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

Jay Beattie

"Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tedbennett-DC19C1.21471722042004@news5.west.earthlink.net...
> http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
>
> --
> Ted Bennett
> Portland OR

Shame on you, Ted. How could you be such an unmitigated troll!
I expect so much more from Portlanders. -- Jay Beattie.

Mark Hickey

beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:

>> beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:

>> There are some who believe that Iraq was directly connected.
>
>Just the stupid ones, right? Even Shrub said they weren't connected.

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about that subject in these
hallowed halls though.

>> 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.

I agree there isn't any solid proof. It's apparent that some of the
"intelligence" before and after the war was based more on settling old
scores than passing on good info. Again, I'd never suggest that it IS
truth, but would add that it wouldn't be surprising either.

>> 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.

Well you know what they say... in a land of blind men...

>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.

Except that there was nothing subtle about Goebbels propaganda. Heck,
probably 40% of the US population couldn't tell you who the Secretary
of State is. The funny thing is, it was "common knowledge" that GWB
claimed Iraq WAS involved... so either there's a propaganda machine
operating on both sides, or the public isn't too discerning in their
analysis of the actual facts (probably a bit of both).

>> 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...
>
>> 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...

You forget the Pakistan army is in the hills trying to root out Osama.
And I'm not nearly as worried about Pakistani nukes as those developed
by the USSR that might be "floating around". I doubt the Pakastani
nukes are at a level of sophistication that makes them very portable
(their chief aim being to scare India). Pakistan is NOT Afghanistan,
politically - I don't see a relatively affluent society giving it all
up for the privledge of wrapping their women in bhurkas (not that
there's anything wrong with that...). ;-)

>> 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.

Yet you don't want to "connect the dots" in Iraq, with a much larger
host of information. Known WMD stores, known support of terrorist
organizations, vehemently anti-US attitude (as in trying to
assassinate an ex president). No need for a fundamentalist Islamic
revolution or development of additional (crude) nukes needed to cause
havoc.

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

>> 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.

"In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued
an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb,
former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti
authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects,
led by two Iraqi nationals."

"Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq
Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran
and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military
personnel and U.S. civilians."

"Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international
terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in
twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets
have included the United States and several other Western nations.
Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training,
logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of
Iraq."

I won't even mention the ones that target our allies (which is not
something we should ignore, but for the sake of brevity, I will).

> "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.

There are seven countries on "the list". Iraq however was under a UN
Security Council Resolution to cease and desist doing so. He didn't.

>> 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...

Read the above examples. Tell me you don't believe it is possible
that Saddam would have aided any of those groups who might have taken
it upon themselves to target the US or US interests.

>> >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.

"Wearing red" isn't "changing the subject"? LOL.

>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.

Wearing red???? Heh heh heh. Certainly you can come up with a less
nonsensical example that fits the situation at least slightly (though
if it fit, it would work against you, so never mind...).

>> 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!

So does Jesse Jackson, but I'm not too worried about him coming to
power. ;-)

>> >> 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.

Heh. Nothing "distracted" Clinton from the task at hand - he just
didn't pursue it any more vigorously than he would have without all
the scandals. I don't blame him entirely for that, and don't believe
that he could have mustered the political will to do what GWB was able
to after 9/11. The fact remains he - at best - viewed terrorism as a
law enforcement issue... my point (and NOT "changing the issue").

>> 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.

Then you'd be absolutely wrong (again). I supported him fully in the
(very limited) response to some horrific attacks, but wished he would
have taken it further.

> 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.

Yes, they were going to shower us all with aspirin. LOL.

<snipped rabbit trail>

>> >> 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.

We don't know he wasn't right. Certainly there's no rational reason
Saddam would choose to be run out of town on a rail rather than admit
that he had actually destroyed all his WMD. In any case, there was
virtually no doubt about Iraq's WMD stores and production capacity
before the war. There was no doubt that sooner or later we'd end up
having to take him out, and there was no doubt 80% of that effort
would fall the the US (again). We're quibbling over the timing (which
as it turns out was affected not by deeply held beliefs about
political process, but filthy lucre flowing into the pockets of those
involved in the UN). To trivialize what Saddam did to end up where he
is is ludicrous.

>> 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."

You should look up the definition of that word. You seem to have it
confused with "history".

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

I'm not breaking a sweat yet.

>> >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.

Have you read the report? If so, you can't suggest that it gives any
reasonable doubt about Iraq's WMD capability and stores.

>> 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.

Bad intelligence. He had 12 years to hide the stuff in a country the
size of California.

>> 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.

So 12 years and 14 (or was it 17?) UN resolutions isn't "giving
diplomacy a chance"? Heh heh heh. Let's wait and take out Saddam's
grand-kids (well, as long as he quits bribing France and Russia).

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

Yeah, bummer Saddam's gone, huh?

>> 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.

I'd much rather the US be respected than liked. We lost a LOT of
respect in the Carter years, and again in the Clinton years.

>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.

What percentage of the population do you think are out there shooting
at our troops?

>> (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...

It's just that it makes the spectacle of Al Gore screaming "hi misLED
this country" like a schoolgirl pretty funny.

Anyway, this is getting too tiresome, even for me. There can't
possibly be anyone out there bored enough to be reading this stuff.
You're not going to convince me, and vice versa. You can have the
last word...

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



>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

Mark Hickey

beelzebubba@hotmail.com (Jonesy) wrote:

>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?

If you were an Iraqi, which would YOU want?

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

When you are cornered, resort to ad hominem...

>> 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...

Hmmm, a simple question. You don't want to admit that Saddam was
offing his own citizens at a MUCH higher rate than the war ever will
(even including those who are shooting at Marines)? When cornered,
type "when cornered, change the subject" I guess.

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

Mark Hickey

SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP) wrote:

>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?

Uhhh, think "Afghanistan".

>It doesn't mean we want war with them but it sure does help clarify
>the extreme stupidity of invading Iraq.

So what IS your point? That we should issue a pass to each and every
nation that does support terrorism? That we should never, ever do
anything because it might make the French mad at us (if for no other
reason than cutting the bribes off)?

Which is it - get 'em all or let 'em all slide?

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:<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...

You're right. But I guess you thought you could deflect the issue by
bringing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan into a discussion about Iraq. Heh.

>JP has already summarized my point nicely.

I'll ask you the same questions (but let you read it in my reply to
JP). You won't answer it though - you'll change the subject. ;-)

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

Ted Bennett

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

> "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote
> > http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
> >
> > --
> > Ted Bennett
> > Portland OR
>
> Shame on you, Ted. How could you be such an unmitigated troll!
> I expect so much more from Portlanders. -- Jay Beattie.


Guilty as charged. I can't resist stirring the pot sometimes and you
have to admit, the result is entertaining. You are reading this, right?

Politics are a source of both frustration and and fascination for me,
and I sense the same in Mark Hickey's thoughts. I'd like to think I'm a
lot less ideological than he is though, but I could be wrong about that.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR

Erik Freitag

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:38:56 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

> Anyway, this is getting too tiresome, even for me. There can't possibly
> be anyone out there bored enough to be reading this stuff.

Aha, wrong again! I'm that bored. But I think there must be a better forum
for this.

Mark Hickey

Erik Freitag <erik.freitag@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:38:56 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Anyway, this is getting too tiresome, even for me. There can't possibly
>> be anyone out there bored enough to be reading this stuff.
>
>Aha, wrong again! I'm that bored. But I think there must be a better forum
>for this.

Oh man, and I thought I didn't have a life... ;-)

But I agree there has to be a better forum. These threads have run
their course. No one's contributed anything new for a while, and it's
getting a bit too smarmy for my tastes.

Maybe we can start a new helmet thread... ;-)

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

Mark Hickey

Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote
>> > http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

>> > Ted Bennett
>> > Portland OR
>>
>> Shame on you, Ted. How could you be such an unmitigated troll!
>> I expect so much more from Portlanders. -- Jay Beattie.
>
>Guilty as charged. I can't resist stirring the pot sometimes and you
>have to admit, the result is entertaining. You are reading this, right?
>
>Politics are a source of both frustration and and fascination for me,
>and I sense the same in Mark Hickey's thoughts. I'd like to think I'm a
>lot less ideological than he is though, but I could be wrong about that.

Actually, I thought a lot of that video was pretty interesting (almost
entertaining). It does point out the duality of just about every
relationship we've had in the US about as well as it could be done,
and how there's little that's black and white when dealing with the
middle east.

And FWIW, I sincerely hope I'm wrong about the threat we face. I hope
I seriously overestimate the cunning and resolve of Al Qaida and their
ilk. I hope we can all say in 10 years "maybe we overreacted".

God, that would be great.

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

G.T.

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> And FWIW, I sincerely hope I'm wrong about the threat we face. I hope
> I seriously overestimate the cunning and resolve of Al Qaida and their
> ilk. I hope we can all say in 10 years "maybe we overreacted".
>

It's impossible to overestimate Al Qaeda and their ilk. We can destroy all
their leadership and we'll still be suffering the fallout from sleeper
cells for decades.

Iraq is an entirely different matter and support for our campaign there was
based on much misinformation.

Greg

R15757

Mark Hickey quoted in part:

<< "Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, ... <snip>>>


Abu Nidal was killed by Iraqi secret service not too long ago.

R15757

<< ...The funny thing is, it was "common knowledge" that GWB
claimed Iraq WAS involved... so either there's a propaganda machine
operating on both sides, or the public isn't too discerning in their
analysis of the actual facts (probably a bit of both).... >>

Mark, maybe you didn't read the papers before the
invasion, but the administration most certainly _did_
suggest that Iraq was involved in 9/11. For instance, It
was claimed that Mohammed Attah met with Iraqi
intelligence in Prague prior to the attack. It was also
claimed that the Iraqis trained terrorist squads, in
Iraq, using the shell of an old airliner. In the case of
the former, a blatant fabrication.

Robert

Keith Willoughby

R15757 wrote:

> Mark Hickey quoted in part:
>
> << "Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, ... <snip>>>
>
>
> Abu Nidal was killed by Iraqi secret service not too long ago.

No, no, he committed suicide. He shot himself in the head. Four times.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Wherever there is honi soit, there you will find them mal y ponsing"