Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Europe Faces Crunch Decision on Climate Policy






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Dear Barack, Spare Me Your E-Mails

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 9, 2009
Obama
AP / Susan Walsh

President Barack Obama speaks about the economy at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Tuesday.

By Robert Scheer

Barack Obama’s faux populism is beginning to grate, and when yet another one of those “we the people” e-mails from the president landed on my screen as I was fishing around for a column subject, I came unglued. It is one thing to rob us blind by rewarding the power elite that created our problems but quite another to sugarcoat it in the rhetoric of a David taking on those Goliaths. 

In each of the three most important areas of policy with which he has dealt, Obama speaks in the voice of the little people’s champion, but his actions cater fully to the demands of the most powerful economic interests. 

With his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, he has given the military-industrial complex an excuse for the United States to carry on in spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, without a credible military adversary in sight. His response to the banking meltdown was to continue George W. Bush’s massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street, and his health care reform has all the earmarks of a boondoggle for the medical industry profiteers.

Health reform was the subject of Obama’s Tuesday e-mail, which proclaimed in its heading, “We will not back down.” Addressing me by my first name, which I assume is in acknowledgment that I, like the millions of other suckers with whom he so intimately corresponds, had contributed to his campaign, he began with a clarion call for yet another contribution, this time to donate.barackobama.com/FinalStretch.

“As we head into the final stretch of health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo.  So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
But we, following him, have already backed down. Does the president not recall that he began his health care reform effort by ingratiating himself with the insurance lobbyists in taking “single payer” off the table on day one? The insurers are not really upset with what may survive as a minuscule public option, for they have won the big prize: Everyone must buy insurance from them under penalty of law, and there will be no built-in requirement for cost control. Their so-called opposition to the current plans has to do with fine-tuning the president’s guarantee of their future profits.

The same contradiction between progressive rhetoric and big-business giveaways was on display, also on Tuesday, when Obama addressed the economic crisis. Speaking at the Brookings Institution, an Establishment think tank that helped craft the radical financial deregulation of the Clinton years, Obama blamed Republicans for the mess. He thundered against “an opposition party, which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve.”

Rubbish. It was Bill Clinton—in his trademark triangulation of progressive rhetoric with the big-business agenda—who presided over the passage of banking deregulation that led to the mess. Obama knows that full well because he laid out that sordid record in a major speech on economics during the primary campaign, in March 2008 at Manhattan’s Cooper Union:

“Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices.” He specifically cited the New Deal protections of the Glass-Steagall Act and other legislation that Clinton’s radical deregulation legislation had swept away. Inexplicably as a matter of logic, or all too predictably given the political power of Wall Street, Obama as president turned to the same pro-deregulation Clintonistas to run his economic “reform,” led by Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. 

As for “solving” the banking problem, Obama simply followed the lead of his Republican predecessor. The throw-money-at-Wall-Street solution for which Obama takes credit is the one crafted by Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, and it was fully endorsed by then New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner, whom Obama named to replace Paulson. The buying off of the financial hustlers was blessed by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who has been renominated to that position by Obama. 

The solution that Obama boasts of has left us with trillions more in debt, one out of four children poor enough to qualify for food stamps and, as Obama conceded in his Tuesday speech, “more than seven million fewer Americans with jobs today than when this recession began.”

I do agree with one line in Obama’s e-mail to those of us who hoped for the best from his presidency: “the opponents of reform will not rest.” But I didn’t expect him to be one of them.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Take Me to Your Climate Leader

Next item: Two Sides of the Obama White House



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 19, 2009 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Your first source from the “United Nations Environment Progamme” makes no reference to the “Tens of billions” you have asserted is a being “Very real fact”

“Nairobi/Paris, 23 July 2004 – A multi-million dollar project to restore the environment and provide clean drinking water in the Marshlands of Mesopotamia was announced today by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).”

It also reinforces my previous posting,

“During the 1990s, the wetlands were reduced to seven per cent of their original size due to numerous dam projects upstream in Turkey, Syria and Iraq.”

This source also states:

“The Marshlands, considered by some to be the location of the Biblical Garden of Eden, were massively damaged in the late 20th Century, partly as a result of new dams on the Tigris and Eurphrates river systems and partly as a result of massive drainage operations by the previous Iraqi regime.”

Your second source “Iraq: Saddam Hussein’s Destruction of the Mesopotamian Marshes”

Provides reference to a multitude of documents not accessible from this cite. Many of them relate to general climate considerations, and the documents that deal directly with the marshlands reference U.N.E.P. I was unable to find any reference to the “Tens of billions.” I’m not willing to spend the time required to research all these documents chasing one mythical detail. Are you? If so, please do.

Your third source, “Embassy of the United States, BAGHDAD IRAQ”

Also makes no mention of your “Tens of billions” it does offer the following.

“Waters feeding the marshlands were diverted for crop irrigation. By 1999, less than 10 percent of the marshlands remained intact, mostly along the southeastern border with Iran.”

“The two-year, $4 million project that ends in September is establishing infrastructure and agricultural assistance programs that will help the Iraqi government manage the restoration of the marshland ecosystem through strategic re-flooding.”

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working on a $500,000 project to develop a hydrologic water-management model that will help reconstruct the historic flow of water from the Euphrates and Tigris river basins into the marshes.”

“At the same time, DAI has allocated $250,000 to the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources to create a soil and water laboratory that will analyze the effects of the re-flooding on the marshlands.”

Your fourth source “Defend America, ‘U.S. Department of State news about the war on terrorism’”

Makes no reference to the “Tens of billions;” it does include the following.
“The process of restoring the marshlands will cost more than the drying process. … We need to develop better irrigation techniques and work with neighboring countries,” he said.

“Katie said that since much of the water for the marshes originates in Syria and Turkey, his group is working with those countries to allow more water-flow into Iraq.”

It also states:

“The biggest impact on the marshes came at the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991. Hussein gave the order to drain the marshes completely in retribution for the Shia uprising against the regime. The huge cost of draining the marshes put a burden on Iraq’s economy, and the environmental impact on the marshes’ eco-system was disastrous. Certain types of birds, fish and plants normally found in the marshes rapidly disappeared.”

The most damning part of the above paragraph is, “The huge cost of draining the marshes put a burden on Iraq’s economy…” but it does not cite that cost as being “Tens of billions” as you have asserted as being “A very real fact.”

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 19, 2009 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, - “Be forewarned, I will not continue to chase these obfuscations.”

At this point I can only repeat myself.

It’s amazing that you so willingly choose to completely ignore others points of view on any given subject if they first do not subscribe to your sociopolitical desires.  I better understand why your global views and scope are so narrowly defined. 

And it’s simply ludicrous for you to condemn others in how they justify their negative actions and attitudes while you try so hard to justify your anger and demeaning ridicule toward those who fail to share your chosen sociopolitical views.  In other words you are exactly what you have described in others in which you claim to hold such disdain toward.  You are part of the reason violence and wars begin.  It’s frightening how you are so completely oblivious to it.

Good luck with spreading the peace and understanding you desire.  I’ll be amongst those doing the harder part which keeps you alive.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 19, 2009 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Regarding Albright’s answer to Leslie Stall you say:

“I have also always believed it was a poor answer from Albright.  Not one of her more eloquent moments. I never gave it another thought.”

A poor answer? Why was it a poor answer; because it lacked the necessary disingenuousness and obfuscation, and revealed the truth about the monstrous sanctions policies, and the inhuman attitudes of those who supported those policies, and continue to argue that those policies were justifiable?

“I never gave it another thought”

Do you see now why a person such as myself would disrespect you, and would feel little remorse about ridiculing and demeaning you?

Unfortunately, my desire to demean you and your brazen, intellectually dishonest and unverifiable assertions, has caused me to fall victim to your obfuscations.

It was never my intent to discuss Paul Volker, marshlands, or any of the other peripheral issues that have surfaced in this debate. My intent was to point out the very real, and apparently, easily ignored, human costs of war, and the demonization, paranoid falsehoods, tribal mentalities, and other falsehoods that are used to justify war.

If Saddam Hussein were alive today, and you were to ask him to justify his war with Iran, and his gassing of the Curds (Ignoring that there are allegations we provided the gas that was used to gas those Curds,) I’m guessing that he would have a long list of justifications, or perhaps he would tell you that those actions were regrettable, but necessary, or even, in confidence, that those actions were a mistake.

Don’t misunderstand me here; I know that there were no justifications, other than the justifications that are always used to justify war, and I’m not attributing to Saddam Hussein any acquired wisdom he’s not entitled to.

These justifications ran rampant during the Viet Nam War to the point of absolute absurdity “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” and on and on and so it goes…

Conservative Congressman, from both political parties, used these justifications to support the ultra right wing military death squads, in Central America, during the Reagan administration, whose leaders were trained here in the U.S. These military death squads kidnapped, tortured, mutilated, summarily executed, and openly dumped the bodies in land fills. They killed Priests, Nuns, University Professors, Students, Union Organizers, Peasants, and any others who might be accused of liberal thought. I believe these atrocities were the Legacy of the “Phoenix Program” as practiced in Viet Nam, and I will be willing to argue my reasons for that belief. The U.N. quantified the numbers as 50,000 deaths in the tiny country of El Salvador alone. All the while, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Oran Hatch, and others argued the justifications for providing funding to the governments that harbored these monsters. According to my unverifiable belief, Cheney, Gingrich, and others felt these monstrous acts were regrettable, but necessary.

This incident in history is perhaps the most illustrative event in history that supports my contentions, but it is not a singular event, it’s just one incident in history, I could go on and on…. but what’s the point?  Some will deny and deny, or provide justifications as to why people like Cheney, Gingrich, and a plethora of others, were justified, in their justifications, or obfuscations intended to distract attention from horrific acts.

Your suggestion that I take the “day” (intentionally discouraging?) to chase your irrelevant assertions and obfuscations will be followed, if only, in order not to surrender to them. Don’t be surprised if my conclusions will be different from yours, or that I provide information to support my conclusions.

Be forewarned, I will not continue to chase these obfuscations.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

JD:

OK.  You’re a bright guy. If you want you can figure out the econ.  I actually think that sometimes you gotta burn out the infection and it hurts.  Nobody likes doing it, but it’s better than the alternative.

I actually admire Volcker, a heluva lot more than I do Greenspan, who DELIBERATELY burst the dot.com bubble, and then, knowing better, endorsed Bush’s tax cuts.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 18, 2009 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, - “Why didn’t you comment about Madeline Albright’s answer to Leslie Stall?”

That one happened to be taken out of it’s context.  I’ve seen the interview twice.  Once when first aired and some future date I can’t recall. I have also always believed it was a poor answer from Albright.  Not one of her more eloquent moments.  I never gave it another thought.

-

If you take a single day and read through the solid documentation I provided you may pause to be so callas in referring to what Hussein devised for the Marshland Arabs as an inordinate contribution.  He massacred a global treasure of people, knowledge and ecology.  Explain to me again; what exactly is you do in your attempts to be a peace advocate?

You go to great and abundant lengths to shield yourself from the very real role Saddam played in these matters we discuss.  Terrific lengths. 

-

You wore me down none.  As normal I wrote what I meant.  LOL….as normal you chose to make something different out of it.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 18, 2009 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

I’m not a trained economist. What knowledge I do have, came from tedious inquiry. Frankly, as important as it is, it bores me, but I do have enough knowledge to have an informed opinion.

My analysis of Volker’s performance comes from research, and observations about the results of his policies.

Of course protecting against hyper-inflation is extremely important, but I believe Volker’s excessive policies contributed significantly to the current plight of ordinary Americans and benefited the very rich.

I believe that Volker’s policies have contributed to our difficulty in recovering from the current crisis.

If my sources and observations about Volker are correct, Volker began his chairmanship with a somewhat Keynesian philosophy, and ended his chairmanship under the influence of neoliberals.

Again I don’t claim to be an expert on economics, and my appraisals may be biased, because I have a great deal of distrust for the culture that surrounds the Federal Reserve.

At the present time, I lack the interest necessary to have a serious debate on this issue.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 18, 2009 at 5:22 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You’re doing what we should do in Iraq and Afghanistan; declare victory and go home. Perhaps I have “worn you down.”

The Marshlands are an environmental catastrophe, and Saddam may have inordinately contributed to the destruction of the Marshlands, I don’t know, but it wasn’t me who said the destruction of the Marshlands came from a variety of sources.

I can understand your frustration in not being able to prove the assertion that brought the Marshlands into the debate.

I don’t hate you, though you do make me angry sometimes. I don’t consider you my enemy; I consider you an enemy of peace.

Why didn’t you comment about Madeline Albright’s answer to Leslie Stall?

Hopefully, this lengthy debate will not have been for naught.

Peace,  JDmysticDJ

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 18, 2009 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

I can’t do the work for you.


If I may?  Why take in so much that’s been filtered through so many others and regurgitated before you ingest it?  Isn’t it better to gravitate more toward the sources your media use to report on?  First hand is always best. 


http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=402&ArticleID=4561&l=en

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mariposa/iraqmarsh.htm

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/050505_marshlands.html

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/june2006/a060706tj3.html

http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/2005Aug24.doc

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1060891.html

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 18, 2009 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

For the most part you’ve struck me as an honest individual, however, I’m having an extremely hard time imagining how, while conducting your search, you didn’t come across the very real situation of the Marshland culture of Iraq and Saddam’s involvement.

Saddam Hussein’s deliberate destruction of the marshes during the 90s was one of the worst environmental catastrophes of the last fifty years – and a tragic humanitarian crisis, since it displaced so many people, and almost destroyed a way of life that was literally thousands of years old.  Agree or not with George W. Bush the invasion of Iraq came just in time to save the marshes.  Whether, in the long run, they actually do manage to reverse the damage is another question.  But at least now there is a chance to save the area.

This is not just feel-good propaganda.  The plight of the Marsh Arabs under Saddam Hussein was well-documented, even if rarely commented on in the mainstream press (the reason you know nothing of it).  It’s worth recalling that if the U.S. hadn’t invaded, this centuries year old way of life would almost surely have vanished within the next decade.

-

If you don’t care to study the Volcker investigation that is certainly your prerogative.  Just don’t ask again for information on the spending Saddam did on himself while the Iraq people suffered.

It’s amazing to me that you will choose to completely ignore others points of view on any given matter if they first do not subscribe to your sociopolitical desires.  I better understand why your global views and scope are so narrowly defined.  Personally I learn very little by talking to people whom I often agree with.  The real learning comes from talking, and more importantly listening, to those whom I usually disagree with.

Perhaps our discourse on this subject has come to an end.  You don’t appear willing to do the work, and put in the time, it takes to see a much larger picture of the world.

Good luck with spreading the peace and understanding you desire.  I’ll be one of those who will actually do the harder part which keeps you alive so you may continue to pursue your desires.

Know this well, my friend.  I’m not your enemy.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 18, 2009 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

JD:

But raising interest rates is the ONLY real way to put the brakes on runaway inflation.  I do agree that inflation can be very useful for redistributing wealth—this is a concept that goes back to the 19th cent Populist Party and their demand to go on the silver standard and off gold—to inflate farm prices and allow them to pay off mortgages with cheaper dollars.

But runaway inflation can quickly become hyperinflation and THAT destroys a currency faster than you can say “Weimar Germany”.

Balancing the Federal Budget if you’ve been running a deficit can help control inflation, as can raising taxes.  But we ALL know raising taxes on the richest somehow always blows up. Either they figure out new loopholes to get out of those taxes, or they move off-shore and even, if necessary, give up their citizenship.

Volcker HAD to raise interest rates that high because inflation was out of control.

Look at what prices did from 1965 to 1979 as well as what wages did.  Volcker stepped and, with some painful surgery, got us back on track, and even Reagan’s idiotic policies took a long time to undo it.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 18, 2009 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind

Please see both of my comments concerning Paul Volker addressed to Go Right Young Man.

Inflation without wage controls creates an equilibrium. Inflation must be controlled, but excessive interest rates harm the economy, and preserve the wealth of the rich.

Inflation, to some extent, has the effect of balancing the distribution of wealth.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 18, 2009 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You’re citing Ritter and Blix as evidence to support your sophistry made it necessary for me to shine the light of truth on the issue. I haven’t read all of Ritter’s books, as you have, but I am very familiar with his well informed conclusions. Does reading his books make you more knowledgeable than he is? Have you “Read”” Democracy Now” lately? Most people listen or watch.

“…’very real fact’ that it was Saddam Hussein who ‘spent’ “tens of billions of dollars on himself and his family” while children died of starvation and illness in massive numbers.”

“Spent” is the key word in your spurious comment.

“I’m not in the habit of making ‘any claim’ I cannot prove.  I can prove, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that what I write is so.”

Forgive me, the phrase, “Any claim,” from this brazen comment may have confused me.

All this discussion about what you wrote, or did not mean when you wrote it, is nothing more than more obfuscation. When are you going to prove that what you wrote is a “Very real fact?” never, because you can’t.

A truly impartial jury, when confronted with the documentation you cite, may well be forced to be part of a great miscarriage of justice under our justice system. A justice system where the “Highest Court in the Land” considers a person’s guilt or innocence, in a Capital case, as being irrelevant, as long as proper legal procedures were followed, but the truth can not be suppressed, and is always available to those who seek it, in spite of all legal and dialectic obfuscation.

I am on the lower left side of the Bell Curve. I have been an advocate for peace nearly all of my life, and I have always been in the minority on these issues of peace, but history has proven that my unpopular views were correct. I have contempt for those who stand in the way of peace, but I don’t always hate them. I find it difficult not to hate, when I see the emaciated, mangled, or charred bodies.

Peace is not always possible, but it is people like you who make peace difficult to attain.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 18, 2009 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

JD:
I never thought I’d do this but I’ve got to take GRYM’s side on the subject of Paul Volcker.

I remember vividly the absurd inflation and rising unemployment in the 70’s and 80’s.  Carter appointed Volcker who took rather draconian measures to save the economy, but save it he did.  Despite Reagan’s glib cuts like “Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses HIS job” he kept Volcker on, even when things didn’t go the way the Laffer Curvers said it would.  But Reagan’s “success” was really Volcker’s and Reagan’s imbecilic policies later screwed the economy up good, trying to UN do what Volcker achieved.  Volcker saved the economy and has been RIGHT in all his warnings and predictions.

My problem is that Volcker has been CUT OUT by Summers (that bastard) when YET AGAIN Volcker is calling for the RIGHT thing—isolate banks and brokerages once again.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 18, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man (cont.)

I believe Paul Volker is a long time and dedicated supporter of the economic elite. Perhaps his policies were well meant, according to his elitist theories, but they had the effect of contributing to the destruction of jobs, our industrial base, and of preserving the wealth of the very rich. I give his views no credence.

Osama bin Laden would have disdain for me. Your attempt to ally me with Osama bin Laden (Emmanuel Goldstein) is nothing more than more obfuscation. Deal with the issue, instead of making Adhominem attack.

Forgive me, I was unable to ascertain from your comment that your reference to Paul Volker was an attempt verify your claim regarding Saddam’s spending tens of millions, however, the information you cite in no way proves your point.

“The resignation of two senior investigators probing the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal is the latest blow to the credibility of the U.N.-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee into the Oil-for-Food Program, chaired by Paul Volcker.”

It appears that there is some “reasonable doubt” as to Volker’s credibility, but more importantly, the information you provide has no evidence of Saddam’s “spending tens of billions.” If you can point me directly to the information that Saddam and his family”… spent tens of billions” I will humbly admit that you were correct.

Regarding the Marshlands,

“During the 1990s, the wetlands were reduced to seven per cent of their original size due to numerous dam projects upstream in Turkey, Syria and Iraq.”

Again, if you can point me directly to the information that Saddam and his family spent tens of billions destroying the marshlands, or on anything else, I will humbly admit you were correct.

Please do not include the normal budgetary expenses incurred by every nation.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 18, 2009 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Why did you believe it necessary to copy bio information from Wiki about Dr. Ritter so you could display it to me?  I was the first to mention Scott Ritter.  Did you somehow convince yourself that I had no idea who the man is after I made mention of him?

I’ve read all of Dr. Ritter’s books and, roughly, a few dozen of his written opinions.  Have you?  My gut tells me you have not.  Feel free to correct me if my gut is wrong.

You are correct about one salient point.  You would never come out on the positive end if an impartial jury were to evaluate how you arrive at your conclusion.  You solidly convinced me of that when you attempted to argue that someone’s spending habits have anything, whatsoever, to do with that one’s combined wealth at any given point in time.

I understand it made sense to you.  But it surely would not with someone who actually understood the matter.

-

I have yet to observe you sow or spread peace, patience or understanding toward others.  You bring discord, divisiveness and blinding animosity toward those you think differently than you do.  You bring what violence and war are made of.  It’s sincerely frightening to me that you seem oblivious to it.

-

If you wish to continue our discourse you’ll explain, in some detail, why Paul Volcker is a “bad man”.  I mean anything aside from the fact that he conducted an investigation which was to your disliking.  Or, conversely, how he may not see things or think like you do.

I can’t wait to read what you devise for Mr. Volcker.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 18, 2009 at 3:45 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

I see.  So your bottom line is a simple one.  Not unlike what you think of me everyone who agrees with you, shares your opinions and world view, are earths good people and everyone who disagrees are the bad.  But you’re not inventing enemies.  It’s those “other people” who are paranoid and needlessly casting people down and/or into a bad light.  Osama bin Laden would be very proud of you.

I provided you the best and most in-depth information I am aware of concerning the money Hussein spent while Iraqi’s suffered tremendously.  But you’ve made it clear that you’ll dismiss this out of hand because Paul Volcker happened to be behind that information that the United Nations requested of him.  Again, Volcker is a bad man because his investigation uncovered things you desperately want quieted.  Tell me.  Is there anything else about Mr. volcker that makes him a bad man? 

I think I’ll go no further with this conversation until you can answer this last question.

And let us be clear that I never claimed I can prove EVERYTHING I WRITE BEYOND ALL DOUBT.  I wrote that I could prove beyond all doubt what I had written in a single posting.  BIG difference.  HUGE difference.  A world of difference.  One statement is real while the other you made up all on your own and grew it beyond all recognition of reality.

-

If you wish to know more about Saddam’s spending check out the story of the Iraq Marshland people and the Billions Saddam Hussein spent on one of the most aggressive and diabolical engineering projects undertaken in modern times to drain the marshlands in order to decimate an entire thousands of years old culture of human beings.  Or are the men, woman, and children of the Marshlands also bad people because they were thrilled to have had Saddam taken out of power?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 18, 2009 at 12:02 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Hans Blix:

Blix’s statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found.

Dr. Ritter:

William Scott Ritter, Jr. (born July 15, 1961, Gainesville, Florida) is noted for his role as a chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and later for his criticism of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). He became a popular anti-war figure and talk show commentator as a result of his stance.

I’ve got more snippets. Do you want them?

Sometimes investigating/researching can get you in trouble.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 17, 2009 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

I’ve been waiting all day for you to provide me with the proof I asked for. I’m still waiting.

Where were you? Were yoinvestigating/researching or were you just rehashing your old arguments.

I thought I had made my position clear, regarding your irrelevant assertions about what the world thought. It seems that the whole world was bound and determined to prove that Saddam was a bad, bad, evil man. Well, of course he was, but Madelyn Albright is also a bad, bad, evil woman.  The assertions about Saddam Hussein and his capabilities for evil were exaggerated, to the extreme, by many bad, bad, evil people.  You’re an expert on Osama bin Laden, a bad, bad, evil man. Did you know he used the suffering of Iraqi children as a recruiting tool? Did you know that Osama’s excuses for brutalities and Madelyn Albrights excuses for brutalities were very much the same?

I’ll spare you my snippets, providing you with any information that contradicts your beliefs is futile anyway. Let me just say that two of the U.N.’s Humanitarian Relief organizers resigned because of the sanctions. One of the Humanitarian Relief organizers, who resigned, Dennis Hadley, said that the sanctions were genocide, and he could not describe them in any other way. I consider him to be a very, good, good, man.

I see that you’re continuing to assert that Saddam and his family spent “Tens of billions of dollars,” without providing the proof asked for. You’re also asserting that my analysis of the improbability, no impossibility, of him and his family spending “Tens of billions of dollars” based on both common sense, and the actual evidence available, is somehow not worthy of responding to, even though you stated it to be a “Very real fact” and that you challenged people, by saying that everything you say is true, and you can prove, well beyond any reasonable doubt.

You want me to chase your sources, but I read “Secrets of the Temple,” and I consider Volcker to be a very, bad, bad, man, so bad in fact, that I don’t give credence to anything he might say. If I asked you to read the writings of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, another good, good man, would you? I think not.

I lack the geopolitical significance to be an enemy of the neocons, and anyway, their preferred enemies are Iraqi children.

Once again, it’s the weapons reports. Haven’t we gone over this before? Moving on…

Regarding Phase1 and Phase2 do they refute reality? If the Bush Administration was charged with War Crimes, and you were the defense attorney and I was the prosecutor, you’d probably win, but it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice.

Clinton is a very, bad, bad, man. I’ll ignore him.  Get over it; Clinton relied on the same spooks who you say provided bad intelligence to Bush and Cheney.  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, were very selective about the bad intelligence they were provided.

What they said about Saddam and his capabilities was incorrect, so why do you want me to read what they said. Why did so many people believe these falsities? Because they suffer from a horrible mental disease. It’s called paranoia, and it sometimes leads to murder.

Over and over and over again you keep asking me to read this sophistry. Are you trying to make me as crazy as they were?

In your case, obfuscation is a means of deflecting the truth. I don’t obfuscate, I ignore, or ridicule.

I’m sure you’ll be investigating/researching my posts for obfuscation, while you’re at it investigate/research for that proof I asked you for.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 17, 2009 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

How does this example strike you?

As Joy Gordon reported in the November 2001 Harper’s,

The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country…. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers. (Read disease)

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 17, 2009 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

You mentioned two U.N, weapons inspectors who held the opinion that going to war was “unjustified”.

And the relevance of that?  Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t Hans Blix and his interim report mean much more to us?  Relevant, in my opinion, would be the book Hans Blix authored on the subject.  What two investigators believed on moral or security matters is meaningless in this discussion.  If you could tell me what they believed in regards to wmd, something more in tune with Dr. Ritter, I would think that relevant.

While personally opposed to the invasion of Iraq Dr. Blix was very clear on one single relevant and telling thing.  He too believed Iraq was guilty of weapons violations and, AND, fully expected to find stockpiles of weapons. 

Check out his “Interim Report” and U.N. Security Counsel testimony.  His book is also relevant.  He claims to have believed what the evil FrankenCheney believed years before the monstrous Donald Renfield spoke during the criminal Bush cabal entered office.

-

I read from democracynow almost daily.  It’s interesting.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 17, 2009 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Yes, yes.  I obfuscate everything and my point of view must be spurious by nature.  I’m a bad, bad, evil man.  Moving on…..

What has Hussein’s combined wealth at any given time have to do with what he and his spent over the decade of the 90’s?  I mean this sincerely.  What has the one thing got to do with the other?

I think if you read the Volker report you’ll see a different side of the arguments you make on this subject of resolutions, sanctions and Oil for Food. You are going to terrific lengths to defend Hussein and minimize his role in these events.

-

You’re reading from your favorite news sources.  You’re picking out your snippets here and there.  You’ve listened to many others who believe as you do. And you’ve convinced yourself of these vast and varied conspiracies involving nasty and evil demons masquerading as Neo-Cons. -Conjuring enemies.

But you have not read a single U.N weapons inspectors report so that you could know, for yourself, what others outside the evil Bush cabal believed regarding banned weapons.

You never took the time to read the Senate Select Committee’s Phase I and Phase II reports.  And you seem not to understand that Phase II does not reach the conclusions that you have about [intentionally] misleading anyone or that any laws, abuse of power or malfeasance was found.  Did you even take the time to read the decenting opinions in PhaseII?

I believe you have been unaware that there are actually fourteen more quite separate and varied reports on this very subject. None of which reach your conclusions.  Bur Phase II, you believe, is THE definitive historical record.

-

Forget that President Clinton told everyone who would listen, or, as you would put it, “paying attention”, that Saddam Hussein was THE single example of a predatory thread to the entire globe.  Forget that 99 of 100 Senators and more than 400 of 435 Congressmen voted to remove Hussein from power, very specifically, due to his banned weapons programs and global conduct.  Forget that all of this took place several years before the evil Bush cabal.  Forget all that.  Ignore it!  Yes, ignore it.  Talk about something, anything, else.

I wish you’d take the time to read all relevant U.N. resolutions spanning the 90’s.  From it you would know what over a hundred nations believed they knew concerning Iraq and Hussein.  I wish you could stay away from your so-called “news” sources and blogs and read the relevant Clinton administration findings on what they believed they knew of Hussein.  You would then know, for yourself, what Clinton’s entire national security team believed they knew and what they believed they could prove.  I wish you would, at some time, read all previous House and Senate findings (pre-Bush) so you would know, for yourself, how many hundreds of Senators and Congressmen stood in support of President Clinton when he passionately and frequently spoke of Hussein, the threat Hussein posed, his WMD and links to international terrorism. And I truly wish from you some type of explanation as to why, or how, so many thousands of people, hundreds of reports, findings and “white papers” all came to the same conclusions but, a very small handful of evil Neo-con’s knew better and conspired to lie about something that almost everyone believed in FOR YEARS!

When, exactly, will you get to the bottom line? 

I obfuscate?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 17, 2009 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

The most in depth study of the issue you request includes the data from the U.N. Morbidity and Mortality Rates for Iraq which I’ve suggested you look at for yourself, the Book in question is just one of many I’ve read over the years, and I’m having trouble remembering the title. I realize that my lack of memory does not provide you with the proof you seek regarding the US and UK vetoing humanitarian aid, so I’ll continue my search. Until then you might find the following interesting.

“When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

It doesn’t seem like a very hard choice to me, all that’s required is that one deny humanitarian aid to the sick, starving, and dying. (In case you’re wondering, this is sarcasm, in an attempt illustrate the monstrous evil of these people who make our foreign policy.)

This comment can be found at Wikipedia, on You Tube, and at democracynow.org.,as well as from many other sources. You might want to check out Democracy Now some time, it might expand tour perspectives. It’s good for the soul. 

The food for oil program was reluctantly put together by the US and UK, because of criticisms of their sanctions policies.

Have you found the proof I requested? Surely an investigator/researcher, with many years of experience, can find the proof I ask for

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 17, 2009 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You Say:

“I’ll also not ignore the very real fact that it was Saddam Hussein who spent “tens of billions of dollars on himself and his family” while children died of starvation and illness in massive numbers.”

This is another example of you spurious arguments.

Having done as much research as I’m willing to do on this subject; I’ve gleaned that Saddam’s purported wealth was from 7 billion (Forbes Magazine) to 10 billion, which comes from several sources, (The only ones I could find.) Incidentally all these sources were reported within a few months of the invasion.

If his maximum reported wealth was 10 billion, how is it that he “…spent ‘tens of billions’ of dollars on himself and his family…” You report this as being, “A very real fact.”

I’m guessing that you’ll say that the food for oil program provided him with the“…tens of billions of dollars…” If I’m right about my guess, that begs another question. How does one manage to “…spend tens of billions’ of dollars on himself and his family…” in just a few years; especially since he was writing romance novels at the time. The answer seems obvious to me, but let me just add another less important observation here, he was under intense world scrutiny at the time. If he and his family went on the greatest spending spree in the history of the world, wouldn’t some reliable source have noticed? (Please forgive my somewhat satirical comment)

Let me make my opinion clear here. I believe that Saddam should have divested himself of his billions (However many they were) in order to help his starving and dying subjects. Do you believe that Saddam’s not doing so provides justification for vetoing humanitarian aid to the starving and dying? Or is this just another example of your obfuscation?

Forgive me, but I need to digress here for a moment, by making on observation that is irresistible to me. We’ve noticed that individuals around the world, who possess billions are very reluctant to divest themselves of their billions for humanitarian reasons (With a very, very, few commendable exceptions.) They seem to be very much disposed to spending their money to promote their ideological theories, which support their contention that their possessing vast sums of dollars are beneficial to the world, and in the public interest. I’m not saying that those who possess large sums of money don’t, very publicly, make charitable donations to institutions, like Symphony Orchestras, Art organizations, Museums, and sometimes, even to people who actually, and desperately, need the donations.

Maybe I’m being too critical here. Maybe they’re big tippers. On second thought though, I’d guess that many are ideologically opposed to excessively rewarding people for their insignificant labors.

Oh well, let me take my tongue out of my cheek, and get back to the issue at hand, that being your spurious arguments.

You have said:

“I’m not in the habit of making any claim I cannot prove.  I can prove, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that what I write is so.”

“Check my facts.”

Beyond any reasonable doubt covers a lot of ground. Would you please prove the above claim for me?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Let me start with the U.N. Security Council (Clearly a non Democratic Institution.) Due to Security Council actions, by the United States, and to a lesser degree The United Kingdom, 1,000,000 Iraqis died in the period following “Desert Storm” the first Gulf War, 500,000 of them children. If you think that’s extreme, simply compare the morbidity and mortality rates from malnutrition and disease that occurred in Iraq during the ten years following the Gulf War to the ten years preceding the Gulf War. The U.N. put together several resolutions for humanitarian aid to Iraq; nearly all of them were vetoed by the U.S. and the United Kingdom .

Relax for goodness sake.  I wasn’t obfuscating. I missed putting your final sentence together with the U.N. sanctions.

Can you show me more on the U.S./British vetoed U.N. Resolutions you refer to?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 17, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Part I

“Do you wish to portray the Bush Administration as hapless victims of faulty intelligence?”

Not at all. I believe we all suffer from those times of faulty intel.  Look what happened in Iraq with WMD.  India with their nuclear capabilities and, S. Korea.

“When Dick Cheney says “With absolute certainty,” does that not cause you to doubt his veracity?”

No more than when long time member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, said “There is ‘unmistakable evidence’ that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.  <—Why no claims of the lies from Sen. Rockefeller?


“When tenet says publicly, that his famous “Slam Dunk” comment was in reference to the ability of the Bush Administration to make the case for war with the American People, thereby manufacturing consent with the American people and the Congress, not prove to you that the Bush Administration had its mind set on war, and was bound and determined to “lead” the people into supporting their decision?”

Mind set on war?  No.  A mind to remove Hussein as per the law set by the Congress and signed by President Clinton?  Yes of course.

“When Bush tells the American people about a supposed threat, that intelligence has determined would only be a threat, if Bush’s desire for war came to fruition, omitting to tell the American People of that analysis, doesn’t that indicate to you that George W. Bush was misleading the American people?”

No.  You don’t see what you’re doing with that do you?  You’re actually guilty of doing what you accuse the Bush administration of doing.  You’re taking one report, one analysis, from one of the sixteen intelligence agencies and basing an entire argument from it.  Why are you not talking about the dozens of contradictory analysis which do not support the one you wish to use?

“When the “White Paper” was released, which was purported to be the authoritative intelligence report regarding Iraq, had all intelligence that did not support the public pronouncements made by the Bush Administration, edited from it, does that not tell you that the American People, and all members of the Congress, except certain members of the intelligence committee, were being mislead?”

If this is the same White Paper I have in mind I will say no.  That White Paper was not meant to be THE authoritative report regarding Iraq.  Perhaps you don’t understand what a White Paper is?  It’s a vehicle designed to present a case on a certain subject.  Nobody on the globe presents a White Paper which contradicts a position.  That’s best left for another venue.  Now you’re asking for something NOBODY would do.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 17, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

JDMysticDJ

Part II

“Do you believe that the democrats on the intelligence committee, who were privileged to the unedited intelligence, and pointed out that the intelligence contradicting the Bush Administrations assertions about Saddam’s threat to America, were lying? Even now, after the unedited report has been declassified?”

I’m sorry but you’ll have to be more specific.

“The CIA’s line of defence is already apparent: it wasn’t the analysts or authors of intelligence estimates who made the flat, alarmist claims, but officials at the policy-making level, especially in the White House and the office of the secretary of defence. They were the ones who squashed doubts, whipped up fears, and pressed the argument for a war to oust Saddam.”

Who’s opinion is this?

We could do this all day.  But you have not addressed the bottom line.  Can you show me anything, anything at all, which shows us that the Bush administration did not believe in their cause and their claims?  Also why are you not talking about the lies from the dozens of democrats both before and after Bush entered office?  Why are you not talking about the thousands of others around the world that made all the same claims?  Why are you not talking about Hanz Blix who wrote in his book how he fully intended to find banned weapons in Iraq?  Why are you only focusing on the Bush people?  Why is this?

“Doesn’t it make you wonder?”

Yes. It makes me wonder about a great many things. It all makes me wonder if the Bush administration aloud themselves to become myopic in their focus.  It makes me wonder about the state of out intelligence capabilities. It makes me wonder about how sure President Clinton was about WMD in Iraq.  Yes it all give me pause and makes me wonder.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 16, 2009 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You say:

“You were trying to show me how thousands of people, all over the globe, for roughly a decade, all claimed to believe in the same thing, Saddam/WMD/terrorism, but a small handful of nasty American Neo-Con’s knew the truth and conspired to murder hundreds of thousands of people.  It’s an extremely serious charge you make.  The charge, in and of itself, effects the entire globe.”

Did I say that? No, I said that The Bush administration wanted to go to war, so they manipulated the intelligence in order to build support for their war.

You’re not an investigator/researcher you’re an obfuscator/manipulator

Is it any wonder why people get so angry with you?

Don’t be offended, you’re very good at what you do. I once heard that deceit was the tool of the devil; now you can be offended.

I wasn’t referencing the many U.N. resolutions pertaining to Saddam’s obstinacy regarding weapons inspectors; I was specifically referring to resolutions for humanitarian aid that were vetoed by the U.S. and U.K., but while we’re at it, did you forget that the top two weapons inspectors for the U.N. said that there was no justification for the war.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 16, 2009 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

Is there no one on this site who can hold a stable conversation less the anger, odd insults, outrageously small minded bigotry or shear petulance?

This belief in the mythical evil Neo-Con is truly an odd phenomena.  This is the modern day liberal thinking?  With only three exceptions on this site you all are outrageously bigoted and nasty to each other and most others.  You give no one the benefit of integrity and can’t seem to read straight through your own anger filled lenses.  It’s fascinating, yes, but tedious.
************************************************

GRYM: If you can’t take the heat, get out of the forum!

Yeah, the neo-cons are evil.  They are solely interested in building a societal feudalist pyramid with themselves on top. It’s always amazing to me how “boardroom socialism”—protecting other boardroom members and giving them CEO jobs they don’t deserve is practiced by the same people who call themselves neo-cons—competition is only for words and those NOT on top.

Nice to see you recognize that the economic mess started long before Obama became President.  Ok, I take back what I said about you on that.

But to say it started BEFORE Bush is again to deny reality.  The downturn we were in was mild.  But having a surplus meant the government didn’t have to threaten the economy by borrowing….until Bush put in his absurd 2001 tax cut that drained the surplus and put us back into deficit spending.  Then, when our “saved for a rainy day” funds were gone and 9/11 happened, the government started borrowing.

It took years but it finally drained the credit market of money to lend…but the deficit kept rising.  And it hit the credit markets.  When we re-fi’d our house, the bankers did just about EVERYTHING they could to get us to take an ARM and not a sound fixed rate.  They KNEW ARMs were licensed to print money.  We didn’t and now dont see our mortgage going up…just down.

You didn’t see the gutting of Antitrust, pricefixing and and ALL regulations leading to the mess we are in…Whatever.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 16, 2009 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

Go right Young Man

Do you wish to portray the Bush Administration as hapless victims of faulty intelligence? I don’t want to attribute things to you which you have not said, but according to my analysis, that is your only defense of the Bush Administration’s actions. If that’s so, I’m wondering, just how gullible are you?

When Dick Cheney says “With absolute certainty,” does that not cause you to doubt his veracity?

When tenet says publicly, that his famous “Slam Dunk” comment was in reference to the ability of the Bush Administration to make the case for war with the American People, thereby manufacturing consent with the American people and the Congress, not prove to you that the Bush Administration had its mind set on war, and was bound and determined to “lead” the people into supporting their decision?

When Bush tells the American people about a supposed threat, that intelligence has determined would only be a threat, if Bush’s desire for war came to fruition, omitting to tell the American People of that analysis, doesn’t that indicate to you that George W. Bush was misleading the American people?

When the “White Paper” was released, which was purported to be the authoritative intelligence report regarding Iraq, had all intelligence that did not support the public pronouncements made by the Bush Administration, edited from it, does that not tell you that the American People, and all members of the Congress, except certain members of the intelligence committee, were being mislead?

Do you believe that the democrats on the intelligence committee, who were privileged to the unedited intelligence, and pointed out that the intelligence contradicting the Bush Administrations assertions about Saddam’s threat to America, were lying? Even now, after the unedited report has been declassified?

When you see the following:

“The CIA’s line of defence is already apparent: it wasn’t the analysts or authors of intelligence estimates who made the flat, alarmist claims, but officials at the policy-making level, especially in the White House and the office of the secretary of defence. They were the ones who squashed doubts, whipped up fears, and pressed the argument for a war to oust Saddam.”

Doesn’t it make you wonder?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

Cann4ing, - “the Leaders must know what’s best.”


Where do you get there from anything I’ve written?  I have never written or implied anything close to this.  You take such fantastic leaps and liberties.  I blindly, unquestioningly and blithely fall in line behind all U.S. Presidents?  You baffle me.  Honestly you do.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

I agree with much of your last post.  Especially the horrific descriptions of war.  I agree with you much in the way you’ve laid out a few of the events you describe.  Right up to the point where you blame the U.S. for United Nations sanctions placed on Iraq by each of the five permanent members of the Security Counsel and more than one hundred other nations.  That’s where we part ways significantly. I’ll never have the ability to ignore that over a hundred nations were involved in those sanctions. I’ll also not ignore the very real fact that it was Saddam Hussein who spent tens of billions of dollars on himself and his family while children died of starvation and illness in massive numbers.

I honestly don’t understand your intense focus on the actions of the United States and Britain when there were five extremely powerful U.N. members, most of whom are almost always diametrically opposed to each other, deeply involved in those sanctions.  You made certain to mention two members but ignored the remaining three.  The vote was unanimous.  That alone is significant.  I simply don’t see how we can put the onus on so few and, not at least mention Hussein’s behavior. 

But I’m still more interested in the subject we were discussing.  The lies.  Everything stems from those supposed lies.  The very premise of your outlook have to do with lying, and therefor, murdering massive numbers of people for the benefit of an elite few.  Does this describe your view?

And you do care what all those others say and have said.  It’s the reason this came up to begin with.

You were trying to show me how thousands of people, all over the globe, for roughly a decade, all claimed to believe in the same thing, Saddam/WMD/terrorism, but a small handful of nasty American Neo-Con’s knew the truth and conspired to murder hundreds of thousands of people.  It’s an extremely serious charge you make.  The charge, in and of itself, effects the entire globe.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 16, 2009 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment

By Go Right Young Man, December 16 at 8:27 pm #

Cann4ing - “What’s the lesson?” followed by “Either Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama saw a great deal more information about the world than you have…” than that you contend Presidents know something that ordinary citizens do not know.

-

Yes.  That is pretty much what I intended.

____________________

And your “evidence” that Presidents possess something ordinary citizens do not know that makes those Presidents’ decisions to take this nation into war is?

You’ve never provided any evidence precisely because you have no “knowledge” that there is such evidence; merely your “belief” that the Leaders must know what’s best.

That gets us back to my earlier point:

In “assuming” that the “Leader” (Fuhrer) knows best, you are exhibiting the same mind-numbing blind faith that led the people of Germany to follow their infamous Fuhrer into a war of aggression.

Frankly, GRYM, your inability to apply facts, logic or reason is, on the one hand, disturbing and, on the other hand, a collosul waste of time, especially to someone like myself who has served in combat, holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science, a JD and has practiced law for 32 years.

I would be extremely surprised, shocked in fact, if you possessed more than a high school education.  You are badly uninformed, but you “know what you know” and are impervious to facts and evidence. 

Get an education, come back and I’ll be happy to engage in an intellectual discourse with you.  Until then, I will ignore you, as I have so many other hopeless wing-nuts.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 16, 2009 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You have barraged me with your arguments, far too many for me to respond to in any detail. Please do not confuse me with other people on this site. Your arguments with them have absolutely no significance to me. What the U.S. Congress, the U.N. Security Council, the national security council, all the imposters who pass themselves off as experts on national security issues, have said, or will say, makes no difference to me, none.

Let me start with the U.N. Security Council (Clearly a non Democratic Institution.) Due to Security Council actions, by the United States, and to a lesser degree The United Kingdom, 1,000,000 Iraqis died in the period following “Desert Storm” the first Gulf War, 500,000 of them children. If you think that’s extreme, simply compare the morbidity and mortality rates from malnutrition and disease that occurred in Iraq during the ten years following the Gulf War to the ten years preceding the Gulf War. The U.N. put together several resolutions for humanitarian aid to Iraq; nearly all of them were vetoed by the U.S. and the United Kingdom .

Speaking of the Gulf War, the Gulf War could have been avoided, if not for the intransigence of both Saddam Hussein and George the Senior. Saddam offered to negotiate the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait 3 days before the war began, but George the Senior said no, because he had made an ultimatum.

The consequences of that war are largely unknown:

“Consequently the VA officially recognizes in the May 2002 report that a total of 262,586 individuals are “disabled veterans” due to duty in the Gulf and that 10,617 veterans have died of combat related injuries or illnesses since the initiation of the Gulf War during August 1990. That gives us a verified casualty rate of 30.8%.”

Attacking a Defenseless and Retreating Army

“The tragedy on “Highway of Death” occurred on February 25th through February 27th, 1991. There were actually two death highways, one inland and one coastal, from Kuwait to Iraq. Today, the world regards these separate occurrences as a massacre, since the retreating forces, some with white flags on their tanks, could never fight back. Iraqi troops were already surrendering in compliance with UN Resolution 660 when bombed from the night sky in the worst air attack in the 43-day-old Gulf War.”

Aftermath of a War Crime

“Only 450 people survived on the inland road bombing of Highway 80. Along 60 miles of coastal Highway 8, the other death highway taken because the first was jammed, blackened skeletons were grotesquely twisted within charred frames of dismembered vehicles, their clothes, skin, and hair burnt off. In some cases, radios still eerily played. The windshields of cars were shattered, or melted. Huge tanks were incinerated into mere shrapnel. No survivors are known and no death count was ever conducted.”

The issues of the Gulf War have been over simplified, they go all the way back to the conclusion of the First World War, relate directly to Colonialism, and the control of oil reserves.

Regarding my beliefs about dealing with Saddam Hussein and people of his ilk; after the First World War,

(“The total number of casualties in World War I, both military and civilian, were about 37 million: 16 million deaths and 21 million wounded.”)

President Woodrow Wilson put together his “Thirteen Points” as part of an effort to eliminate the threat of future wars. One of those points had to do with “Self Determination of Peoples,” its intent was to put an end to foreign powers intervening in, and invading other countries, under the guise of promoting order, thus reducing the threat of further conflict, or another World War. My feeling is that it is the ultimate responsibility of the people within a nation, to solve their own problems, and not the responsibility of other nations to determine that regime change is necessary. 

More to come

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

Is there no one on this site who can hold a stable conversation less the anger, odd insults, outrageously small minded bigotry or shear petulance?

This belief in the mythical evil Neo-Con is truly an odd phenomena.  This is the modern day liberal thinking?  With only three exceptions on this site you all are outrageously bigoted and nasty to each other and most others.  You give no one the benefit of integrity and can’t seem to read straight through your own anger filled lenses.  It’s fascinating, yes, but tedious.

Is there no one?

I cannot count the number of times individuals on this site have professed to be better, more enlightened, peaceful and so obviously part of the “smarter” of the masses.  Yet not one of you who have posted on this thread can make peace, hold a stable conversation, or not make an enemy with someone whom holds a different point of view.

Is there no one?

This “Neo-Con” -damn that’s odd- this Neo-Con has only once called someone on TruthDig a liar.  Has never consciously attacked someone for sport, never chose confrontation over discussion or called anyone a “neo” anything!  I actually try to “listen”.  But I am the evil, war-mongering, extremist enemy of man?

Report this

By garth, December 16, 2009 at 5:37 pm Link to this comment

As the song used to say,“You’ve got a friend in Jesus.”  Barack’s got a friend in NBC News.  They are reporting that 55 per-cent support Obama’s surge in Afghanistan. I think that that is Bull Shit.
If it isn’t, then we deserve every fucking, god-damned thing that happens to us.
I am afraid that we, bastards, cannot learn, and that that this poll is a sign that “you can’t do nothin’ with stupid.”
  Remember the Christmas Season?  Now, Santa comes in a Drone.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Cann4ing - “What’s the lesson?” followed by “Either Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama saw a great deal more information about the world than you have…” than that you contend Presidents know something that ordinary citizens do not know.

-

Yes.  That is pretty much what I intended.  This is a great deal different than what you posted previously. -Mythical powers and the rights of war-  Still not sure how you got there from anything I’ve written.

Without presupposing anything else into what I wrote exactly which part do you find fault with?  The U.S. President doesn’t have more information than the two of us have at our disposal?  I fully admit you’ve thoroughly lost me with your posts today.  I can’t make sense of any of it.  Sorry

If you have something to say about “Beyond Afghanistan” perhaps you could simply say it?  What exactly will this add?  Explain the relevance and perhaps I’ll check it out.  Demanding I read something I may or may not find interesting, and chiding me if I fail to find the relevance, is not going to “mystically” compel me to do what you wish. LOL….

Look Cann4.  Talk to me as one adult to another or simply move on.  You’re becoming tedious.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 16, 2009 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

By Go Right Young Man, December 16 at 5:34 pm #

Cann4ing, - “you were clearly making the argument that Presidents who wage war have this mystical access to secret information that justifies war”

-

Clearly?  I was clearly making such an argument?  No.  You have assumed far too much.  I would never make any such claim.

The current president has obviously made a sea change in what he believes in.  At least in what he had always talked of believing in.
______________________________________

Nice try, but that dog won’t hunt.

There is no other reasonable interpretation that can be applied to your use the words, “What’s the lesson?” followed by “Either Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama saw a great deal more information about the world than you have…” than that you contend Presidents know something that ordinary citizens do not know.

If that was not your intent, then you are offering meaningless blather for the mere point of challenging opinions and evidence supporting Robert Scheer’s assessment that the War in Afghanistan is a “war of absurdity.”

I provided you with a link to “Beyond Afghanistan” so that you could enter this discourse with some level of a knowledge base, and like a typical right-wing airhead who is all opinion and no facts, you chose to ignore it. 

Once again, facts are precious; opinion is cheap. 

As to your final point, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that Presidents, both past and present, have, through their actions, exposed the lie in their deceptive campaign rhetoric.  For that, I’d recommend that you take the time to read Norman Solomon’s “War Made Easy.”

But I’m not so naive as to hold my breath waiting for you to actually take the time to read anything.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

Cann4ing, - “you were clearly making the argument that Presidents who wage war have this mystical access to secret information that justifies war”

-

Clearly?  I was clearly making such an argument?  No.  You have assumed far too much.  I would never make any such claim.

My point there was a simple one.  The current president has obviously made a sea change in what he believes in.  At least in what he had always talked of believing in.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 16, 2009 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

By Go Right Young Man, December 16 at 2:45 pm #

I have made none of the claims you attribute to me.  Not a single one.
___________________________

By cann4ing, December 16 at 1:20 pm #

You suggested that our Presidents—be they Obama, Bush, or any of the other Presidents who have taken us to war, must have access to some special knowledge that makes their decisions to wage war appropriate

By Go Right Young Man, December 11 at 1:40 pm #

Is it at all possible that Mr. Obama entered office believing in things very close to how you see them, however, after being fully briefed he now sees things much differently?

Is it possible that the world looks a great deal different when armed with a great deal more information?  The types of information the U.S. President receives?

By Go Right Young Man, December 11 at 12:15 pm #

The freshman Senator, Obama, was against military tribunals, rendition, the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, combat drones, “enhanced” interrogations, indefinite detention of the enemy and attacking inside another sovereign nation that never attacked the United States directly.

…After entering the Oval and being fully educated and briefed on how the world actually looks and works?  President Obama supports all of the above.

What’s the lesson?  Either Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama saw a great deal more information about the world than you have, making them right and you wrong or, each of the above felt the need to lie once in office, therefor, making your worldview correct.

Which do you believe it is?

_____________________________

When you suggest that Obama’s stark reversal is the product of being “fully educated and briefed” as the POTUS; when you posed your rhetorical questions, you were clearly making the argument that Presidents who wage war have this mystical access to secret information that justifies war; that anyone who opposes these wars of aggression does so simply because they do not have access to the facts.

You have exhibited the typical blind faith of the Right in the superior knowledge of the Fuhrer that suggests that we do not question the “Leader’s” decision but, instead, “trust” that the “Leader” is doing the correct thing in taking the nation to war.

Your approach is the antithesis of an open and democratic society, where the People are entitled to know the truth and act accordingly.

You can’t run from your own words.  They are set forth in your prior comments for all to see.

So I say to you, again, “The bottom line is that going Right, young man, is wrong.”

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

cann4ing, - “The bottom line is that going Right, young man, is wrong.”

-

I have made none of the claims you attribute to me.  Not a single one.

Right wingers call Obama a Hitler type and Bush critics did not?  You’re actually going to try an attempt to suggest that this does not go on on both sides of politics?

I can’t be certain of it, however, I doubt you can be that narrow or absent-minded.  Bush was referred to as Hitler countless times, almost, on a weekly basis.  And I know for a fact that you did it yourself right on this site.  But, you claim, Right-Wingers are somehow singularly odd. That IS odd. And I believe you understand just how odd your last post is.

Report this

By garth, December 16, 2009 at 9:53 am Link to this comment

I stand to agree to cann4ring:
———————————————————-

By cann4ing, December 16 at 1:20 pm #


Still at it, Go Right Young Man?

I had a thought about some of your earlier remarks that are apropos.

You suggested that our Presidents—be they Obama, Bush, or any of the other Presidents who have taken us to war, must have access to some special knowledge that makes their decisions to wage war appropriate.

We’ve seen that attitude, blind trust in a “Leader” (Fuhrer) before.  It occurred in Germany in the 1930s.  And we saw how wrong that blind trust was.

—————————————————-

Look at Obama’s acceptance speech of the Nobel Peac Prize in Oslo, Norway and compare it with Adolph’s speech in Sudetenland in 1938.
The justification for going to war, in Obama’s speech an endless war, are is unmistakable.

I think that, at least Hitler wrote Mein Kamfp.

Please do not be confused.  Ask yourself, “is this what you want? 
If the U.S.ilitary is fighting for my freedom, they are doing a piss-poor job.  The Patriot Act has not been rescinded or changed.  We are settling for a a FISA act.

In my memory, when this shit first started—To give up some of our freedoms for safety, I think it was in the Gulf War under G. H. W. Bush—a veteran rebuffed me by saying that these were the freedoms we fought for. 
Those enlistees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan are not fighting for our freedom.  You figger it out; what they fighting for.
I hope that the next time an elected bum on C-SPAN thanks a veteran call in for their service, they drop dead.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 16, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Still at it, Go Right Young Man?

I had a thought about some of your earlier remarks that are apropos.

You suggested that our Presidents—be they Obama, Bush, or any of the other Presidents who have taken us to war, must have access to some special knowledge that makes their decisions to wage war appropriate.

We’ve seen that attitude, blind trust in a “Leader” (Fuhrer) before.  It occurred in Germany in the 1930s.  And we saw how wrong that blind trust was.

Now, I know your usual course is to twist what someone says if it doesn’t square with your narrow world view, so let me be clear.  I am “not” comparing any past or current President to Hitler—- something your ridiculous wing-nut friends like to do with Obama.  I am, instead, addressing the blind faith that the right-wing places in “Leaders”—- especially right-wing Leaders; the assumption that those “Leaders” have access to some mystical reservoir of knowledge.

The bottom line is that going Right, young man, is wrong.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

I know I’ve written a great deal here today, however, I wish to revisit one example I gave toward the very end of one of my posts.

I know you believe in what you write.  I know, in your view, it all makes perfect sense and, for the life of you, it simply makes no sense why I do not share your views.  From this you assume I am either lying or, well, just plain stupid.  - A war monger or advocate of war.

Just turn that around for a few minuted and consider this.  While you are certain that Bush and Company MUST have been lying, how do you explain that the Prime Minister of Britain, not a “Neo-Con” but a liberal advocate, stood right beside not one, but two (2) U.S. President’s when HE was the one making all the same claims in regards to Iraq, Saddam, WMD, the threat Saddam Posed and links to terrorism?

Tony Blair made the exact same claims President Clinton made. Blair made the exact same claims President Bush made.  How is this explained using your theories as a model and, can you actually prove the theory?

Before you answer, please, you must consider the 14 United Nations Security Counsel Resolutions on these very same subjects YEARS before the evil Neo-Con’s entered office.  There were over 100 nations on the globe whom all condemned Saddam Hussein in his continuing efforts to gain banned weapons along with links to global terrorism.

This too begs the question.  Did they all believe or, were all simply lying and Saddam Hussein was the honest victim?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, December 15 at 11:46 pm

In my opinion you throw the word “lie” around all too easily.  You’ve said it of me while I know I have not been dishonest even a single time here.  But you seem absolutely convinced that I have been.

Can you or not reasonably prove that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or anyone else did not believe in their cause or claims?  Think about this for a day or two.


We know, beyond any doubt, that people will see what they look for.  If we believe in a thing we will see more and more evidence of it.  These are not lies, my friend.  It’s being human.

You and others MUST consider what the previous president and his National Security apparatus believed in and spoke of.  It’s impossible to talk of any of these subjects while completely ignoring what was already believed years before the evil “Neo-Con’s” entered office.  It’s simply, unequivocally, impossible.  We cannot talk about any current event without first talking about what led to that event or events.  Why do you and others so desperately avoid what is, beyond any doubt, one of the most central aspects of the events leading up to the U.S. using military force in Iraq?

-

Let me give you, what I think, is the most illustrative example of what I’m trying to get you to look at.

ITW, with no evidence of it whatsoever, INSISTS that I believe the current global economy is to be blamed on President Obama.  Putting aside the fact that I have never made any such claim (it’s an idiotic claim) but he INSISTS that I look back toward the Bush administration in order to understand the current economy.  HE’s RIGHT!

Do I blame Obama for the economy?  No.  Do I blame Bush?  No.  But ITW is still correct in that it’s absolutely impossible to speak of today’s economy without first talking about how we got here.

I cannot stress this enough.  You and I can make a case for any position we wish to take.  In my work I have seen it, literally, many thousands of times.

All the bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence that you use to prove “Bush lied” are not proof of lies at all.  Not while you so fervently and continually avoid the bottom line in making your case. 

President Clinton and his entire National Security staff, bar none, and several hundred democratic Senators and Congressman spoke of and voted on one single consensuses.  You cannot avoid what that shared consensus was.  That Saddam Hussein was a danger to the globe, a danger to the United States, was harboring weapons banned to him and, what they believed, was his links to international terrorism.  But still you claim that a small handful of “Neo-Con’s” MUST have been lying.

“All roads to international terrorism lead through Baghdad” - President Bill Clinton 1995

But, still, Cheney was “bald face” lying about Iraq and terrorism?

-

I am not being arrogant or full of myself when I say that I have yet to see anything from you on this subject that I have not already seen many times over.  Including carefully studying the entire Phase II report you found in the Post.

-

You’re not really listening to me.  I did not say I don’t like the Post.  I made it so very clear that I used the Post only because you used the Post.  If you drop the idea that I’m your enemy I think you’ll read me a great deal differently.

Let me repeat this for effect and to further my example.  I did not say I do not like the Post.  But….BUT…that is what YOU made it out to be.  You alone did that.  Do I think you a liar?  No.  I think you’re human.

If you wish to argue that “Bush Lied” then you must, very necessarily, argue that Bill and Hillary Clinton lied along with him.  That Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, Al Gore, Dick Durban, Madeline Albright, George Mitchel, and the entire national Security teams lied for years before Bush entered office. 
Tony Blair talked of WMD in Iraq while standing next to TWO U.S. presidents.  Not one.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

Forgive and look past any typing or editing mistakes I make.  I rarely have the time to fully proof my many editing mistakes when posting. Also, I have a terrific secretary who does this for me.  I fully admit that I very much NEED someone to correct the mistakes I have a habit of reading past in my own work.

“Emotional” was to read - emotion.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 16, 2009 at 5:17 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Do I believe President Bush an advocate of war?  Not in any sense of the way you use the term.  Do I believe Bush and others in his administration entered office with a mind toward removing Hussein as a threat to the world?  Yes.  I believe there is little doubt of that.

I don’t hate your use of the term in describing me.  It simply stumps me.  It stumps me in that I have not once, in this thread or any other, urged anyone or any nation to war against another. 

From the beginning you have treated me as your enemy yet you claim that it’s me who feels the need to invent an enemy.  That dichotomy stumps me through and through.  You write as if you sincerely hate me and have no interest in spreading your peace and understanding in something as simple as a conversation.  You have been nothing but combative but, I am the advocate of war?  Is it simply easier to talk of peace and understanding but not be a true, authentic, example of it?

-

What we know is that President Clinton referred to Saddam Hussein as THE prime example of a 21st Century predator and a danger to the entire world.  Clinton spoke of Saddam’s ties to international terrorism, never ending desire to produce weapons of mass destruction and a threat to the United States.  Those are not my words.  Those are the direct words of President Clinton.

We know that in 1998 the 107th Congress, by a vote of 99-0 in the Senate and something close to 400 plus in the House, passed the Iraq Liberation Act calling on the Office of the President to unseat Saddam Hussein and laid out very specific reasons for the new law.  Yes!  It was the policy and mandate, in 1998, to remove Hussein from his seat.

While I have not seen you specifically write it, it’s common for most anti-Bush, anti-Neo-Con, anti-war advocates to completely ignore and/or deny this well documented history.  Most go so far as to deny that Hussein was ever considered a threat.

While President Clinton referred to Hussein as THE prime example of a 21st Century predator and direct threat to lives of Americans, some refer to Hussein as simply a bad man.  But I’m the denier of facts and history?  That, my friend, is pure emotional on display.

-

President Clinton and his ENTIRE National Security Staff, not a hint of what you would all “a Neo-Con” in the lot, spoke passionately and often of Hussein’s links to international terrorism and banned Weapons of Mass Destruction.  They all claimed to talk about these particular items so as to highlight what, they felt, were the most “cohesive” reasons or rationale to remove Hussein as a threat.  In other words; it was decided that WMD and links to terrorism were the two easiest and most provable items to present to the world and American people in support of their collective policy.  The policy to remove Saddam Hussein.

For these reason you claim Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to be “advocates of war”.

-

Please, before you attack me yet again for the things I write, ask me first if I can prove my claims.  I would be glad to do just that in an honest and comprehensive way.  BUT, you have to actually look at and read the documents and historical items I have to present.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 15, 2009 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

JD:

In the mind of GRYM, Bill Clinton saying he thought Saddam Hussein was a bad guy (which we ALL agree to be true) is the same as all the quotes you provide. How?  I don’t know.

So here, I’ll say it: Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, a small-town Stalin, a murderer, a hit-man elevated to rule a country, who gassed his own people, decimated his nation in an insane war with Iran, and deserved to be hanged.

But that STILL doesn’t equate me with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice all deliberately putting forth false information about Saddam Hussein to get us into war with Iraq.

But in GRYM’s mind it does.  How?  “Somehow!” (as Ayn Rand would sardonically say).

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 15, 2009 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Regarding the epitome of arrogance; I think the epitome of arrogance would be ascribing to oneself the moral authority, to send young soldiers to kill and die.

I don’t really think that my assertion that everyone knows that the Bush Administration mislead the country, into going to war, competes with that. Do you?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 15, 2009 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

I know how much you hate it when I say you advocate for war. Do you think Bush, Cheney and the other Neocon clones were advocating for war?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 15, 2009 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Butler who…? Your right I’m not familiar with that report. However I do have 2 pages of quotations from USA Today, Fact Check, The Washington Post, (Oops! You don’t like the Post) How about 60 minutes…No? How about George John Tenet himself.

I could have gotten more quotations that provide evidence that the Bush Administration purposely mislead the American people, but I only checked the 4 sources.

“Tenet says he believed Iraq had WMDs but never considered the intelligence to be a “slam dunk.” Tenet says he used that description to show how easy it would be to build a public case for war, given that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons and had performed nuclear-weapons research in the past.”

Of course the key frase here is: “Tenet says he used that description to show how easy it would be to build a public case for war,”

“And the hardest part of all this has been just listening to this for almost three years, listening to the vice president go on Meet the Press on the fifth year (anniversary) of 9/11 and say, ‘Well, George Tenet said slam dunk,’ ” Tenet says. “As if he needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to go to war with Iraq.”

“Leaking the ‘slam dunk’ quote, Tenet says, was the ‘most despicable thing that ever happened to me.’”

“In his 2004 book, Plan of Attack, Woodward wrote that Tenet made the “slam-dunk” comment while briefing Bush and Cheney in December 2002, three months before the invasion of Iraq began.”

“Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002:  But we do know, ‘with absolute certainty,’ that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.” (A bald faced lie, of course)

“Bush, Oct. 7, 2002: We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases . And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.” (Some truth, mostly a lie)

“Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”

“That statement is open to challenge on two grounds. For one thing, as we’ve seen, the intelligence community was reporting to Bush and Congress that they thought it unlikely that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists – and only “if sufficiently desperate” and as a “last chance to exact revenge” for the very attack that Bush was then advocating.”

“Furthermore, the claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda in the use of poison gas turned out to be false, and some in the intelligence community were expressing doubts about it at the time Bush spoke.”

“It was based on statements by a senior trainer for al Qaeda who had been captured in Afghanistan. The detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, took back his story in 2004 and the CIA withdrew all claims based on it. But even at the time Bush spoke, Pentagon intelligence analysts said it was likely al-Libi was lying.” ( Let’s call this misleading)

“According to newly declassified documents, the Defense Intelligence Agency said in February 2002 – seven months before Bush’s speech –  “it is . . . likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest. . . .  Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.” .

“I have more, but I find this tedious. If your going to deny that the Bush administration held back intelligence information, you need to go over this evidence again, or do your own search.”

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 15, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Imagine was a mistake.  It was supposed to read image.

Your hostility has been on display from the beginning and I have been nothing but honest.

Did you actually read the House Select Committee report you refer to?  I ask because you failed to mention that this latest report, generated by the new Democratic lead Congress, actually disputes many of the claims both you and ITW have offered here.  On the other hand this particular report does appear to substantiate a handful of your claims.

But you failed to mention that the report clearly states that no evidence was found which indicates that anyone “intentionally” mislead the public and, no evidence was found indicating a misuse of office.  Is this not completely contrary to what you have come to believe in?

You also left out the entire Phase I report, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report and the Lord Butler report (the Butler report remains the largest government investigation ever conducted).  All of which thoroughly contradict your stated conclusions. 

Do I assume correctly that you have, until today, been unaware of these other reports due to each not supporting your particular point of view?

I still maintain that its always best to actually read these reports yourself. I was going to get to that particular report, however, I saw no sense in discussing it unless or until you’ve actually read it yourself.  Which if you recall, I have been urging you to do.  I simply cannot discuss any one report filtered through someone else (Washington Post). 

I have no problem acknowledging that you hold one report which, in part, supports a few of your claims.  I hold three additional reports which contradict what you claim.  Where does this leave us? 

To suggest, as you do, that every person paying attention agrees with you is the epitome of “condescending” arrogance, no?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 15, 2009 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You Say:

“Then you did miss my point.  I was not discrediting the piece you sent.  I was discrediting the Post.”

How did a discussion of the legitimacy of the Washington post get into our debate? Please! Your disingenuousness is blatantly obvious.

You say:

“It appears if a piece of information bolsters your view it’s historic fact.  As an investigator/researcher for a number of years I can only say that is not how it works.”

You seem to be an “investigator/researcher” that ignores the facts. Is that how it works?

You say:

“You can show me a thousand bits and pieces that support your views and you’ll still only be doing what you accuse the Bush administration of doing.  Carefully picking and choosing your information.”

You’re right about that. I can show you “a thousand bits and pieces,” coming from every major news gathering and disseminating organization in this country and abroad, not to mention the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

I can see where this debate is going; you’re going to deny the factual evidence regarding this issue. Let me say in advance that your denial will not be “plausible.”

As you “carefully pick” and choose your rebuttals, be sure and ignore the fact that every informed person knows that The Bush Administration and its Neo-Con advisors wanted to invade Iraq, and intentionally withheld intelligence that contradicted their false justification for invading, and, in fact, invented justification, “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” “As you know, you go to into ‘debate’ with the ‘facts’ you have, not the ‘facts’ you might want or wish to have at a later time.” “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” (Rumsfeld)

You say:

“Unfortunately you’re beginning to do what ITW is doing.  Attributing to me things I have never come close to claiming.  If you look closely you’ll see that he’s arguing with a phantom, an imagine, he’s created in his mind.  Hatred and anger tends to do that.  These emotions blind the mind.”

I’ve debated Inherit The Wind before on a different issue. He “Wears his emotions on his sleeve,” as they say, but at least he’s honest about what he believes.

I don’t hate you; I’m trying to save your foolish, damnable soul.

(What is “An imagine”?) (Is it an investigator/researcher?)

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 15, 2009 at 4:12 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Then you did miss my point.  I was not discrediting the piece you sent.  I was discrediting the Post.  You do, however, have an interesting way of determining what is and is not factual.  It appears if a piece of information bolsters your view it’s historic fact.  As an investigator/researcher for a number of years I can only say that is not how it works.

You can show me a thousand bits and pieces that support your views and you’ll still only be doing what you accuse the Bush administration of doing.  Carefully picking and choosing your information.  I was attempting to show you something much different.  A much larger, much longer, view.

Unfortunately you’re beginning to do what ITW is doing.  Attributing to me things I have never come close to claiming.  If you look closely you’ll see that he’s arguing with a phantom, an imagine, he’s created in his mind.  Hatred and anger tends to do that.  These emotions blind the mind.

-

Give these issues some context. 

It’s impossible to know Al Qaeda, and others of the type, if we don’t listen to Al Qaeda.  It’s impossible to know Saddam Hussein if we fail to listen to Saddam Hussein.  It’s impossible to argue that two U.S. Presidents, from two separate political parties, spanning over a decade, made the exact same arguments but, only one lied.

And none of this will be put into context by gaining all our knowledge from the media.

Question: If I placed three U.N. Weapons Inspectors reports on the table would you refuse to read them because you’ve already read what a reporter with the Post had to say about those reports?  Would you take the word of one man or woman on the contents or, would you make an honest attempt to read the reports generated by a dozen knowledgeable experts?

I have been attempting to urge you to read the reports.

I’m not your enemy.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

No, I did not miss your point. Did you miss my point?

The story you cited was proven to be non factual. The story I cited was based on historic fact.

Your attempt to discredit a news report based on historic fact, because a news report from the same source was not factual, is spurious.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 14, 2009 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, December 14 at 11:12 pm #

Inherit The Wind,

You clearly have not read anything I’ve written.  You clearly are not interesting in a genuine dialog.

Good luck to you in all things.
**************************************************

Thanks for your good wishes—I’ve read it all—it’s you who are not interested in the rebuttals.  You live in a fantasy world where the economic problems we face all magically started when Obama took office, even though President Bush called BOTH candidates, Obama and McCain in to consult with when it hit.

In your fantasy, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is TOTALLY Obama’s responsibility—not just for the current situation, but for how we got into this mess as well.

One day, I hope you will wake up, as did people like William F. Buckley and Alan Greenspan and Ariana Huffington and say “How could I have been such a FOOL????” and realize just what havoc has been wreaked by your heros.

“George Bush has no legacy.” was one of William F. Buckley’s last great observations.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind,

You clearly have not read anything I’ve written.  You clearly are not interesting in a genuine dialog. 

Good luck to you in all things.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 14, 2009 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

It’s like shooting fish in a barrel!  All those Congress-critters you mentioned were fed ADULTERATED INTELLIGENCE by the Bush White House.  They were LIED to, deliberately, to shape their views into supporting the President’s long-planned scheme to attack Iraq—along with his “Patriot Act” which was also ALREADY WRITTEN when 9-11 happened.

So they mouthed EXACTLY what the Bush White House wanted them to, by feeding them carefully filtered, vetted and even altered intelligence—like the yellow-cake from Niger.

As for the 24 Sep 2001 WaPo article—that’s only 13 days AFTER the attack—long before we knew it was actually definitively Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, the WaPo article was based on more directed mis-information from the Cheney camp—nobody bothered to ask “Does this make ANY sense?” since it came from the Vice-President who had been SecDef at one time. 

Of course it made NO sense—the religious Muslims HATED Saddam and he HATED them just as much! He was a secular dictator who didn’t implement Sharia, didn’t dress “properly”, fornicated and encouraged it, didn’t restrict women to being shrouded, ignorant slaves.  Plus, though a Sunni, he didn’t raise Sunnis up to rule all Islam in Iraq, but suppressed them and the Shi’ia alike.

Then there’s the stupid red herring you neo-cons latch onto “he gave $25,000 to each of the families of suicide bombers.”  How many did he give this to?  If he gave it to 100 families that’s $2.5 million—chump change to a guy with $10 BILLION socked away in his personal accounts…That’s like a guy with a thousand bucks giving away 25 cents to a homeless person—yeah, that’s the ratio!  “Any spare change, bud?”

It’s just endless the BS you swallow and say “thank you!”

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, December 14 at 8:12 pm #

Go Right Young Man

Again, all the sources you cite were incorrect. The Washington Post article you cite has been proven false, and may have been part of the disinformation that was so prevalent in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The Washington Post article I cited was based on historical fact.

-

Well, you missed the point in my showing you the Sept 2001 Washington Post piece.  I in no way suggested that I subscribe to the content.  I chose the Post for a single reason.  Because you chose the Post.  I was trying to illustrate a point.

Did you miss the irony in that piece when displayed against what you shared with me?  Both items, polar opposite content and conclusions, coming from the same news outlet.  Perhaps these are not our best sources of information.  That was my only point. 

-

You talk of me making enemies where they do not exist.  I am not your enemy.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Again, all the sources you cite were incorrect. The Washington Post article you cite has been proven false, and may have been part of the disinformation that was so prevalent in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The Washington Post article I cited was based on historical fact.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Your world is a world made up of enemies, not realizing that you have created those enemies, partially in your mind, but more tangibly because of the actions you support. Do you really believe that our past and present military intrusions into Muslim lands have made us safer?

Let us not even consider the death and miseries that have been caused by these intrusions, the issue then becomes are we safer? 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum. You’re an advocate of studying the rationale of our enemies. Well, what do your studies of that rationale tell you? The actions of our enemies are truly abhorrent; but it is you, and people who think like you, who have provided them with that rationale. You advocate policies that push us closer, and closer, to the abyss.

Whether it will be financial collapse, or horrific catastrophe, it is you, and people who think like you, who put the people of this nation, and the world, in danger.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Just so we both understand why I claim “news” sources are useless to us.  I am not simply being dismissive.  Not one bit.

Below is an example of the “news” as it was reported in the Washington Post on Sept. 24, 2001.  <—You chose to show me an item from the Post.  I’m trying to make a point about news reports prior to 2000 and prior to march 2003.

After you read this remind yourself that I make no claims regarding Hussein being involved with 9/11.  I only offer this as an example of what you’ll find, by the thousands, prior to 2000 and even March 2003.

We simply cannot “cherry pick” which, so-called news sources or outlet, suites our purpose. In other words; for every news source you toss out I can show you five reporting the exact opposite.  Let’s skip all that and go to the source(s).  Just simply take a few days and try what I ask.  I honestly believe you’ll be surprised by what you find.

-
WASHINGTON POST September 24, 2001

Israeli intelligence services reportedly met with CIA and FBI officials in August and warned of an imminent large-scale attack on the U.S. There “were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,” a senior Israeli official later told London’s Daily Telegraph.

Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda reportedly had representatives based in Baghdad. In 1997 he also set up training camps in Iraq, according to Canada’s National Post. Iraq has also reportedly delivered small arms and money to bin Laden’s organization over the past few years. Iraqi intelligence agents have met repeatedly with bin Laden or his operatives in Sudan, Turkey, Afghanistan and an undisclosed site in Europe (evidently Prague). Iraqi opposition leaders have also said that there is a long history of contact between Iraq and the archterrorist.

Bin Laden is believed to have met repeatedly with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay. Bin Laden also seems to have ties to Iraq’s Mukhabarat, another one of its intelligence services.

Perhaps the most dramatic meeting occurred in December 1998, when Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in the Mukhabarat who later became ambassador to Turkey, journeyed deep into the icy Hindu Kush mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan. Mr. Hijazi is “thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq,” according to a 1999 report in the Guardian, a British newspaper.

That same year, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: “Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis.” The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under “false flags”—spook-speak for front groups—including bin Laden’s organization.


—The above is only a snippet from the article.  I make no claims that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11.  What I will claim is simple.  If you do an honest search you will find thousands of similar stories reported in every major news outlet on the globe prior to 2000 and March 2003.  Particularly in regards to Iraq, WMD and terrorism.  BUT, it’s better, a great deal better, to go to the source(s) ourselves.  I think you can see the Washington Post, in this case, is useless.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, December 14 at 4:17 pm

Your so-called “news” sources are useless to us.

Try what I ask.  Try looking up those exact same “news” sources prior to 2000.  Compare that reporting against what you see today.  I assure you it will infuriate you.

Just try what I ask.  Read weapons inspectors reports.  Read U.N. resolutions.  Read congressional testimony.  Read global intelligence reports prior to 2000.  Just give it an honest try.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Please don’t mistake my bluntness and assured understanding of a small handful of issues for condescension.  It’s truly not my intention.

You and others here make a few claims, which I believe, brings the U.S. more danger, and spreads ever more misunderstanding, for the nations enemies to use against us. 

I share your same misgivings.  I believe you make the world a great deal more dangerous for everyone.  I honestly believe that your misunderstandings, coupled with your willingness to forgive all who display true threats toward the United States, while blaming the U.S. for the world’s ills is a direct cause of death for great numbers of people.  I wish it to end.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Here’s the truth:

Since the decision to go to war came after 2000 your attempt to limit the discussion to statements made before 2000 is a ruse, never the less, ALL THE SOURCES YOU SIGHT WERE INCORRECT, and they came to their conclusions without benefit of accurate intelligence.

Here’s another truth. Potential mushroom clouds, Nigerian yellow cake, and secret meetings between Saddam and Al Qaida, were all intentional lies, or based on inadequate intelligence.

“Now there is more news that Bush officials trumped up the nuclear threat. The Washington Post reported over the weekend that administration officials repeatedly made claims in diplomatic and weapons inspections briefings that were not backed up, even by our own intelligence.”

“Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa’ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al’Qa’ida and Iraq.”

“In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA’s view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.”

“WASHINGTON (CNN)—The United Nations’ top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.”

Another observation about the truth; George Bush’s proposal as related by the “Downing Street Memo,” would have been a lie.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ and Truedigger3,

Be sure and check ALL my facts before you comment further.  Please share with me any information that proves me incorrect.  I would be happy to see it.

I’m honored that you may believe that the items I share here are the culmination of a concerted effort. Obviously my claims are cohesive, measured and well sourced.

I’m not in the habit of making any claim I cannot prove.  I can prove, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that what I write is so.

Check my facts.

-

From the Office of Senator Edward M. Kennedy (MA), Remarks to Senate, September 27, 2002: “No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.“


“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”


“There is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction.”

-

Excuse my bluntness but, have you all truly thought about what it is you’re claiming? 

You are all convinced that after decades (decades mind you) as THE ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Kennedy was duped by the Bush administration about intelligence gathering?  That Sen. Kennedy, after decades of receiving the very same intelligence as the President of the United States, did not know how to parse the intelligence on Iraq that he had been receiving for 30 plus years?  That Sen, Kennedy made the exact same claims about Iraq, WMD and the threat Saddam posed both before and after Bush entered office was, what, a dream?

You are claiming that Sen. Kennedy was just too stupid and gullible to understand the intelligence before him.  Both before and after George W. Bush.

Go back and read what was released from his office.  Particularly where it states; “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger“ and “We have known for {many years}.....”

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

Truedigger3

The truth is the boss in this debate, and has no fear of the lies and obfuscations perpetrated by real or mythical hired hands.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

ITW and JDmysticDJ,

How do the both of you not see the fallibility of the argument that you, and yes, millions like you, make?

Bill Clinton was simply too stupid and too gullible to know and understand the nature of intelligence.  That is the argument you both make.  So too with Vice President Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Richard Cohen and Sandy Burger.  So too with Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham.

Ahh. Bob Graham.  The ranking member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.  You want to pretend that Mr. Graham dd not understand the nature of Intelligence gathering?  That he was simply too gullible to understand the decade of intelligence, much of it (as it ALWAYS is) contradictory, before he stated the following? 

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for A NUMBER OF YEARS, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

This man, again, the ranking member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, with sources quite apart from the president, with independent congressional investigators of his own, after having been the recipient of the information both Presidents Clinton and Bush had been privy to, said these things before George Bush and his evil cabal entered the White House and after.

You make an impossible argument.  Want more?

Senator Jay Rockefeller (WV), Remarks on Senate Floor, October 10, 2002: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

A decade on the Select Committee for Intelligence and he was simply too damn stupid to understand the nature of intelligence gathering?  The man never saw the hundreds of individual pieces of contradictory information before 2002-03?

Senator Rockefeller offered the exact same observations in support of President Clinton’s policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power as he did after the evil Bush cabal entered office.  I would relish seeing how you explain all this.

-
No, ITW, it’s not Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Richard Cohen, Sandy Burger, Ted Kennedy, Bob Graham and Jay Rockefeller whom are the gullible ones.  I’m sorry to say, honestly and sincerely sorry to say, that it is you who are gullible.

Here’s an interesting fact which you can check for yourself right from your comfortable chair.

Nancy Pelosi, whom voted against using the military to remove Saddam Hussein, repeatedly claimed that Hussein held weapons that had been banned to him.  She claimed it before Bush entered the White House and after.  Only AFTER none were found in 2003 did she begin to claim that the Congress had been “mislead” by the Bush administration.

For almost a decade she claimed to posses information that Saddam Hussein was harboring banned weapons.  But, suddenly, after 2003, she feigns ignorance?  Yes, my friends, you have indeed been lied to.

Please do check all my facts.  I beg you both to do some real, verifiable, and honest research. 

There are hundreds of U.N. Weapons Inspectors reports. Thousands of House and Senate hearing minutes.  Hundreds of hours of Congressional testimony to draw from.  If you really must use media sources submit your search terms on Iraq+WMD+terrorism.  BUT, and this is important, only read the information that was generated BEFORE 2000.

Report this

By truedigger3, December 14, 2009 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ and all,

You are wasting your time and energy with that “GRYM” , he is a hired hand and most likely he is not alone, probabley he has partners who are working with him to wear down any poster who opposes the war.
It is futile and useless to argue with anyone like him who lies, twists and obfuscates the facts and is hell bent on implementing an agenda.
Save your time and energy and let him continue barking without paying any attention.!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You ask:

“In what way did I insult you?”

Aside from telling me that I am uninformed …

“Excuse again my bluntness but, you understand this enemy as well as the rest of what you ave opined.  <—I do not say this with malice.”

…and your irrational condescending arrogance, I find your “worldview” insulting, as well as extremely dangerous to the world.

I also regard your disingenuous arguments regarding The Bush administration’s lies to the world, and the American People, as insulting. You know that the Bush Administration lied to the world, and the American People, but you value your ideological theories more than you do the truth, which is typical of people on the right.

I have a great deal of “malice” for your “world view,” but my malice does not result in death, destruction, and a foolhardy waste of economic resources.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 7:06 am Link to this comment

All you “Black Dog Democrats” who are contributing to Obama’s destruction, and victory for Republicans in the next election, need to visit 60minutes.com and read, or watch, Obama’s interview with Steve Kroft.

Roosevelt called the Wall Streeters “Economic Royalists,” Obama calls them “Fat Cat Bankers.”

The biggest difference between Obama and Roosevelt is that Roosevelt had a degree of “Solidarity” with his Democratic Congress, while Obama is dealing with a fragmented and corrupted Democratic Congress.

It’s time for a dose of political reality. Obama is not Superman, but he’s not Lex Luther either.

Spare me the nihilistic crap.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, -“Did The Bush administration lie to the American People and the world? That’s not debatable.”

-

I’m sorry but, you too make an impossible argument.

In what way did I insult you?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind,

Opinions.  All you offer are your opinions.  You repeat them time again like a mantra.

You honestly seem to believe that everything you think about and ponder makes sense to you so, therefor, most everyone else naturally agrees with you.  You seem to truly believe you’re in the majority.  Well, my friend, you are not. 
-

George Bush gutted the V.A.?

You need to get off your butt, unplug from the Internet and television news, and do some real-life research and interviews. 

I have personally spoken to the national head of the Education Office at the V.A.. I sat directly across from him in the cafeteria in San Fransisco and asked dozens of questions. I have spoken to the national head of the research Dept. at the V.A. I have spent hundreds of hours in the library.  NONE of the things you claim have been repeated to me.

Here is a tidbit you’ll first find shocking before you quickly dismiss it.  According to the head of the Research Dept. at the V.A. a full 87% of American wounded soldiers, many of them missing limbs, immediately request to return to their theaters of operations.  Shocking? It was to me.  But I have no reason to believe it to be a lie.

Poll after poll conducted with military families indicate that more than 70% believe in and support their loved one’s missions.  Wish to see these polls?  I’ll make them available to you.

-

You and millions of others make an impossible argument.  You cannot prove in any way, shape or form, that almost the entire world believed the very same things about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq BUT, George W. Bush knew otherwise.

You like to quickly dismiss the fact, fact mind you, that congressional leaders are privy to the exact same information the president receives.  Every piece of contradictory information -and the very nature of intelligence gathering demands that there is ALWAYS contradictory information- was present for the previous president, his national Security staff and the congress to evaluate.  Literally thousands of people looked at the exact same information, including the hundreds of contradictions, and came to the very same conclusions BUT, you have willfully decided that George Bush MUST have known that he alone understood otherwise.

You make an impossible argument.  Basing your world view, as you do, on that single impossible argument, all context of global events are lost on you.

-

As sure as I’m sitting here I can say, without equivocation, that you do not understand how the real world works.  You do not understand how government works, how the media works and the larger world of Kings and Presidents.

Get off your butt, do some real research of your own, and stop being part of the problem.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 14, 2009 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Did the Democrats who share your “world view” lie? That’s debatable.

Did The Bush administration lie to the American People and the world? That’s not debatable.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 14, 2009 at 4:49 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

You don’t understand? Ask the families of the nearly 5,000 American servicemen and women killed in Bush’s unnecessary war in Iraq!  Ask the 20,000 to 25,000 wounded who came home to find—-Bush had gutted the VA’s ability to treat them!

You don’t understand? Ask the men and women who put their lives on the line! Ask the families of the dead and wounded!

Estimates range as high as 650,000 Iraqis dead who would not have been without this war.  Ask them!

George W. Bush USED information that he was warned was FALSE to launch an invasion of a nation without an exit plan.  He FIRED General Erik Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff for saying that the planned troop levels were insufficient for pacifying Iraq AFTER “victory”.

Yeah, Bush lied and people, lots and lots of people died as a result, people who wouldn’t have died.  Even more were maimed and injured, who wouldn’t have been.

I’ve never served, but I, at least, REALLY respect the great gift these men and women give us by offering their lives.  And I DESPISE anyone who knowingly squanders that gift—chicken hawk cowards like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.  Unlike them, Clinton respected that gift, as did Bush 41 before him.  I only HOPE Obama does, but I’m not yet convinced of it.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 14, 2009 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind,

Yes, I see what you mean.  Two U.S. Presidents and their entire National Security teams, spanning over a decade, made all the same claims but, only one lied.  Dozens of world intelligence agencies, spanning over a decade, made all the same claims but, only one lied.  Hundreds of men and woman from the opposition party in the U.S. made all the same claims, years before Bush entered office but, Bush KNEW he and is team were lying.  The ranking members of the Congress do, in fact, study all the same information.  The same information they had seen and talked about for a decade, however, Bush alone knew otherwise.  Over a dozen U.N. weapons inspectors made all the same claims, before and after Bush entered the Oval but, Bush had all the information he needed indicating that the ENTIRE globe was simply, inexplicably, demonstrably wrong.

Dozens of world leaders made the exact same claims, however, only George W. Bush lied about it.  What an evil genius. My God! How could I have been so blind?

Looking at all this well laid out logic yet again has me convinced.  I can’t imagine now why I didn’t simply fall in line years ago. 

You are an icon of virtue!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 13, 2009 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

Naturally you leave 2 critical elements out of that tired old bone “Clinton said the same things as Bush” that you neo-cons love to drag up:

1) Those statements were at a different time and the ONLY thing that matters is what was true and what was false when Bush was selling it to the American Congress and the American people.  At that point in time it was A LIE!  (Example: “We know Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds”—yes, but that was something like 20 years before 9/11)

2) Bush USED those statements to launch an invasion of Iraq using something like 200,000 troops.  Please show me where Clinton launched such a major offensive on Iraq.  You cannot, because he didn’t.

You obfuscate and toss out all these red herrings that keeps you from ever dealing with the hard-core central points:  Bush got us into wars he couldn’t get us out of, he sank our economy (very predictably I might add), he destroyed much of our civil liberties, and he made us hated by even our friends around the globe.  He left the biggest mess of the nation of any President since Lincoln was shot.

It’s as simple as standing in the rain and recognizing that you are getting wet, not trying to explain that you are dry and getting a suntan.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 13, 2009 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, December 13 at 10:34 am

Many opinions you throw out.  Now if you could simply prove one of them.

I tell you what.  Show me a claim made by the Bush administration concerning Saddam Hussein that was not previously offered by the Clinton administration and dozens of democrats in the House or Senate and I’ll believe you to be on to something.  Barring that I’ll continue to believe that you’re full of blinding hatred that you have effectively, and perhaps willfully, kept yourself from seeing what’s real.

I’ll begin this brief test and we’ll see which of us has a better handle on reality.

-

After eight years in the White House, after eight years of intelligence briefings, after eight years of dealing with Saddam Hussein, after eight years of being privy to the intelligence of our allies, Vice President Al Gore offered his assessment.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”  -Al Gore Sept. 2002. 

You want others to believe Vice President Gore was either too stupid or too gullible and allowed himself to be taken in by the evil Bush administration.  Fair enough I suppose. Your entitled to your opinions.

Here is another verifiable quote I offer in support of my claims.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Bill Clinton, Feb. 1998

You want people to believe the Bush administration was so effective in it’s subterfuge that even President Clinton was taken in by the lies a full two years before Bush took office.  That’s interesting.

I’ll offer another.

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm.”


“The evidence is strong that Iraq continues to hide prohibited weapons and materials. There remains a critical gap between the number of weapons we know Iraq produced and the amount we can confirm were destroyed.” -Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, February 18, 1998

If you can explain why Ms. Albright made those statements, again years before Bush entered the White House, I would be interested to see it.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 13, 2009 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, December 13 at 10:34 am

PartII

Here’s another.

After eight years as First Lady, after eight years of first hand discussions with the President of the United States on almost a daily basis, after two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Hillary Clinton offered the following on the floor of the Senate.

“In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change…In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.”

“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

You want others to believe that Ms. Clinton too is just that stupid.  That it was, in your reality, actually the Bush administration that made her forget her eight years in the White House, all the things her president Husband had told her, her two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a committee which has it’s own intelligence sources and senate investigators but, she was duped by the evil Bush administration?

-

Now it’s your turn to prove your theory of lies by the Bush administration.  Exactly which claims did Bush make that was not offered by the Clinton administration and several dozen others from his party?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 13, 2009 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

Hi Cann!

GRYM: True “Opinion” is extrapolation beyond the facts available—guessing.

Pretending facts aren’t facts or twisting facts around isn’t an opinion and doesn’t deserve my respect.

I heard the lies the Bush administration told the Congress to convince them to go to war in Iraq.  They even lied to their own “unreliable” Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to get him on board—he who would never have made the speech about the WMDs if he knew the real facts.  I heard Condaleeza Rice threaten that there would be a mushroom cloud if Saddam wasn’t cast from power. It was a lie.
I heard Cheney claim Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda..It was a lie.
Yes, the Democrats in Congress voted with their Republican colleagues to go to war in Iraq—when they learned how they had been lied to, it was too late.

And then there was the FINAL Bush lie: That the Congress had the SAME information that White House had, when, it fact, it had been carefully filtered to remove ANY information that contradicted the assertions that Saddam had WMDs, was trying to build a nuclear weapon, and was actively aiding Al Qaeda.

By the time we attacked Iraq something like 57% of the American people believed Saddam was behind 9-11—which was exactly what Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the bums wanted them to think.

NOTHING like this occurred under Clinton nor under Obama.  Neither did it occur under George H.W. Bush.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 13, 2009 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Obviously we come to our conclusions from different perspectives.

In what way did I insult you?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 13, 2009 at 1:03 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

I missed one of your postings, so let me respond again.

Thank you for being gentle with your insults. It leads me to think that there may be some hope for you. But then again, maybe your Pseudo gentleness is just a display of your phenomenal arrogance, or an attempt to demonstrate that you’re much more refined than I am. Sorry, if I’m too blunt with my words, it’s because when it comes to the issue of war and peace, I don’t suffer fools lightly, and a fool is exactly what you are. Fools like you perpetuate the madness, and do so by feigning superior intelligence. Please don’t take my calling you a fool too hardly, I’m trying to be gentle, there are many other words I could use, but I don’t want to alienate you.

You keep asking me what I’m doing to change the human condition. Unlike you, I don’t see mankind as being irreversibly evil. I believe that even an evil fool like you can come to see the error of your ways. You may think that this attempt on my part, to show you what a fool you are is insignificant, and not much of a contribution to changing the human condition, but I see it as a gargantuan, and nearly insurmountable challenge.

Did you ever wonder if somewhere over in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or somewhere else on this planet, there is a mirror image of yourself, someone who is on the other side in the current conflict? When I say mirror image, I don’t mean in appearance, but someone who is as big a fool as you are. Someone who believes like you do, that killing is the only way to resolve conflict with the intransigent infidel, and believes that anyone who doesn’t agree with that view is simply unintelligent, and lacks his clearly superior logic.

Fools can be funny, you amuse me. Apparently you believe that killing is, in fact, morally excusable, as long as it is accompanied by a kind of community barn building after the killing is done. After all, people will quickly forget about their lost loved ones, and the fact that their property is being occupied, when they see that new, freshly painted barn.

Seriously though, your illusion of future victory in Afghanistan is extremely irrational. The only way we could ever achieve any kind of victory in that part of the world would be to completely subjugate the Islamic peoples, in much the same way as we did Native Americans. Doing so, could take a century or more, and the only way we could possibly finance that subjugation would be to appropriate all of their resources.

History has shown that empires always fail, one way or another, and aside from their wistful memories of their former grandeur, their only legacy is massive amounts of human suffering.

Is there any hope for a better world? Yes there is, but not as long as fools like you have their way.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 13, 2009 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

Hi ITW.  Long time no converse.

Entering this thread, I quickly learned that our “Go Right Young Man” is a typical, fact-free wing-nut. 

It is pointless to direct such an individual to evidence or rational argument, for theirs is not an evidence-based reality. 

They have their “opinions” and, as most true believers, if they believe something is true, it is impossible to dislodge them from it.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

ITW

Calm yourself and take a breath.  What you so angrily and blithely call twisting is actually a different point of view. 

Your arrogance in believing all who disagree with you must be either stupid or lying is, well, palpable.  And it’s of little use to anyone.

-

I don’t much care for you and it has nothing to do with anything you believe in.  It has everything to do with how I see you treat others.  Your demeanor and behavior is atrocious.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

Hopefully it won’t surprise you to learn that I largely agree with the time-line as put forth by Mr. Rashid and others. Apparently you and I have come to different conclusions on those events, however.

I believe those events to be precisely why we owe the Afghan people so much.  And I will hold my head in complete shame if the United States does not lead this effort to keep Mullah Omar and his like from gaining a power footing inside Afghanistan again.

It was wrong to turn our backs on the people and situation after the Soviet withdrawal and it’s equally, if not more, wrong today.

-

As many problems as there are in the Afghan government there are still more woman in public office than any time in Afghan history.  More woman operate small business’ than any time in history.  Woman can now earn a living and are not forced to die, often with their Fatherless children, on the street from starvation. Literally millions of children are today learning math and the sciences (the surest path out of abject poverty).  Roads, hospitals, potable water, and small portable hydrogen energy plants are being placed in the even the smallest of villages. 

According to the World Health Organization tens of millions of children are in marked better health than they were a decade ago. - The years of the Taliban and before.

You label me an advocate of war incorrectly and for a single reason.  Because I fail to see the world as you do.  You will not understand when I opine that your way, your solutions, will cause many more deaths and increase the level of threats and violence.

Your talk of peace is admirable. But you have not answered to the most basic question.  How are you trying to change the human condition to end wars and violence?  How are you saving the most lives?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind,

You are absolutely correct.  President Clinton was not the first president to warn the world about Hussein.  It was President Carter and every President since.

In my comments I was limiting the context to recent events. In the context of the WMD/terrorist links both Clinton and Bush 43 spoke of and acted on.  But you are right.  Clinton was not the first.  I misunderstood your comments on the subject.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 12, 2009 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

Regarding the rape law; you’re correct the new law was repealed due to pressure from Afghan women, an upcoming election, and a statement by Obama. However, I was 100% correct when I said “recently passed.”

Regarding the education of Afghan girls; you’re right again. When you said millions of girls were now receiving education, it seemed extreme to me, but you are correct.

You ask:

“—Can you describe for us the secular government in Afghanistan where women were free; before the United States of America helped the “five powerful warlords” overthrow that secular government?”

The Mujahidin were made up of a conglomeration of Afghan warlords and religious fanatics. In 1992 the Mujahidin overthrew the Soviet backed secular central government in Kabul. The government had been established in 1973, and was reformed in 1978.

The following comes from the PBS program “Wide Angle” available at pbs.org

“The rise of the Soviet-backed People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1978 brought large-scale literacy programs for men and women, again alongside the abolition of bride price and other reforms beneficial to women. During this period leading up the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, reforms in areas such as education stirred resentment among religious and tribal leaders in the rural areas. Although full implementation of these reforms were limited by political exigencies, women were able to experience expanded access to education and also the opportunity to actively participate as university faculty staff.”

The term “Five powerful warlords” was borrowed from you. Do I need to provide evidence to you regarding the United States’ backing of the Mujahidin?
Incidentally, one of the war lords, Abdul Rashid Dostum is now a member of the Karzai Government.

In response to my question,

“Who subdued the five powerful war lords after three years of bloody war, following the Russian withdrawal?”

You respond:

“Answer: Mullah Omar and a cache of students from his madras that ONLY taught from the Koran. 
What followed from this newly formed “Taliban” government was a ban on all females from an education, all females from earning a living, all dancing and singing and radios from private homes.  This is also when Mullah Omar himself decreed the thousands year old Buddhist icons destroyed.  Right about the time when it was decreed that woman who had been raped could be stoned to death for adultery.”

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 12, 2009 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man (Cont.)

The full story of how the Taliban students left the madrasas and became a political and military force is told by Ahmed Rashid a Pakistani Journalist in his book, “The Taliban.” Unlike many books written about the Taliban, this book contains many pages of footnotes.  I doubt that you’ll have any interest in reading the book, but I’ll give you a little synopsis.

According to Mr. Rashid, after the Soviets left Afghanistan the Mujahidin War lords began feuding among themselves in a number of power struggles. The Taliban, after watching this bloody internecine warfare for three years, finally decided to take action. The event that brought them out of the Madrasas involved two war lords, who fought a duel with tanks in a highly populated area. Mr. Rashid claims that the war lords were fighting over a homosexual boy.

In a few short years the Taliban were able to “subdue” the war lords, and take control of 90% of Afghanistan. It was a bloody war, but wars are bloody, regardless of how virtuous the participants think their cause is.

What interests me in the recent history of Afghanistan’s bloody warfare is the time line. It began when jihadists started their jihad (In this case war,) and it ended in 1996, when the Taliban achieved an uneasy victory, and resumed again when the United States invaded in 2001. It’s interesting that the Saudis backed the jihadists for religious reasons and the United States backed the jihadists because of cold war geopolitical reasons pertaining to the control of energy sources in central Asia, or perhaps it was a simple matter of hatred and fear. This debate goes on, but it really doesn’t matter, the results are the same. Incidentally, the Soviets got involved because, the then Afghan Government asked them for help, and because of a mutual defense agreement. And so it goes…

No one other than religious extremists would defend the barbarisms of the Taliban, but it seems that much of the Afghanistan population is made up of religious extremists.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 12, 2009 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

I am not in the habit of making claims I cannot prove.
*****************************************************

ROFLMAO!  You are so over the edge you can’t tell fact from fantasy!  When presented with facts, even facts about YOUR OWN POSTINGS you deny them and claim the poster saying it is “dishonest”.

It’s scary to think that so many Americans are SO brain-washed and brainless they may actually buy into your nonsense once again, even though it led them into 3 wars, a destroyed economy, amd a world that detested their nation.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 12, 2009 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:
You twist everything.  Clinton was NOT the first to warn about Saddam Hussein, but you emphatically said he was.  Bush 41 warned about him and went to war with him.  For Clinton to have been “first” it must have been when he was Governor.

Try reading what you actually write.  I never DENIED that Clinton warned about Saddam Hussein.  But his actions against Saddam were minimal, even trivial next to what the Bush on either side of him did.

You live in a fantasy world where you can make up any BS you like and then bizarrely claim everyone else is lying.

I cannot decide if you are fundamentally dishonest or so infected with cognitive dissonance that you have lost touch with reality and actually believe the bullshit you write.

OTOH, I’m not sure I care.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, - “The Karzai government recently passed a law allowing shite men to rape their wives, if they are denied sex for longer than 4 days.”

-

I’m hoping you meant to write that the Karzai Government recently -repealed- a law allowing men to rape their wives.  If that’s what you intended then you are 100% correct.

My take on children attending schools in Afghanistan comes from studying U.N. and WHO press releases.  I can provide them to you if you’re unable to locate them yourself.

—Can you describe for us the secular government in Afghanistan where women were free; before the United States of America helped the “five powerful warlords” overthrow that secular government?


“Who subdued the five powerful war lords after three years of bloody war, following the Russian withdrawal?”

Answer: Mullah Omar and a cache of students from his madras that ONLY taught from the Koran. 

What followed from this newly formed “Taliban” government was a ban on all females from an education, all females from earning a living, all dancing and singing and radios from private homes.  This is also when Mullah Omar himself decreed the thousands year old Buddhist icons destroyed.  Right about the time when it was decreed that woman who had been raped could be stoned to death for adultery.

-

I hope you make a sincere effort to check my facts.  Feel free to show me where I am in error.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

ITW:  I neglected to include that the below quotes were from the lips of President Bill Clinton. Not Governor Clinton.

I have multiples of dozens of similarly accurate and verifiable quotes from the President and his national security staff.  All of it years before Bush 43 entered office.  The fact is you have not been paying attention to facts and details.

I am not in the habit of making claims I cannot prove.  Give us more than your opinions and I’ll willingly study your sources and quickly admit where I’ve been in error.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

ITW- President Clinton called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world in 1998. This is a fact, no matter how or why you ignore it, that you’ll never be able to change.

I have reams of evidence in support of what I claim.  What do you offer?

-

“The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government—a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,”

“Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down, but once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.”

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ,

How are you trying to “change” the human condition?  Can you be exact about this?  Please don’t reply how you’re doing it with calm words and deliberation.

You ask if I’ve studied the teachings of Osama bin Laden. Yes I have. Extensively. As I have with Dr. Zawahiri and The Muslim Brotherhood, Jaish Abu Bakr, Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Mujahideen, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad.  I urgently recommend you do the same.

You Write: “the United States has used “deadly force,” attempting to control the world’s oil supplies.”  <—It certainly has not.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  China, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Australia, Austria, Poland, Canada, etc. etc. have all worked on concert, at times by force, to keep the free flow of oil to the world market.  A commodity the entire globe relies on.  YES, oil is of the highest National Security importance.  As it is with the entire globe.  Pointing singularly toward the U.S. is disastrously myopic and needlessly, dangerously damning.  This notion you hold is flat out wrong, my friend.  Horribly and, excuse my bluntness, ignorantly wrong.

My world view is not based on fear.  It’s based on listening and paying attention past the simple media.  The world’s ills are not caused by the United States.  The world’s ills are caused by human beings. Tell us how your attempting to change this and I’ll stand directly beside you.

-

I implore you today to read the teachings of Osama bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri.  Do NOT take anyone’s word on what these men are teaching. Learn it only for yourself.  Excuse again my bluntness but, you understand this enemy as well as the rest of what you ave opined.  <—I do not say this with malice.

Pick up a copy of the “Al Qaeda Reader” and begin there.  The Al Qaeda Reader gathers together the essential texts and documents that trace the origin, history, and evolution of the ideas of al-Qaeda founders Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden.

The Al Qaeda Reader: http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Reader-Raymond-Ibrahim/dp/076792262X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260626875&sr=8-1

Report this

By radson, December 12, 2009 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

To ITW

Inherit you pretty much summed it up in your last post and I might add that GRYM will keep on defending his institutionalized point of view,which does echo the Govt. and MSM’s rhetoric.

ps where the hell is FT I kind of miss the chap?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

truedigger3, - “Yes, why don’t you go right and keep going and get lost.”

-

Spoken like a true peace loving, all inclusive, freedom protecting, open minded “progressive”?

You are an interesting sort.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 12, 2009 at 6:25 am Link to this comment

ITW, December 12 at 9:53 am

Nothing you wrote is supported by real world facts.  Not a single word or phrase.  You also attribute to me words and ideas that I have never stated or written.

I’ll give you a single example of what I mean: “GRYM: You are an absurd twister of history.  You’re not even good at it.  Your above statement is hilarious: Was it GOVERNOR Clinton who first raised the issue of threat of Saddam Hussein?”

-

My question to you is simple and straightforward.  How in the world did you miss the eight years of the Clinton administration?  The eight years in which President Clinton warned the world of the threat that was Saddam? 

“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.” - “There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”—President Bill Clinton

-

I twist nothing and am not in the habit of making claims I cannot prove.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 12, 2009 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

It was President Clinton who first raised the issue of Saddam Hussein being of great threat to the world and tried in vain to remove Hussein from power. 
**************************************************

GRYM: You are an absurd twister of history.  You’re not even good at it.  Your above statement is hilarious: Was it GOVERNOR Clinton who first raised the issue of threat of Saddam Hussein?

Seems to me we fought Operation Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein in 1991, to drive Iraq out of Kuwait (and defend THAT corrupt regime).  Of course, the President was NOT Bill Clinton—he wouldn’t be President until January 1993.
On the so-called “Highway of Death” our forces slaughtered over 100,000 Iraqi troops trying to flee.

You raised the question of Clinton’s war in Yugoslavia.  You pointed out that the UN opposed it.  You NEGLECTED to point out that ALL of NATO supported it both politically and militarily.  You also neglected to point out key factors: 1) The mission was well-defined with a clear exit strategy that was met and followed. 2) Not ONE US service-person lost their life.

Again, in your attempt to obfuscate, you neglect that when Bush 43 came to office we were NOT at war, there were ample warnings of terrorism that his administration ignored (John Ashcroft cut FBI anti-terrorism budgeting to $0 on 9-10-2001!), that we were WELL-supported when we ORIGINALLY went into Afghanistan in 2001, including by ....IRAN!, and that from every RATIONAL perspective (even William F. Buckley’s) the 2nd war in Iraq was insane and purposeless.

BEFORE we actually attacked Iraq in 2003, both Jimmy Carter AND General Erik Shinseki warned that it would be a disaster, a quagmire and…of course it is.  You live in the neo-con dream world of flowers in the US troops’ path for “freeing” them and that Saddam was implementing WMDs…never found of course.  The Iraq invasion was planned by Bush even before he was inaugurated—this is well-documented, long before the attacks of 9-11.

The “toppling the dictator” argument is bullshit—there are lots of dictators we work with.  In short, Saddam as a threat in 2003 was bullshit. Saddam as the only dictator in the world in 2003 was bullshit.  Saddam as a supporter of Al Qaeda EVER was deliberate bullshit.  Saddan’s nuke program in 2003 was bullshit that cost an honest man and his wife their careers.

All the toppling of Saddam did was create an unstable, deadly situation that is, unbelievably, worse for the US and Iraqis than it was before.  Saddam was a contained and therefore no problem or threat.  But the neo-cons wanted the US to control Iraqi oil and have a choke-hold on the Persian Gulf.  And they buggered poor, dummy Bush into thinking he was finishing the job Daddy Bush didn’t.

Report this

By truedigger3, December 12, 2009 at 5:37 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man,

Yes, why don’t you go right and keep going and get lost.
You are nothing but a war-monger through and through.
Your cool demeanor and skilled sophistry is not fooling anyone. You lie and obfuscate without shame and without a single blink of an eye.
Don’t bother to respond trying to shame me about my language. It is waste of time to discuss anything with you. Get Lost!!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 12, 2009 at 2:35 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man

You are an advocate for war. I reaffirm everything I said about you.

You say:

“Change the human condition and you’ll find your peace”

That’s what I’m attempting to do.

You say:

“…be taken down or forced to submit to another’s will. <—Osama bin Laden’s goal if you study his teachings.”

Have you studied Osama Bin Laden’s teachings? My understanding is that he didn’t want to “…be taken down or forced to submit to another’s will.”

You say:

“The Soviet Union, Japan and Germany held the same goals in contemporary times.”

You forgot to mention the United States of America.

You say:

“Saddam Hussein twice attempted, by means of deadly force, to become the number one holder of the worlds oil supplies.”

Your interpretation of history is debatable, but I won’t bother. I will point out that the United States has used “deadly force,” attempting to control the world’s oil supplies.

You say:

“The Presidential Oath is one of the briefest in all of government.  As the President of the United States Mr. Obama must first and foremost defend the nation and constitution.  And it matters none what Obama believes are the slights, mistakes, or egregious behaviors in Americas past. He has a task for today.  And today there are real people, real groups, and a few real nations trying to destroy the United States.  Just as there are others trying to destroy their neighbors and those about them.  Just as the United States destroyed Saddam’s Iraq and President Clinton destroyed Milosivich’s Yugoslavia. Or the WWIII Soviet/American wars. This is the world every President and King steps into.”

Your “worldview” is based on fear. You seek to demonize the entire world.
Not only are you an advocate for war, you are also a coward. This cowardice stems from a simple lack of faith, and the consequences for your lack of faith, are death and destruction.

You say:

“The United States does not operate in an vacuum and she is not THE cause of the worlds ills or the human condition.  I’ll no longer listen to that.”

Many people around the world, not just our enemies, but also people who are among our allies, believe that “She” does operate in a vacuum. A worldwide poll rated the United States of America as the biggest threat to world peace on this planet. The United States “is not THE cause of the world’s ills or the human condition,” but the United States of America has a responsibility, as all nations do, to alleviate the ills, and to attempt to improve the human condition.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 12, 2009 at 2:17 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man (Cont.)

You say:

With that said, and again very simplistically, I believe the United States owe the Afghan people a debt almost beyond our ability to pay.  It’s impossible to be of true help if we are being shot at and blown up.  Unfortunately, and understand I do not take this lightly, this means first sending in some of the best men and woman this country produces who are trained to break things and kill people.  America’s brightest and most dedicated are not trying to kill the Afghan people.

Tell that to the Afghan people.

You say:

They are, successfully, killing the people trying to kill them.

The metrics of how successful they have been will come up in 18 months.

You say:
“Woman can now earn a living in Afghanistan.  Little girls by the millions are attending school. Little boys can now learn math and the sciences (not simply the Koran).”

What is your source for this information?
The Karzai government recently passed a law allowing shite men to rape their wives, if they are denied sex for longer than 4 days.

You say:

“And 99% of Afghans do not want to go back to witnessing five powerful Warlords running rampant across the country - as in what followed after the U.S. turned it’s back on Afghanistan in the past.”

Afghanistan had a secular government where women were free; before the United States of America helped the “five powerful warlords” overthrow that secular government.
Who subdued the five powerful war lords after three years of bloody war, following the Russian withdrawal?

You say:

Proper schools, hospitals, much needed roads and real and meaningful international aid and trade is the very least the world can do for Afghanistan.  I will again hang my head in shame if this effort is not led by the United States.

Will you really? Time will tell.
Will you also hang your head in shame, as the death toll increases?

You say:

“The United States owes these people a tremendous debt.
 
Amen! To that.

You say:

Turning our backs to them yet again is the worst possible option.”

The worst possible option is more and continued war.

You say:

“Advocate of war?  Far from it.”

When is advocating for war, not advocating for war?

Report this

Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook