OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Ted Bennett, Apr 22, 2004.



  1. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Ted Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:

    >http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

    Aren't you glad the current administration finally got it
    right? What is really scary is that a thug like Saddam could
    have been the best ally in the area in previous times (a
    great indication that things do need to change in the middle
    / near east).

    Also, there are a couple obvious myths that found their way
    into the piece.

    In testimony to a Senate committee, Ambassador Glaspie
    claims the Iraqi account of the conversation "giving Iraq
    the green light to invade Kuwait" is a fabrication. She
    claims she actually said:

    "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the
    transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute
    with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed
    me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not
    associated with America."

    The report continued:

    "In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister,
    Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had
    not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made
    general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United
    States would have a strong reaction."

    http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm

    It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him of
    trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will become
    truth. Show me one instance - no one else has been able to.

    But hey, the sound track was nice.

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

    Ted Bennett Guest

    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ted Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
    >
    > Aren't you glad the current administration finally got it
    > right? What is really scary is that a thug like Saddam
    > could have been the best ally in the area in previous
    > times (a great indication that things do need to change in
    > the middle / near east).
    >
    > Also, there are a couple obvious myths that found their
    > way into the piece.
    >
    > In testimony to a Senate committee, Ambassador Glaspie
    > claims the Iraqi account of the conversation "giving Iraq
    > the green light to invade Kuwait" is a fabrication. She
    > claims she actually said:
    >
    > "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the
    > transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute
    > with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has
    > directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait
    > is not associated with America."
    >
    > The report continued:
    >
    > "In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister,
    > Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she
    > had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and
    > made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the
    > United States would have a strong reaction."
    >
    > http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm
    >
    > It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him
    > of trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will
    > become truth. Show me one instance - no one else has been
    > able to.
    >
    > But hey, the sound track was nice.
    >

    Mark, what I found most troubling about all this is that the
    United States was the country that supplied Saddam with
    biologic and nerve agents, and then removed Iraq from its
    list of terrorist nations *after* he used those weapons on
    Iranians and Iraqis. Even Rumsfeld was photographed shaking
    his hand. Why does the US continue to hang out with and
    support such people?

    And now Bush gives his reason for attacking Iraq: terrorism,
    9/11. Unfortunately the US helped Saddam along that way.

    The US government is currently throwing a hissy fit about
    photographs of the caskets of dead military personnel. I,
    for one, would like to see a lot more publicity. Not just
    for US soldiers, but of the thousands of Iraqi dead and
    injured. I don't think Bush and his crowd even want to know
    about that.

    --
    Ted Bennett Portland OR
     
  3. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    [email protected] (Tom Paterson) wrote:

    >>From: Ted Bennett
    >
    >>I, for one, would like to see a lot more publicity. Not
    >>just for US soldiers, but of the thousands of Iraqi dead
    >>and injured. I don't think Bush and his crowd even want to
    >>know about that.
    >
    >They know about it, and they know we know about it. They
    >just don't want us to *think* about it, because public
    >reaction to increasing casualties is on thing that finally
    >broke the War Machine in the Viet Nam era.

    It's likely to get worse as those who oppose a democracy in
    Iraq get more and more desparate to derail the process.
    It'll be interesting to see what happens after the June 30
    handover of power.

    >(snipping, mixing posts)
    >
    >>> It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him
    >>> of trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will
    >>> become truth. Show me one instance - no one else has
    >>> been able to.
    >
    >My goodness, Mark: "Iraq/Terrorists, terrorists/Iraq", over
    >and over again by Bush on TV, reported on elsewhere and
    >repeated. Repeated "enough times" to make the linkage with
    >the American public. And all questions/doubts shouted down
    >(paaaatriotism), secrecy abounding.

    Sorry, but I don't spell "terrorism" with a 9 and a couple
    1's. I don't think many others do as well.

    >And that "Clinton did less" again. Stop, please. Clinton
    >got in trouble for everything he did (except for private
    >Monica celebrations), including "depleting our missile
    >stock to the point of compromising national security"
    >(paraphrasing). Don't sweep the people who died and were
    >horribly injured (plus the huge property losses) in the
    >9/11 attacks. Those deaths, as you well know, changed the
    >President's options, to put it mildly. Even Bush I found
    >the capture/killing of Sadaam politically "difficult" (or
    >it was just a setup where the good 'ol boy network
    >clobbered the little guys while letting the higher-ups go
    >back to the palace. Your choice.)

    I don't disagree with you. I do think his decision to scale
    down our intelligence agencies was a mistake, but I stop FAR
    short of "blaming him" for 9/11.

    >>> Aren't you glad the current >>administration finally got
    >>> it right?
    >
    >(My understanding): The current administration lied in
    >order to follow plans that had been in place for a long
    >time before 9/11. --TP

    If the current administration did NOT have a contingency
    plan to take out Saddam before 9/11 they'd be idiots. The
    Woodward book (the whole book, not select quotes out of
    context) tells the story of a plan that came together over
    months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that the UN was
    going to refuse to back up any action to remove Saddam from
    power / enforce all the UN resolutions. Think back to the
    time and tell me that anyone thought it was unlikely that
    we'd end up going in to take him out.

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

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Ted Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Mark, what I found most troubling about all this is that
    >the United States was the country that supplied Saddam with
    >biologic and nerve agents, and then removed Iraq from its
    >list of terrorist nations *after* he used those weapons on
    >Iranians and Iraqis. Even Rumsfeld was photographed shaking
    >his hand. Why does the US continue to hang out with and
    >support such people?

    The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to Kennedy. I
    guess it's one of those "the enemy of your enemy" things,
    but it does seem pretty questionable in retrospect.

    >And now Bush gives his reason for attacking Iraq:
    >terrorism, 9/11. Unfortunately the US helped Saddam along
    >that way.

    One out of two ain't bad. Or maybe you can find a link where
    Bush mentions that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11
    attack (no one else has been able to do that - it's just an
    "election year legend").

    >The US government is currently throwing a hissy fit about
    >photographs of the caskets of dead military personnel. I,
    >for one, would like to see a lot more publicity. Not just
    >for US soldiers, but of the thousands of Iraqi dead and
    >injured. I don't think Bush and his crowd even want to know
    >about that.

    I think they should show a lot more coverage of the mass
    graves as well - but that's the way it is with US TV. OTOH,
    Al Jezeera more than makes up for any squeamishness on our
    part. I heard a report the other day that the reason they
    didn't broadcast the execution of the Italian contractor was
    that he struggled with his captors and said "now I'll show
    you how an Italian dies". If that's true I guess it
    wouldln't help with the propaganda war much...

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

    Tim McNamara Guest

    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

    > The Woodward book (the whole book, not select quotes out
    > of context) tells the story of a plan that came together
    > over months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that the
    > UN was going to refuse to back up any action to remove
    > Saddam from power / enforce all the UN resolutions.

    I've not had the opportunity to read the whole book, but the
    reactions to it are interesting. The pro-Bush contingent
    seems to think that it shows Bush as a dynamic, decisive
    leader. The anti-Bush crowd seems to think it shows him as
    an out of touch, right wing whacko disregarding reality at
    the behest of his god. I guess that means Woodward's book is
    "fair and balanced."
     
  6. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    Tim McNamara wrote:
    > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >
    >>The Woodward book (the whole book, not select quotes out
    >>of context) tells the story of a plan that came together
    >>over months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that the
    >>UN was going to refuse to back up any action to remove
    >>Saddam from power / enforce all the UN resolutions.
    >
    >
    > I've not had the opportunity to read the whole book, but
    > the reactions to it are interesting. The pro-Bush
    > contingent seems to think that it shows Bush as a dynamic,
    > decisive leader. The anti-Bush crowd seems to think it
    > shows him as an out of touch, right wing whacko
    > disregarding reality at the behest of his god. I guess
    > that means Woodward's book is "fair and balanced."

    Don't know about the book but I was catching up on my
    newspaper reading today and there was a disturbing article
    in the Apr 11 LA Times by some Hoover Institution folks. The
    subject was Bush's profound beliefs in Armageddon and that
    in private he admits the war in Iraq is a religious war, not
    a war against terrorism.

    "George sees this as a religious war. ...we the Christians
    will strike back with more force and more ferocity then they
    will ever know." Substitute Jews for Christians and that
    sounds like War Criminal Sharon.

    If we had a president who was interested in combatting
    only terrorism we'd be out of Iraq in no time. Instead we
    bomb mosques.

    And the Hoover folks ain't exactly what you would call
    liberal.

    Greg
     
  7. Mark Hickey wrote:

    > The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to Kennedy.

    Quite a long time before he came to power, then?

    --
    Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/ They're parking
    camels where the taxis used to be
     
  8. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Don't know about the book but I was catching up on my
    >newspaper reading today and there was a disturbing article
    >in the Apr 11 LA Times by some Hoover Institution folks.
    >The subject was Bush's profound beliefs in Armageddon and
    >that in private he admits the war in Iraq is a religious
    >war, not a war against terrorism.

    Hmmm. the LA Times, and a "private admission". Heh.

    >"George sees this as a religious war. ...we the Christians
    >will strike back with more force and more ferocity then
    >they will ever know." Substitute Jews for Christians and
    >that sounds like War Criminal Sharon.

    Whose opinion was that, anyway? Unnamed sources maybe?
    Political enemies, certainly.

    >If we had a president who was interested in combatting
    >only terrorism we'd be out of Iraq in no time. Instead we
    >bomb mosques.

    You think we should just cut and run and let Iraq struggle
    with its internal problems? Eeeek.

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

    Kyle.B.H Guest

    "Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
    >
    > --
    > Ted Bennett Portland OR

    Nice web site too - a few quotes from the front page.

    "There are three constituencies that are at the core of
    Bush's hopes for election: The Ultra-Rich, the Stupid, and
    the Religious Right.

    Unfortunately, there aren't enough millionaires to ensure
    his victory in the upcoming election, but, fortunately,
    there are plenty of stupid couch-potatoes that will march
    steadilly forth from their television sets to cast their
    vote for ol' George.

    Unfortunately, one can count on half of the stupid to be
    distracted by something shiny en route to the voting booth,
    and thus will never make it far enough to actually cast
    their ballots.

    This leaves Bush with one core constituency to count on- the
    five million or so religious protestant Bible thumpers than
    have been testing the limits of generational inbreeding in
    the red states. These folks have a blind adulation for Bush
    Jr that just boggles the mind."

    Good stuff. You wonder why its difficult to take these
    people seriously. You use slide shows put to music by anti
    Bush fanatics as your intellectual ammunition. Myself, I
    prefer respectable news and opinion sources from across
    spectrum, but at least you have so much fun.

    Kyle
     
  10. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

    > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>If we had a president who was interested in combatting
    >>only terrorism we'd be out of Iraq in no time. Instead we
    >>bomb mosques.

    Ah, well, terrorism is only the excuse for this war in Iraq,
    not the reason. But you can't convince the Bush faithful of
    this even though the plan for war was written- and made public-
    by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al while Clinton was President.
    The purpose of the war was to re-establish American military
    pre-eminence that was damaged by the "ragged ending" of the
    first Gulf War.

    There are many who think that America should order the world
    as it sees fit, to the benefit of Americans first and
    foremost. We have failed to learn the lessons of history as
    to the fate suffered by all imperial powers- Alexandria,
    Greece, Rome, England. In less that 100 years, under the
    course charted by the Bush Administration, America will be
    the same sort of second rate backwater than England, Italy,
    Greece and the Middle East currently are.

    > You think we should just cut and run and let Iraq struggle
    > with its internal problems? Eeeek.

    Given that we created their problems, it would be rude of us
    to just dump them now. But just watch, this is what will
    happen and Iraq will fall into a deadly civil war. The Bush
    Administration hasn't got a clue how to get themselves out
    of the mess they've walked into. That's what happens when
    you keep putting the same old fossilized set of reprobates
    into power- they've had sixteen years between the Reagan,
    Bush I and Bush II administrations and they've just kept
    screwing up. Unfortunately too many Americans are too
    hypnotized by their single fanatical issues to notice.
     
  11. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> writes:

    > Mark Hickey wrote:
    >
    >> The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to
    >> Kennedy.
    >
    > Quite a long time before he came to power, then?

    He came to power through the aid and intervention of the CIA
    and the American government, beginning in the Kennedy
    Administration. This is a well-known matter of public
    record. While the Democrats would love to pin this all on
    the Republicans, it can't be done because both parties are
    bloody to the elbows as far as the Middle East is concerned.
    The Democrats set the current Iraqi crisis in motion 40
    years ago, and in particular the Republicans have managed to
    build upon that foundation with great efficacy thanks to a
    devotion to doing what is expedient rather than what is
    right. (Both parties suffer from that, too).
     
  12. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    [email protected] (Tom Paterson) wrote:

    >>From: Mark Hickey
    >
    >>It'll be interesting to see what happens after the June 30
    >>>handover of power.
    >
    >That's when our people, soldiers and "mercenaries" alike,
    >need to start coming home. The sooner the better.

    I agree - but we'll need to be there long enough for a
    reasonable amount of stability to set in. And it's not the
    most inherently stable place on earth... I hope to see some
    serious stepping up by the Iraqi security forces.

    >>Sorry, but I don't spell "terrorism" with a 9 and a couple
    >>1's. I don't think many others do as well.
    >
    >The linkage was made, over and over again. Terrorists-9/11.
    >"We're fighting terrorism in Iraq".

    Which is entirely different than what you said previously
    (implying that Bush made the case that Iraq was connected to
    9/11). Terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
    Iraq did sponsor terrorism.

    >>I do think his [Clinton] decision to scale down our
    >>intelligence agencies was a mistake, but I stop FAR short
    >>of "blaming him" for 9/11.
    >
    >Um, I agree with me on that point, too. Imagine Clinton
    >going to war on the Bush scale prior to Monica. Impeached
    >even sooner.

    Maybe... partisan politics should have no part in these
    issues (either way).

    >>If the current administration did NOT have a contingency
    >>plan to take out Saddam before 9/11 they'd be idiots.
    >
    >It goes to "why" they wanted him out. What real purposes
    >were served, not the terrorist/911 etc. etc. pretext
    >that was used to sell a frightened populace on an
    >undeclared war.

    You're not gonna make me go through all that again, are you?
    Here's the Clif notes version. Known stockpiles of WMD,
    believed to be in existence by everyone who mattered
    (including the UN and previous administration). Known
    support of terrorist groups. Refusal to disarm per cease-
    fire agreement in '91. Genocidal behavior and a
    destabilizing force in the (crucial) region. And his tailor
    wasn't too good.

    >> The Woodward book (the whole book, not select quotes out
    >> of context) tells the story of a plan that came together
    >> over months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that
    >> the UN was going to refuse to back up any action to
    >> remove Saddam from power / enforce all the UN
    >> resolutions. Think back to the time and tell me that
    >> anyone thought it was unlikely that we'd end up going in
    >> to take him out.
    >
    >I thought Bush and Co. might listen to those who didn't
    >agree. Silly me. Again, goes to the real motivation to take
    >Saddam from power. Saddam had months and months (during
    >which no further terrorists attacks were seen in the US,
    >despite the known, demonstrated gaps in security) to get
    >ready for something he knew was coming. We walked over him
    >again. Saddam, delusional about his own powers, Bush and
    >Co. delusional about Saddam?

    Iraq was only one of the states openly sponsoring terrorism,
    but one with the greatest ability to harm us directly. I
    believe taking him out was the right thing to do on that
    count alone, never mind the horrors he committed among his
    own people (and those of Iran and Kuwait). The other really
    great thing about it is that the rules have now changed -
    states aren't so willing to sponsor and support terrorist
    organizations any more (heck, even the Saudis are cracking
    down hard enough to cause themselves to be targeted by the
    terrorists). Khadafi is giving it up, Iran too.

    Or we could have waited and hoped for the best. Call me
    overly cautious, but I don't think that would have been a
    particularly good idea.

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

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> Mark Hickey wrote:
    >>
    >>> The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to
    >>> Kennedy.
    >>
    >> Quite a long time before he came to power, then?
    >
    >He came to power through the aid and intervention of the
    >CIA and the American government, beginning in the Kennedy
    >Administration. This is a well-known matter of public
    >record. While the Democrats would love to pin this all on
    >the Republicans, it can't be done because both parties are
    >bloody to the elbows as far as the Middle East is
    >concerned. The Democrats set the current Iraqi crisis in
    >motion 40 years ago, and in particular the Republicans have
    >managed to build upon that foundation with great efficacy
    >thanks to a devotion to doing what is expedient rather than
    >what is right. (Both parties suffer from that, too).

    I agree entirely. This is one of the reasons I appreciate
    the Bush approach of getting directly involved rather than
    trying to support the least evil party available. It's going
    to be messy but if it works it's going to be a virtual
    revolutionary event in the region.

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

    B.C. Cletta Guest

    > You think we should just cut and run and let Iraq struggle
    > with its internal problems? Eeeek.

    yes. consider our FUs in Iran, Vietnam, Central America.
    it'll take about 20 years, one generation, to resolve
    itself. the oil money is worrisome so ride more.
     
  15. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    [email protected] (Tom Paterson) wrote:

    >>From: Mark Hickey
    >
    >(I posted):
    >
    >>>The linkage was made, over and over again. Terrorists-
    >>>9/11. "We're fighting terrorism in Iraq".
    >
    >(M.H. replied):
    >
    >>Which is entirely different than what you said previously
    >>(implying that Bush made the case that Iraq was connected
    >>to 9/11). Terrorists were responsible for the 9/11
    >>attacks. Iraq did sponsor terrorism.
    >
    >I don't think I said anything different. The linkage was
    >made from the bully pulpit, over and over again-- the
    >juxtaposition of 9/11 and Iraq terrorists. To expand, the
    >known history ("gassing the Kurds") was used to frighten
    >the public into supporting an undeclared "war". I'll agree
    >that political stability in Iraq would be a wonderful
    >wonderful thing. It will happen when one faction totally
    >wipes out all others, eradicates their friends/families
    >worldwide, etc. etc. --TP

    I went back over this thread and you're right - you never
    accused Bush of directly connecting Iraq and 9/11. But I
    don't buy the "juxtaposition" argument either. When you're
    talking about the dangers of terrorism, you have to link it
    to 9/11, IMHO due to the short attention span of most US
    viewers. And I for one was (still am) concerned about
    terrorists getting their hands on biological / chemical /
    nuclear weapons. If they can get them, they'll use them
    (that should be obvious).

    The juxtaposition that was significant was that of known
    stores of WMD and a state that openly supports terrorists.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of
    the $695 ti frame
     
  16. Silly me, I thought this was supposed to be a bicycling
    tech forum.
     
  17. Jp

    Jp Guest

    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Don't know about the book but I was catching up on my
    > >newspaper reading today and there was a disturbing
    > >article in the Apr 11 LA Times by some Hoover Institution
    > >folks. The subject was Bush's profound beliefs in
    > >Armageddon and that in private he admits the war in Iraq
    > >is a religious war, not a war against terrorism.
    >
    > Hmmm. the LA Times, and a "private admission". Heh.
    >
    > >"George sees this as a religious war. ...we the
    > >Christians will strike back with more force and more
    > >ferocity then they will ever know." Substitute Jews for
    > >Christians and that sounds like War Criminal Sharon.
    >
    > Whose opinion was that, anyway? Unnamed sources maybe?
    > Political enemies, certainly.

    I thought that was from the Woodward book. The source would
    be Bush himself. It doesn't matter, though- it's pretty
    obvious from Bush's last press conference that he sees
    himself and the US on a mission to bring the God-given right
    to "freedom" to the world. You can also be certain that much
    of the Muslim world sees the US as Crusaders. Arguing about
    whether someone can document their sources is ridiculous.
    Not being able to name a source isn't going to change the
    minds of a few hundred million Muslims, nor is it going have
    any effect on the mind of George Bush.

    > >If we had a president who was interested in combatting
    > >only terrorism we'd be out of Iraq in no time. Instead we
    > >bomb mosques.
    >
    > You think we should just cut and run and let Iraq struggle
    > with its internal problems? Eeeek.

    The problems in Iraq are not internal, they are the ones we
    created. A lot of the mayhem would go away because it is
    directed at us. So the answer is yes, we should get out as
    quickly as possible. What happens after we leave will
    probably not be pretty, but it is going to happen sooner or
    later anyway. The only question is how many more American
    troops are going to die before we get out of the way and let
    the Iraqis sort it out. I don't see us having any
    significant impact on the outcome at this point. That
    opportunity slipped away forever when we screwed up the
    invasion and let the country fall into chaos after Hussein
    was deposed.

    JP
     
  18. Jonesy

    Jonesy Guest

    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > >> Mark Hickey wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to
    > >>> Kennedy.
    > >>
    > >> Quite a long time before he came to power, then?
    > >
    > >He came to power through the aid and intervention of the
    > >CIA and the American government, beginning in the Kennedy
    > >Administration. This is a well-known matter of public
    > >record. While the Democrats would love to pin this all on
    > >the Republicans, it can't be done because both parties
    > >are bloody to the elbows as far as the Middle East is
    > >concerned. The Democrats set the current Iraqi crisis in
    > >motion 40 years ago, and in particular the Republicans
    > >have managed to build upon that foundation with great
    > >efficacy thanks to a devotion to doing what is expedient
    > >rather than what is right. (Both parties suffer from
    > >that, too).
    >
    > I agree entirely. This is one of the reasons I appreciate
    > the Bush approach of getting directly involved rather than
    > trying to support the least evil party available. It's
    > going to be messy but if it works it's going to be a
    > virtual revolutionary event in the region.

    Yeah - a three-party revolution in which Kurd, Shia and
    Sunni will die by the tens of thousands, the artifically-
    constructed country of Iraq dissolving into three contested
    parts, and so much more misery inflicted that it will make
    Saddam's regime a fond memory. For them and us.

    Wishful thinking on your part does not imply probability
    of success.
    --
    Jonesy
     
  19. Jonesy

    Jonesy Guest

    Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [email protected] (Tom Paterson) wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >The linkage was made, over and over again. Terrorists-
    > >9/11. "We're fighting terrorism in Iraq".
    >
    > Terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Iraq did
    > sponsor terrorism.

    More propaganda, and more semantics and word-play. When you
    need to be pedantic to make your point, your point is
    perilously weak.

    Iraq did not have anything to do with the 9/11 terrorists.
    They are two separate issues. Hey, I bet you wear red on
    occasion. I guess that means you are a communist, right?
    That is EXACTLY the tortured reasoning used.

    On a list of supporters of anti-U.S. terrorists, our
    erstwhile "friend" Pakistan is higher on the list than
    Iraq ever was.

    > >>I do think his [Clinton] decision to scale down our
    > >>intelligence agencies was a mistake, but I stop FAR
    > >>short of "blaming him" for 9/11.
    > >
    > >Um, I agree with me on that point, too. Imagine Clinton
    > >going to war on the Bush scale prior to Monica. Impeached
    > >even sooner.
    >
    > Maybe... partisan politics should have no part in these
    > issues (either way).

    LOL. Partisan politics that distracted Clinton from the real
    threat, while the GOP wanted to kick him out for a little
    bit of intern dick-smoking? Get real.

    > >>If the current administration did NOT have a contingency
    > >>plan to take out Saddam before 9/11 they'd be idiots.
    > >
    > >It goes to "why" they wanted him out. What real purposes
    > >were served, not the terrorist/911 etc. etc. pretext
    > >that was used to sell a frightened populace on an
    > >undeclared war.
    >
    > You're not gonna make me go through all that again,
    > are you?

    Repetition does not make it any more compelling, despite
    what the GOP-apologist playbook says.

    > Known stockpiles of WMD, believed to be in existence by
    > everyone who mattered (including the UN and previous
    > administration).

    Since the previous administration and the UN were irrelevant
    on every other issue, their opinions on the subject are
    moot. Oh, wait - they are "right" when they agree with us,
    and irrelevant when they don't, correct?

    The UN report from Blix was certainly not as absolute as
    "known." So, I guess two can play at semantics games, hmmm?

    > Known support of terrorist groups.

    This is what's known as a "red herring." They were down on
    the list of folks, and below our "friends" Saudi Arabia and
    Pakistan. In any case, they did not support anti-U.S. groups
    like Hezbollah (Syria) and al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia and
    Pakistan).

    > Refusal to disarm per cease-fire agreement in '91.

    Seems as though they really did. The Shrub just didn't
    believe it.

    > Genocidal behavior and a destabilizing force in the
    > (crucial) region.

    Shouldn't matter, since The Shrub commented previously on
    not being the world's policeman. When Shrub goes into a
    place for purely humanitarian reasons, get back to me on
    this (non-)point.

    > And his tailor wasn't too good.

    Shrub's? Man, you can say that again.

    > >I thought Bush and Co. might listen to those who didn't
    > >agree. Silly me. Again, goes to the real motivation to
    > >take Saddam from power. Saddam had months and months
    > >(during which no further terrorists attacks were seen in
    > >the US, despite the known, demonstrated gaps in security)
    > >to get ready for something he knew was coming. We walked
    > >over him again. Saddam, delusional about his own powers,
    > >Bush and Co. delusional about Saddam?
    >
    > Iraq was only one of the states openly sponsoring
    > terrorism, but one with the greatest ability to harm us
    > directly.

    Propaganda. As it turns out, Pakistan and it's nucular
    scientist has turned out to be a greater threat. Wow, talk
    about embarassing!

    > I believe taking him out was the right thing to do on
    > that count alone, never mind the horrors he committed
    > among his own people (and those of Iran and Kuwait).

    Sure you do. Imagine the cognitive dissonance of actually
    admitting that "your guy" was actually an idiot and a
    criminal? Yeah, no self-interest going on there at all. LOL.

    Again, it turns out we've made friends with the wrong folks,
    and attacked the wrong folks. When will we learn?

    > The other really great thing about it is that the rules
    > have now changed - states aren't so willing to sponsor and
    > support terrorist organizations any more (heck, even the
    > Saudis are cracking down hard enough to cause themselves
    > to be targeted by the terrorists).

    Politically, they can't do nothing. We both know it. But
    they leave the Wahhabists to teach anti-U.S. hate in their
    schools, the very same schools that indoctrinated those 9/11
    flyboys, right?

    > Khadafi is giving it up, Iran too.

    Iran? What news have you been watching?

    Libya has been trying to normalize relations for years.
    That's why they paid reparations for the Lockerbie thing,
    why they gave up the folks who committed that act, and why
    they have been schmoozing the U.S. and Britain for the last
    4-5 years. Or have you not been paying attention? To pretend
    that Iraq had much of anything to do with that is clever GOP
    spin, but nothing more than that. Makes sense that *you'd*
    fall for it.

    > Or we could have waited and hoped for the best. Call me
    > overly cautious, but I don't think that would have been a
    > particularly good idea.

    Not overly cautious, just brainwashed. You have no concept
    of how assinine your arguments sound, nor how your imitation
    of a nodding dittohead makes you look like a fool. You see
    what you want to see, or what Karl Rove wants you to see,
    and ignore the rest, just like a good little patsy. It's OK,
    because when the pendulum swings (and it will, if history is
    our guide) then your beloved GOP will howl with outrage as
    payback hits. Wisdom and moderation comes hard to this
    current crop of administration fools, but you'll wish with
    all your heart that they had shown some when they had the
    chance. The sad thing about that is that EVERYBODY gets hurt
    when you engage in those games. Just look at the situation
    in Iraq for proof-of-concept.
    --
    Jonesy
     
Loading...
Loading...