Flag Taken Hostage

[lucky wilbury]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131380,00.html

Flag Taken Hostage

An American flag flying atop the Brooklyn Bridge has been stolen, and protesters are threatening to burn it unless, "all jailed RNC protesters" are freed.

The protesters, in a message on indymedia.org, also call for the resignations of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and President Bush.

Police are investigating the kidnapping. Meanwhile, a new American flag has been placed atop the bridge.

[JCOOK]

Every time someone burns the flag it only makes what it stands for stronger IMO

[Ally_Kat]

yeah, like that's going to happen.

How the hell did they get up there? Ya know, this, the tourists on the Willamsburg bridge, and I believe a banner onf the 59th st bridge...doesn't make me too easy riding the rails over them. Ifwe have all this security how the fuck did they get up there?

[Big Train]

We don't negotiate with Terrorists or protesters. If they burn it, so be it. They will have to expect the consequences....

It is really pathetic. Not getting enough media attention, you useless bitches?? Everything was peaceful, you didn't get your 68', like they promised you. Your hippie delusions are all coming to pass and you can't hack it. So let's burn the flag, unless the jailed protesters are freed. Like my grandpa said to them then, I say to them now "Get a job, pal".

[LoungeMachine]

Now I know where FORD went on vacation!


This just smacks of a KKKarl Rove plant.


Faux News must be creaming their dockers

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
We don't negotiate with Terrorists

We don't???

Hmmm, I must have been watching different coverage of Najaf than you.

And when you mean we, do you mean the USA?

Beacause we HAVE negotiated with terrorists for decades!!!!

Iran Contra ring a bell??


How about supplying BOTH Iraq and Iran?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Beacause we HAVE negotiated with terrorists for decades!!!!




Then along came George W. Bush


:elvis:

[Satan]

Protestors exercizing their Freedom of Speech are not TERRORISTS. Furthermore, while I don't personally endorse the practice, flag burning is considered protected Freedom of Speech by the Supreme Court.

I suppose you could charge the person in possession of the flag with theft of NY city property, but that's about it.

Meanwhile, the convention is over, and there is no longer any excuse for the protestors to be detained. Period.

[Satan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Then along came George W. Bush....


...who either initiated terrorist acts upon his own country, or held the door open while terrorists trained and funded by his family's crime syndicate did so.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Satan
Protestors exercizing their Freedom of Speech are not TERRORISTS.


Nobody said they were...:rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Satan
...who either initiated terrorist acts upon his own country, or held the door open while terrorists trained and funded by his family's crime syndicate did so.


It's utterly amazing that you believe such BULLSHIT!

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Then along came George W. Bush


:elvis:


president bush was willing to negotiate with saddam hussien, prior to our invasion. so either saddam wasn't a terrorist then, or bush occasionally negotiates...




but Satan, those idiots aren't protestors. they might not be terrorists, but at best, they're thieves. and in no way does the 1st amendment give you the right to destroy somebody else's property.

these idiots make a mockery of legitamite protestors. and while i personally hate the practice, i disagree 100% with the amendment to ban flag burning. but these yahoos make the amendment more palatable and likely.

[knuckleboner]

whoops...

[Satan]

Originally posted by knuckleboner

but Satan, those idiots aren't protestors. they might not be terrorists, but at best, they're thieves. and in no way does the 1st amendment give you the right to destroy somebody else's property.

these idiots make a mockery of legitamite protestors. and while i personally hate the practice, i disagree 100% with the amendment to ban flag burning. but these yahoos make the amendment more palatable and likely.

As I said above, charging them with theft would be acceptable, at least those who actually stole the flag. I also agree that they give a bad name to the legit protestors, which lead me to believe our "Langley Anarchists" have struck again.

[Satan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Nobody said they were...:rolleyes:

Big Train did.

[Big Train]

Apparently nobody got the joke I was trying to make there...It's the party line, ya know.

I'm sure they will be let out in short order, after the processing is done.

This is a stupid stunt being pulled by desperate protesters, not BCE plants (I mean please..). Ford/Satan is just reaching there.

[Mezro]

Protestors that damage property/steal are assholes and this particular flag is highly overrated. It is just a shitty import made in China. Who gives a fuck if they burn it?

Mezro...any proud American knows the spirit of the country lives in our freedom(s) and not in a flag...

[Satan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
It's utterly amazing that you believe such BULLSHIT!

It's utterly disgusting that you and so many others DON'T believe this, but you believe stories of box cutters and passports surviving a 2700 degree fire which (we are told) melted a steel frame enough to collapse a 110 story building

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
president bush was willing to negotiate with saddam hussien, prior to our invasion. so either saddam wasn't a terrorist then, or bush occasionally negotiates...



.

Nice.
another Shrub Flip Flop.

Or option C, bush NEVER intended to negotiate w/ Saddam, and it was all a smokescreen for the invsion planned by Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Bushie, Rove, Perle, Chalabi, and others in 2000

[Mezro]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
and it was all a smokescreen for the invsion planned by Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Bushie, Rove, Perle, Chalabi, and others in 2000

The money boys made the plans and GWB gave the command.

Mezro...guilty by association...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Or option C, bush NEVER intended to negotiate w/ Saddam, and it was all a smokescreen for the invsion planned by Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Bushie, Rove, Perle, Chalabi, and others in 2000

Actually the plan was made in 1998 and signed by Clinton...

[Satan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Actually the plan was made in 1998 and signed by Clinton...

Clinton never signed the PNAC plan. Who put the hallucinogens in your peanut butter & banana sandwich??


January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

[ELVIS]

The Iraq Liberation Act (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm)
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.



:elvis:

[Satan]

Yes, he signed a bill that had passed both the House and the Senate, which is part of his job description as President. However, that bill was NOT authoriztion for an invasion of Iraq, and did NOT establish Iraq as a "threat" to the United States.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Satan
However, that bill was NOT authoriztion for an invasion of Iraq


How else can you conduct a "regime change" ??