I couldn't really tell you the legality of refusing a shot. As far as I know, you can - but when you're faced with certain viral threats, you want as much defense as you can get.

I have been immunized against Anthrax, Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B, Japanese Encephalitis, Smallpox, Meningitis, Typhoid, Tuberculosis, and other small stuff like the flu and tetanus.


All that being said, I doubt it was some big secret test program like this news clip makes it seem to be. Just because the woman at the hospital wouldn't tell his mom about his immunizations does not mean there's a cover-up. It means she's doing her job and ensuring patient confidentiality. Is it possible there's a cover up? Yes. Does that mean there is one going on? Get a grip. This could be nothing more than sensational media.

Once again, it illustrates the totalitarian nature of our country.

When a Democrat does it, it's big news.

When a Republican does it, it's nobody's business but their own.

The tabloids don't dare expose the Republicans, or the Bush clan, for fear of getting some anthrax mailed to them.

i have noticed that criticism of obama automatically gets interpreted as support for mccain. why not disagree with them both? they are both politicians, politicians have a 98% suck rate.

Exactly. Being the best candidate currently running for office is like being the hottest waitress at Dennys.

If the bar for "impressive speaking" is set to those who don't taze/beat/remove their audience members, then whew what can I say....I knew at least a couple people who got B's and C's in public speaking, and I don't remember any of them physically removing people after the "questions?" slide...

Personally, I would rather starve to death than accept the choice between food laced with anthrax, or food laced with cynanide. Likewise, I would rather abstain from voting, or vote a write-in, than vote the "lesser of two evils."

this reminds me of the anthrax attack on the USA congress.

Great find! I've always enjoyed Rush. Also liked this one: Anthraxs-Scott-Ian-fails-miserably-playing-his-own-song< /a>

^Ooooo! Yeah, Iron Maiden had some awesome covers! I used to have this Iron Maiden Number of the Beast album cover as a black light poster on my wall in high school. Eddie is legendary! I've got a cheese-lovin' nostalgic spot for most of the Heavy Metal covers from that time. I mean, come on, how can you not include this 80s-era nuke hysteria gem? Vic Rattlehead is also legendary.

As an aside, do you remember how many 80s heavy metal bands had mascots?! Motley Crue's Allister Fiend?! Anthrax's Not Man? A quick Google search netted this site with a list of 80s band mascots. Classic stuff.

>> ^wraith:
Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?

Of course. You can find "evidence" to support pretty much whatever you want to say. You've already heard quite a bit from Wynder, but if you need more just google "guns reduce crime" and read any of the 447,000 hits on that. It's difficult to compare country for country because we have such different cultures. Unfortunately, we have a culture that is more accepting of violent crime than others, so we tend to experience more violent crime.

You are right Guns, on their own, don't kill people, but they make it so much easier.
And consider this: Have you ever read a news story like, "...and then ten year old Bobby, while showing off his father's kitchen knife, accidentally stabbed his four year old brother thrity times in the chest."?

I've heard that the exact number of times I've heard that about getting SHOT thirty times. If you have to reload, it's not an accident. Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of COMPLETE LACK OF CONTROL of all guns. I believe that you should be QUALIFIED to own a gun and undertake the necessary gun safety training. If your kids can get into your guns, you should be held criminally responsible for accidents. Lock them up, don't keep them loaded, don't teach them how to use them until they know how to do it safely, use extra safeties, etc. My father owned about a half dozen guns while I was growing up. I first shot a gun when I was four, but before then it was firmly impressed on my mind that guns are DANGEROUS if not handled properly. I knew that I had better NEVER get them out for any reason. My father never treated them like a toy, so I never thought that I should.

At this point, I own ZERO guns. I have two small boys and don't feel I have the means to safely store them in a way that will keep everyone safe, so I don't.

That reminds me of the segement from "Bowling For Columbine", where Moore asks that Gun-toting nut-job cousin of Timothy McVeigh if he thinks that under the 2nd Ammendement, US-citizens should be allowed to posses Anthrax or nuclear weapons. Gues, what the guy answers...:-)

Sorry, I don't think Michael Moore has a terrific corner on truth. I also don't think the opinion "nut-jobs" matters much. My point still stands. I certainly don't think either of those options would be good for fighting a revolution because where would we all live when it was over? Your point is fallacious, I'm afraid. If the question was, should people own tanks, my answer would be maybe. We would need a way to properly police and control it, the same way we do with guns.

Aehm. Evidence? If you mean that gun-control, in coutries who practice it, does not lead to a totally gun-free society, then you should also say that laws don't work and costitutions don't work.

Didn't you already ask for evidence? I agree, the laws don't work, but it's because they are built on a flawed concept. I'd be interested to see how many violent crimes are committed by individuals who follow all gun laws versus breaking them in the process.


Consider something for a moment: let's say we buy into the fear-inspiring arguments that are presented that Bush cancels the November election, disbands congress, and declares himself president for life. What would you do? Would you live in a police state for the rest of your life? Would you pick up rocks and start throwing them at tanks? Would you take a gun and vainly fight the tanks? Don't we need some kind of way to even the odds, so our "by the people, for the people" government and way of life is protected by and the for the same, instead of by permission, for the man?

LONG, sorry.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I've always been an advocate of the second amendment for a lot of reasons, such as, I've heard there are fewer violent crimes committed in areas where more people have guns (don't rob someone who may shoot you). Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If no one had guns, we'd all be talking about knife control next, then fingernail-clipper control, etc.


Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?
Look at other countries with tougher gun-control laws. Look at Japan for crying out loud. About the toughest gun control laws around, and - Surprise! - one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (There are, of course, other sociological reasons besides gun control for that.)

Do you know why the London Metropolitan Police (the "Bobbys") only wear Truncheons (Night-Sticks, Clubs, whatever you call them) and no guns? Because the expect most criminals to be unarmed. Seems to work there.

You are right Guns, on their own, don't kill people, but they make it so much easier.

And consider this: Have you ever read a news story like, "...and then ten year old Bobby, while showing off his father's kitchen knife, accidentally stabbed his four year old brother thrity times in the chest."?


>> ^Aemaeth:
We need to consider this, however. We no longer fight with muskets and military weapons are no linger identical to hunting weapons like they were then.

That reminds me of the segement from "Bowling For Columbine", where Moore asks that Gun-toting nut-job cousin of Timothy McVeigh if he thinks that under the 2nd Ammendement, US-citizens should be allowed to posses Anthrax or nuclear weapons. Gues, what the guy answers...:-)


>> ^Aemaeth:
In conclusion, I think gun control is rubbish. It doesn't work.

Aehm. Evidence? If you mean that gun-control, in coutries who practice it, does not lead to a totally gun-free society, then you should also say that laws don't work and costitutions don't work.

w.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Python, Holy Grail, Castle Anthrax, Galahad' to 'Python, Holy Grail, Castle Anthrax, Galahad, sex, temptation' - edited by jwray

The following is from a Newsweek article read by Sen. Byrd (D, WV) during a congressional hearing on September 20, 2002:

The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.

The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident," according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by Newsweek. Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad," wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.

Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions...

The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons...

The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks" threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand.

After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacterial cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.

The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces.

The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, exhausted and fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.

Saddam was feeling cocky. With the support of the West, he had defeated the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. America favored him as a regional pillar; European and American corporations were vying for contracts with Iraq. He was visited by congressional delegations led by Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who were eager to promote American farm and business interests. But Saddam's megalomania was on the rise, and he overplayed his hand. In 1990, a U.S. Customs sting operation snared several Iraqi agents who were trying to buy electronic equipment used to make triggers for nuclear bombs. Not long after, Saddam gained the world's attention by threatening "to burn Israel to the ground." At the Pentagon, analysts began to warn that Saddam was a growing menace, especially after he tried to buy some American-made high-tech furnaces useful for making nuclear-bomb parts. Yet other officials in Congress and in the Bush administration continued to see him as a useful, if distasteful, regional strongman. The State Department was equivocating with Saddam right up to the moment he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

Mr. President, I referred to this Newsweek article yesterday at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Specifically, during the hearing, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sewn?"

The Secretary quickly and flatly denied any knowledge but said he would review Pentagon records.

I suggest that the administration speed up that review. My concerns and the concerns of others have grown.

A letter from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, which I shall submit for the Record, shows very clearly that the United States is, in fact, preparing to reap what it has sewn. A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory.

The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. I recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services also be included in that request.

The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy.

We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate. The Senate deserves to know the whole story. The American people deserve answers to the whole story.

Solmed,
I will admit that I am guilty of the same over generalization that I am chastising. By no means did I mean to say that everyone that is or was offended by her wearing the scarf is racist. For that I truly am sorry.

With that said I still maintain that what the "right-wing bloggers" asserted IS racist.
How is it any different than any other disgusting racist generalization put upon a group or race of people?

All Middle eastern or ANYONE for that matter who wears a keffiyeh or anything remotely similar to one are sponsors of terrorism or terrorists themselves????

If they are going to go that far as to assume that then when will it end? Does that also mean that anyone using box cutters are actually plane high jackers in training?

or who knows maybe it was dunkin donuts who started the whole anthrax scare with their "powdered sugar" donuts...

Let's get this straight. She exaggerated from
"reports of snipers in the hills, welcome cut short"
to
"no welcome, ran for cover"

This lie = 0.1 "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
1 "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" = 0.00000001 Colin Powells with fake anthrax at the UN.
1 Colin Powell with fake antrax at the UN = 0.01 * "They hate us for our freedom."

True story: a few years ago after an anthrax scare the members joked about changing their name to something that couldn't possibly offend anyone - "Basket of Puppies."

True story: a few years ago after an anthrax scare the members joked about changing their name to something that couldn't possibly offend anyone - "Basket of Puppies."

^HOLD IT! why would a conservative group attack Ron Paul :-) lol. sheesh, who won't they attack?

I think you overstate your case. I look into the validity of the claims being leveled before I see who it's coming from. Does who it comes from make a difference? yea, sometimes it does, but the truthfulness and validity of the claims should come first.

With statements like this from Rumsfeld I can see how you would be fooled into believing the WMD lies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat....I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting. (why hasn't this been sifted?)

Bush Administration Caught Contradicting Itself on WMD's
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-Administration-Caught-Contradicting-Itself-on-WMDs

Closed Room Plans Reveal Attempt to Dupe Public
http://www.videosift.com/video/Olbermann-Closed-Room-Plans-Reveal-Attempt-to-Dupe-Public

Interesting how each of the Intelligence Committee members voted, considering what Sen. Durbin claims they knew:(thanks FLETCH)

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I personally could see why you would take Rumsfeld at his word about Iraq's WMD's with this knowledge of history (too bad the wmd ingredients we supplied them had such a short shelf life, or perhaps we would have found them in iraq)

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with chemical & biological weapons December 20, 1983.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August, 1988. 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.”

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.