John Kerry: Nice wheels

[BaCardi]

<del><del> Mods, how does a user delete a previous post? This systemfsdf

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)



--

 

[BaCardi]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> ... Again, I think you're ignoring the obvious.
> >>
> Like it or not, this IS a "real war". It would be nice if fighting
> terrorism was nice and clean - but it's going to involve taking away the
> political will for Arab states to finance and shelter them.




And another thing. This is no more a real war than it is a political
war. There are terrorists in our own country. We have issues dealing
with homeland security, let alone other domestic issues such as the
unemployment rate, poverty, etc. What the hell is the Bush admin doing
with this blind foreign policy charade they are playing halfway around
the world? We got things that need to be dealt with in our own backyard!

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)



--

 

[Tim McNamara]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> "Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen:
>>
>>Bush is no Jack Kennedy.
>
> Heh, that could be taken a few different ways...
>
> ... but Bush WAS savvy enough to avoid giving the VERY hostile press
> a nice quote for Kerry to use in his ads "Gee, I'm really sorry
> about Iraq"...

Those words would be stupid. Rumsfeld's acknowledgement that he
didn't foresee the current situation was startling enough- one two
fronts: first, that he even approximated admitting that this is not
all as according to plan; and second, this was the obvious outcome
over a year ago. How dumb are these guys?

> Did anyone notice there were NO questions on the economy or
> employment?

Just as well for Bush, at this point, being as how the economy is
still millions of jobs down and behind the eight ball for decades due
to the Bush deficit. He's desperately hoping that "it's the economy,
stupid" isn't as fatal for him as it was his father.

 

[Richard Brockie]

Richard Brockie wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Scott Ritter's "opinion" withers under the weight of the actual
>> findings and conclusions of the UN report. And today it comes to
>> light that Ritter's Arab backer (who put up $400,000 to finance
>> Ritter's book) was the recipient of millions of $ from Saddam. It's a
>> developing story, but one that could cast a significant shadow across
>> Ritter's credibility.
>
>
> Playing the man and not the ball doesn't escape the fact that Ritter has
> been probed by and large correct!

"proved" - bloody tyops...

--
R.

<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements
<> The tall blond one. always cause trouble."
<> [email protected]

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> If he wanted to get fancy, he could deploy one of the many missiles he
>> had configured for dispersing anthrax on a freighter, and fire it when
>> he was <100km off the coast....
>
>So, we would only have to worry about anthrax attacks if we were on a
>freighter when Hussein was 100 km (~62 miles) off shore? Not a huge
>concern to most people.
>
>Some editing of the above quoted material for clarity and meaning is in
>order.

If the syntax of that sentence bothers you, I would imagine the
internet is a VERY annoying place for you. ;-) If my newsreader had
graphic capability I could diagram the sentence for you (it's correct,
BTW).

>> I don't see any chance at all of any games (OK, very little chance).
>> The scientists of the world are far too sophisticated to get taken in
>> by some anthrax grown in Berkeley turning up in Baghdad. The
>> political fallout from such a move would be horrendous....
>
>If "WMD's" happened to be found in late October 2004, it would likely
>not be possible to determine if they were or were not planted by agents
>of the United States until after the election. It is much more difficult
>to impeach (and gain a conviction) a serving president than it is to
>defeat that person in an election.

Conspiracy theories are one thing (and usually pretty much over the
top), but preminitions of conspiracy theories... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> It was done as part of a UN action (the first time) and as a
>> continuation (the second time)....
>
>Without specific approval by the UN Security Council (which never
>happened), the 2003 US invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN and
>could not be considered a continuation of any earlier resolution.
>
>Time to stop listening to propaganda.

Time to actually read the resolution. Is every anti-Bush person in
the world afraid of actually reading the documents? The resolution
isn't the most clearly written I've seen, but an awful lot of very
smart people have interpreted it the way I do. Others choose not
to... but it's hardly "propaganda".

>> You're surprised that any administration coming to power in the
>> circumstances GWB's did would have a plan to take out Iraq?...
>
>I do not see any logical connection between coming into office on a
>partisan 5-4 vote by the United States Supreme Court and invading Iraq.

You are right - the two have nothing to do with each other. You'd do
well to remember that.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> [email protected]ospam (Tom Paterson) writes:
>
>>> From: Tim McNamara
>>
>>> A silent majority is never heard.
>>
>> Well, they need to vote this next time, don't they? --TP
>
> They do, and they won't. And they'll get the government they
> deserve.

Yes, and the rest of the world will get it too

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Scott Ritter's "opinion" withers under the weight of the actual
>> findings and conclusions of the UN report. And today it comes to
>> light that Ritter's Arab backer (who put up $400,000 to finance
>> Ritter's book) was the recipient of millions of $ from Saddam. It's a
>> developing story, but one that could cast a significant shadow across
>> Ritter's credibility.
>
>There have been previous attempt to slander Scott Ritter (if you can not
>discredit the message, attack the messenger instead). Innocent until
>proven guilty.

I did say it's a developing story. It does appear there was a LOT of
money spread around and that the money DID influence people. KPMG is
currently doing an independent audit of the thousands of documents
trying to get to the bottom of the whole mess. I agree it's too soon
to accuse Ritter of wrong-doing - but if the story pans out it's going
to be hard to convince anyone his motives were pure as the driven
snow.

> >>>2) Saddam was a known terrorist supporter
> >>
> >>If we define terrorism as violence directed against civilians with a
> >>political goal as the motivation, then the United States and many other
> >>"civilized" countries are also guilty of supporting terrorism.
>
>> You think we shouldn't try to eliminate state-sponsored terrorism?
>
>Yes, but we should cast the beam out of our (United States) eye before
>going after the motes in the eyes of others.

You must hate it here. Worse even than Afghanistan, huh? Wow.

>>>>3) He was vehemently anti-US (trying to assassinate an ex-president
>>>>for example)
>>>
>>>During the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam Hussein bragged about being the United
>>>States best friend in the Arab world (and warmly received President
>>>Reagan's envoy, Donald Rumsfeld). The United States (and therefore
>>>George H. W. Bush) betrayed him when then US Ambassador to Iraq April
>>>Glaspie told Hussein shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait that the dispute
>>>between Iraq and Kuwait was an Arab concern and that the US would not
>>>interfere.
>>
>> OK, she lied. Do you really think Saddam thought a low-level
>> functionary like Glaspie had the stones to "authorize" him to invade
>> Kuwait?...
>
>An ambassador is hardly a "low-level functionary" but can be assumed to
>speak directly for the government she (or he) represents.

Iraq invades Kuwait and it's George Bush's fault. Wow again.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[BaCardi]

Bill Bradley wrote:
> If you haven't heard it already his comment at Caltech in November
> 2002 (months pre-invasion of Iraq) address this issue rather well
> (even if some of his other predictions are off). http://sass.caltec-
> h.edu/events/ritter.shtmlhttp://sass.caltech.edu/events/ritter.shtml
> Bill




I haven't actually heard of those comments until now. Not unreasonable
and offer some good insight into the real roots of terrorism. Thanks
for the link.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)



--

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard Brockie wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>> Scott Ritter's "opinion" withers under the weight of the actual
>>> findings and conclusions of the UN report. And today it comes to
>>> light that Ritter's Arab backer (who put up $400,000 to finance
>>> Ritter's book) was the recipient of millions of $ from Saddam. It's a
>>> developing story, but one that could cast a significant shadow across
>>> Ritter's credibility.
>>
>> Playing the man and not the ball doesn't escape the fact that Ritter has
>> been pro[v]ed by and large correct!
>
>This is a standard tactic of US right-wing political commentators when
>they are on the wrong side of facts and logic in an argument.

Comparing his opinion to the ACTUAL UN DOCUMENT is "playing the man"?
I think I was very fair in bringing up the potential financing issue -
I made it clear that it was a developing story that COULD impact
Ritter's credibility. Don't you agree it would if it turns out to be
true?

Here's some more info:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/605fgcob.asp?pg=1

What we find in Iraq after the fact is just that - AFTER the fact.
The important information and intelligence is that that existed BEFORE
the war. That is what the decision to go into Iraq (and assessment of
the threat) was based on.

Again, if you don't even read the UN weapons inspection report, how
can you ever know what that information looked like? I know it's much
easier to take a few pithy comments from one dissenting opinion
(skillfully edited) to make a decision... but you'll simply be
developing an opinion in a near information vaccuum.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen:
>>>
>>>Bush is no Jack Kennedy.
>>
>> Heh, that could be taken a few different ways...
>>
>> ... but Bush WAS savvy enough to avoid giving the VERY hostile press
>> a nice quote for Kerry to use in his ads "Gee, I'm really sorry
>> about Iraq"...
>
>Those words would be stupid. Rumsfeld's acknowledgement that he
>didn't foresee the current situation was startling enough- one two
>fronts: first, that he even approximated admitting that this is not
>all as according to plan; and second, this was the obvious outcome
>over a year ago. How dumb are these guys?

How clairvoyant would they have to be to satisfy you? The fact there
are some Baathist holdouts and foreign fighters from Libya and other
countries doesn't surprise anyone. The insurgency of Al Sadr's folks
did come as a bit of a surprise (though it was hardly a "major
uprising").

>> Did anyone notice there were NO questions on the economy or
>> employment?
>
>Just as well for Bush, at this point, being as how the economy is
>still millions of jobs down and behind the eight ball for decades due
>to the Bush deficit. He's desperately hoping that "it's the economy,
>stupid" isn't as fatal for him as it was his father.

Have you noticed how the press now talks about the 10 years of great
economy before Bush Jr., but at the time of the '96 election they were
reporting 90% plus negative on what was obviously a very positive
economy? Deja vu.

Only now the networks don't have the same kind of stranglehold on the
flow of information, so it's not such a secret that ALL the economic
indicators are roaring back (including 500,000 jobs created in just
the last three months). You might have missed that if you were
waiting for Dan Rather to tell you though... heck, even John Kerry had
to invent a new way to measure the economy so he could continue to
(try to) use the economy as an issue - his "reinvented misery index".
Picked out a few key areas where there has been some inflation (even
though core inflation is at a 45 year low), bundled them together and
is going to try to convince you you're miserable. Funny thing is
though, using the original "misery index", the Bush administration has
the best rating post WWII. Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[S o r n i]

Richard Brockie wrote:
> Richard Brockie wrote:

>> Playing the man and not the ball doesn't escape the fact that Ritter
>> has been probed by and large correct!
>
> "proved" - bloody tyops...

Liked it better the first time.

Bill "Ritter's a jerk" S.

 

[Doug]

Hostile Press? You really do have your head up your ass. The press was
inexplicably gushing abut the so-called "press conference," despite Shrub's
incoherency, and his inability to provide a single non-evasive answer to any
of the questions posed. The fact is that the bar is set so low for this
jerk that so long as he doesn't fall on his face drunk, his performance is
given a passing grade.

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] writes:
> >
> >> ======================================================================
> >> Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel
> >>
> >> Bush's press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq
> >>
> >> Sidney Blumenthal
> >> Thursday April 15, 2004
> >> The Guardian
> >>
> >> On April 21 1961, President Kennedy held a press conference to answer
> >> questions on the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles that
> >> he had approved. "There's an old saying," he said, "that victory has a
> >> hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan ... I am the responsible
> >> officer of the government and that is quite obvious."
> >
> >...snip...
> >
> >To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen:
> >
> >Bush is no Jack Kennedy.
>
> Heh, that could be taken a few different ways...
>
> ... but Bush WAS savvy enough to avoid giving the VERY hostile press a
> nice quote for Kerry to use in his ads "Gee, I'm really sorry about
> Iraq"...
>
> Did anyone notice there were NO questions on the economy or
> employment?
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hostile Press? You really do have your head up your ass. The press was
>inexplicably gushing abut the so-called "press conference," despite Shrub's
>incoherency, and his inability to provide a single non-evasive answer to any
>of the questions posed. The fact is that the bar is set so low for this
>jerk that so long as he doesn't fall on his face drunk, his performance is
>given a passing grade.

If you REALLY think the networks are reporting in a balanced manner,
they have succeeded admirably in your case. The more you know about
the issues, the more blatantly obvious their bias is. Their "slant"
is the main thing that's driving people away from them to alternative
sources like Fox, even though there are no "personalities" among the
newscasters.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] writes:
>> >
>> >> ======================================================================
>> >> Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel
>> >>
>> >> Bush's press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq
>> >>
>> >> Sidney Blumenthal
>> >> Thursday April 15, 2004
>> >> The Guardian
>> >>
>> >> On April 21 1961, President Kennedy held a press conference to answer
>> >> questions on the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles that
>> >> he had approved. "There's an old saying," he said, "that victory has a
>> >> hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan ... I am the responsible
>> >> officer of the government and that is quite obvious."
>> >
>> >...snip...
>> >
>> >To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen:
>> >
>> >Bush is no Jack Kennedy.
>>
>> Heh, that could be taken a few different ways...
>>
>> ... but Bush WAS savvy enough to avoid giving the VERY hostile press a
>> nice quote for Kerry to use in his ads "Gee, I'm really sorry about
>> Iraq"...
>>
>> Did anyone notice there were NO questions on the economy or
>> employment?
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $695 ti frame
>

 

[JP]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >During the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam Hussein bragged about being the United
> >States best friend in the Arab world (and warmly received President
> >Reagan's envoy, Donald Rumsfeld). The United States (and therefore
> >George H. W. Bush) betrayed him when then US Ambassador to Iraq April
> >Glaspie told Hussein shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait that the dispute
> >between Iraq and Kuwait was an Arab concern and that the US would not
> >interfere.
>
> OK, she lied. Do you really think Saddam thought a low-level
> functionary like Glaspie had the stones to "authorize" him to invade
> Kuwait?

This is a good example of how ignorant you are of the function of
foreign relations. The US Ambassador is THE representative of the
President and the country. Such a statement to a foreign head of state
represents the official position of the US. The fact that it may have
been a stupid thing to say reflects upon the President's
administration who appointed her. But go back and look at the context:
Iraq was an ally of the US against Iran and historically the Reagan
and Bush administrations had overlooked all sorts of atrocities
including widespread use of chemical weapons against not only Iranian
soldiers but also civilians in his own country. For Hussein to take
the US Ambassador at her word, that the US would allow his invasion of
Kuwait, is a relatively trivial conclusion on his part and entirely
predictable.

JP

 

[JP]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> What we find in Iraq after the fact is just that - AFTER the fact.
> The important information and intelligence is that that existed BEFORE
> the war. That is what the decision to go into Iraq (and assessment of
> the threat) was based on.

Exactly. And what existed BEFORE the fact was squat- nothing except
manufactured evidence.

>
> Again, if you don't even read the UN weapons inspection report, how
> can you ever know what that information looked like? I know it's much
> easier to take a few pithy comments from one dissenting opinion
> (skillfully edited) to make a decision... but you'll simply be
> developing an opinion in a near information vaccuum.

Your refusal to cite specifics from said report makes me think that
perhaps YOU are the one who hasn't read it.

JP

 

[JP]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> It was done as part of a UN action (the first time) and as a
> >> continuation (the second time)....
> >
> >Without specific approval by the UN Security Council (which never
> >happened), the 2003 US invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN and
> >could not be considered a continuation of any earlier resolution.
> >
> >Time to stop listening to propaganda.
>
> Time to actually read the resolution. Is every anti-Bush person in
> the world afraid of actually reading the documents? The resolution
> isn't the most clearly written I've seen, but an awful lot of very
> smart people have interpreted it the way I do. Others choose not
> to... but it's hardly "propaganda".

It doesn't really matter what you think. It's not up to you to
interpret UN resolutions. That power resides soley with the UN
Security Council itself, and it made itself pretty clear in its rebuff
of the US for a second resolution that the resolution did not
authorize the use of force without additional approval from the
Security Council.

JP

 

[JP]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> >If "WMD's" happened to be found in late October 2004, it would likely
> >not be possible to determine if they were or were not planted by agents
> >of the United States until after the election. It is much more difficult
> >to impeach (and gain a conviction) a serving president than it is to
> >defeat that person in an election.
>
> Conspiracy theories are one thing (and usually pretty much over the
> top), but preminitions of conspiracy theories... ;-)

I don't know if this is an actual conspiracy theory; it's more like a
theory that the Bush administration is capable of such a conspiracy.
But we know better- they would NEVER manufacture evidence of WMD as an
excuse to go to war with Iraq, right?

 

[Richard Ney]

Mark Hickey writes:

>>> Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel
>>>
>>> Bush's press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq
>>>
>>> Sidney Blumenthal
>>> Thursday April 15, 2004
>>> The Guardian
>>>
>>> On April 21 1961, President Kennedy held a press conference to
>>> answer questions on the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban
>>> exiles that he had approved. "There's an old saying," he said,
>>> "that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan ... I
>>> am the responsible officer of the government and that is quite
>>> obvious."
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>> To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen:
>>
>> Bush is no Jack Kennedy.
>
> Heh, that could be taken a few different ways...
>
> ... but Bush WAS savvy enough to avoid giving the VERY hostile press a
> nice quote for Kerry to use in his ads "Gee, I'm really sorry about
> Iraq"...
>
> Did anyone notice there were NO questions on the economy or
> employment?

Apropos of the economy:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/04/war_politics.html

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Only now the networks don't have the same kind of stranglehold on the
> flow of information, so it's not such a secret that ALL the economic
> indicators are roaring back

Consumer confidence isn't.

> (including 500,000 jobs created in just the last three months).

500,000 in three months is about 400,000 below the administration's
projection, and roughly the amount needed merely to account for the
increasing labour force.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/