Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Visible signs of the NWO

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Conspiracy

Author Thread
KNOW-THIS





Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
Visible signs of the NWO PostThu Jun 16, 2005 8:31 pm  Reply with quote  

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/05/sprpt/4-4.htm#a21
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message
Mech





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostThu Jun 16, 2005 9:00 pm  Reply with quote  

"Beginning in 1992, Al Gore agreed, with his signature, that the United States would implement the missions documented in Agenda 21, and our country then began politically and socially restructuring to meet the requirements of the World Bank, The World Trade Organization, and the United Nations."

Just like how DUBYA Bush signed onto the UNESCO plan.

What a bunch of GARBAGE...democrap vs. republonazi.

TWO management teams bidding for control of the CEO job of SLAVERY INC.

Most people are too BLINDED by the false left vs. right paradigm to see that BOTH are 100% behind the New World Order agenda, with the exeption of a few tiny, lonely voices in the wilderness who totally oppose corrupt globalism like Congressman Ron Paul.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Mech





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostThu Jun 16, 2005 9:05 pm  Reply with quote  






http://skullandcrossbones.org/articles/skullandbones.htm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Swamp Gas





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostThu Jun 16, 2005 9:17 pm  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Mech
Most people are too BLINDED by the false left vs. right paradigm to see that BOTH are 100% behind the New World Order agenda, with the exeption of a few tiny, lonely voices in the wilderness who totally oppose corrupt globalism like Congressman Ron Paul.


And Dennis Kucinich!

Ron Paul and Dennis represent what true Conservatives and Liberals should be!!!
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Mech





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostThu Jun 16, 2005 9:20 pm  Reply with quote  

American Dictators.


http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/august2004/082804dictatorspreview.htm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
KNOW-THIS





Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostThu Jun 16, 2005 9:27 pm  Reply with quote  

Here you can see the cunning way the neo-cons are actually saying one thing and doing another:




quote:
NeoCon Global Government

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.

The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves – specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.

The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes – and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.

What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime – regardless of the nature of that regime.

What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance – even resistance to the UN itself – is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?

This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop-contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.

Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?

The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures – as this legislation does – and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message
SKYWATCH





Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 3
CHEMTRAILS ACROSS THE UK PostThu Jun 16, 2005 9:38 pm  Reply with quote  

Is our government allowing USAF KC-135R tanker planes to spray pure white chemical fibres across the UK either for military purposes or for weather modification, due to the thinning ozone layer, and the increasing level of co2 in our atmosphere?

Tonight was the worst for weeks over Cheshire, UK. Our skies have been turning white since 6PM with trails from over 30 planes at last count.

This Toronto website should give you evidence about the same thing happening in Canada:

www.airapparent.ca

and the US:

www.weatherwars.info

and France:

www.chemtrails-france.com (In French only)


Greenpeace in Germany and Switzerland will not touch this, and are now losing members over this issue.

Pressure Group

Cheshire Citizens for Clear Skies

email: TrustTonyBlair@aol.com

if you are based in the UK contact us now.
 View user's profile Send private message
Mech





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostThu Jun 16, 2005 9:40 pm  Reply with quote  

Ummm...

This would be better discussed in the Chemtrails forum.

Post your article here......

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/forum1.html

Thanx.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Et in Arcadia ego





Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void
PostThu Jun 16, 2005 10:01 pm  Reply with quote  

Dig the creepy email addy..

Confused
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution."
 View user's profile Send private message
Swamp Gas





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostFri Jun 17, 2005 1:17 pm  Reply with quote  

I think determining who is an NWO stooge and who is not could be found by looking at the voting record of the Patriot Act and The Iraq War.

representatives who voted against The Patriot Act

Baldwin, WI, Democrat
Barrett, WI, Dem
Blumenauer, OR, Dem
Bonior, MI, Dem
Boucher, VA, Dem
Brown, OH, Dem
Capuano, MA, Dem
Clayton, NC, Dem
Conyers, MI, Dem
Coyne, PA, Dem
Cummings, MD, Dem
Davis, IL, Dem
DeFazio, OR, Dem
DeGette, CO, Dem
Dingell, MI, Dem
Farr, CA, Dem
Filner, CA, Dem
Feingold, WI Democrat
Frank, MA, Dem
Hastings, FL, Dem,
Hilliard, AL, Dem
Honda, CA, Dem
Jackson, IL, Dem
Jackson-Lee, TX, Dem
Johnson, E.B., TX, Dem
Jones, OH, Dem
Kucinich, OH, Dem
Barbara Lee, Dem
Lewis, GA, Dem
McDermott, WA, Dem
McGovern, MA, Dem
McKinney, GA, Dem
Meek, FL, Dem
Miller, George, CA, Dem
Mink, HI, Dem
Mollohan, WV, Dem
Nadler, NY, Dem
Ney, OH, Republican
Oberstar, MN, Dem
Olver, MA, Dem
Otter, ID, Republican
Owens, NY, Dem
Pastor, AZ, Dem
Paul, Ron, TX, Republican
Payne, NJ, Dem
Peterson, MN, Dem
Rahall, WV, Dem
Rivers, MI, Dem
Rush, IL, Dem
Sabo, MN, Dem
Sanchez, CA, Dem
Sanders, VT, Independent
Schakowsky, IL, Dem
Scott, VA, Dem
Serrano, NY, Dem
Stark, CA, Dem
Thompson, MS, Dem
Tierney, MA, Dem
Udall, CO, Dem
Udall, NM, Dem
Velazquez, NY, Dem
Visclosky, IN, Dem
Waters, CA, Dem
Watt, NC, Dem
Woolsey, CA, Dem
Wu, OR, Dem


Senators For and against Iraq Invasion

YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)




Congresspeople for and against Iraq invasion

---- YEAS    296 ---

Ackerman D
Aderholt R
Akin R
Andrews D
Armey R
Bachus R
Baker R
Ballenger R
Barcia D
Barr R
Bartlett R
Barton R
Bass R
Bentsen D
Bereuter R
Berkley D
Berman D
Berry D
Biggert R
Bilirakis R
Bishop D
Blagojevich D
Blunt R
Boehlert R
Boehner R
Bonilla R
Bono R
Boozman R
Borski D
Boswell D
Boucher D
Boyd D
Brady (TX) R
Brown (SC) R
Bryant R
Burr R
Burton R
Buyer R
Callahan R
Calvert R
Camp R
Cannon R
Cantor R
Capito R
Carson (OK) D
Castle R
Chabot R
Chambliss R
Clement D
Coble R
Collins R
Combest R
Cooksey R
Cox R
Cramer D
Crane R
Crenshaw R
Crowley D
Cubin R
Culberson R
Cunningham R
Davis (FL) D
Davis, Jo Ann R
Davis, Tom R
Deal R
DeLay R
DeMint R
Deutsch D
Diaz-Balart R
Dicks D
Dooley D
Doolittle R
Dreier R
Dunn R
Edwards D
Ehlers R
Ehrlich R
Emerson R
Engel D
English R
Etheridge D
Everett R
Ferguson R
Flake R
Fletcher R
Foley R
Forbes R
Ford D
Fossella R
Frelinghuysen R
Frost D
Gallegly R
Ganske R
Gekas R
Gephardt D
Gibbons R
Gilchrest R
Gillmor R
Gilman R
Goode R
Goodlatte R
Gordon D
Goss R
Graham R
Granger R
Graves R
Green (TX) D
Green (WI) R
Greenwood R
Grucci R
Gutknecht R
Hall (TX) D
Hansen R
Harman D
Hart R
Hastert R
Hastings (WA) R
Hayes R
Hayworth R
Hefley R
Herger R
Hill D
Hilleary R
Hobson R
Hoeffel D
Hoekstra R
Holden D
Horn R
Hoyer D
Hulshof R
Hunter R
Hyde R
Isakson R
Israel D
Issa R
Istook R
Jefferson D
Jenkins R
John D
Johnson (CT) R
Johnson (IL) R
Johnson, Sam R
Jones (NC) R
Kanjorski D
Keller R
Kelly R
Kennedy (MN) R
Kennedy (RI) D
Kerns R
Kind (WI) D
King (NY) R
Kingston R
Kirk R
Knollenberg R
Kolbe R
LaHood R
Lampson D
Lantos D
Latham R
LaTourette R
Lewis (CA) R
Lewis (KY) R
Linder R
LoBiondo R
Lowey D
Lucas (KY) D
Lucas (OK) R
Luther D
Lynch D
Maloney (NY) D
Manzullo R
Markey D
Mascara D
Matheson D
McCarthy (NY) D
McCrery R
McHugh R
McInnis R
McIntyre D
McKeon R
McNulty D
Meehan D
Mica R
Miller, Dan R
Miller, Gary R
Miller, Jeff R
Moore D
Moran (KS) R
Murtha D
Myrick R
Nethercutt R
Ney R
Northup R
Norwood R
Nussle R
Osborne R
Ose R
Otter R
Oxley R
Pascrell D
Pence R
Peterson (MN) D
Peterson (PA) R
Petri R
Phelps D
Pickering R
Pitts R
Platts R
Pombo R
Pomeroy D
Portman R
Pryce (OH) R
Putnam R
Quinn R
Radanovich R
Ramstad R
Regula R
Rehberg R
Reynolds R
Riley R
Roemer D
Rogers (KY) R
Rogers (MI) R
Rohrabacher R
Ros-Lehtinen R
Ross D
Rothman D
Royce R
Ryan (WI) R
Ryun (KS) R
Sandlin D
Saxton R
Schaffer R
Schiff D
Schrock R
Sensenbrenner R
Sessions R
Shadegg R
Shaw R
Shays R
Sherman D
Sherwood R
Shimkus R
Shows D
Shuster R
Simmons R
Simpson R
Skeen R
Skelton D
Smith (MI) R
Smith (NJ) R
Smith (TX) R
Smith (WA)D
Souder R
Spratt D
Stearns R
Stenholm D
Sullivan R
Sununu R
Sweeney R
Tancredo R
Tanner D
Tauscher D
Tauzin R
Taylor (MS)D
Taylor (NC) R
Terry R
Thomas R
Thornberry R
Thune R
Thurman D
Tiahrt R
Tiberi R
Toomey R
Turner D
Upton R
Vitter R
Walden R
Walsh R
Wamp R
Watkins (OK)R
Watts (OK) R
Waxman D
Weiner D
Weldon (FL)R
Weldon (PA)R
Weller R
Wexler D
Whitfield R
Wicker R
Wilson (NM)R
Wilson (SC)R
Wolf R
Wynn D
Young (AK) R
Young (FL) R


---- NAYS 133 ---


Abercrombie D
Allen D
Baca D
Baird D
Baldacci D
Baldwin D
Barrett D
Becerra D
Blumenauer D
Bonior D
Brady (PA) D
Brown (FL) D
Brown (OH) D
Capps D
Capuano D
Cardin D
Carson (IN) D
Clay D
Clayton D
Clyburn D
Condit D
Conyers D
Costello D
Coyne D
Cummings D
Davis (CA) D
Davis (IL) D
DeFazio D
DeGette D
Delahunt D
DeLauro D
Dingell D
Doggett D
Doyle D
Duncan R
Eshoo D
Evans D
Farr D
Fattah D
Filner D
Frank D
Gonzalez D
Gutierrez D
Hastings (FL)D
Hilliard D
Hinchey D
Hinojosa D
Holt D
Honda D
Hooley D
Hostettler R
Houghton R
Inslee D
Jackson (IL) D
Jackson-Lee (TX) D
Johnson, E. B. D
Jones (OH) D
Kaptur D
Kildee D
Kilpatrick D
Kleczka D
Kucinich D
LaFalce D
Langevin D
Larsen (WA) D
Larson (CT) D
Leach R
Lee D
Levin D
Lewis (GA) D
Lipinski D
Lofgren D
Maloney (CT) D
Matsui D
McCarthy (MO) D
McCollum D
McDermott D
McGovern D
McKinney D
Meek (FL) D
Meeks (NY) D
Menendez D
Millender-McDonald D
Miller, George D
Mollohan D
Moran (VA) D
Morella R
Nadler D
Napolitano D
Neal D
Oberstar D
Obey D
Olver D
Owens D
Pallone D
Pastor D
Paul R
Payne D
Pelosi D
Price (NC) D
Rahall D
Rangel D
Reyes D
Rivers D
Rodriguez D
Roybal-Allard D
Rush D
Sabo R
Sanchez D
Sanders I
Sawyer D
Schakowsky D
Scott D
Serrano D
Slaughter D
Snyder D
Solis D
Stark D
Strickland D
Stupak D
Thompson (CA) D
Thompson (MS) D
Tierney D
Towns D
Udall (CO) D
Udall (NM) D
Velazquez D
Visclosky D
Waters D
Watson (CA) D
Watt (NC) D
Woolsey D
Wu D
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
KNOW-THIS





Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
PostFri Jun 17, 2005 8:20 pm  Reply with quote  

There was also a vote breakdown of a recent proposal to improve our troops armor. All but one of the votes for "no improved armor" were by chicken hawk republicans.

http://www.thenextleft.com/blogatory/archives/2005/04/do_republicans.html

Republicans oppose Humvee armor supplement for US troops

(via Daily Kos, via Operation Truth)
Last Thursday, the Senate agreed to an amendment to change the Emergency Supplemental to provide an additional $213 million in funding to produce armored Humvees.

There were 61 YEA votes to 39 NAY votes. Of the 39 NAY votes, all but one was a Republican.

38 Republican senators voted against the $213 million for Humvee armor. Only 17 voted for it.

In contrast, 43 Democrats voted for the money for Humvee armor. Only 1 voted NAY.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive"
 View user's profile Send private message
Mech





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA
PostSat Jun 18, 2005 12:21 am  Reply with quote  

That's why i say...

Bring the kids home and lets those rich, spoiled beauracrats fight the war based on FABRICATED LIES... THEY STARTED.

BTW..the democraps won't save us either.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Swamp Gas





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostSat Jun 18, 2005 3:05 am  Reply with quote  

Small Bipartisan Group in House Presses for Iraq Exit Strategy

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: June 16, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 16 - A resolution calling on President Bush to announce an exit strategy from Iraq was introduced in the House today by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including one who was once so upset about French opposition to the war that he wanted the House cafeterias to change the name "French fries" to "freedom fries."

Two Republicans and two Democrats held a news conference in which they prodded President Bush to announce a withdrawal timetable by the end of the year. Their resolution calls on him to start bringing American troops home by Oct. 1, 2006.

"Our troops have done everything we've asked of them," said one sponsor, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii. "It's time to get serious about an exit strategy."

Representative Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican, who not many months ago was so incensed by French opposition to the American-led military campaign in Iraq, agreed. "After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," he said.

The other sponsors are Representatives Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, and Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio.

The lawmakers introduced their measure a day after Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, visited Capitol Hill to demand "a very quick exit strategy." With opinion polls showing a drop in support for the war, and a British memo asserting that the Bush administration had intended to go to war as early as the summer of 2002, the words "exit strategy" are being uttered by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The flurry began over the weekend, when Mr. Jones called for the Bush administration to set specific goals for leaving Iraq.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, has introduced in the Senate a measure similar to the nonbinding resolution that Mr. Jones and his House colleagues are offering. In the House, the International Relations Committee last week voted overwhelmingly, 32 to 9, to call on the White House to develop and submit a plan to Congress for establishing a stable government and military in Iraq that would "permit a decreased U.S. presence" there.

Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat, was convening a forum today on the so-called Downing Street Memo, a leaked document that appeared to suggest that the White House had made a decision to go to war in the summer of 2002. Next week, Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat, is planning to read on the House floor the names of approximately 1,700 Americans who have died in the war.

Though most Republicans are steering clear of the exit strategy discussion, a handful are joining in. Representative Howard Coble of North Carolina, for instance, said on Wednesday that he was considering it.

"I'm not suggesting pulling out tomorrow or next month," said Mr. Coble, who favored going to war, "but I want that to be an option. I don't want us to spend an eternity in Iraq. So conceptually, I'm inclined to embrace Walter Jones's proposal."

Such comments by Republicans would have been heresy before last November's election, because no one in the party wanted to weaken President Bush. But now, with 2006 midterm elections approaching, members of Congress are hearing from constituents who are growing uneasy about the war. So a nascent discussion is emerging in Congress about America's involvement in Iraq and whether it is time for re-evaluation.

"Certainly, people are breaking ranks, and saying, 'You know what, things are not hunky-dory,' " said Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, who sponsored the measure that passed the International Relations Committee last week. Much to Mr. Crowley's surprise, it drew support from the panel's chairman, Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois, and 12 other Republicans.

Many Republicans - and a number of Democrats, including Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader - oppose setting a specific timetable for troop withdrawal, saying that to do so would only embolden insurgents. The Pentagon reiterated that position today. Lawrence DiRita, the principal Defense Department spokesman, said that to set an "artificial deadline" in Washington would be unwise, since "the situation in Iraq is developing along based on events in Iraq."

But lawmakers are keeping an eye on the polls, which reflect growing discontent with the war.

In a recent Gallup poll, 6 in 10 Americans who responded said the United States should withdraw all or some of its troops from Iraq. In another poll, by ABC News and The Washington Post, two-thirds of those questioned said the American military had gotten bogged down in Iraq. That is a welcome development for people like Ms. Zappala.

Her son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a National Guard reservist who in his civilian life was a social worker for mentally retarded adults, was killed last year after just six weeks in Iraq. He was assigned to the team looking for unconventional weapons, said his mother, who is director of the commission on aging for the city of Philadelphia and a co-founder of Gold Star Families of Peace, which represents relatives of fallen soldiers.

On Wednesday, the group met with Mr. Jones. "We actually gave him a little certificate for his courage," Ms. Zappala said. Though she said she was under no illusions that American troops would withdraw from Iraq any time soon, "that the conversation is happening," she said, "is very, very important."
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

All times are GMT.
The time now is Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:23 pm


  Display posts from previous:      



Conspiracy List | Arcade Webmaster | Escape Games


© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum