George W. Bush

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Alan LeHun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>> and from every credible
>>> intelligence agency in the region.
>>>
>>
>>[]
>>
>>> Concentrate on the info available before the war
>>
>>Ahh yes, a country whose infrastructure and military might had been
>>systematically and comprehensibly destroyed, had been ostracised by the
>>wider international community and with little or no funds, was suddenly
>>accused of having the capability to launch short and medium range
>>ballistic WMD's against other nations with 45min's notice. This, despite
>>the fact that other nations, desiring of such technologies and with
>>intact infrastructure and viable funding still have yet to achieve such
>>status.
>
>From the UNMOVIC report:
>
> "There has been a surge of activity in the missile technology field
> in Iraq in the past four years. While UNMOVIC is still evaluating
> the full extent of this activity, some developments are noted
> below. Foremost amongst recent developments are two ballistic
> missile systems: the Al Samoud 2 (liquid propellant) and the Al
> Fatah (solid propellant). Both missiles have been tested to a
> range of greater than that permitted under resolution 687 (1991)
> with the Al Samoud 2 tested to a maximum range of 183 kilometres
> and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometres."
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame
So the only thing justifying the invasion was a missle that could go 33 m
further than it should have? (And that was without any payload; put a
payload on and the range shortens quite a bit.)

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > In these days of cut and paste and Google, the "telephone
>> > effect" is just about obsolete.
>> >
>>
>> not to sound paranoid, but can you be absoulutly 100% certain that it
>hasn't
>> changed, if you find it on the internet recited by a third-party?
haven't
>> you heard the saying "Don't believe everything you see on the internet"?
>>
>> i'd rather be 100% certain of something, then have to "guess" or
"assume"
>> that something is credible.
>>
>> but that's just me.
>>
>
Interesting that the same people saying "don't do anything about global
warming until we're 100% sure" also support Bush going to war with far less
than 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD.

 

[Alan LeHun]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> So the only thing justifying the invasion was a missle that could go 33 m
> further than it should have? (And that was without any payload; put a
> payload on and the range shortens quite a bit.)
>

It's irrelevant. If there was no threat of WMD's it wouldn't have
mattered. Although the USA may have received the support of it's people
on such a pretext, they very much needed international support and that
would not have been forthcoming had all we had to fear was a few
missiles. I only mentioned them because the big key point was that the
WMD's could be launched in 45 min and others have jumped on that one
aspect.

I see it this way. What was required for Iraq to have WMD's?
There must be a desire. There must be a capability. There must be
infrastructure and there must be finance. Others have claimed that all
these requirements were fulfilled.


--
Alan LeHun

 

[Ian St. John]

Pete wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> And I should correct you
>> that B (Iraq) was NOT a criminal, well known or not, but a victim of
>> persecution and libel as far as I can tell from the FACTS.
>
> And there we have it, folks. The basis for Ian's position becomes
> crystal clear.

The basis of my position is the illegality of the invasion, not the fact
that you are calling someone a 'criminal' when there is no such evidence
presented. The labelling of Iraq as a 'criminal' is contrary to logic, and
is basically demagoguery. Any claims against Iraq can also be applied with
equal rigor to the U.S. who has invaded many countries for not more reason
that pique or 'regional hegemony' such as Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, etc.

>
> If you start out from the position that Saddam is merely a victim, he
> does make a sense, in a twisted kind of way.
>

There you go with the demagoguery again. Try dealing with the reality.
Saddam got his beat tweaked for invading Kuwait for what was determined by
the U.N. to be insufficient cause ( we can assume that no such judgement was
held on the Iraq/Iran war ). What makes you think that Bush can invade Iraq,
also without sufficient ( or even demonstrable ) cause?

 

[Ian St. John]

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>
>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Pull a weapon on a cop and watch as he defends himself,
>>>> without waiting to be fired upon.
>>>
>>> But that isn't what happened. Person A pulled a weapon on a cop,
>>> so the cop shot person B.
>>
>> Not exactly. Let's rewrite the script a bit more accurately...
>>
>> Person B was a well-known criminal in his own right, having shot lots
>> of his neighbors.
>
> 12 and more years ago. Back then, of course, he was the police
> dept.'s friend too.

Really, the analogy is flawed because the U.S is NOT the policeman for the
world.

I would refine it to be

A = Al-Quaeda or Saudi Arabia
B = Iraq
The U.N. would be the 'town council', with the SC to be the 'supreme court'.
The 'coalition of the bought' would be a lynch mob. The U.S. would be a
member of the supreme court, but not legally empowered to act alone except
with the right of self defense that all citizens have.

The U.S. therefore sits as a judge on the court, but was not given separate
power to deliver it's own version of justice. The U.S. can only defend
itself against direct attack, but the 'self defense' defense is flawed in
that there was no attack or even evidence of imminent danger. 'Regime
change' is out of their jurisdiction, being a power assigned only to the
supreme court, not to it's members. The organising of a lynch mob and
illegal lynching are obviously not in the course of due process of law.

 

[V.Simkins]

>It's
>getting really difficult to get away with lying to the >American public
>anymore with all the diverse news sources available. And >in my
>opinion, the November election proved that Americans >don't like being
>lied to.

Americans may not like being lied to among some things, but others, they
simply overlook, even if they are more serious an issue. For example, the
Clinton scandal: i admit it was "wrong" for Clinton to cheat on his wife,
but he was impeached for that, and only that, an issue that really should
have been kept in the family, as it is with normal families.

however, if you look at Bush's official speech to the public on the eve of
the Iraq campaign, and his speeches afterward, he DID suggest, like a few
Presidents before him, that WMDs were in Iraq, and that Saddam intended to
use them, which was found out to be a lie, later on in the year. This didn't
seem to influence American voters much.....


more amazingly, is the so called "hoax" behind Michael Moore's controversial
movie "farenhiet 9/11", which hit theatres earlier this year. despite claims
that it wasn't 100% factual by American viewers, i have not found a single
reference from a site i can call credible, picking out the parts that were
"lies", among doing some in-depth research, covering the major points in the
movie, i also found out that every reference he gave, nearly everything i
could find mentioned in the movie, was true..... it may be biased, as it was
designed to be, but it was 100% true (at least to what i could find).

my question is, do americans actually know which is truth, and which is
false? can they prioritize the falses, when they find them, and take them
into consideration, when deciding what's best?

please, no flaming, i'm merely confused here, not accusing.







"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:12:11 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> claims:
>
> >
> >"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > In these days of cut and paste and Google, the "telephone
> >> > effect" is just about obsolete.
> >> >
> >>
> >> not to sound paranoid, but can you be absoulutly 100% certain that it
> >hasn't
> >> changed, if you find it on the internet recited by a third-party?
haven't
> >> you heard the saying "Don't believe everything you see on the
internet"?
> >>
> >> i'd rather be 100% certain of something, then have to "guess" or
"assume"
> >> that something is credible.
> >>
> >> but that's just me.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:28:18 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> >> > <[email protected]> claims:
> >> >
> >> > >> <sigh> Here is another link, this time from the White House,
> >> > >> but some on the left here might not feel that that site is as
> >> > >> "reliable" as an anti-Bush site. <grin>:
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >not what you think..... ever hear about the "telephone" effect? the
> >more
> >> > >times a message is passed down from person to person, the more of a
> >> chance
> >> > >there is for the message to be changed somehow. I'd rather hear,
word
> >for
> >> > >word, the same message delivered to the public, as close to the
> >original
> >> as
> >> > >possible, not from some third-party, no matter who's side of the
debate
> >> > >they're on.
> >> >
> >> > In these days of cut and paste and Google, the "telephone
> >> > effect" is just about obsolete.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cordially,
> >> > Ken (NY)
> >> >
> >> > email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
> >> > spammers can send mail to [email protected]
> >> >
> >> > http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The internet has had the opposite effect. Every nut job and conspiracy
> >theorist can express his misguided propaganda as fact. The story starts
out
> >as lie.
> >
> This was all about a speech made by the President of the
> United States just prior to the invasion of Iraq. The writer was
> saying that reading the same speech on an anti-Bush web site was not
> as reliable as reading it on an official site such as whitehouse.org .
> But of course, if the anti-Bush web site had had the text of the
> speech wrong, it would be spotted immediatley by bloggers and
> denounced as quickly as Rather's forged CBS documents were. It's
> getting really difficult to get away with lying to the American public
> anymore with all the diverse news sources available. And in my
> opinion, the November election proved that Americans don't like being
> lied to.
>
>
> Cordially,
> Ken (NY)
>
> "It is good to hate the French."
> -Al Bundy
>
> email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
> spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
> http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

 

[BB]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:49:42 -0500, V.Simkins wrote:

> my question is, do americans actually know which is truth, and which is
> false? can they prioritize the falses, when they find them, and take them
> into consideration, when deciding what's best?

The actual truth can be hard to find or discern. After every presidential
debate, most news programs would spend a couple of hours going over all
the things that the candidates said that were misleading...and it was a
LOT. Neither side was more or less innocent on this regard.

Its only made worse by all the incorrect statements presented on the
internet as "facts". Example - your assertion that Clinton was impeached
for lying to his family. He was impeached for lying UNDER OATH. It seems
like a rather stupid and immmature set of circumstances that someone would
even be asking him about that under oath, but nevertheless he did what it
did and it was illegal.

I don't consider anything posted on the Internet as fact unless its
supported by substatial evidence, but people like Ian think they can just
say that something is a "fact" and that makes it so.

But mostly, we're just fed half-truths by our leaders. For example, the
reasons Bush gave for starting the war have be brushed off since the
"Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to
policymakers the undertainties behind the judgements in the October 2002
National Intelligence Estimate" (Senate Intelligence Committee), and we're
supposed to believe that the entire Intellgence Community simply sat back
and said nothing as the federal government proceeded to use this
misinformation to start a WAR. As implausible as it sounds, that's the
story. Left-wingers no doubt have other stories, but then we're left to
choose which extremist story is right..but who really knows?

In the end, most Americans simply narrow down what they think is "true" to
those stories that support their personal bias. Those in the center have
either moved further toward the extremes or just given up trying to figure
out the truth (or both).

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[V.Simkins]

>Its only made worse by all the incorrect statements presented on the
>internet as "facts". Example - your assertion that Clinton was impeached
>for lying to his family. He was impeached for lying UNDER OATH. It seems
>like a rather stupid and immmature set of circumstances that someone would
>even be asking him about that under oath, but nevertheless he did what it
>did and it was illegal.

so, it is to my understanding that all American Presidents take Oaths, to
which they cannot tell a lie to the American people that they watch over,
correct? Bush essentially lied about WMDs, am i right? then doesn't that
entitle him to be impeached, just as it entitled Clinton to be impeached?
and i think this is a more serious issue than an illicit lover could ever
pose...... right? Just pecause you lie to a person, then make up other
reasons and do something different to make up for it, doesn't change the
fact that it was a lie, and it certainly doesn't justify it either. And
half-truths are no better than lies.... they just hold the whole of the
matter from a public that has the right to know.... (hope i don't sound too
"extremist")


> In the end, most Americans simply narrow down what they think is "true" to
> those stories that support their personal bias. Those in the center have
> either moved further toward the extremes or just given up trying to figure
> out the truth (or both).
>

It's Good that most of you think like that when making a decision, but have
you ever stopped and thought about your biases, and the stories that you
have found that support them? personal biases in general, are a nasty thing
to have: while you may strongly agree with one side of a dispute, and find
"evidence" to support them, you can become blind to any other possible
"sides". of the matter..... for example, from what i can see from an
outsider's perspective America is split into two "factions" right now: One
faction looks at what Bush is doing at the moment, shaking thier heads at
the war and protesting it, and watching thier economy dwindling down to
almost nothing, while wondering why they are pursuing a war against a guy
they hardly know. The other faction has thier full faith in Bush , cheering
on the war and all the bloodshed it brings, looking at the economy rising,
and in constant fear that thier nation is under attack by a known
"terrorist", who happens to have links with the guy they are fighting now, a
known dictator. in both cases they are complete opposites in the way they
think and act, are extremely biast towards one "side" or another, and both
believe they are "right", without a doubt, wether or not they can find
"evidence", "logic", or "reason" to support it. See what i'm getting? (try
to stay neutral). Perhaps Neither of us are actually getting the "whole"
truth, or maybe truth is just a silly thing judged by one's perception.
after all, you admitted the U.S government has a habit of telling
half-truths: what's to stop other people from doing the same?

by the way, i'm on the "faction" shaking my head at the war........



"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:49:42 -0500, V.Simkins wrote:
>
> > my question is, do americans actually know which is truth, and which is
> > false? can they prioritize the falses, when they find them, and take
them
> > into consideration, when deciding what's best?
>
> The actual truth can be hard to find or discern. After every presidential
> debate, most news programs would spend a couple of hours going over all
> the things that the candidates said that were misleading...and it was a
> LOT. Neither side was more or less innocent on this regard.
>
> Its only made worse by all the incorrect statements presented on the
> internet as "facts". Example - your assertion that Clinton was impeached
> for lying to his family. He was impeached for lying UNDER OATH. It seems
> like a rather stupid and immmature set of circumstances that someone would
> even be asking him about that under oath, but nevertheless he did what it
> did and it was illegal.
>
> I don't consider anything posted on the Internet as fact unless its
> supported by substatial evidence, but people like Ian think they can just
> say that something is a "fact" and that makes it so.
>
> But mostly, we're just fed half-truths by our leaders. For example, the
> reasons Bush gave for starting the war have be brushed off since the
> "Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to
> policymakers the undertainties behind the judgements in the October 2002
> National Intelligence Estimate" (Senate Intelligence Committee), and we're
> supposed to believe that the entire Intellgence Community simply sat back
> and said nothing as the federal government proceeded to use this
> misinformation to start a WAR. As implausible as it sounds, that's the
> story. Left-wingers no doubt have other stories, but then we're left to
> choose which extremist story is right..but who really knows?
>
> In the end, most Americans simply narrow down what they think is "true" to
> those stories that support their personal bias. Those in the center have
> either moved further toward the extremes or just given up trying to figure
> out the truth (or both).
>
> --
> -BB-
> To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

V.Simkins wrote (without bothering to attribute):
>> Its only made worse by all the incorrect statements presented on the
>> internet as "facts". Example - your assertion that Clinton was
>> impeached for lying to his family. He was impeached for lying UNDER
>> OATH. It seems like a rather stupid and immmature set of
>> circumstances that someone would even be asking him about that under
>> oath, but nevertheless he did what it did and it was illegal.
>
> so, it is to my understanding that all American Presidents take
> Oaths, to which they cannot tell a lie to the American people that
> they watch over, correct? Bush essentially lied about WMDs, am i
> right?

Lamest Troll of Thanksgiving Week '04.

Congrats.
--
BS (no, really)

 

[V.Simkins]

> > they watch over, correct? Bush essentially lied about WMDs, am i
> > right?
>
> Lamest Troll of Thanksgiving Week '04.
>
> Congrats.

how so? i'm only stating from what i've read from Bush's own speech,
dictated to the public on the eve of the Iraq war, and provided by Ken,
here... don't like what i'm saying? talk to the Aide that wrote the speech,
or delete my post from your computer. After all, if it offends you, you
don't have to read it.


plus, i don't recall flaming you, as you so arrogantly did to me just now.
you seem to be a member of one of the second "factions" i talked about in my
previous post.

first uncalled-for insult of American thanksgiving week.

Congrats.



"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> V.Simkins wrote (without bothering to attribute):
> >> Its only made worse by all the incorrect statements presented on the
> >> internet as "facts". Example - your assertion that Clinton was
> >> impeached for lying to his family. He was impeached for lying UNDER
> >> OATH. It seems like a rather stupid and immmature set of
> >> circumstances that someone would even be asking him about that under
> >> oath, but nevertheless he did what it did and it was illegal.
> >
> > so, it is to my understanding that all American Presidents take
> > Oaths, to which they cannot tell a lie to the American people that
> > they watch over, correct? Bush essentially lied about WMDs, am i
> > right?
>
> Lamest Troll of Thanksgiving Week '04.
>
> Congrats.
> --
> BS (no, really)
>
>

 

[BB]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:37:08 -0500, V.Simkins wrote:

> so, it is to my understanding that all American Presidents take Oaths, to
> which they cannot tell a lie to the American people that they watch over,
> correct? Bush essentially lied about WMDs, am i right? then doesn't that
> entitle him to be impeached, just as it entitled Clinton to be impeached?

Two totally different oaths. Both took the "oath of office", but that
doesn't (literally) say they won't lie. Lying in a hearing after taking an
oath to tell the truth is something different.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[V.Simkins]

> Two totally different oaths. Both took the "oath of office", but that
> doesn't (literally) say they won't lie. Lying in a hearing after taking an
> oath to tell the truth is something different.

whoops.... jumped the gun there.. thanks for correcting me. as Bill
demonstrated by how quick he was to call me a "troll", i'm human, too, and
make mistakes, too.

interesting enough, though...... still doesn't explain exactly WHY it was
the American public's business to know what happened in the Clinton family,
but that is niether here nor there.

but i guess, since there is nothing holding the President back, what is to
stop him from lying to the public, and getting away with it, i wonder? Just
a question.


"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:37:08 -0500, V.Simkins wrote:
>
> > so, it is to my understanding that all American Presidents take Oaths,
to
> > which they cannot tell a lie to the American people that they watch
over,
> > correct? Bush essentially lied about WMDs, am i right? then doesn't that
> > entitle him to be impeached, just as it entitled Clinton to be
impeached?
>
> Two totally different oaths. Both took the "oath of office", but that
> doesn't (literally) say they won't lie. Lying in a hearing after taking an
> oath to tell the truth is something different.
>
> --
> -BB-
> To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

V.Simkins wrote:
>> Two totally different oaths. Both took the "oath of office", but that
>> doesn't (literally) say they won't lie. Lying in a hearing after
>> taking an oath to tell the truth is something different.
>
> whoops.... jumped the gun there.. thanks for correcting me. as Bill
> demonstrated by how quick he was to call me a "troll", i'm human,
> too, and make mistakes, too.
>
> interesting enough, though...... still doesn't explain exactly WHY it
> was the American public's business to know what happened in the
> Clinton family, but that is niether here nor there.

BECAUSE, 'V', Clinton was sued by one Paula Jones for sexual harassment,
which led to him being deposed under oath. The average "American public"
didn't give a rat's ass about Clinton's sex life, except for its legal
(civil initially) aspects.

Will snip rest since this "pseudo top-posting" is confusing to follow...
--
BS (no, really)

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
BB <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:49:42 -0500, V.Simkins wrote:
>
>> my question is, do americans actually know which is truth, and which is
>> false? can they prioritize the falses, when they find them, and take
them
>> into consideration, when deciding what's best?
>
>The actual truth can be hard to find or discern. After every presidential
>debate, most news programs would spend a couple of hours going over all
>the things that the candidates said that were misleading...and it was a
>LOT. Neither side was more or less innocent on this regard.
>
>Its only made worse by all the incorrect statements presented on the
>internet as "facts". Example - your assertion that Clinton was impeached
>for lying to his family. He was impeached for lying UNDER OATH. It seems
>like a rather stupid and immmature set of circumstances that someone would
>even be asking him about that under oath, but nevertheless he did what it
>did and it was illegal.

Not necessarily. It wasn't perjury; that we know. The judge charged him
with "giving misleading testimony" and fined him; sounds more like a civil
matter than a criminal one.

>
>I don't consider anything posted on the Internet as fact unless its
>supported by substatial evidence, but people like Ian think they can just
>say that something is a "fact" and that makes it so.
>
>But mostly, we're just fed half-truths by our leaders. For example, the
>reasons Bush gave for starting the war have be brushed off since the
>"Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to
>policymakers the undertainties behind the judgements in the October 2002
>National Intelligence Estimate" (Senate Intelligence Committee), and we're
>supposed to believe that the entire Intellgence Community simply sat back
>and said nothing as the federal government proceeded to use this
>misinformation to start a WAR. As implausible as it sounds, that's the
>story. Left-wingers no doubt have other stories, but then we're left to
>choose which extremist story is right..but who really knows?
>
>In the end, most Americans simply narrow down what they think is "true" to
>those stories that support their personal bias. Those in the center have
>either moved further toward the extremes or just given up trying to figure
>out the truth (or both).
>

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
BB <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:37:08 -0500, V.Simkins wrote:
>
>> so, it is to my understanding that all American Presidents take Oaths,
to
>> which they cannot tell a lie to the American people that they watch
over,
>> correct? Bush essentially lied about WMDs, am i right? then doesn't that
>> entitle him to be impeached, just as it entitled Clinton to be
impeached?
>
>Two totally different oaths. Both took the "oath of office", but that
>doesn't (literally) say they won't lie. Lying in a hearing after taking an
>oath to tell the truth is something different.
>
Yeah, Bush was kind of like all those tobacco execs insisting "nicotine
isn't addictive" and "smoking isn't harmful" -- they claimed it was their
BELIEF and so technically wasn't a lie.

 

[BB]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:59:48 -0500, V.Simkins wrote:

> whoops.... jumped the gun there.. thanks for correcting me. as Bill
> demonstrated by how quick he was to call me a "troll", i'm human, too, and
> make mistakes, too.

I imagine part of the reason Bill was quick to call you a troll is because
you're continuing a thread which started in irrelevant newsgroups, and
since gotten cross-posted to a relevant one but persists in the others.
Plus in the meantime the subject was changed to something irrelevant to
the discussion...as threads go, this one is starting to stink.

You had nothing much to do with the evolution of this thread, but if you
want to start discuss this, a new thread (without the crossposts) might be
in order.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, "Ian St. John"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>The U.N. has kept it's moral principles.
>
>Oil-for-Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to U.N.
>Monday, September 20, 2004
>By David Asman
>
>Volcker Confident About Oil-for-Food Probe
>
>Iraqis: U.S. Officials Stalling 'Oil-for-Food' Probe
>
>U.N. Audit Found Early 'Oil-for-Food' Problems
>NEW YORK - It began as a U.N. humanitarian aid program called
>"Oil-for-Food," but it ended up with Saddam Hussein (search) pocketing
>billions to become the biggest graft-generating machine ever and
>enriching some of America's most forceful opponents at the United
>Nations (search).
>
>Plus, some evidence suggests that some of the money ended up in the
>hands of potential terrorists who are opposed to the United States.
>
>The roots of the scandal date back to 1991, when a U.N.-backed and
>U.S.-led coalition expelled Saddam from Kuwait following his hostile
>takeover of the neighboring country. Although Saddam lost the war, he
>walked away with one important victory -- he got to stay in power in
>Iraq.
>
>Thirteen years later, a second U.S.-led coalition made of a smaller
>group of nations than the first effort finally knocked Saddam out of
>business. And it did so without the help of the United Nations, which
>failed to pass a resolution backing the U.S. effort.
>
>As the death toll rises in Iraq -- the number of U.S. military
>casualties is now above 1,000 and Iraqi citizens continue to die daily
>from insurgent attacks -- the question arises: Can the United Nations
>help now?
>
>A new FOX News poll finds that 54 percent of the U.S. public

No, that'd be 54% of Fox News type of folks, I'd bet.


> believes
>the United Nations does not reflect the values of average Americans.
>Only 29 percent say that U.N. policies reflect said values.

Boo-hoo. The UN isn't a right-wing theocracy trying to impose its moral
values on the world.

>
>"I believe the U.N., parts of it, have been corrupt for years. But
>this went to a whole new level," said Rep. Christopher Shays R-Conn.,
>chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
>Threats and International Relations.
>
>Shays is leading one of several Oil-for-Food probes by the federal
>government. The General Accountability Office has already pegged
>Saddam’s Oil-for-Food take at $10.1 billion. It could end up being a
>lot more.
>
>Shays says Iraqis aren't the only victims -- Americans are too.
>
>"We're talking about American lives that are being lost in an attempt
>to bring democracy to Iraq," Shays said. If France, Russia, China and
>Germany had told Saddam it was time to back down and honor his
>commitments, Shays said it’s possible the United States may not have
>needed to go to war against Saddam.
>
>But why did these countries really object to a second U.S.-led war
>against Iraq?

Oh, international law?

>
>Some evidence suggests that those countries that said they were
>opposing the Bush administration on principle were actually making
>billions from Oil-for-Food.

As were American oil companies and banks.

>
>"I think clearly, American blood is in the hands of a number of
>European countries, who could have put pressure on Saddam, who
>could've looked him in the eye and said, ‘the United States is coming
>in,'" Shays said. "And to me, some of the explanation clearly has to
>be the Oil-for-Food program."
>
>Shays added that there is a chance some of the insurgents now
>operating against the United States and the new Iraqi government are
>using Oil-for-Food money in their terror campaign.
>
>"I think it's not only possible that insurgents are using Oil-for-Food
>money -- I think it's very likely," Shays said.
>
>One casualty was Ihasan Karim (search), the Iraqi official heading an
>inquiry into the Oil-for-Food program. On July 1, a bomb placed under
>his car exploded in Baghdad, killing him, and U.S. officials in Iraq
>told FOX News that they believe Oil-for-Food was the motive in the
>assassination. That wouldn't surprise Shays.
>
>"I don’t know who murdered him. But I can tell you this: There are a
>lot of people who don't want this story to come out," Shays said.
>
>Shays places part of the blame on people inside the United Nations,
>even though U.N. officials authorized an independent investigation
>into the scandal.
>
>"They’re doing this investigation, but only after they were outed by
>an Iraqi free press, and a government leak from the Iraqi governing
>council," Shays said.
>
>Shays said the man heading up the probe, former Federal Reserve
>Chairman Paul Volcker (search), has a tough job ahead.
>
>"Paul Volcker is going to succeed or fail based on his power of
>persuasion and the good will of the U.N., but you're basically asking
>the member states to sign their own death warrant, and so it's kind of
>hard for me to imagine he's going to get the cooperation he wants,"
>Shays said.
>
>Volcker said it will take until at least next spring to finish his
>report, and in the meantime, he doesn't seem willing to give Congress
>the cooperation it wants.
>
>"There is a lot of smoke," Volcker told FOX News on June 23, when
>asked if he thinks the Oil-for-Food program was corrupt. "There are
>obviously big problems, and we want to see how big they were and why
>did they happen. Why did all this happen, in some sense, under
>everybody's noses?"
>
>Shays and Sen. Norm Coleman -- leaders of two of at least five federal
>Oil-for-Food investigations -- have started firing off subpoenas.

Not sure how you subpoena a diplomat. Why not subpoena the American oil
companies and banks that profited?

>
>"We have just begun this process," said Coleman, R-Minn. "But we’re
>trying to sort out this hornet's nest of corruption, of evil. And it’s
>going to take a little bit of time [and] patience."
>
>The problems at the United Nations have led some to question its
>value. A FOX News poll found that 64 percent of Americans say the
>United Nations has not been an effective partner in the War on Terror.

A Fox News poll would find 90% want this to be a Christian theocracy.

>
>Yet Shays and Coleman both said in interviews they believe a role
>exists for an organization like the United Nations.
>
>"I think we need the U.N. But we need it to be an honest institution,"
>Shays said. "When there are mistakes made, you have to uncover them
>and deal with them."
>
>Shays said that the very least, a major shakeup needs to take place.
>
>"The U.N. is so important, we’ve been willing to look the other way
>when we see things we don't like. I think the Oil-for-Food program
>busted that."
>
>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>> The U.N. has kept it's moral principles.
>
> Oil-for-Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to U.N.

Unlike those whose morals seem to consist of spreading unfounded accusations
and then conduction a witch hunt based on the allegations.

And I see that the 'support' for these allegations is a political poll,
probably with biased questions. How dumb is that?

But then, nobody has EVER said that Ken(NY) is not a moron.

 

[the Moderator]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ken [NY] wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> > <[email protected]> claims:
> >
> >> The U.N. has kept it's moral principles.
> >
> > Oil-for-Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to U.N.
>
> Unlike those whose morals seem to consist of spreading unfounded
accusations
> and then conduction a witch hunt based on the allegations.
>
> And I see that the 'support' for these allegations is a political poll,
> probably with biased questions. How dumb is that?
>
> But then, nobody has EVER said that Ken(NY) is not a moron.
>

Did you read where Koffi wants to use the Oil for Food money to conduct the
investigation on the Oil for Food Program? Does that sound like the moral
thing to do?

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Ian St. John wrote:
> Ken [NY] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>> <[email protected]> claims:
>>
>>> The U.N. has kept it's moral principles.
>>
>> Oil-for-Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to U.N.
>
> Unlike those whose morals seem to consist of spreading unfounded
> accusations and then conduction a witch hunt based on the allegations.

The accusations are founded and the investigation of them is not a witch
hunt.

> And I see that the 'support' for these allegations is a political
> poll, probably with biased questions. How dumb is that?

Not dumb at all.

> But then, nobody has EVER said that Ken(NY) is not a moron.

Ken(NY) is not a moron.

Ian's oh-fer-three, and it's only 7:30 AM on a Monday...
--
BS (no, really)