War Without End

Guest

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/98525_poll05.shtml

America's popularity plunges worldwide
Muslims perceive U.S. as a bully, poll finds

Thursday, December 5, 2002

By BOB DEANS
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- U.S. popularity has plunged across much of the world amid mounting perceptions that the United States is running roughshod over other nations and doing too little to help poor countries, a report released yesterday concludes.

The trend is particularly acute across the Muslim world, where growing numbers of people see the anti-terror campaign as a way for the United States to bully its Islamic foes.

Growing anti-Americanism could make it increasingly difficult for leaders of democratic nations to support controversial U.S. initiatives, such as President Bush's call for assertive action against Iraq. It also threatens the stability of autocratic regimes that back U.S. policies.

Those are among the key findings of the report released by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a widely respected public opinion outfit.

President Bush blamed the trend on "propaganda machines" bent on casting the United States "in a bad light."

Said Bush: "We'll do everything we can to remind people that we've never been a nation of conquerors; we're a nation of liberators."

But former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who was chairwoman for the Pew survey, said part of the problem is a tendency by Bush to muscle other countries into going along with his views.

"Basically, we tell other people what to do, rather than try to get consensus," she told a group of reporters. "That ultimately will have a cost."

Albright, who served as the nation's chief diplomat under former President Clinton, said the survey was the most extensive of its type ever.

In its Global Attitudes Project, Pew surveyed more than 38,000 people -- most face-to-face in their homes -- in 44 countries around the world, asking how their attitudes toward the United States have changed over the past two years.

The survey showed that, while much of the world empathized with the United States after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, overall favorability ratings for the country have slipped significantly over the past two years.

"Images of the U.S. have been tarnished in all types of nations: among longtime NATO allies, in developing countries, in Eastern Europe and, most dramatically, in Muslim societies," Pew states in a 150-page summary of the survey's findings. "True dislike, if not hatred, of America is concentrated in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and in Central Asia, today's areas of greatest conflict."

In Pakistan, a key partner in U.S. anti-terror efforts, just 10 percent of the public have a favorable view of the United States, down from 23 percent two years ago. And in Turkey, a NATO ally, public support for the United States has plunged to 30 percent from 52 percent two years ago.

In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, U.S. favorability has receded to 61 percent. It was 75 percent over the past two years.

While Bush has repeatedly stressed that the anti-terror campaign is not a new crusade against Islam, many people among the world's 1 billion Muslims see it as precisely that, said Pew Director Andrew Kohut.

"We're not being heard," said Kohut, "because we don't have credibility with their public."

Kohut briefed White House officials on the survey's findings, but Bush said he had not seen the report as of midday, when he responded to a question about it at the White House.

"I hope the message that we fight not a religion, but a group of fanatics which have hijacked a religion, is getting through," said Bush. "I understand the propaganda machines are cranked up in the international community that paints our country in a bad light."

Bush cited the U.S. toppling of the harsh Taliban regime in Afghanistan as an example of an American contribution to the Muslim world.

"Thanks to our strength and our compassion, many young (Afghan) girls now go to school for the first time," said Bush. "The Muslim world will eventually realize, if they don't now, that we believe in freedom, and we respect all individuals."

Even among a number of close U.S. allies, however, U.S. popularity is on the wane.

Over the past two years, support for the United States has fallen to 61 percent in Germany, down from 78 percent; and to 75 percent in Britain, down from 83 percent.

A few countries have bucked the trend. In Russia, for instance, 61 percent of the public has a favorable view of the United States, up from 37 percent two years ago.

The surveys were performed independently -- under contract with private polling firms -- in each country. In most cases, the margin of error ranged between 3 and 4 percentage points. Sample sizes typically hovered between 700 and 800 per country, though they ranged from 500 to 3,000.

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

On the Net:

www.people-press.org

rd1064

we should learn respect number 1,about others belirfs and religion,andb who the hell are we to tell others what to do,as if our systems so great,ask a black man.......if I was president of N.Korea.I would tell Bush to drop dead about inspections,remind him he has 37,000 men sitting within a 5 mile area and we have nukes and the first bomb dropped on n.korea would turn immediately to 37,000 dead bodies for him.....why dont we try feeding,clothing,and trading with these peope,then maybe they will see we are ok,we always go in swinging,telling their women they dont need to cover up,and can go to school etc,when for 3000 years they have done it their way and 90 p/c want it to remain thatt way.....what women have it so good here,if you dont allow women to show thjeir tits,just see how many make it in the movies,what b/s this country can be,even if it is the best place to live,but who says we pray to the right GOD,OR THEY DONT,WE COULD BE WRONG DAHHHHHHHHHHHH

*Mutt AMerican · Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:17 pm Post subject:

First, I think that ... "The trend is particularly acute across the Muslim world, where growing numbers of people see the anti-terror campaign as a way for the United States to bully its Islamic foes."... pretty much sums up the thing about popularity.

Second, which black people are we to ask? Colin Powel or a street pimp? Condi Rice or a drug seller?

Third, WHY ARE those 37,000 troops sitting near North Korea? Might it have something to do with NORTH KOREA invading South Korea? Might it have something to do with NORTH KOREA not regretting that it invaded, but only regretting that it lost?

Fourth, we don't tell people that they CAN'T cover. We tell them that it should be a matter of choice. Folks who want to DEMAND it have a problem with choice.

Nobody · Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2002 1:15 am Post subject: Funny World

Guest

Hardball’ for Dec. 6

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

Read the complete transcript to Friday’s show

Guesst: Orrin Hatch, James Cramer, Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Jerry Falwell,
Robert Edgar, Frank Luntz, Pat Caddell

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I’m Chris Matthews. Let’s play HARDBALL. the HARDBALL debate tonight. The nation’s religious leaders divide over whether attacking Iraq would be a just war.
Plus, Frank Luntz is here with a look at world opinion about us, the U.S. Why do so many countries not trust us anymore? (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Time now for the political buzz. Pat Caddell is a former pollster. Frank Luntz is still a pollster. Let’s talk about what’s going on right now with this new poll that shows people don’t seem to like us in the world. A good number of people now, according to the latest Pew Research Center, a significant number of people in Europe, including our ally Great Britain thinks that the United States only wants this war in Iraq so that we can control Iraqi oil. 44 percent of the Brits think so. More than half the Germans think so. And ¾ of the French and Russians think that this war is about one thing, oil. Not about Saddam Hussein, not weapons of mass destruction. Why do you think that’s the case?
FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: I’m looking at the numbers for Germany right now and we’re actually more popular in Kenya and Nigeria than we are in Germany. There is this incessant anti-Americanism that part of it is based on politics. The German Chancellor Schroeder won his election by running an anti-American campaign. We haven’t seen that in a while. That there was ...
MATTHEWS: No. No. He ran a particular campaign against a particular policy of the United States which was to go to war with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction or whatever the motive may be. That is what he campaigned against.
LUNTZ: That may be what he campaigned against but that’s not what the public heard. You know this. Someone can say something but it really means something else? The German people took that as a chance to say that the German people wanted to basically make a statement about American policy, American activities, and what America was doing in the future. Even though he focused on Bush, it was much broader than that. And you can see, only 61 percent of Germans have a favorable attitude towards America. That’s the lowest its’ been Chris in decades.
MATTHEWS: So what is the reason for it?
LUNTZ: The reason is ...
MATTHEWS: If you had a popular liberal president, then they would like us?
LUNTZ: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: If we had Jack Kennedy back, who else, Bill Clinton back they would like us? So it has to do with the government, the policy, the politics of this country?
LUNTZ: The Europeans have decided they don’t want war under any
circumstances and so it is never justified and when a president starts
challenging that assertion, that belief, it -
MATTHEWS: Well, why did they all support the Bosnian campaign?
LUNTZ: They didn’t support the Bosnian campaign. Don’t you remember the protest against the U.S. during the Bosnian campaign? They were fighting their own governments in the Bosnian campaign.
MATTHEWS: OK. Pat Caddell, what’s your view on this? Why are we losing on the numbers game around the world?
PAT CADDELL, FMR. DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Let’s stop playing with the politics, Mr. Luntz. Let’s talk about the poll numbers. Very serious stuff in this. It’s all over the world. It’s not just the Europeans. The Europeans have their problems with us always. You know, they need us and then they resent us at the same time. It’s like the French.
But this is really worrisome, because one of the things in this poll, American favor ability was down everywhere. Everyone believed that we were not taking their interests into account and I’ll tell you the thing that scared me the most. When you look at this poll and you see the low numbers, in the teens, 20, 30 percent the most of people saying that they welcome the spread of American ideas, the very ideas that we lift the world with, there is something seriously wrong. These are very ugly numbers.
And I’ll tell you, in the Muslim countries in the middle east, this idea of going to war, you look at right here the suicide bombers, I’ll tell you we’re down to 6 percent favor ability in Egypt. We are playing with dynamite here and the idea of running around and just using slogans like I heard the president doing the other day or pretending the stuff doesn’t exist, when we had the declaration of independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote we gained (ph) a decent, a respect for the opinion of mankind.
Well, they don’t think we do. This is all about us looking like a bully and I’ll tell you, this is very dangerous. This is not a singular world here and I’ve never seen numbers this bad for us. Ad I’m talking about countries that are basically friendly.
MATTHEWS: Why do you take seriously or give credit to Americans’ views when they participate in the poll and trash European’s views when they have a view of our country? Isn’t it a legitimate view they have of our country based upon rational thinking? Why do you think the Germans are less rational than we are or the Brits or anybody else? Why do you think they’re less rational? If they have a problem with us, could it be that they have a problem with us?
LUNTZ: And they have every right to have a problem with us.
MATTHEWS: Not just attitude or jealousy. Could it be they don’t like us being hegemonic, going around the world and saying we want the Chinese to do this. We want the North Koreans to do that. We want Latin America to be under our complete control?
LUNTZ: But if we don’t do it, the problem is we don’t do it, they’re going to take a look at us and say a year or two from now, oh, but America could have acted. If Saddam Hussein takes one of those chemical or biological weapons and launches it at Israel and it’s not out of the question, Chris, because he’s done it already, if he does it, they’re going to look at us and they’re going to be saying why didn’t the United States stop it?
MATTHEWS: I’m not so sure it’s going to happen. I’m not sure that will be the reaction. Right back with Frank and Pat.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: According to the Pew Research Center, Paul, the world sees the United States in a less favorable light today than it did two years ago. In Britain, ¾ still have a favorable opinion of the United States, but that number’s down from 83 percent in the year 2000. Germany’s view of the United States is down almost 20 percent over the last two years. Italy’s has slipped six points. Only 30 percent of the Turks have a favorable view down from 52 percent two years ago. And the Pakistanis, who don’t like us much two years, only 23 like us even less now, 10 percent. Look, Frank, this isn’t to do with 9/11. It has to do with over two years, going back to 2000, we have suffered a major decline in world popularity. Why?
LUNTZ: When was the last time we saw...
MATTHEWS: Answer the question. Why has it gone down in two years?
Envy (ph) hasn’t gone up in two years.
LUNTZ: Because — because Europeans don’t like it whenever the United States (UNINTELLIGIBLE) when they demonstrate focus. Pat, give me one second here. We went through the same kind of hostility under Ronald Reagan in 1981, ’82, ’83. You remember those protests. People painting themselves up about us putting weapons there. It was the right decision. The world now says going back 20 years they made the right decision. They will say the same about the United States five year from now.
MATTHEWS: So it doesn’t matter.
CADDELL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) actually, Europeans were in favor of it.
There was a very real...
LUNTZ: They were not if favor of it, Pat, they were not in favor of it.
CADDELL: The majorities in almost every country in Europe except Holland were basically in favor of it.
LUNTZ: In ’81, ’82, ’83? Pat, that’s not correct.
CADDELL: I’m talking about the late ’70’s when we first started deploying.
LUNTZ: Right, but the protests were in the 1980’s and it’s the same kind of hostility now that they felt about us 20 years ago.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you both.
CADDELL: Stop, folks. Look at Turkey and look at Egypt. You’ve got two allies. You’ve got the Turks putting their rear ends on the line and they got 83 percent of their people who are against us in what we are trying to do in Iraq and we are endangering an ally there. Egypt, we’ve given $2 billion, Morocco is a very important ally of ours. 6 percent of the Egyptians like us. We have got real problems on the rim. I don’t care about the Europeans. I’m worried...
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about that question, Pat. Why is that we keep saying we are going into the middle east to protect the countries in the middle east from the regional threat of Saddam Hussein? And yet all the countries in the middle east with the exception of Israel, I guess, dislike our policy towards Iraq. If we are saving them from Iraq, why don’t they thank us instead of hating us? That’s all I ask. That’s a common sense question. You explain it.
CADDELL The answer is because they don’t think that’s what we’re doing. They see us (UNINTELLIGIBLE) They see us as at fault for not dealing with the Palestinian situation. They see us as basically allowing the Israelis to run rampant there whether that’s true or not. Basically they see this as a very destabilizing activity. And I’ll tell you what, what this poll tells me, you go into Iraq. You watch what happens in the streets in these countries that we depend on. You watch what happens in Egypt. I’ll tell you this is dangerous stuff.
LUNTZ: OK. We heard, Pat. You said it’s dangerous five times. The fact is that the Egyptians, what are they saying in their newspapers and in television? Hostility. The official government agency...
MATTHEWS: Name an Arab country you like.
LUNTZ: Jordan. And yet Jordanians are hostile.
MATTHEWS: What Arab country do you like?
LUNTZ: Lebanon.
CADDELL: They’re hostile.
LUNTZ: And Lebanon is being destroyed by Syria and Egypt. And I agree that they are hostile, but Chris f you don’t have a free media, all these people are fed day in and day out on the official television, on the official newspapers is anti-American garbage. How do you expect them to feel to us when that’s what they read and see? You know what the truth is? (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
MATTHEWS: You are in denial. I think the United States has-and the world has turned against us because we have become more aggressive.
CADDELL: We have become a bully.
MATTHEWS: It’s a fact.
CADDELL: Look, this is a country that once said that we were going to be an example for people not running around and announcing who we would knock off when we feel like it. I supported the ’91 war. I was one of the few Democrats actively in favor of it and I was one of the people screaming when they stopped it. This, though, how do you justify it?
MATTHEWS: I wish this war was just about weapons of mass destruction. I think it’s about ideology. I’ve said it before. I think we’re going to Iraq for ideological reasons. Anyway Frank Luntz, Pat Caddell, I agree with you Pat.
Join us tomorrow night at 9:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL and don’t forget, this coming Wednesday, the HARDBALL college tour, big night for us, takes former Vice President Al Gore to Lehman College up in the Bronx. Up next, “MSNBC REPORTS: Eyewitness to Murder.”
END

DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Could it be the return of the conscientious objector? In thousands of churches across the country, ministers and priests every Sunday have been urging their faithful to oppose the coming war in Iraq. The sermons have been coordinated by religious leaders who are convinced a Bush administration attack on Saddam, the killing of an alleged tyrant, would be wrong.
ROBERT DRINAN, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Tyranticide (ph) is not justified by anybody’s morality. It hasn’t been for centuries and that’s what they’re suggesting. Furthermore, you just can’t remove him as if this is just a surgical thing. Who is going to run that country? Are we going to try to control a country that is hostile to us?
SHUSTER: While some of the protesters are traditional pacifists, a large contingent supported the war in Afghanistan where the U.S. was responding to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But Iraq, they say, is different. And the religious leaders in full page ads like this one in “The New York Times” are urging the Bush team to move more slowly, exhaust diplomatic options and work with the U.N. Security Council.
DRINAN: And when they say the use of force, that means just wiping out thousands of people, causing refugees, doing harm for a long, long time to come.
SHUSTER: The analysts and hawks who support the war say they welcome the intellectual debate but are quick to add that in the context of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, the theologians are misguided.
CLIFF MAY, FDN. FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: A defensive war is just and a defensive war is moral. We’re under no obligation to wait until he has those weapons, wait until he’s developed them, wait until he uses them yet again before acting against him. In fact, I would say to do so would be to needlessly sacrifice perhaps thousands of lives.
SHUSTER: And that’s a message evangelical leaders, including Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been promoting, that the United States has a moral obligation to defend itself.
(on-camera): So the question is, by theological standards, is the coming war with Iraq justified? I’m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: The Reverend Jerry Falwell is chancellor at Liberty University and the reverend-the doctor Robert Edgar is the general secretary of the National Council of Churches and chairman of Religious Leaders for Sensible Priorities. He’s also a former congressman from Pennsylvania. Let me go right now to Reverend Falwell. What would justify a U.S. attack morally in your mind and heart or Iraq? What standard would you set to attack this country?
REV. JERRY FALWELL, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Well, Chris, when theologians talk about a just war, they usually talk about three things. One, can military action be morally legitimate if it’s preemptive? Well, the answer is yes. It’s defensive if one knows that a known aggressor is about to use terrible weapons on a lot of people. Two, is it morally permissible to use force to oust a tyrannical regime as opposed to merely disarming it? I think that you cannot really disarm a regime.
Eleven years ago we tried that with Saddam Hussein without removing him and three, may the U.S. legitimately lead a coalition against Saddam Hussein if the U.N. doesn’t authorize it? Well, I wouldn’t have checked with them in the first place but our president did the honorable thick and did check with them and did, in fact, get a resolution, and-but we cannot surrender our sovereignty as a nation just because the U.N. might somewhere in the middle say, no, it’s not time yet. I think this president, Mr. Bush, he’s not a warmonger but I think that he has carefully and thoughtfully approached this possible war.
It’s not for sure yet. I think it’s going to happen, and I think that when he does it, he’ll prosecute it as his father did, except he will take it all the way and do something that will help the world.
MATTHEWS: Reverend Edgar, you take a different view.
REV. ROBERT EDGAR, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: I take a very different view, Chris. You were with us back in 1975 when it took a long time for main line religious communities to show their opposition to the Vietnam war. I was a young member of Congress at the time.
What is surprising here is in early August when Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney started to talk about unilateral or bilateral action, religious leaders, United Methodist bishops, the presiding bishop of the Lutheran church, Armenian priests, Orthodox priests and the U.S. catholic bishops came out and said let’s slow this rush to war and let’s ask some very tough questions, and the National Council of Churches, which I represent, have joined with the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops in suggesting that this is not a just war.
It is not appropriate, and the unintended consequences, particularly on the violence that’s taking place in Israel and Palestine could be horrendous. We’re also concerned, Chris, about the civilians that will be impacted and killed. It’s one thing to remove the leadership of Iraq. It’s another to kill so many children and women.
MATTHEWS: I want to try to force both of you reverends on the same page so people watching can figure out the sharpness of your disagreement. First of all, Reverend Falwell, you said if we know someone is going to attack us, it’s morally OK to stop them? Do you accept that Reverend Edgar? If we know someone is going to attack us, if you premise that, is it OK to attack them first?
EDGAR: I don’t think so. I think we did the right thing when...
MATTHEWS: No. But if they had gotten a 24 however notice on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, wouldn’t we have been allowed to attack them at sea?
EDGAR: I think that’s a different issue then what’s happening now.
MATTHEWS: How so?
EDGAR: It’s different because we haven’t used all the diplomatic sources that we can. We haven’t worked the process. We have put sanctions on the children but we haven’t stopped the flow of weapons into Iraq, and the last time Iraq used those weapons of mass destruction, like chemical weapons, we were supporting Iraq against Iran, so we have to be careful. There are also other nations like Pakistan, like North Korea, like other nations that have the very same weapons that we are angry with.
MATTHEWS: Reverend Falwell, do you accept the fact that we have not exhausted all the options to war?
FALWELL: I do not. I think the president has gone the extra mile, as a matter of fact. You know, 60 years ago this same crowd was here and if they had had their way, we would all be speaking German now. The Vietnam war that Reverend Edgar just mentioned...
MATTHEWS: What crowd are you talking about? Wait a minute. What crowd that we would have been speaking German now?
FALWELL: I’m talking about the crowd who wants never, the Chamberlain crowd who wants to make peace and to accommodate the other side. This guy Saddam Hussein is not somebody we can accommodate.
MATTHEWS: Wait a minute, Reverend Falwell, let’s get some facts straight. December 7 of 1941, the Japanese empire attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. We responded by declaring war on them. The Germans responded by declaring war on us. Who is this crowd you say that wouldn’t have done the same thing?
FALWELL: The-well, the National Council of Churches ...
MATTHEWS: The National Council of Churches took a position on December 7 of 1941 not to respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor?
FALWELL: No, I’m not saying that.
MATTHEWS: You did say that. You said if 60 years ago, you said this crowd 60 years ago, we would be speaking German. What did you mean by that?
FALWELL: I do not believe for a moment a year from now, no matter what we find ...
MATTHEWS: You’re changing the subject. You just (UNINTELLIGIBLE) everybody opposes this war is saying that we were for the Nazi empire. What are you talking about? Repeat what you said.
FALWELL: I will repeat it. I’m saying that we should have won the war in Vietnam. We made a terrible mistake leaving that war defeated. We should have won that war. If we enter a war, we ought to win it, and I think that Saddam Hussein is, like Adolf Hitler, like Joseph Stalin, he is committed to hurting other people and I don’t think that anybody who is reasonable and logical and looks at the facts believes that Mr. Bush is preemptive in what he is doing, and I think the crowd that’s trying to stop him and make him find some diplomatic way of dealing with Saddam Hussein is ignoring the fact that 17 times he has lied and broken his commitments. Why on the 18th time would we expect him to tell us the truth?
MATTHEWS: Reverend Edgar, go ahead.
EDGAR: This crowd that he’s talking about includes people like Linda Fuller of Habitat for Humanity, an evangelical Christian, Ron Sider (ph) from Evangelicals for Social Responsibility and Jim Wallace from Sojourners. This crowd that he’s talking about includes all the United Methodist bishops, the Episcopal bishops, the presiding bishop of the Lutheran church and hundreds of others religious leaders in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, living peace traditions that oppose the rush to war and oppose going after Saddam Hussein at this time. We believe that there are reasons to go to war when we are under attack.
MATTHEWS: Reverend Falwell, I want to follow your points here. Your points are very strong but the second point you made was we have a right to begin a war to fight a tyranny. If it weren’t for the weapons of mass destruction, if they don’t exist, if that were the case, would you still support a regime change by force in Iraq?
FALWELL: Are you speaking to me?
MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.
FALWELL: Well, I’m not sure. The president would have to give us the information on, but most people...
MATTHEWS: No. No. No. This is an ideological point and a philosophical and a religious point. Do you think it’s OK to overthrow a regime because you don’t like its form of government period?
FALWELL: No, I don’t believe that at all. I believe that we’re dealing with a monster here who has proven himself. Menachim Begin in 1981 put a missile down the chimney of a nuclear reactor plant there because he believed 21 years ago that this man was building bombs to destroy Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and their neighbors, perhaps wider than that. Nothing has changed in 21 years and might I add that-that we are not in this country known as warmongers.
Our president is not a warmonger. He is a reasonable man who has waited 21 years, 11 years since his own father went against this guy to do the right thing and I think it’s going to be a war go January or February and I think he’s going to have-by the way, all the names that Edgar mentioned a moment ago, Ron Sider-they were the guys telling Mr. Reagan to unilaterally disarm and the Soviets would do likewise. Thank God he didn’t take their advice.
MATTHEWS: Reverend Edgar?
EDGAR: Well, I think Jerry is just off base on this. There’s a broad coalition of religious leaders from conservative to liberal who simply ask the president, Jesus has changed your heart. I believe and we believe that Jesus and God can change his mind.
FALWELL: Jesus is God.
EDGAR: And we believe that God can intervene here in a very positive
way and we don’t give to fundamentalists like Jerry the sole copyright on
Jesus. We believe that -
FALWELL: No, you don’t.
EDGAR: We believe that we can work theologically and practically to stop this war.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Reverend Robert Edgar, and thank you very much, the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Up next, the political buzz with Frank Luntz and Pat Caddell and a look at world opinion about the United States. That’s us. Why do so many countries not trust our motives in Iraq? You’re watching HARDBALL.

*Mutt American · Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Funny World

Guest · Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:14 am Post subject: Re: Funny World

Nobody · Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:15 am Post subject: Funny World? Phoney world.

*Mutt American · Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:37 am Post subject:

Hunni · Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:51 am Post subject:

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

America's popularity plunges worldwide