Please do not apologize for me. I was simply illustrating some very straight forward points (and the irony therein) regarding one’s ability to make changes in one’s life that depend on one’s place of birth and one’s socio-economic position. I think all people ought to have an opportunity to protest one’s government in all forms, including leaving for another country.

My point is – which you clearly did not get – that it is much easier for a select few to make such dramatic changes and next to impossible for the vast majority who may want to follow a similar road. And if you take some time to consider much American foreign policy in the past 50 or so years, you may also understand what I mean by having the choice or opportunity to escape threats and danger. How many people are able to flee their own country to enter the US for the very reasons that Linda offered to get into Canada? It’s an interesting question to think about.

I believe even Linda would likely agree that her government’s activities of the past five years leave much to be desired. This takes nothing aware from her 9/11experience or her decision to leave. I’m looking at a much bigger picture here. As she says, she struggles with whether it was the best way to deal with fighting Bush. And while it is just fine to have thoughtful Americans living in Canada, and I believe they are more than welcome to live here, it would also be so much better if many more Americans living in the US today were a lot more thoughtful about their government’s actions throughout the world (in all forms).

Frank - Sorry that was a typo - it was nine months, but my point remains. The terrorists responsible for 9/11 were being trained as Bill Clinton was still the President. I am not saying Bush is great or Clinton is bad - I was just commenting on the hypocricy on behalf of the writer.

Though she didn't directly say it, she implied that the Bush Administration is responsible for the dangers which the US faces - which is at best, laughable.

(I am by no means a Bush supporter - I am a conservative, but aside from tax cuts and security - I agree little with the man) - However, the one thing he has to get some credit for is security. The USA has been attack free - despite the fact that they never been a greater target.

You are right - but if you look at only cross-border immigration statistics - we lose far more bright minds to the USA than they return to us - in fact, we lose far more minds - period. We pick up immigrants from countries that percieve that Canada will afford them greater opportunities - i.e. China, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, etc.

People immigrate (for the most part) for opportunity, while some also immigrate for safety (refugees).

The United States accepts by far and away the most immigrants of any nation in the world. They also do the best at integrating them into society and providing opportunities - alongside Canada. If you look at Europe, you have recent immigrants rioting in the streets, and some even bombing their new countries.

In the USA, they feel a sense of opportunity and acceptance - most are very, very successful and therefore you rarely see unrest.

Proportional to population Cappy, not a chance - Canada actually accepts more on a per capita basis.

But then, if you want to include the 'illegals' who work for less than the US's meager minimum wage, have few to no 'services' and amount practically to slave labour - I guess you're right. But that’s an irony you certainly didn’t intend.

The reason they do so is not so much the great opportunities in the U.S. as the lack of hope and opportunity where they come from. At least partly because of the flaws of the system you’ve chosen as your moniker. Funny that.

Oh, and the 'acceptance' part of the equation - guess you're not familiar with what's been going on in American legislative circles for the past 12 months either.

Okay, obviously Bin Laden and the boys were at it before Gore lost.

I think Bush takes a lot of heat for 9/11 actually being carried out simply because of his vacation time and the tales from those that have left the administration. Is it all deserved? Probably not, but certainly some is.

As for all the conspiracy theories, I don't buy them. Not because they aren't well reasoned, its simply because I can't believe a US president would allow that to happen on purpose.

I would have more time for the conspiracies if they were thought to have been the work of a small cabal of unelected officials in important positions. For example I think Richard Perle would sacrifice an elementary school for his own ends, but that's just me.

As one US official stated regarding the Gulf War in the early 1990's ....the US likely wouldn't have entered into it if was all about "carrots".

It's obviously all about OIL aka secured energy sources.

Most Superpowers were set up to defend against large armies. The terrorists are much like the guerrilla warfare the US encountered in VietNam. The US didn't win that war either. Also note little if any oil in Vietnam.

Defence against terrorists is difficult....ends up much like a hammer to a flea...but there are lots of fleas, and the hammer never gets them all, but tries to keep them laying low.

This ends up much like the classic Warner Brothers cartoon....the two characters enter the workplace, punch the clock, and engage in a mutual sh*itkicking for 8 hours....punch out...tomorrow is another day....Maybe all of this is unavoidable classic pressure relief given the situation.

9/11 was simply a subplot to all this.

Osama vents...the US vents...others vent....who takes over the roles next time in this world stage play ???

While this goes on, the OIL is still pumped, a bit disrupted at times, but still pumped.

To be Continued....

Bush doesn't really take a lot of heat re. this matter in the USA. He takes some from the ultra left for political purposes and some from the misinformed left.

While there might be some merit to the fact that there are probably increased efforts to attack the USA in the wake of his middle eastern policy - his administration has worked tirelessly to protect the safety of Americans. Things like the Patriot Act, Wire Tampering, Port and Airport Security, Background Checks, etc. have helped secure America.

Though many of these have been unpopular decisions too!

Good point!
Yes amerikans do accept some immigrants if they happen to fit the current demand, but NOBODY just moves in to the USA and is accepted, just like that!
Therein lies the difference, and that is no reflection on anyone.

You're kidding right? Have you seen his poll numbers? The criticism he is taking now is also coming from within his own party... and it's been coming for a while.

GAC

Points well taken. I absolutely agree with your last point. The ignorance in the US about their own government's extraterritorial activities is abysimal, even on the part of "experienced" newspersons. As the drumbeat builds toward bombing Iran, their seems to be little or no knowledge about the CIA's role in installnig the Shah.

Those guys who ran aircraft into buildings killing a lot of citizens in the process, were taking flight training in the US Of A. All were there legally. One more than one occasion the flight schools notified the authorities about people who wanted to learn to fly straight and level, not take off or land.at the flying school I instruced at, any one walking in the door with cash and wanting to learn on anyhting but the most basic trainer was either very rich or very stupid. So what happened Bugger all that's what happened. Where not the authorities a bit concerned about student pilots who wanted to train on big commercial aircraft, not Cessna 150's like everyone else. Heck no folks were making money. I won't soon forget Bush's aide whispering in his ear that a aircraft had run into the Trade Centre. George just sat there, and then continued reading to some kids. When he finally got hauled out of the school, he disappeared for quite a while. Leader of the free world. Like hell. He was getting told what to say next. So welcome to Canada folks who don't like the US system any more. Get your citizenship papers in due course and stay here.

Contrary to popular belief here, not all Canadians blame the US for everything.

If you want safety from international terrorist incidents, then I would suggest a small city in the Prairies. Port cities are to much of a target.

Your story reminds me of the couple that left Vancouver and moved to the Falkland Islands to avoid the nuclear war they expected. Only to arrive shortly before the Argentine military invasion. The world is a much smaller place than it used to be.

Dunno if anyone heard the McGill prof on CBC 'The Current' this morning. But, he's investigated the Osama connections, the 'myth' of his financing terrorism all over the world and the idea that it is a diabolical and coordinated organism.

He's says it's not. And he was very convincing. THere is no such thing as 'international terrorism'.

Do you need any more proof people!
this is a puppet "running" the excited states.
In time we will have similar proof that Harpo also has to bide his time, waiting for instructions!

Interesting articles here:

Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

Thanks verso:

I like the quote in one article that the future isn't what it used to be.

Couldn't have said it better.
I think a lot of political ideology is into fusion mode..the left goes a bit to the right ...the right goes a bit to the left.

Like Colin, there are those of us Canucks that don't blame the US for everything...and Americans in general really ain't much different than us.

I think since post Lester Pearson...Canada has used the US as a straw man to blame, and allow other agendas to go in Canada unchallenged. Seems as if we Canadians are great because we are not Americans ?

About 1/2 my family are Americans, actually NYC and NJ area....and never asked to move up here after 9/11. Shit happens, life goes on.

When Kerry challlenged Bush in 2004...it appeared Bush's so - called military baggage was his wings...the US electorate felt Kerry would make them vulnerable via a weaker Homeland Security... didn't like that...and Bush won.

Old saying: " If you want peace- prepare for war ".

G. West, you did ask ... so I wrote ... please respond.

IMO, most here who critcize the US are speaking in terms of the administration (and there most ardent supporters) rather than the people... too often that distinction isn't made on both sides.

There are more Americans opposed to Bush now, then in support of. It seems to me the most vocal Bush opponents come from with in their own borders. As a Canadian, I'd hate to think that because Harper is our PM those outside our borders would assume my support for his policies -- nothing could be further from the truth.

It's easy to label critics of American foreign policy as "Anti-American" but it's not accurate. On the flip side, it helps when said critics stress they are speaking about the government too. It happens often happens in Isreal/Palenstine threads as well.

It all sounds so obvious but maybe needs to be said from time to time.

I take issue with this point... but that's a whole other can of worms ; )

Actually, excluding the French, CFL vs NFL,... and some TYEE bloggers...we really ain't that different.

Yeah, maybe there are Yanks that can listen to Rick Mercer and get sucked into thinking we live in Igloos and drive dog sleds....and have stashes of pemmican...

Otherwise Verso.......Evidence re Americans ain't that much different SVP ???

BC Mary,
Actually I did. Maybe to the wrong address. I've just now gotten in from work and another message is on its way.

I read somwhere today that george and his adminstration is down to around 20 percent. so yes a lot of US citizens want away from the clown. The majority of editorial cartoonists have been slamming george and pals for a few years. US citizens obviously read the news and the cartoonists. Oliphant is my favourite. You can read them all for free.

Ron/IAMC
This is just for you. You do read the Washington Post don't you?

It'll have to be in two sections - think you can handle it?

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; A17

Does it matter that ABC invented and distorted history in its "warning: this is not a documentary" docudrama, "The Path to 9/11"? After all, the first night of the faux drama was trounced by the brother-against-brother actual drama of "Sunday Night Football."

But consider: The gripping final report of the Sept. 11 commission (budget: $13.5 million) became a surprise bestseller at 1.5 million copies. The not-so-gripping, not-so-accurate ABC production (budget: $40 million) was seen by about 13 million viewers on the first night.

As Thomas H. Kean, who served as the commission's chairman and then made the unfortunate decision to lend his prestige to the project as co-executive producer, correctly predicted this summer, "More people will see this than will ever read our report." Such is the drawing power of even shoddy television.

ABC's response to the pre-screening uproar was twofold -- both folds simultaneously inadequate and disingenuous. First, it removed the most flagrantly dishonest scenes: Bill Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger slamming down the phone on a fictional CIA operative pleading for permission to attack Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1998; White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke suggesting that the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the looming impeachment had sapped the president's willingness to "take chances" on getting the terrorist leader. Yet, these and other misleading insinuations remain, in subtler form.

Second, ABC watered down the original statement that the docudrama was "based on the 9/11 Commission report." In fact, it larded the five-hour miniseries with warnings that its content couldn't be trusted: "For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression." But that didn't come close to solving the problem. Everything about the docudrama -- its use of grainy black-and-white shots, its herky-jerky cinema vérité footage -- is intended to evoke an air of realism.

The linkage to the commission's report is made clear just after the opening credits when the mournful music falls silent and a black screen with white lettering appears: "The 9/11 Commission is an independent, bipartisan commission created by Congress in late 2002." And, next, a quote from the report: "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned."

The fullest possible account? Hardly, and certainly not the fairest or most

accurate.

Take the depiction (even sans Berger phone-slamming) of the spring 1998 plan to capture bin Laden in his Afghanistan compound. It's portrayed in the first installment as a blown opportunity, stymied by backside-covering politicians worried about "political fallout."

Still with me, here's the rest of it:

This is more drama than docu-. Such an operation was planned but called off well in advance. According to the Sept. 11 commission report, "Tenet told us that given the recommendations of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to 'turn off' the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back."

Overall, the Clinton administration is shown as unwilling to respond aggressively to bin Laden. "The point is, terrorism in this administration is perceived as being a law-and-order problem, period," the head of the FBI's New York office, John O'Neill, says in one scene.

ABC might have checked in with Clarke (who would have been easy to find, since he is an ABC News consultant). Clinton, Clarke said in a statement, "repeatedly authorized the use of lethal force against bin Laden and his deputies and personally requested the US military to develop plans for 'commando operations' against them."

By contrast, the second night's sins are more those of omission -- omissions that work mostly in President Bush's favor. While it finds time to make up incidents involving Clinton administration officials, the docudrama leaves out the departing administration's repeated warnings to the Bush folks about the al-Qaeda threat.

Meanwhile, Bush is portrayed -- without any factual basis -- as responding aggressively to the famous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." presidential daily briefing. "As a result of the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing, the president is tired of swatting flies," then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is shown telling senior administration officials just before the Sept. 11 attacks. "He believes al-Qaeda is a real threat, and he wants to consider real action. He specifically asked about the armed Predator."

In fact, the commission found, "The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature"; it reported no significant response by Bush nor any inquiry about the Predator drones.

The docudrama is an inherently flawed form, one that invites embroidery. The irony of "The Path to 9/11" is that this dramatic license was so unnecessary, given the richly detailed narrative in a document available to the docudrama's

creators. It was called "The 9/11 Commission Report."

Now, what were you saying about ABC?

I am trying to break into this Tyee Bomb. A bomb of misinformation about why we are a target of these Extreme Muslim Terrorists. To say we are a target because of US foreign policy is BS. The true reason is that it's about who we are. As long as we are a tolerant, secular, open, and free society- and by that I mean all of us in the West including Canada- will be continued to be struck, because everything we are, everything we stand for, is repellent to them, and they are going to continue to do everything they can do to destroy us. NRO. The best hope we have is the Republican administration currently in power.

Ron IAMC
You're doing no such thing. Yesterday you were crowing about how ABC had disclosed the 'facts' about Clinton and the Democrats complicity in the causative machinery for 9/11/

Now you apparently haven't read a clear refutation of that 'theory' which is posted for your elucidation just above.

In addition, you go on to attack the kind of society Canada has created and it trying to create - an open, secular and free society - by parroting the big lie about terrorism and how it threatens us.

It's all nonsense Ron and you know it. The Republican Administration is morally, intellectually and, after Bush's speech on Monday, imaginatively bankrupt. American society and American culture are only threatened by the hollowness at the centre of its government and many of its institutions.

“Battle of civilizations”. It's nothing more than warmed-over tripe from a B movie. The current administration is no hope, no ideas and no damn good.

Sensible Americans, among them the people of Rhode Island who withstood a right wing Juggernaut and re-elected Lincoln Chaffee as their GOP representative, are beginning to see through the utter bankruptcy of ideas in the White House. That is good news.

I can only conclude you’ve been in the sauce again.

I'm more than happy to welcome Linda Solomon to Canada; I'd be more than pleased to see you head off for somewhere you'd obviously be more happy so you can worship your heroes in a more direct and personal way.

As a Canadian, you are an embarrassment.

Verso:

I never said Bush wasn't taking any flack on the Iraq issue. I was saying that he wasn't taking much flack from people suggesting that his administration is the reason for the 9/11 and other attacks on the USA. It was an attack on America, not on George Bush.

Though, Bush's polling numbers are down for reasons other that Iraq. While it is true that those who never liked him, absolutely despise him. He has lost support from conservatives.

I spend a whole lot of time in the USA - and conservatives and mad about immigration and spending. You have to remember that he only got 49% of the vote....

He is down to 39%-40% and he has lost conservatives - who aren't voting for the Democrats, but against Bush....

Canadians are not that different than Americans...

You can go down to the US - watch the same TV shows, socialize with very similar people, shop at the same destinations and have very, very similar conversations.

The big difference is that in the USA - the majority of people live in rural areas, wheras in Canada most are Urban. Therefore, at a macro there are some differences.

Sure, we see the world in a slightly different light. However, the differences (day to day) are very slight.

Capitalism tells us the polls that are dropping for Bush are for other reasons. Seems the New York Times, The Manchester Guardian, the Christian science Monitor and a few other ones don't seem to agree with you. Recruitment is down, the dead list get larger and George is going down. Can't wait to see what editorial cartoonist has to say about George and his sidekicks today. Some folks don't like to read articles but might well check a few cartoonists. George is losing conservatives because they don't believe him any more in the view of many. Besides they sure like power and if George and his buddies can't keep it it for them, well it's time to fade to black. Beating up people at secret prisioners, and lying about others having weapons they don't have doesn't help him that much either. I loved the article about how Chaney( The fellow actualy running things) can no longer expect folks to follow his every word. But the big poll is the mid term election. Can't wait.

Now that the TYEE bloggers Ltd. can save the US (aka a future Canadian Province ) the $$$ MILLIONS of DOLLARS cost of the next Presidential election...and conclusion is : the US Republicans are toast.

Hilary is a front runner...the "in family" Presidential cycling should be maintained aka George Bush SR. THEN Bill Clinton...THEN George Bush Jr. aka Dubya...and thus Hilary Clinton next ???

Can't wait to see her in charge....

(Anyone remember the Joke about Bill Clinton throwing out the first pitch...???)

DPL,

Support for the Iraq war among conservative is still high - in other words his base. The support for the war in general has fallen. Though, support wasn't really that high at the time of the election either.

He only got 49% in the last election - so he has dropped 9%. He is pretty well down to his core base of about 35% right now.

Much of his lost support is due to immigration and other reasons. Also due to the Iraq war. Though most who are against the Iraq war never voted for him in the first place....

There is no doubt that the Iraq war is unpopular right now. However, much of it has to do with the execution as opposed to the war itself. People think that Rumsfeld and Co. have bungled this thing from the beginning.

It is much more complex than some musing from the NY Times, which everybody knows is not credible anyway. It is a far, far left newspaper - which writes to its core audience.

maestro,

Democrats will not win the presidency - especially with their current leadership. They will likely take control of the house, but not the senate.

Americans rarely elect Democrats as Presidents. They need a compelling reason to do so - i.e. Bill Clinton - a Southern man with a warm and traditional appearance.

Hillary Clinton doesn't stand a chance. Bush will be gone - and as long as somebody like McCain makes it through the primary - it will be another Republican win..

Cap, the NY Times is not far, far, left.

If it was far far left, what would be a centrist paper and what would be a right-wing one?

Far, far left include the NY Times & Washington Post.

A more centrist paper would be the Los Angeles Times - or even the National Post here in Canada.

A right wing paper would include the Wall Street Journal - probably a few others in Texas!

Cappy/Maybelle

I can show you editorial comment from the NYTimes that is to the right of the LA Times and vice versa.

You just don't like the message so you attack the messenger. Face it man, a few visits to the sin capital of the US and a few nights playing the tables there don't exactly make you an expert.

Cap:

Just threw that Hilary as Prez. comment out there...

Always found the Bush Sr.in for one term, then Clinton in for 2 terms, then Bush Jr in for two terms ...then Hilary's (aka Bill's first love )ambitions = ________???

Agreed....It appears the real US pattern is generally Pro Republican ,...then a change of scenery with a Democrat President here or there (Carter, Clinton), then back to Republican. Add up the score since Nixon.

The real anomaly is that for the most part, its been the so called Liberal peace - loving Democrats in power that have lead the US in the number of war years, at least the major ones .

Bush, unfortunately, can't waste time and translate Sesame Street into Arabic. His mandate is to protect his country and its citizens , using what are usually tried and true methods that are universally understood... Holding hands with terrorists and singing " Koom-bay-ya" generally doesn't cut it.

Upcoming US primaries should be interesting, with the US election only 2 years way. Jockeying and all the dark horses in the race...especially who the Democrats will choose.

I assert that there is no mainstream media with an audience of any size (print or broadcast) that is left wing in either the United States or Canada.

The United States has right center and every shade between that and the far right. I have seen no US paper or legislator ask for nothing more than universal health care and reasonable amounts of food and housing for the poor and disabled. These are not left wing ideas, they are just common decency and common sence because if you have your people being too poor, they will steal too much, become too violent and rise up against the government.

None of the media or legislators has ever suggested that the US government nationalize any part of the resource sector, the transportaion sector (other than roads and air safety) or the manufacturing sector of the economy. Further, there is always pressure to privatise education and law enforcement/detainment, and to steal funds from the employment insurance and social security that has been paid into for years by hard-working people.

Speaking of Right-wingers, did you read that the Governator just signed legislation to set California's minimum wage to $8/hr (which equals $9/hr Cdn)? How shameful it is to have our poorest workers to be worse off than the Californians!

Unfortunately that is what many wish the Islamics to do. Forget about who invaded who and simply sing Kum-bah-yah while embracing their occupiers. Fortunately the countries that America attacks don't have the capability to respond the way America would to invasion.

As for the US voting public, they generally prefer Democrats to be in the House, its only been since Newt Gingrich that Republicans have taken control. A situation likely to be reversed over the next two elections.

The 1847 war with Mexico was initiated by a Democrat.

The US Civil War was America's bloodiest conflict and it was Abe, a Republican, in charge.

In the case of WW1 and 2, Democratic presidents joined wars already in progress. They didn't start them.

Since 1945, America has been engaged in one war after another whether under Democrat presidents like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter or Republicans like Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes. The Republicans are not in 2nd place when it comes to launching wars in violation of the UN Charter (or for that matter being the subject of war crime accusations).

Frank:

Excluding voter apathy..and including the Popular vote..."possibly".

However, seem to recall ex - hopeful Kerry's military service record being promoted in the last Democrat attempt to win the Presidency via Non - Popular vote.

Democrats remind me of our Federal Liberal party....disorganized dysfunctional more and more cannibalizing of their own, and likely deemed to be future opposition parties in the natural order.

Speaking of " enough err miles yet for a one way ticket " Hedy Fry should use her U.N. calibre skills to settle the Middle East conflicts , doncha think ???

on media, if the NY Times represents the far far left I'm afraid to hear where the Guardian, TO Star and the CBC are on the political compass. Left of Mao I assume.

The National Post may be more your centre Cap. Not criticising you, I just don't think the National Post represents the middle ground.

maestro, I think the US voting public has had enough of one party in control of all 3 levels. Historically they prefer strong rhetoric from their Republican president and Democrat control of the purse strings.

McCain could very well win the next presidential election, but the Democrats will regain control of the House within two elections. The problem with mid-term elections is its tough to get the vote out.

Democrat President LBJ and his dealings re: VietNam in the 1960's should be perhaps looked at as the template for what we see now in OIL rich areas, as I alluded to that earlier. Perhaps LBJ was more hawkish than pragmatic, and ultimately bailed .

A war fought against Ghosts aka Guerrilla's or Terrorists, is really UNwinnable....its simply a pissing match using bullets and bombs. Bin Laden types bite the ankle of "the Western infidel" then the US gets pissed off and sends out the B-52's , et al.

Both sides claim victory in their own way, yet at the same time everyone else loses.

ALSO:
Which are Left wing versus Right wing US (or Canada) media is a rather subjective definition. I think CBC is Left Wing, but I usually give them credit for great investigative stories...such as the 9/11 documentary a few days ago (of course much MUCH better under Conservative PM Harper)

However, I get rather tired of the local media ie CanWest...sick of seeing almost the exact SAME story in the Province, then on the radio,.. then on the 6 O'clock news simply warmed over. Thats more of a concern, which is why THE TYEE exists,(read TYEE Editors' bio) so we all we TYYE bloggers can solve most of the world's problems without interference.

Well Air America is toast. Bankruptcy this week. ABC is an interesting network. They seem to have a little bit of a conservative influence. I listen to Rush, Mark Levin, Gary Elder, Sean Hannity etc. and they are carried on ABC affiliates. KVI in Seattle is associated with KOMO. Conservatives make more compelling Talk Radio. It freaks out the Dem's ( progressive, liberal ) types. They can't figure it out.
In fact they are so scared that if Congress goes Dem, they are contemplating a Fairness in Broadcasting legislation that will compel broadcasters to counter a conservative view with a liberal view. All to be monitored by who? Whoever is in power? How would CBS or the NYT deal with this?
Ha,ha,ha, I laugh at this folly. The liberals don't know what to do.
They are using extreme leftists to run the Democratic Party. Th Republicans have 5 times as much money in their coffers. moveon .org is funded by the billionaire George Soros.
911 wasn't a US Govt. conspiracy. 911 was an insult to all of us.
The CBC documentary I saw last night called The Secret of 911, was excellent. I will give them credit for this logical analysis of history.
The MSN was a liberal monopoly. They are pissed off that they no longer are.
MSM ( main stream media ) is changing. It's becoming fair and balanced with FOX and ABC as a huge, much awaited counter balance to the crap we have been subjected to since Walter Cronkite ( Dan Rather )
Life is beautiful. ( God is Great )

I listen to Rush, Mark Levin, Gary Elder, Sean Hannity etc. and they are carried on ABC affiliates.

You actually listen to that nonsense?! Don't tell me you believe it! You can't possibly think that this sort of reporting helps balance things? Walter Chronkite and Dan Rather were moderates, they were never lefties in my books.

Your books are not my books. You represent an extreme left wing viewpoint, that I find dangerous to my way of life. You side with terrorists that would toast women. That would toast anyone that represents Western Judaeo Christian values that created the liberal society that we live in today.
And yes, I know these right wing talk show hosts balance things. They are right. Balance is a matter of opinion.
In my opinion. you are against me and my way of life, so FU.

Tyee Editor, please note the above statement by IAMC/Ron Erwin.

G.West, you are a coward. Look to mommy for protection? What a wimp you are.
Tyee Editor is not going to bother me, Perhaps it should bother you. Wimpy.

Ron,

I doubt Dems even listen to them. For reference sake, who do you find too right wing?

Maybe the NY Times would hire a guy like Friedman, what do you think?

The NWT and CBS are freaked out right now. Air America and moveon.org ( moveon being funder by the hedge fund Guru George Soros billionaire, inventing moveon.org is a losing proposition.
The American Left is a schitsoa, freaky evil compilation of Miss fit's and ill informed lazy group of UN - intellectuals. I don't fear these people.
We all have to respect all views.
And do what we can do to help people.

ROn/IAMC
Calling names again. I suggest the editor look to the agreement you signed when you started to post on this site. I hear this refrain applied to leftist commentators; why not ones from the ultra right wing too?

As to calling me a coward. Try doing it to my face.

sez Ron Erwin

Why don't you take your own advice? No bigger violator of your stated principle exists on this site. If you don't know this, I'm telling you now.

Any similarity between your actual behavior and what you've just posted is purely coincidental.

The thing you could most do to help would be to take your ad hominem sexist attitudes with you and slam the door on the way out.

Haha!

I'd put my money on IAMC - without a doubt. G West would be tapping out in no time - his hand out for help!

When Mr. West dragged his butt off the pavement, he'd get up and probably start blaming Stephen Harper, Gordon Campbell and major corporations!

For it was their uncaring/tax cutting regimes, which caused IAMC to kick his butt - when in fact, he was only defending himself.

Now now boys

Calm down !!!

This is how it all starts .

PS You're not thinking of taking flying lessons are ya ???

How could a article written by a person who left a lot behind in her country to make a new life here, end up with a few people calling each other left wing and telling people to FU. I certainly hope the new arrival realizes we have a few sort of mixed up folks as well.

Anyway, once more welcome to Canada the land that does have some strange people hanging around websites.

Because these things cut close to the bone DPL. Some people aren't willing to subject themselves to even the most simple good manners and parameters of civil discourse any longer. And the powers that be, in one way or another, are unfortunately loathe to mediate in a truly even-handed way. If there are operative rules, then they must be observed and supported fairly. When that doesn't happen, things get out of hand.

For those who think America is the hand-maiden of God and that a neo-conservative government there is the sine qua non of good public policy, the evidence of a kind of person like Linda Solomon choosing Canada because it 'seems' more humane than the US is tantamount to waving a proverbial red flag. It amounts to radical criticism of their very raison d'etre.

These characters aren't interested in discussion and that's why they say the things and put them the way they do.

thanks for sharing your story, Linda. Please help us keep Canada from becoming like the USA.

I find IMAC insincere in his postings as he can said this to me:

...and for or five postings later (within the same day) say this:

Please refrain from being rude. Let's keep this forum as a place where high schools would permit their students to go and read points of view that theyy may not find in the mainstream news.

Sharin takes quotes out of context and posts them in an unfavourable light to her competitors. I bet Sharin works for the CBC.

My apologies to the readers of the thread; but I believe that one of the greatest things about Canada is the ability of many of its inhabitants to accept people of nearly all cultures. I, therefore, am attempting to stretch this thread about a person's coming to Canada to find safety for her family in an effort to create dialogue that looks to foster acceptance (and therefore safety) within this blogshere.

IAMC

You can't have it both ways. You can't say one must respect all views with one side of your mouth and be rude and demeaning with the other side and expect people to find you believeable. To me, you seem to say whatever will fit to forward your "argument of the moment", as though it is unattached to the other arguments you make. I would rather not argue, but there must be ground rules to be able to hold a discussion. The best communication to be found in our world is a dialogue where people look for univeral truths and try to discover ways that we can expand upon those truths with thoughts and actions that are not harmful to other living creatures.

If this is something that sounds reasonable to you, then I am open to our becoming more dialogical in our future discussions. Also, if you want me to take you seriously, you will avoid assuming things that you have no certainty to be true about me. I have no interest in fighting with you, IAMC: it serves no purpose as neither side will feel heard, and to me you seem to be the headstrong sort when in a battle - a useful tactic if one believes in war.

My apologies if I seemed to forward in my earlier assertion about right and left. From what little listening I have done, I really don't approve of the violent nature of the TV/radio people you mentioned. I would rather not listen to them, as I don't believe it will make me a better person. Perhaps you can define what it means to be in the center (as compared to right and left). What is the middle political ground? And, what virtues are most important for a person to have in order to do good deeds in life? Can a virtuous person do evil things if his or her intent is a good end result?

You have no context Ron. It is therefore a logical impossibility to take your words as anything other than at their simplest, most basic meaning. To wit, you make no sense: you are internally inconsistent and you cannot bring your thought processes to bear on any issue except as an expression of the narrowest self-interest.

I believe that the United States needs people like Linda Solomon to stay in America and contribute to the attempt to change things there, rather than leaving and coming to Canada.

For me, there's always the moral rule, that one should try to consider what the world would be like if everyone emulated my behaviour.

How does it improve America and the world for the justice-seekers to leave?

She's a journalist Truman. Her work is equally readable no matter where she lives and, as she puts it, there are personal safety and family reasons related to her emigration. Add to this the fact that, as a journalist, her example may well have more impact simply because she has followed her inclination and instinct and moved away.

On the other hand, as a general rule I don't disagree with your observation although I think it's much more germane when applied to third world emigration - especially that of the highly educated and professionally trained.

But, one needs to remember that we are all sovereign individuals and it may well be a bit extreme to expect of others something we might be loathe to practice ourselves. In other words, what right do we have to comment?

Hi Truman,
I am with Alcibiades on this. Why should a person's place of birth limit where he or she chooses to live on the planet? It is most sad for the poorer/uneducated/unskilled people on the planet as they cannot move to Canada if they have no close relatives (spouse, mother, father, child), nor money nor skills wanted by Human Resources Canada unless they are refugees. When I say poorer, I mean that they have less than $250,000 to invest in the Canadian economy. That figure is a few years old, and it may have risen sicne I last checked.

Alcibidades, you asked, "What right do we have to comment?"

I wonder what you mean by this--morally ethically, socially? What do you mean?

I have no right to comment?

This is my opinion. I believe I not only have a right to comment but an obligation to, if I sincerely believe it and it is important to me.

Just as you hinted to me on another thread that you might agree with me when I post comments to the effect that the HIV/AIDS infectious hypothesis is incorrect. (referring me to the "gambit" of a well-known Aids operative).

I think you have an obligation to express this opinion--and under your REAL name--if you believe it--I would never, for any possible reason, post an anonymous comment.

Not to express the truth about such a genocide as the Aids hoax, or to hinder its expression is being complicit in a massive, unprecedented crime.

Regarding emigrating from the United States--my grandparents came here from the Indian Territories (now Oaklahoma) to escape unbelievable persecution and lynchings of black people.

Only Linda Solomon knows if this is the kind of threat from which she escaped.

The Mexican union worker who came to Vancouver to escape being murdered a couple of months ago certainly should be here--and I'm glad there was a haven for Vietnam War deserters, and a refuge for all kinds of endangered immigrants.

I'm taking my usual moral self-righteous high ground on the emigration issue, but I sincerely believe it, and hope more justice-seeking Americans will stay home and fight--if they possibly can.

Security, wealth, stability and freedom from oppression are commodities in the world. Escaping to enjoy more of them is not necessarily a revolutionary nor even helpful or constructive act.

And, as Sharing is Good points out, usually only the well-heeled can do it--which tends to automatically disqualify it as a moral option, I believe.

Truman Green:

Not everyone is meant to fight. Sometimes raising a family is as much as anyone can do. I do not begrudge anyone who seeks the best conditions in which to raise his or her family. Just because a person is born in a specific country, I don't believe that that person is morally bound to have to live there.

Mr. Green, you could have been born in Sudan, Ethiopia or Afghanistan. If that were the case, I think you would probably want out. I know I would.

Further, I would want out of the USA if I had to put up with their hawkish, holier than everybody else, attitude. There are verbal attacks on citizens who say the government is wrong - neighbours shun them etc. Those who are meeker and not inclined to say anything feel like strangers in their own land. Not everyone is a strong fighter. After all: even the Dalai Lama has left his own country. If it were moral for him to stay and fight, I think he would be in Tibet - about six feet under.

SharingISGood, I don't begrudge anyone an opportunity to live a decent life.

I'm sorry that it's not available for everyone on the planet, and the discrepancies seldom leave my mind.

There are 2.1 billion people living on less than one dollar a day. To tell you the truth, I'd rather see one of them get a chance to live here than someone who's intimidated by her neighbour's nasty sneers.

Maybe the families living in garbage dumps in Quatemala City or Smokey Mountain in Manila, or as virtual slaves as Haitian cane harvesters in the Dominican Republic.

The American government is causing damage all over the world, protecting the interests of its friends, and constructing a new Roman Empire, but for hundreds of millions of people the United States is still, comparatively speaking, heaven on earth, and "illegal" immigrants from all over the world are literally dying to get there.

And I don't understand your reference to the Dalai Lama.

Did I not say: "I'm glad there was a haven for Vietnam deserters and a refuge for all kinds of endangered immigrants."

And I said, "...I hope more justice-seeking Americans will stay home and fight."

And I believe that is a perfectly reasonable hope.

However, there is one place my argument fails: Maybe another justice-seeker like Linda Solomon will fill her vacancy.

Truman
I meant, what right do we, as individuals, have to question Linda Solomon's freedom to act as a free individual herself?

Surely, we can't begin to distinguish between people on the basis of where they chose to live their lives and take up citizenship. In some ways, I think Linda Solomon has told us everything we need to know about her decision and we have no intrinsic 'right' to question her at greater length or ask for further justification.

As I said, I agree in principle with your general statement about the inadvisability of us cherry-picking the best and the brightest (or as SharingIsGood points out the ones with more than $x00,000 to invest in the Canadian economy) from 3rd world countries. Immigrants from the US are an obvious exception to that point though and I am uncomfortable criticizing someone like Linda Solomon. In much the same way as I am uncomfortable criticizing you, Truman, for your obviously sincere beliefs about HIV/Aids.

I don't know enough about the science on either side of the debate and I think I've been quite clear about that. If it turns our your analysis is the correct one and Aids is not what the authorities and drug companies say it is I will be the first to admit that you said it first - or at least were the first person to make the case that I was aware of.

Fair enough?

In the end, Canada is in dire need of more justice seekers like Linda Solomon and I'm more than happy she's here.

Alcibiades, I'm glad to know that you agree with me "in principle" regarding "cherry picking the best and the brightest." I never could quite understand people who agree "in principle" with something, then go on to criticise it. It's sometimes meant to me that such people are merely too weak to stand by their principles.

Could it just mean, in this case, that you wish to be supportive of Linda Solomon, and don't wish to criticise or insult her?

When I, for instance, "agree in principle"--or disagree in principle, I tend to act on my agreement or disagreement.

Re. Aids. You know darn well that I'm not even close to the "first" one to question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, so stop pretending--trying to make me seem uniquely dissident. Google rethinkaids or aids dissident or aids denialist, whatever--human endogenous retroviruses, Kary Mullis dissident and Nobel prize winner, Peter Duesberg. Go for it. I bet you already have--or why refer to Dr. Montaner's "gambit" in which he is trying to begin a regime of universal HAART (highly activated antiviral therapy) for hiv positives?

You know all about this, so your claim to be ignorant hardly rings true--at least with me.

I really don't get your point about immigration. Is not my criticism as valid as your acceptance? Is there some kind of moral obligation to be kind in every situation? I don't think so.

Linda Solomon wrote an article entitled, "Why I came to Canada."

To me, its about having the best and wanting more.

I responded in a sincere, heartfelt manner, as I imagine you did.

Welcome to Canada, Linda. There is another benefit to living in Canada, certainly a much more enlightened society than America. American Drug War Politics affects the world in very negative ways. Specifically I speak of America's rabid obsession with eradicating cannabis. In Canada we view marijuana as a medicinal plant. You can access medical marijuana from compassion clubs. For example thecompassionclub.org. The Canadian government much to the dismay of the American Govt. has as well the MMAR program. To understand the importance of cannabis as a therapeutic tool visit cdnaids.ca and download the pdf of there 18 month study. Thank God you now are safe from draconian drug laws.

I believe that it is more more likely that people with good and highly trained/educated minds would be better able to realize that could be a place/country more suited for them, and then search for ways to move to places that are less antogonistic to their being.

A great many Americans have ancestors who moved to the USA to escape persecution for their beliefs, yet when they started their settlements, they were intolerant of people who were not like them. That intolerance of difference is part of the metal of the "melting pot" cauldron. People of intelligence and feeling may find it excruciating to stay in a place where they seem to be impurities that cannot combine to form an alloy, but rather, they feel themselves burning up and forming a vapour. Some of those people are better suited to become part of the fabric of the patchwork quilt that makes up Canada. Imperfect as it is, Canada is much better for them - be those people rich or poor when they get here.

Further, as we, people, are of the same species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, all of us have ancestors who were immigrants. Ethically, none of us has the right of domain over any portion of the planet. I would much rather have no borders, anywhere, but as humans are presently willing to fight and kill over land, we need to strive to make Canada the beacon of acceptance.

John Lennon: "Imagine no country..."

Of course: "Imagine no country."

I think every square inch on the planet belongs to everyone equally, and it would be wonderful if I could just phone up and make a reservation to go live in Moscow or Beijing or Liverpool--or set up my tent in the back yard of SharingISGood's cottage.

But such a world doesn't exist, except for the very wealthy, in most cases.

And in a world where one superpower still exists--and a superpower whose government is still susceptible to the intentions and aspirations of its citizens--even still responds to polling numbers, and particularly to votes, of course--it would be nice if justice-seeking Americans would be able to find the strength to remain in America and contribute their egalitarian and freedom-loving instincts into the mix.

Certainly, it's good to have law-abiding and contributing immigrants in Canada, but every American citizen has a hugely disproportionate amount of influence in the world--especially if they participate politically and vote--merely because the United States wields so much international influence.

So to hope that America retains a healthy stock of justice-seekers, and that a significant number of them does not fly the coop, seems not overly persecutorial. Good word, eh.

I think we have more doctors, writers, hockey players, teachers, nurses and other professionals emmigrating to the USA than the other way around. The brain drain balance points south.

Correct, SharingISGood. I just read somewhere that four times as many Canadians move to the States as Americans who come here, so this would tend to suggest that the United States is still quite liveable.

If the United States is as worthless as Linda Solomon would have us believe, why are so many middle-class, educated professional Canadians lining up to move there?--not to mention the Mexicans and South Americans who spend terrifying hours in drainage ditches or suffocate to death in mobile containers, or drown trying to escape Haiti, just to get to the place from which Linda Solomon escaped.

It's also true that at least one half of Americans are getting pretty "fed up" with America's foreign policy, and I think 60 something percent are not happy with the Bush administration's phony wars in Iraq and elsewhere.

The whole world cries out for conscientious, courageous justice-seekers who are willing to put their well-being on the line to make a better world.

In her article Solomon says she wondered, "Wouldn't it have been better to have stayed put and worked to have upset Bush."

All I am saying is: "Yeah, maybe."

Succumbing to fear and loathing, while understandable, is seldom worthy of being raised to a virtue, and always regretable--and the times I have done it in my life--although I suspect they are fewer and farther apart than average--I still regret.

Now you're being disingenuous Truman. I suspect you know perfectly well what I meant - and on both accounts.

We all live in the real world and we are all forced to make compromises to a greater or lesser extent with our principles. Me no less nor more than you, I expect: This is inherent with the quality and experience of being human.

Thus, while I might wish a general policy which discourages my country from cherry-picking the best and the brightest of the 3rd world (or the richest for that matter) I am not personally prepared to condemn someone -particularly someone who leaves their home for personal and political reasons and comes to this country. I cannot walk in their shoes; neither will I judge them. Clear enough I hope. In this particular case, where the subject of our discussion is likely an upper middle-class American I do not think that her absence – particularly since her writing will still be accessible in the States – will be of much consequence to her native country.

On the other matter: You will have to accept my assurance that my knowledge of the science and the history of Aids and Aids treatment are cursory at best. As a matter of fact - although I accept your assertion that many others have written about the things you brought to my attention log before you did - your own writings are the first I knew of the complexities of the question.

There it is. That's one reason why, subsequent to our first discussion of the matter several months ago (which I'm sure you remember), I've not said or written much more about the question.

My previous assertions stand, unembarrassed and whole.

I'm not being disingenuous, Alcibiades.

I really don't understand your position on Solomon's immigration in light of the fact that you claim to agree with me "in principle."

It is not, afterall, "principles" that I am talking about.

Re. Aids. In the Tyee forum after Stanley Persky's book review entitled, "Bad Science Serves Bad Ideas," you posted a link to a Macleans article by Jessica Werb, entitled, "How To Wipe Out Aids In 45 Years." (Google it!)

Included with the link was your comment:

"Haven't seen you address Julio Montaner's latest Aids gambit directly yet, Truman. Did I just miss it.?"

I was very pleased that you posted this comment because it informed readers about Montaner's Lancet article in which he, I believe, erroneously claimed that prescribing HAART prescriptions--antiretroviral chemotherapies--to all hiv positive people, most of whom will be PERFECTLY HEALTHY is the way to wipe out Aids.

"First do no harm," comes to mind.

I assumed from your query and post that you had spent considerable time investigating the HIV/AIDS issue, because your comment appeared to show a fairly sophisticated understanding of the issues I have tried to raise regarding the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, including why I hope that Montaner's proposal will not be acted upon.

I made this assumption because I believe a completely scientifically ignorant person would lack a reason to post such a comment and link to that article--particularly in a fashion which appeared to offer me encouragement.

And I hoped that if you have an opinion on this issue, you would express it on the forum. But, of course, if you now say you have not looked into the science, I will accept that.

But then, why did you post that comment and that link to the Montaner proposal?

Your comment on the Persky thread appears to be a query from a person who is fairly confident about that which he speaks.

No?

I'm fairly confident that I don't have the expertise to debate the issue with you is all Truman - relative to Aids. I read the Maclean's article and thought you'd be interested since it seems to be something you really are interested in and knowledgeable about.

Most of the people I know who have any knowledge of Aids are folks who spend a lot of time raising money for places like the Dr Peter centre. They all say, without an exception, that there is progress being made in treating the disease and that the current direction is the right one.

I know you don't believe that and I've read and tried to understand the things you've brought to my attention. That's the sum total of my position. I respect your knowledge and your commitment and, as I said above, if you're right and my friends are wrong I'll be more than happy to acknowledge the fact. End of story - I'm sorry if I misled you.

On the other question, I assume you and I aren't that far apart, okay with you?

Thank you for that, Alcibiades. All the best!

If four times as many people who were educated and nutured to professional stature are emmigating to the US than are immigrating from the US, then what is the harm of accepting more?

You'll never believe me, SharingISGood, but I've been coming back to the site occasionally, waiting for you to show up with that stupid question--because I had a flash of you asking it as I was posting it.

You see, I know how your bratty mind works now. (Remember your Dalai Lama comment.)

I had a friend who worked until midnight or so downtown. I'd pick her up at the skytrain and we'd go eat somewhere. She loved junkfood drive through places for some strange reason and she'd end up with a small pile of paper garbage, which she insisted on throwing out the window on to the asphalt of whatever parking lot we'd hang around.

Here's a puzzle for you, SharingISGood: How do you suppose she defended throwing that garbage out the window?

Hint: She'd used the phrase, "What's the harm."

Sorry, that was rude, but really...what do you suppose morality is? Is it based on the incidence of behaviour?

I grant that two wrongs don't make a right, but you will note that I only asked the question, I didn't defend it. I accept your apology and I liked your story, Truman. Its moral teaching and your stance reminds me of Socrates having his hemlock instead of "running" off to Sparta. I hope it is not moral to keep someone out because they were born and educated somewhere else. You see, Truman Green, I am the only one of my clan to live in Canada. I, too, am an immigrant. I really like this country - as much as I can like any nation, and I learned to do so from within. This country is far better than the USA and it galls me when I watch people change it to become more like the materialistic, egocentric land to the south.

Truman
Happened to hear Ignatieff on the CBC this morning - I can work and listen some times - and I'd have to say he came across as a simpering, name-dropping twit.

May have to reconsider my tepid approval of what he's been writing - and upon which I had been basing my analysis. Reassessment is always sensible when more information becomes available, eh?

Cheers yourself!

Alcibiades, the phrase "I told you so," should probably be resisted whenever possible, but I can't resist so...yeah, Ignatieff's definitely contraindicated for the survival of Canadian sovereignty, eh.

And since I'm diverting from my usual grace, I'm going to go for "whadya mean, 'more information becomes available,'" too.

Didn't I refer you and the gullible West to Ignatieff's New York Times essay, "Who Are Americans To Think That Freedom Is Theirs To Spread?"

Which is possibly the most ingratiating, cynical, deceptive, dishonest, machievellian (etc) piece of crap I've ever read in my life.

And didn't I recommend you read, "Canada's Prince of Darkness, Machael Ignatieff," by John Chuckman?

And his essay on torture?

Anyway...so what names did Ignatieff drop--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl (Prince of Darkness II), Donald Rumsfeld?

I propose that we're still on topic here because of Ignatieff's 30 year sabbatical in the States, from whence he emigrated to become Prime Minister.

SharingIsGood, I don't think Canada's any better than the United States. Materialism's alive and well here, too.

And I'd imagine if we had all those aircraft carriers and space shuttles and 300 million people, we'd get a bit conceited, too.

And anyway, I'd estimate that there are at least a hundred million Americans who are pretty much in agreement with your appraisal of American egocentricity.(50 million, perhaps?)

I understand that it's difficult for most people to hold paradoxes in their brains, but the United States is simultaneously a very dangerous country and a wonderful one.

And there's a growing movement of political dissidence there, which opposes the strengthening of its imperialist tendencies--even the possibility of a nascent police state, sleazed into existence by an enabling war on terror.

I lived half of my fifty years in the USA, the other half, here, in Canada; and I believe Canada to be a kinder, more caring nation. But that is slipping away as Parliament and the BC & Alberta legislatures continue to sell off everything they own for pennies on the dollar while continuing to move to privatize health care and any other government service.