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

Kyle.B.H

"Kyle.B.H" <rbt@hollasch.com> wrote in message
news:syhjc.26792$cF6.1173728@attbi_s04...
>
> "JP" <SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1f323b67.0404261322.34b309b2@posting.google.com...
> > "Kyle.B.H" <rbt@hollasch.com> wrote in message
> news:<iYRic.31877$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.
>
> The interests of the farmer, the factory worker, and the "ultrawealthy"
are
> not mutually exclusive. The subject of the OP was a 'documentary' of the
> US's relationship with Sadaam put to Sinatra's "Thanks for the Memories",
> and you criticize me for using sarcasm!?!

Actually, its probably Bob Hope or something, so you can leave that one
alone. (although Sinatra did have a version).

R15757

Tim McNamara wrote:

<< 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.
>>

There will be no meaningful transfer of sovereignty on
June 30, although I suppose many who know only what
CNN or Fox tells them will be fooled into believing
otherwise. Elections are supposed to be held next
year. That is the date that everybody is smoking crack
about.

Robert

Mark Hickey

SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote ...
>> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>

>> 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-

Only someone who is being irrational thinks "it doesn't matter" who
said it. I know that's supposed to be enough for a true liberal, but
I've got this funny penchant for actually understanding the truth
behind situations. One clue - GWB doesn't usually refer to himself in
the third person - just a guess, but I doubt he said that. It
certainly doesn't sound like anything Woodward wrote... and if that
quote WAS in his book, you KNOW it would be the lead story on every
network in the US (you do, right?).

>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.

The guy does believe in the power of democracy. You don't. So vote
for someone who also doesn't believe in democracy. That's ... errr,
democracy (now THERE'S a Catch-22).

>> >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.

Yeah, it was a virtual Disneyland before we got there. Heh.

> 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.

There is going to be a lot of chaos while the various extreme factions
struggle for their piece of the pie (errr, pita?). It would be worse
without us there, though I share your sentiment that we need to let
the Iraqis take on the vast majority if the self-policing.

The one good thing about the current situation is that the bad guys
seem to be running out of suicide candidates. Maybe there IS hope.

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

Mark Hickey

beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:

>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?

There are some who believe that Iraq was directly connected. There
are others who feel it's likely there IS a connection (not a hard
conclusion to come to based on some of the evidence, but it's hardly a
slam-dunk). And a good deal others don't bother to differentiate
between Al Qaida and other terrorists.

>> 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?

I don't think Pakistan's nuclear program is really our biggest problem
right now...

>> 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.

So you believe Pakistan is / was a bigger threat to the US than Iraq?
It's hard to know where to start on that, so I won't...

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

Mark Hickey

beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:

>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.

Do you actually READ the news? You really don't know about Iraq's
direct and open support of terrorists? Who would even try to deny it?

>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.

"Reasoning" isn't the word I'd use for your comparison.

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

They're also snapping to nicely right now (hopefully they'll come back
from the Afghanistan border with UBL's head on a stake).

>> >>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.

Clinton approached the terrorist threat as a law enforcement issue.
Bush sees it as a full-on war. I agree with the latter, personally.

>> >>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.

Hey now, if that's in the playbook, it's one we stole from the Dems.
you know - say Bush claimed Iraq was directly involved with the 9/11
attack enough times and it'll become true. Say he's the only one who
believes there were WMD in Iraq enough times, and people will forget
virtually everyone else said the same thing.

>> 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 point being that you are trying to rewrite history so you can say
GWB "lied" about WMD (that has an oft-repeated familiar ring to it
that should resonate with your favorite media sources). Except that
by that logic, everyone else (including the Clinton administration and
the UN weapons inspectors) also "lied" just as much... but you don't
seem to recall that "little detail". Heh.

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

The report is quite clear. It doesn't identify particular stockpiles
(since if they knew about them, they'd be destroyed), so you're using
a beautiful piece of circular logic. Their conclusion was that Iraq
almost certainly had large stocks of WMD, and certainly possessed the
ability to create more on short notice.

>> 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).

OK, Saddam isn't the only bad guy in the region - but he was the one
with the history and the weapons that made him the biggest perceived
danger (a sentiment shared by the Clinton administration, BTW). Are
you saying we should go after the House of Saud and Pakistan next?
Won't Syria feel left out? ;-)

>> Refusal to
>> disarm per cease-fire agreement in '91.
>
>Seems as though they really did. The Shrub just didn't believe it.

Neither did anyone else (read the report).

>> 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.

Compare the US history of humanitarian intervention with that of the
UN. Hey, Iraq is a strategic country that's crucial to US
interests... no doubt. But it was still the right thing to do to take
Saddam out, interests or no.

>> 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 doubt that ends up being a "greater threat".

>> 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.

Hmmm, did I miss something here? I don't recall ever supporting
Saddam. I don't recall GWB doing so either. And Saddam may be a lot
of things, but he's no idiot.

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

Who would those "right folks" be? Iran in the 80's??? Heh.

>> 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?

That's gotta stop (don't tell me we actually agree on something). But
just because you can find other criminals doesn't mean you don't lock
up the ones you are able to catch.

>> Khadafi is giving it up, Iran too.
>
>Iran? What news have you been watching?

Did you miss them agreeing to dismantling their nuclear program, and
agreeing to inspections to make sure it happens?

>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.

It's a lot easier to believe that Iraq did have something to do with
the timing than to believe it didn't, IMHO. I guess neither one of us
is going to pretend to know what goes on in Khadafi's mind though...

>> 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're right, I don't.

> 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.

You think I'm brainwashed because I dig into the issues and actually
come up with facts that are in direct contradiction to the mainstream
media "filter" you apparently get your news from. You've shown time
and time again that you buy into that in a way that would make any
dittohead look like a real critical thinker.

I know that any media source that would dare present facts not present
in Dan Rather's view of an issue is an anathema to any true liberal,
but you should try getting both sides of the story some time. It only
hurts for a while until the cognitive dissonance dissipates, then you
can actually make up your mind on the issues instead of having your
opinion packaged and delivered with the 11 o'clock news.

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

Mark Hickey

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>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.

Remember that it was actually going pretty well until just recently -
the various minority and radical factions are trying to carve out a
niche in the power system (after all, that's how it's been done for
thousands of years in the region). I too agree that June 30th is
pushing it, but I believe that it doesn't much matter when that date
is - things are going to get rough just before the hand-off, even if
it's five years from now (a thought that sent a cold shiver down my
spine).

I think the surprise is how involved the other anti-democracy and
anti-US groups in the region have become. That's no doubt because
they are afraid that the whole exercize just might work.

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

Mark Hickey

beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:

>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.

Hopelessness and doomsaying on your part doesn't imply probability of
failure. Besides, think how many hundreds of thousands would have to
die to keep up with Saddam's rate of filling mass graves!

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

Mark Hickey

beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:

>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?

Gee, what is it with you guys tonight? All over GWB for going into
Iraq, now you can't wait to go after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Dang
warmongers... ;-)

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

JP

"Kyle.B.H" <rbt@hollasch.com> wrote in message news:<syhjc.26792$cF6.1173728@attbi_s04>...
> "JP" <SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1f323b67.0404261322.34b309b2@posting.google.com...
> > "Kyle.B.H" <rbt@hollasch.com> wrote in message
> news:<iYRic.31877$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.
>
> The interests of the farmer, the factory worker, and the "ultrawealthy" are
> not mutually exclusive. The subject of the OP was a 'documentary' of the
> US's relationship with Sadaam put to Sinatra's "Thanks for the Memories",
> and you criticize me for using sarcasm!?!

No, I'm saying you're a pot calling a kettle black.

> >(When the daughters of the ultrawealthy need
> >abortions, they will simply go on "vacation" to the appropriate
> >European country.)
>
> Very relevant to the discussion - thanks for throwing that one in there.
> I'm sure that's exactly what Bush is thinking. "Hey, lets pass a law so
> that only my rich buddies' daughters can kill their near-term babies by
> traveling to Europe - that'll really screw the average guy's daughters who
> want to do the same! Ha Ha Ha!!!! (evil superhero laugh)."

No, they're saying "Let's pass a law that will keep my conservative
base happy without pissing off my wealthy supporters because they will
not be affected by it to any great extent". And it is *very* relevant
to the discussion of how the GOP uses its religious conservative base
to enable the agenda of its wealthy backers.

Or maybe, "Let's pass a law that will kill both late-term fetuses
*and* their mothers by prohibiting late-term abortions when needed to
preserve a mother's own life."

"Evil superhero"- a descriptive, if oxymoronic way to describe Bush.

> > You, on the other hand, used sarcasm combined with the much more
>
> You already said that above.

Repeated for effect.

> > scholarly form of logic, called "quoting out of context", to make your
> > point, which, I guess, is that you don't like theirs.
>
> Please put the passages back in context for me. Paste the whole page
> please. What did I leave out that somehow stripped those quotations of
> their rationality?

The rest of the website.

JP

JP

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<timr80p8or3uge8avkr2ur6vj4kj22k4hj@4ax.com>...

> Gee, what is it with you guys tonight? All over GWB for going into
> Iraq, now you can't wait to go after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Dang
> warmongers... ;-)

It's damn sure a conundrum, alright. Although they have both provided
significant support to Al Qaeda, a war against either of them would be
a disaster that would make Iraq look like kindergarten. However, that
doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at other ways to hold them
accountable. Pakistan, because of its nukes, and Saudi Arabia, because
of its oil, are among the most powerful nations in the world. It is so
much easier to beat up on someone weak like Iraq, not that that is
turning out to be so easy, either.

Do you get the irony? Beating up on someone easy without connections
to 9/11 while letting the powerful who were connected to 9/11 go free?
It doesn't mean we want war with them but it sure does help clarify
the extreme stupidity of invading Iraq.

JP

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<timr80p8or3uge8avkr2ur6vj4kj22k4hj@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Gee, what is it with you guys tonight? All over GWB for going into
> Iraq, now you can't wait to go after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Dang
> warmongers... ;-)

When cornered, change the subject...

JP has already summarized my point nicely.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<ngmr80tg1j1ndgpnsfbuqdkc63r75apg7j@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Hopelessness and doomsaying on your part doesn't imply probability of
> failure.

Let's examine the history of the region, shall we? Now, having
completed that exercise, which view is closer to reality - a reversion
to a system that has been in place for thousands of years, or a system
heretofore unknown, imposed by an outside invader?

Gosh, do you use your head for anything other than a storage facility
for right-wing propaganda?

> Besides, think how many hundreds of thousands would have to
> die to keep up with Saddam's rate of filling mass graves!

When cornered, change the subject...
--
Jonesy

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<lpkr80lfmoartnrltr6dv1kn68rpila95b@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Do you actually READ the news?

Obviously. Otherwise you could just dimiss my arguments. But since
you go to the trouble of attempting refutation, you can just drop that
line of "reasoning"...

> You really don't know about Iraq's
> direct and open support of terrorists?

Which anti-U.S. terrorists would those be? Hezbollah? Al Qaeda? No?
Here's a little something to think about - wouldn't the most prudent
course of action be to go after the anti-U.S. terorists FIRST, then
clean up the rest of them later? This is the semantics game that
really kills your argument. "He supported terorists." Yeah, and so
do a lot of other countries, in greater amounts, and even in greater
amounts than Iraq ever did with anti-Israel terrorists.

> Who would even try to deny it?

Nobody - that's why the argument is so completely moronic. And yet
you go back to it again and again, like it actually means something...

> >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.
>
> "Reasoning" isn't the word I'd use for your comparison.

When cornered, change the subject.

I'm illustrating a "connect the dots" sort of logical fallacy that
conservatives lean on so heavily to bolster their shaky arguments. A
sort of reasoning, that if a liberal used it, the conservatives would
be hopping up and down, howling about the illogic of it all.

> >On a list of supporters of anti-U.S. terrorists, our erstwhile
> >"friend" Pakistan is higher on the list than Iraq ever was.
>
> They're also snapping to nicely right now (hopefully they'll come back
> from the Afghanistan border with UBL's head on a stake).

They are a coup away from a Fundementalist Biggest Stick. If that
doesn't worry you, then you have your rectocranial insertion at full
extention. The population does not support Musharref - if you
actually read the news, you'd know this. They think OBL is a hero,
fergawdsake!

> >> 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.
>
> Clinton approached the terrorist threat as a law enforcement issue.

When cornered, change the subject.

I didn't notice the GOP jumping up and down declaring war - they DID
have that power, ya know. It just so happens that I agree that
Clinton missed the boat there. As did Shrub for his first eight
months. As did Bush I before Clinton. As did Reagan. Beriut '83 was
the opening shot in the war, folks.

> Bush sees it as a full-on war. I agree with the latter, personally.

I'm sure you would have pissed your pants in apoplexy if Clinton would
have done anything more than launch missles. After all, he only did
that to distract from Monica, right? Ooops, as it turns out, he seems
to have destroyed the last of Saddam's weapons-building capacity in
the WMD realm. For proof of this, see the GOP's criticism of the
Balkans adventure.

Does Clinton get credit for that, or was that also Reagan's doing?

> >> 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.
>
> Hey now, if that's in the playbook, it's one we stole from the Dems.

The connect-the-dots reasoning is not valid, no matter who is doing
it. If it's wrong for them, it's wrong for you, too.

> >> 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 point being that you are trying to rewrite history so you can say
> GWB "lied" about WMD

Except I haven't said anything of the kind. Shrub used any excuse he
could find to invade Iraq. As it turns out, he was wrong about the
WMD. Now, that's not such a big deal - intelligence can be poor, and
that falls upon Dems and GOP equally. The problem lies when you start
changing national policy - policy that's been in place for over two
hundred years. It's not enough to *think* you're right. You actually
have to *be* right. Otherwise, you're no different than any other
invader who has ever invaded on any sort of pretext. I realize that
this is a very complex objection, and won't appeal to the "black and
white, dumb it down for me" crowd. Morals actually mean something to
some of us, and the lack of morality from this so-called religious
president is appalling.

> Except that
> by that logic, everyone else (including the Clinton administration and
> the UN weapons inspectors) also "lied" just as much... but you don't
> seem to recall that "little detail". Heh.

This is the logical fallacy called a "strawman."

I hope you have something better to bring to the table in your next
reply.

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

There are equivocations from start to finish. Which puts the
absolutes of "knowns" away. There turns out to be nothing "known"
about anything.

> It doesn't identify particular stockpiles
> (since if they knew about them, they'd be destroyed), so you're using
> a beautiful piece of circular logic.

Even the places and things defined as "likely" turned out to be
nothing but hot air and sand.

> Their conclusion was that Iraq
> almost certainly had large stocks of WMD, and certainly possessed the
> ability to create more on short notice.

Except they were wrong, too. Maybe, just maybe, if Shrub had actually
been thinking about diplomacy, rather than swinging his big dick
around, the facts would have come out. He lied about the decision to
go to war not being made, and he lied about "diplomacy first." That's
plenty enough real lies for me.

But Shrub is notoriously impatient. Sorry to all you military boys
who paid the price, but I got an appointment to keep...

> >> 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).
>
> OK, Saddam isn't the only bad guy in the region - but he was the one
> with the history and the weapons that made him the biggest perceived
> danger

You don't go and reverse 200 years of foreign policy on a perception.
You don't alienate much of the rest of the planet on perception. How
badly do you think our credibility around the globe has been hurt? Do
you think we're not gonna need these folks at some point in the
future? We have neither the men nor treasure to do it all by
ourselves, forever.

He went and attacked a two-bit, toothless tiger and then went about
trying to justify it. And now it seem like those folks who were going
to press flowers and kisses into the hands of their liberators are
instead sending them steel and high explosive. Just like was
predicted before the war, by that ultra-liberal (LOL) Thomas
Friedmann.

> (a sentiment shared by the Clinton administration, BTW).

Who cares what Clinton thought? The GOP using Clinton or the UN as
any sort of support is laughable. Unless, of course, they were
actually RIGHT on something - then that opens the door for them to be
right about other things as well...

Sort of like having the UN on board to give this invasion some
legitimacy. Better late than never, right? As the Bush Boys go
hat-in-hand to beg the UN to help them out of the pickle they find
themselves in...

> Are
> you saying we should go after the House of Saud and Pakistan next?
> Won't Syria feel left out? ;-)

When cornered, change the subject...

Those folks were and are bigger supporters of anti-U.S. terrorism.
And yet we go after the weak sister. How odd, the priorities...

> >> Refusal to
> >> disarm per cease-fire agreement in '91.
> >
> >Seems as though they really did. The Shrub just didn't believe it.
>
> Neither did anyone else (read the report).

Reading comprehension problems? The report is wrong in places as well
- it seems that the report is also overly cautious in it's assessment.
It looks really bad when Saddam appears to be telling the truth, and
Shrub appears to be lying. For all Americans.

> >> 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.
>
> Compare the US history of humanitarian intervention with that of the
> UN.

When cornered, change the subject...

We're talking about what Shrub said, and then what he said later. Him
criticizing Kerry for taking opposite positions on things sure is
ironic...

> Hey, Iraq is a strategic country that's crucial to US
> interests... no doubt. But it was still the right thing to do to take
> Saddam out, interests or no.

Except that if it was sold that way to the U.S. public and to the
COngress, they'd have not gone for it. So, you say "War on Terror"
and "Iraq" right next to one another for a year. You accuse Saddam of
having tons and tons of weapons that just plain don't exist, then you
drag out UN resolutions that were passed years ago, while ignoring the
current UN ideas. Scare the public with talk of "mushroom clouds"
(You must have been talking about aerial fungus, because Saddam was no
closer to nukes than Mexico.) You play up false stories of
weapons-grade uranium from Africa.

If someone from the Democratic party did that, you GOPers would be
howling with outrage.

If it was the right thing to do, people wouldn't disagree on it.
Maybe it's more complex than "Saddam is a bad man." The world's full
of them, Mark - and I'm sorry to say, some are in our own government.

> >> 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 doubt that ends up being a "greater threat".

Yeah, a nucular scientist selling plans to Islamists. No threat
there, no sirree...

And Pakistan ALREADY HAS nukes. Proven. One fundementalist
revolution away from having the Islamic bomb. Considering the
population is none to fond of the General's cozy U.S. relationship,
that's actually possible. AND they were ardent supporters of the
Taliban. Wow. Yeah, no threat there.

"Nothing to see here folks, move along..."

"Ignore the man behind the curtain..."

Jonesy

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote in message news:<mjkr80l54at60ehhn9t9ubvqflovodp2fh@4ax.com>...
> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> There are some who believe that Iraq was directly connected.

Just the stupid ones, right? Even Shrub said they weren't connected.

> There
> are others who feel it's likely there IS a connection (not a hard
> conclusion to come to based on some of the evidence, but it's hardly a
> slam-dunk).

Unlike what Tenet said about Iraqi WMD, right? LOL!

There is not one shred of evidence that ties Al Qaeda to Iraq. Except
the lies from expatriates. Nothing, nada.

> And a good deal others don't bother to differentiate
> between Al Qaida and other terrorists.

More idiots. Must suck to be surrounded by such useful idiots, I
guess.

Let me offer another, more plausible, hypothesis: By conflating Iraq
and the War on Terror, the desired effect was created in the mind of a
large proportion of the public. It is a time-honored propaganda
trick. Read up some time for an education in manipulating the masses.
Goebbels was quite good at this.

> >> 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?
>
> I don't think Pakistan's nuclear program is really our biggest problem
> right now...

Because you have been told to ignore the man behind the curtain; so
you do, just like all good subjects. I'll get to the reasoning in a
bit...

> >> 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.
>
> So you believe Pakistan is / was a bigger threat to the US than Iraq?

Let's do a little connect-the-dots of our own, shall we?

1.) Pakistan is a primarily Muslim nation, with a large group of
fundementalists.

2.) Pakistan already has nukes, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

3.) The father of that program sold his secrets on the open market,
such that ANY terrorist with enough cash can now do-it-yourself.
Someone who is rich, say, like some guy named Osama.

4.) As the Shah found out, a fundementalist revolution can happen at
any time, especially when the Great Satan is in bed with the leaders
of an islamic nation.

5.) Pakistan was the first government to recognize the Taliban, AND
Osama is a hero to Pakistan's Muslim peoples.

Are you shitting your pants yet? You really should be...

> It's hard to know where to start on that, so I won't...

And you were criticizing me on my critical thinking skills. LOL.
--
Jonesy