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

Mark Hickey

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>Keith Willoughby <keith@flat222.org> 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

B.C. Cletta

> 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.

Tom Paterson

>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 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 rig

Mark Hickey

dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (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

Eagle Jackson

Silly me, I thought this was supposed to be a bicycling tech forum.

JP

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<8qjn801lnon10vdjp38bvaatlq612p7dtn@4ax.com>...
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> 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

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<9joo809c1l3e17o6ln94cia4qn8vk5c0gc@4ax.com>...
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >Keith Willoughby <keith@flat222.org> 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

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<52oo80dv81a8cog8aff7fshrg730aetu9i@4ax.com>...
> dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (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

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<mo3q80ho3mldods1e2t09qbv058nf60nni@4ax.com>...
> 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 if it just "happens" that nearly 70% of those stupid viewers come
to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, all the better,
right?

> 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).

Then you ought to really be mad about Pakistan and the nucular
scientist, right?

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

The irony is that Pakistan fits the bill more than Iraq. A sad and
troubling irony, to those of us not suffering the effects of GOP
brainwave control beams.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<pk2m80t6vdrrg5gb8iaq0ei99f91g8vul2@4ax.com>...
> Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> 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.

Just like our current support for Saudia Arabia and Pakistan? Or do
you have more GOP-apologist excuses for that as well?
--
Jonesy

Jonesy

"Kyle.B.H" <rbt@hollasch.com> wrote in message news:<iYRic.31877$GR.4031626@attbi_s01>...
> "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tedbennett-DC19C1.21471722042004@news5.west.earthlink.net...
> > http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
> >
>
> 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.

Anybody who thinks that this is serious news reporting, or is in any
way, shape or form "intellectual ammunition" is probably one of the
terminally stupid. Some of the facts and figures presented might have
weight, but that's something different. I don't suppose anyone's got
a refutation for those? Mere ad hominem commentary against the
producers doesn't have much rebuttal weight.
--
Jonesy

Kyle.B.H

"Jonesy" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0404260951.2686664f@posting.google.com...
> "Kyle.B.H" <rbt@hollasch.com> wrote in message
news:<iYRic.31877$GR.4031626@attbi_s01>...
> > "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:tedbennett-DC19C1.21471722042004@news5.west.earthlink.net...
> > > http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
> > >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Anybody who thinks that this is serious news reporting, or is in any
> way, shape or form "intellectual ammunition" is probably one of the
> terminally stupid.

Well, according to the OP, its a "nice summary".

JP

"Kyle.B.H" <rbt@hollasch.com> wrote in message news:<iYRic.31877$GR.4031626@attbi_s01>...

> Myself, I prefer respectable news and opinion sources from
> across spectrum, but at least you have so much fun.

Your selective quotes show buzzflash using sarcasm combined with
hyperbole to make their point, probably worth thinking about, that
much of the GOP base has been duped into voting against their own
interests in favor of those of the ultrawealthy that benefit from
current GOP policies. (When the daughters of the ultrawealthy need
abortions, they will simply go on "vacation" to the appropriate
European country.)

You, on the other hand, used sarcasm combined with the much more
scholarly form of logic, called "quoting out of context", to make your
point, which, I guess, is that you don't like theirs.

JP

Tim McNamara

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> writes:

> dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (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.

Which may be years. Hopefully not, hopefully some reasonably stable
democratic-type government (more likely a parliamentary government)
can be set up and be functional, although I think June 30th is a date
that only crack smokers would see as feasible. Even though it was a
horrible miscalculation on the part of Bushco, it's done and now the
cleanup has to happen.