Ding Dong The Witch is Dead: Part 1 of a long upcoming series

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:41:49 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

"Mission creep" occurs when the situation changes - and if you don't
think 9/11 changed the situation, you're ignoring a lot of history
IMHO.

As far as Iraq goes, actually 9/11 did not change the situation. Iraq was
not involved in 9/11, and Al Quaeda had no connection with Iraq prior to
our invasion.

I don't buy the fact that we've "created" any more terrorists in Iraq -

Imagine a young Iraqi Sunni, whose family was tossed out of a comfortable
life, and was now reduced to refugee status. Realize that the proximate
cause of the change of their fortunes was the invasion, and they see
these powerful, smug Americans driving up and down their streets with
guns. If it were your country, your streets, how would you feel about
the foreign invaders?

I agree Iraq isn't going to be Disneyland any time soon, and that some
errors were made.

Mark, when this started, and those on the right were saying that we would
be hailed as liberators, I said to you that, if we were still there two
years from now, I would say I told you so. I told you so. This mess _is_
another Vietnam, a quagmire that we will never win.

I do know that no terrorist groups are able to rely
on Iraqi state sponsorship now, and I think that's a good thing.

On the contrary, as much of a despot as Saddam was, he was not in league
with terrorists. Now, significant portions of Iraq are.

now that
we've apparently taken the profit motive out of support for despots).

We've apparently done no such thing.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:45:25 +0000, Bill Sornson wrote:

Because the preponderance of available intelligence indicated that an avowed
enemy of the US and a state sponsor of terrorism had Ws of MD.

Oddly enough, North Korea was also an "avowed enemy" of the US and as
much a state sponsor of terrorism (according to Bush). Why did we
not attack them? Probably because they actually had weapons, and did not
happen to sit upon a sea of oil.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
_`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw
(_)/ (_) |

Ron Ruff wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

Because the preponderance of available intelligence indicated that
an avowed enemy of the US and a state sponsor of terrorism had Ws of
MD.

Not so. "Intelligence" was fabricated to serve a purpose.

By all sources? US, Brit, Russian, etc.? It was a conspiracy, right?

After being
attacked on its own soil, the US couldn't just sit back and "hope
for the best".

Why not? Is it really so self evident that the US needs to wipe out
all opposition on the planet? Is that really going to make the world
safer? Good luck... it will never happen. The actions of the present
administration are only making obvious the reason "why they hate us".

Bush had done /nothing/ in terms of international policy or relations before
9/11. They already hated us. OBL ain't subtle about it, either.

As horrible as the 9/11 attacks were, we lose just as many people to
auto accidents every *month*... hideous, sudden deaths... women and
children, etc. On a national scale 9/11 was insignificant.

And if the next one DOES involve WMD? (And /two/ thousand dead soldiers --
who volunteered, of course -- sure seem like a big deal to the left and
media; but 3,000 innocent civilians aren't? Oh, right -- they were little
Ichmans???)

You are sounding like a victim of the relentless "terror" propaganda.
If the "US" continues to bully and manipulate the rest of the world in
order to serve the wishes of a select few, then we will all be in
danger. This is what the "terrorists" are fighting against. And their
fanaticism is nicely balanced by the fanatics in the US. This sort of
opposition (and ignorance) is necessary for the fight to continue.

Jasper asked (Mark, but I butted in) what 9-11 changed, and I gave an
opinion. I'm not a "victim" of anything, any more than you (or the
anonymous blogheads who post on here). Unlike them (don't know about you),
however, I actually hope that the Middle East IS transformed eventually, and
that the seeds that foment terrorism eventually dry up. Might be a better,
safer, more peaceful world some day.

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:45:25 +0000, Bill Sornson wrote:

Because the preponderance of available intelligence indicated that
an avowed enemy of the US and a state sponsor of terrorism had Ws of
MD.

Oddly enough, North Korea was also an "avowed enemy" of the US and as
much a state sponsor of terrorism (according to Bush). Why did we
not attack them? Probably because they actually had weapons, and did
not happen to sit upon a sea of oil.

Or, because intense diplomatic negotiations are underway there; while the UN
and Iraq had been going round & round for years and years. (And now we know
why French and Russian officials laid low -- they were on Saddam's freaking
payroll to the tune of millions.)

David L. Johnson wrote:
This mess _is_
another Vietnam, a quagmire that we will never win.

I disagree. This mess is INCALCULABLY WORSE than Vietnam. Vietnam did
not make Iran, its mullahs, and the Revolutionary Guard absurdly rich
by super-inflating the price of oil and natural gas; Vietnam did not
give quasi-immunity to Iran against military invasion; Vietnam did not
destroy Iran's regional rival and turn it instead into its puppet;
Vietnam did not result in an explosion of fundamentalist Islamic
radicalism; Vietnam did not sear an image of ordinary Americans and the
American military as violent, depraved sexual criminals deep into the
history books, and into the memories of everyone around the world; and
finally, Vietnam spawned no international terrorism, and all the
sequelae were inflicted on and confined to poor Asians- mostly
Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese- who kept their problems to
themselves and never extracted holy revenge on the *******s who brought
that hell down upon them, namely us..

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:50:25 +0000, Bill Sornson wrote:

Between the two of them they "couldn't recall" over *500* times in
various testimonies (including Clinton not "recalling" ever being
alone with Lewinsky); but boy, forget the details of a two-year-old
phone conversation, and...

But Libby never claimed to have forgotten the details of that
conversation; he made up new details. Frankly, when you are knowingly
committing treason, you probably don't forget the details of the
conversation.

Treason! Yeah, right. How about elements within the CIA (along with
Wilson) actively trying to undermine an administration during wartime?
Let's wait for the WHOLE STORY to come out.

FSL

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:06:31 -0700, 41 wrote:


David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:56:23 -0700, Chalo wrote:

I can draw a distinction between lying to keep one's private life
private, and lying to support an illegal war of aggression.

Come on. Clinton's getting blown b y an intern does not qualify as
his "private life".

How do you figure that? Some Doctor Phil-level high and mighty
pseudo-morality about no relationships in the workplace? Which, in
any case, since she was quite happy to do it, and even her mother
approved, somehow makes it a public matter how??

It makes it a public matter because he abused his position of power.
If I got a blow job from one of my students, I would be justifiably
fired. Even if she were willing.

And if you were being sued for harassment by /another/ student, and
repeatedly lied under oath about both situations, would they be firing you
because you simply "lied about sex"? Or indeed because you committed
unethical (screweing a student) AND criminal (lying under oath and coercing
false testimony) acts?

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:32:09 +0000, Nuck 'n Futz wrote:

How many "covert agents" donate money to presidential candidates
under their real name; send their clearly partisan spouse overseas
to "investigate" something for which he's clearly unqualified; then
said spouse spouts off in the NY Times (misrepresenting what he DID
find, BTW);

Hmm. What I read suggested that he was indeed qualified for the job,
and that he found diddly squat.

Read more.

Something really stinks in all this, so go ahead and gloat now before
the whole story becomes clear. The only one PROVEN to be a liar so
far
is Wilson

Are you saying that the shaggy dog story about yellow cake from Niger
is true? Where the hell did you get that idea?

From http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110006955 :

"The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA
consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time
he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium
connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on
the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first
reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger
mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was
feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's
"Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate
Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had
sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and
documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD
[Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip,"
said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr.
Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels
until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the
information he provided in his debrief as mildly /supportive/ of the
suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler
delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the
statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003
that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in
Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why
he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly
abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his
debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can
remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let
us know.





If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been
allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention
inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on
this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But
now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in
contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the
time that no underlying crime was at issue.
As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they
ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."

Per Bill Sornson:
Because the preponderance of available intelligence indicated that an avowed
enemy of the US and a state sponsor of terrorism had Ws of MD.

The picture I got from reading a series of articles in New Yorker is that the
people around our president stovepiped information that was favorable to their
agenda and stifled the rest. i.e. reports and allegations were taken directly
from sources and routed around the normal CIA vetting process directly to the
decision-maker's eyes and ears.

Stifled as in Wilson's comments on the non-existence of any yellow cake issue -
issued, apparently in plenty of time for yellow cake tb removed from the
president's public allegations.
--
PeteCresswell

wrote:

Did Bush say that he "never had sex with that woman"?

You mean Condi? The woman keeps her own freaking cabin on the grounds
of Camp David.

=======================================
Political Conversation: Condi's Slip
A pressing issue of dinner-party etiquette is vexing Washington,
according to a story now making the D.C. rounds: How should you react
when your guest, in this case national-security adviser Condoleezza
Rice, makes a poignant faux pas? At a recent dinner party hosted by New
York Times D.C. bureau chief Philip Taubman and his wife, Times
reporter Felicity Barringer, and attended by Arthur Sulzberger Jr.,
Maureen Dowd, Steven Weisman, and Elisabeth Bumiller, Rice was
reportedly overheard saying, "As I was telling my husb... and then
stopping herself abruptly, before saying, "I was telling President
Bush" Jaws dropped, but a guest says the slip by the unmarried
politician, who spends weekends with the president and his wife, seemed
more psychologically telling than incriminating. Nobody thinks Bush and
Rice are actually an item. A National Security Council spokesman
laughed and said, "No comment."
==========================================i