I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.



Jason wrote:
> * Mark Hickey <[email protected]>:
>> To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
>> supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
>> who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
>> dangerous to leave in place.
>>

>
>
> So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
> then. :)


Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.
 
* Bill Sornson <[email protected]>:
> Jason wrote:
>> * Mark Hickey <[email protected]>:
>>> To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
>>> supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
>>> who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
>>> dangerous to leave in place.
>>>

>>
>>
>> So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
>> then. :)

>
> Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.
>
>


The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
post described him perfectly.

Jason
 
Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

>* Bill Sornson <[email protected]>:
>> Jason wrote:
>>> * Mark Hickey <[email protected]>:
>>>> To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
>>>> supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
>>>> who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
>>>> dangerous to leave in place.
>>>
>>> So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
>>> then. :)

>>
>> Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.

>
>The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
>post described him perfectly.


Besides the many other points that don't fit - I'm wondering if you
could fill us in on which US President GWB tried to assassinate. If
that happened, I gotta check up on my news sources better...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0300, Jason wrote:

> The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
> post described him perfectly.


"openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President"
describes him perfectly?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
 
BB wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0300, Jason wrote:
>
>> The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and
>> Marks post described him perfectly.

>
> "openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US
> President" describes him perfectly?


Give Jason a break. He was running late for homeroom!

rotfl
 
* BB <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0300, Jason wrote:
>
>> The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
>> post described him perfectly.

>
> "openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President"
> describes him perfectly?
>


Yep only they call them freedom/resistance fighters same thing though,
change US to country of your choice and the phrase works.

Jason
 
* Mark Hickey <[email protected]>:
> Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>* Bill Sornson <[email protected]>:
>>> Jason wrote:
>>>> * Mark Hickey <[email protected]>:
>>>>> To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
>>>>> supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
>>>>> who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
>>>>> dangerous to leave in place.
>>>>
>>>> So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
>>>> then. :)
>>>
>>> Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.

>>
>>The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
>>post described him perfectly.

>
> Besides the many other points that don't fit - I'm wondering if you
> could fill us in on which US President GWB tried to assassinate. If
> that happened, I gotta check up on my news sources better...
>



Sure it fits mark, sustitute terrorist with resistance/freedom fighter
and the word US with a countrys name and it's perfectl Here let me
demonstrate.

who openly supports resistance fighters (one mans terrorist is anothers
resistance fighter after all) and has tried to
assassinate/have assassinated a countrys President.


Jason
 
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:10:13 -0300, Jason wrote:

> Yep only they call them freedom/resistance fighters same thing though,


Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported terrorists", and
I've never seen anything more substantial than suspicion as such. But it
was your argument that the same allegation applies to Bush, and I don't
know of any evidence of that either. There is of course a difference
between "insurgents" and "terrorists": the guys who blew up the London
subways, Madrid trains & Bali Hotel, and flew airplanes into the twin
towers were terrorists. Who does Bush support that has done such things?

> change US to country of your choice and the phrase works.


OK, my country of choice is Canada; tell me which president Bush tried to
assasinate.

I'm anything but a Bush advocate; I've been against this war from the
start and vocal about it. I believed and still believe he deserved to lose
his job for incompetence. But nonsense is nonsense, no matter which side
it comes from, and your post was nonsense.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Mark Hickey wrote:

>If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't,
>since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of
>the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)?
>You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly
>HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in
>Syria, for example).


Mark,

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans.
Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively
shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally
consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1].

The December, 2002 Joint Inquiry had three points to its charter[2]:

1) conduct a factual review of what the Intelligence Community knew or
should have known prior to September 11, 2001, regarding the
international terrorist threat to the United States, to include the
scope and nature of any possible international terrorist attacks
against the United States and its interests;

2) identify and examine any systemic problems that may have impeded
the Intelligence Community in learning of or preventing these attacks
in advance; and

3) make recommendations to improve the Intelligence Community’s
ability to identify and prevent future international terrorist
attacks.

I would argue that looking into the Bush administration's relationship
to intelligence (a funny concept on its face!) is /conspicuously/
absent from this one.

The 9/11 Commission's Report doesn't address the OSP, but then, it had
five stated things to look into[3]:

1) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at
the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset
County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;

2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed
by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts
and circumstances surrounding the attacks;

3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of—

(A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter
in this title referred to as the ‘‘Joint Inquiry’’); and

(B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent
commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism generally;

4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances
surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States’
preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and

5) investigate and report to the President and Congress
on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

Again, missing from that list is any request to delve into whether or
not the GWB administration swayed the intel through its own action or
direction.

In the Roberts-Rockefeller "Report of the Select Committee on
Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence
Assessments on Iraq,"[4] you can find six cursory references to the
OSP.

In those references, the whole question of what the OSP was, who set
it up, what was its charter, and did it purposely ignore caveats from
the more conventional intelligence community about the INcredibility
of many cited sources for the purposes of the policy makers.

Other passages within that document, however, allude to the
machinations of Douglas Feith, et al. Read through Rockefeller (et
al)'s comments . [5]

It's a good read, and a blatantly damning indictment of a pretty
disgusting end run.

I haven't read the whole thing (sadly, I can't), but--from the
snippets--I'm left with no doubt that this was a fait accompli
orchestrated by Bush and the NeoCons. Read it and I think you'll
agree.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/senate.pentagon/

[2] http://snipurl.com/gil7

[3] http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.pdf

[4] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

[5] http://snipurl.com/h90t
 
BB wrote:

> Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported
> terrorists", and I've never seen anything more substantial than
> suspicion as such.


Well, for starters he made direct payments to the families of Palestinian
suic--- HOMICIDE bombers.
 
Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Mark Hickey wrote:

>>If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't,
>>since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of
>>the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)?
>>You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly
>>HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in
>>Syria, for example).

>
>Mark,
>
>I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans.
>Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively
>shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally
>consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1].


I hadn't heard of the OSP previously, but would from a general
perspective would make a few points about your conclusions...

1) the organization seems to be focused on 9/11, not the run-up to the
Iraq war (or actually, the continuation thereof).
2) as such, the issue of coersion simply isn't applicable. The
shortcomings that led to our inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks
weren't because of believing faulty intelligence, but the lack of
intelligence.
3) the major mistakes made that allowed 9/11 to happen undetected
happened during the Clinton presidency (including systemic problems
that the 9/11 commissioners glossed over in their report - which is
really quite troubling).

So on the surface, it sounds like you're expecting the OSP to do
things that don't appear to be related to its charter.

The thing that makes me absolutely certain that no evidence of
intelligence tampering by the Bush administration will come to light
is simply that it didn't. If there HAD been a "smoking gun", is there
any doubt at all that the Democrats on the 9/11 committee (or one of
the other bipartisan committees looking into related topics) would
have come forward? After all, this was all happening during the
run-up to a VERY close election, and could have clearly changed the
outcome of the election.

To surmise that the evidence was obvious enough for "civilians" like
you or me to uncover, but hidden from those on the Senate intelligence
subcommittee or those on the various commissions is a bit of a
(loooong) reach. To assume that the Democrat congresscritters knew of
wrongdoing by Bush but kept it to themselves is even further from the
neighborhood of reality.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

>The December, 2002 Joint Inquiry had three points to its charter[2]:
>
>1) conduct a factual review of what the Intelligence Community knew or
>should have known prior to September 11, 2001, regarding the
>international terrorist threat to the United States, to include the
>scope and nature of any possible international terrorist attacks
>against the United States and its interests;
>
>2) identify and examine any systemic problems that may have impeded
>the Intelligence Community in learning of or preventing these attacks
>in advance; and
>
>3) make recommendations to improve the Intelligence Community’s
>ability to identify and prevent future international terrorist
>attacks.
>
>I would argue that looking into the Bush administration's relationship
>to intelligence (a funny concept on its face!) is /conspicuously/
>absent from this one.
>
>The 9/11 Commission's Report doesn't address the OSP, but then, it had
>five stated things to look into[3]:
>
>1) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at
>the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset
>County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
>
>2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed
>by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts
>and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
>
>3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
>avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
>conclusions, and recommendations of—
>
> (A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on Intelligence
>of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee
>on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding
>the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter
>in this title referred to as the ‘‘Joint Inquiry’’); and
>
> (B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent
>commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11,
>2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism generally;
>
>4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances
>surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States’
>preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and
>
>5) investigate and report to the President and Congress
>on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
>measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.
>
>Again, missing from that list is any request to delve into whether or
>not the GWB administration swayed the intel through its own action or
>direction.
>
>In the Roberts-Rockefeller "Report of the Select Committee on
>Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence
>Assessments on Iraq,"[4] you can find six cursory references to the
>OSP.
>
>In those references, the whole question of what the OSP was, who set
>it up, what was its charter, and did it purposely ignore caveats from
>the more conventional intelligence community about the INcredibility
>of many cited sources for the purposes of the policy makers.
>
>Other passages within that document, however, allude to the
>machinations of Douglas Feith, et al. Read through Rockefeller (et
>al)'s comments . [5]
>
>It's a good read, and a blatantly damning indictment of a pretty
>disgusting end run.
>
>I haven't read the whole thing (sadly, I can't), but--from the
>snippets--I'm left with no doubt that this was a fait accompli
>orchestrated by Bush and the NeoCons. Read it and I think you'll
>agree.
>
>[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/senate.pentagon/
>
>[2] http://snipurl.com/gil7
>
>[3] http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.pdf
>
>[4] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
>
>[5] http://snipurl.com/h90t
 
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 02:29:25 GMT, Bill Sornson wrote:
> BB wrote:
>
>> Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported
>> terrorists", and I've never seen anything more substantial than
>> suspicion as such.

>
> Well, for starters he made direct payments to the families of Palestinian
> suic--- HOMICIDE bombers.


Ah, I see. When people say "terrorists" in relation to a war to protect
America, I keep thinking of terrorists who endanger America.

Isn't support for the Palistinian situation pretty common in that region?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address