BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 06 - 11:38 PM

The New Red, White and Blue

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Op-Ed Columnist
NY Times, January 6, 2006
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/opinion/06friedman.html

As we enter 2006, we find ourselves in trouble, at home and abroad.
We are in trouble because we are led by defeatists - wimps, actually.
What's so disturbing about President Bush and Dick Cheney is that
they talk tough about the necessity of invading Iraq, torturing
terror suspects and engaging in domestic spying - all to defend our
way of life and promote democracy around the globe.
But when it comes to what is actually the most important issue in
U.S. foreign and domestic policy today - making ourselves energy
efficient and independent, and environmentally green - they
ridicule it as something only liberals, tree-huggers and sissies
believe is possible or necessary.
... Sticking with oil, and basically saying that a country that can
double the speed of microchips every 18 months is somehow incapable
of innovating its way to energy independence - that is for sissies,
defeatists and people who are ready to see American values eroded
at home and abroad.
Living green is not just a "personal virtue," as Mr. Cheney says.
It's a national security imperative.
The biggest threat to America and its values today is not
communism, authoritarianism or Islamism. It's petrolism. Petrolism
is my term for the corrupting, antidemocratic governing practices -
in oil states from Russia to Nigeria and Iran ...
...
... ...
...
Enough of this Bush-Cheney nonsense that conservation, energy
efficiency and environmentalism are some hobby we can't afford. I
can't think of anything more cowardly or un-American. Real
patriots, real advocates of spreading democracy around the world,
live green.
Green is the new red, white and blue.

---

:>)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:50 AM

Jan. 10, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration "incompetent" when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines "unforgivable."

So far in Iraq, more than 2,100 American troops have been killed. Critics like Clinton, D-N.Y., say that many of these deaths are the result of inadequate body armor. A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders — areas unprotected by the armor most are issued. ...


From ABC News, January 10, 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:58 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp?pg=2

Saddam's Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S.

intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq."We had boxloads of Iraqi Intelligence records--their names, their jobs, all sorts of detailed information," says the former military intelligence officer. "In an insurgency, wouldn't that have been helpful?"

How many of those unexploited documents might help us better understand the role of Iraq in supporting transregional terrorists? How many of those documents might provide important intelligence on the very people--Baathists, former regime officials, Saddam Fedayeen, foreign fighters trained in Iraq--that U.S. soldiers are fighting in Iraq today? Is what we don't know literally killing us?

ON NOVEMBER 17, 2005, Michigan representative Pete Hoekstra wrote to John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. Hoekstra is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He provided Negroponte a list of 40 documents recovered in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan and asked to see them. The documents were translated or summarized, given titles by intelligence analysts in the field, and entered into a government database known as HARMONY. Most of them are unclassified.

For several weeks, Hoekstra was promised a response. He finally got one on December 28, 2005, in a meeting with General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence. Hayden handed Hoekstra a letter from Negroponte that promised a response after January 1, 2006. Hoekstra took the letter, read it, and scribbled his terse response. "John--Unacceptable." Hoekstra told Hayden that he would expect to hear something before the end of the year. He didn't.

"I can tell you that I'm reaching the point of extreme frustration," said Hoekstra, in a phone interview last Thursday. His exasperated tone made

the claim unnecessary. "It's just an indication that rather than having a nimble, quick intelligence community that can respond quickly, it's still a lumbering bureaucracy that can't give the chairman of the intelligence committee answers relatively quickly. Forget quickly, they can't even give me answers slowly."

On January 6, however, Hoekstra finally heard from Negroponte. The director of national intelligence told Hoekstra that he is committed to expediting the exploitation and release of the Iraqi documents. According to Hoekstra, Negroponte said: "I'm giving this as much attention as anything else on my plate to make this work."

Other members of Congress--including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Senators Rick Santorum and Pat Roberts--also demanded more information from the Bush administration on the status of the vast document collection. Santorum and Hoekstra have raised the issue personally with President Bush. This external pressure triggered an internal debate at the highest levels of the administration. Following several weeks of debate, a consensus has emerged: The vast majority of the 2 million captured documents should be released publicly as soon as possible.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has convened several meetings in recent weeks to discuss the Pentagon's role in expediting the release of this information. According to several sources familiar with his thinking, Rumsfeld is pushing aggressively for a massive dump of the captured documents. "He has a sense that public vetting of this information is likely to be as good an astringent as any other process we could develop," says Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita.

The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."

This is a view many officials attributed to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steve Cambone. (Cambone, through a spokesman, declined to be interviewed.) For months, Cambone has argued internally against expediting the release of the documents. "Cambone is the problem," says one former Bush administration official who wants the documents released. "He has blocked this every step of the way." In what is perhaps a sign of a changing dynamic within the administration, Cambone is now saying that he, like his boss, favors a broad document release.

Although Hoekstra, too, has been pushing hard for the quick release of all of the documents, he is currently focusing his efforts simply on obtaining the 40 documents he asked for in November. "There comes a time when the talking has to stop and I get the documents. I requested these documents six weeks ago and I have not seen a single piece of paper yet."

Is Hoekstra being unreasonable? I asked Michael Tanji, the former DOCEX official with the Defense Intelligence Agency, how long such a search might take. His answer: Not long. "The retrieval of a HARMONY document is a trivial thing assuming one has a serial number or enough keyword terms to narrow down a search [Hoekstra did]. If given the task when they walked in the door, one person should be able to retrieve 40 documents before lunch."

Tanji should know. He left DIA last year as the chief of the media exploitation division in the office of document exploitation. Before that, he started and managed a digital forensics and intelligence fusion program that used the data obtained from DOCEX operations. He began his career as an Army signals intelligence [SIGINT] analyst. In all, Tanji has worked for 18 years in intelligence and dealt with various aspects of the media exploitation problem for about four years.

We discussed the successes and failures of the DOCEX program, the relative lack of public attention to the project, and what steps might be taken to expedite the exploitation of the documents in the event the push to release all of the documents loses momentum.

       TWS: In what areas is the project succeeding? In what areas is the project failing?

       Tanji: The level of effort applied to the DOCEX problems in Iraq and Afghanistan to date is a testament to the will and work ethic of people in the intelligence community. They've managed to find a number of golden nuggets amongst a vast field of rock in what I would consider a respectable amount of time through sheer brute force. The flip side is that it is a brute-force effort. For a number of reasons--primarily time and resources--there has not been much opportunity to step back, think about a smarter way to solve the problem, and then apply various solutions. Inasmuch as we've won in Iraq and Saddam and his cronies are in the dock, now would be a good time to put some fresh minds on the problem of how you turn DOCEX into a meaningful and effective information-age intelligence tool.

       TWS: Why haven't we heard more about this project? Aren't most of the Iraqi documents unclassified?

       Tanji: Until a flood of captured material came rushing in after the start of Operation Enduring Freedom [in October 2001], DOCEX was a backwater: unglamorous, not terribly career enhancing, and from what I had heard always one step away from being mothballed.

       The classification of documents obtained for exploitation varies based on the nature of the way they were obtained and by whom. There are some agencies that tend to classify everything regardless of how it was acquired. I could not give you a ratio of unclassified to classified documents.

       In my opinion the silence associated with exploitation work is rooted in the nature of the work. In addition to being tedious and time-consuming, it is usually done after the shooting is over. We place a higher value on intelligence information that comes to us before a conflict begins. Confirmation that we were right (or proof that we were wrong) after the fact is usually considered history. That some of this information may be dated doesn't mean it isn't still valuable.

       TWS: The project seems overwhelmed at the moment, with a mere 50,000 documents translated completely out of a total of 2 million. What steps, in your view, should be taken to expedite the process?

       Tanji: I couldn't say what the total take of documents or other forms of media is, though numbers in the millions are probably not far off.

       In a sense the exploitation process is what it is; you have to put eyes on paper (or a computer screen) to see what might be worth further translation or deeper analysis. It is a time-consuming process that has no adequate mechanical solution. Machine translation software is getting better, but it cannot best a qualified human linguist, of which we have very few.

       Tackling the computer media problem is a lot simpler in that computer language (binary) is universal, so searching for key words, phrases, and the names of significant personalities is fairly simple. Built to deal with large-scale data sets, a forensic computer system can rapidly separate wheat from chaff. The current drawback is that the computer forensics field is dominated by a law-enforcement mindset, which means the approach to the digital media problem is still very linear. As most of this material has come to us without any context ("hard drives found in Iraq" was a common label attached to captured media) that approach means our great-grandchildren will still be dealing with this problem.

       Dealing with the material as the large and nebulous data set that it is and applying a contextual appliqué after exploitation--in essence, recreating the Iraqi networks as they were before Operation Iraqi Freedom began--would allow us to get at the most significant data rapidly for technical analysis, and allow for a political analysis to follow in short order. If I were looking for both a quick and powerful fix I'd get various Department of Energy labs involved; they're used to dealing with large data sets and have done great work in the data mining and rendering fields.

       TWS: To read some of the reporting on Iraq, one might come away with the impression that Saddam Hussein was something of a benign (if not exactly benevolent) dictator who had no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to terrorism. Does the material you've seen support this conventional wisdom?

       Tanji: I am subject to a nondisclosure agreement, so I would rather not get into details. I will say that the intelligence community has scraped the surface of much of what has been captured in Iraq and in my view a great deal more deep digging is required. Critics of the war often complain about the lack of "proof"--a term that I had never heard used in the intelligence lexicon until we ousted Saddam--for going to war. There is really only one way to obtain "proof" and that is to carry out a thorough and detailed examination of what we've captured.

       TWS: I've spoken with several officials who have seen unclassified materials indicating the former Iraqi regime provided significant support--including funding and training--to transregional terrorists, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam, Algeria's GSPC, and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Did you see any of this?

       Tanji: My obligations under a nondisclosure agreement prevent me from getting into this kind of detail.

Other officials familiar with the captured documents were less cautious. "As much as we overestimated WMD, it appears we underestimated [Saddam Hussein's] support for transregional terrorists," says one intelligence official.

Speaking of Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that operated in northern Iraq, the former high-ranking military intelligence officer says: "There is no question about the fact that AI had reach into Baghdad. There was an intelligence connection between that group and the regime, a financial connection between that group and the regime, and there was an equipment connection. It may have been the case that the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] support for AI was meant to operate against the [anti-Saddam] Kurds. But there is no question IIS was supporting AI."

The official continued: "[Saddam] used these groups because he was interested in extending his influence and extending the influence of Iraq. There are definite and absolute ties to terrorism. The evidence is there, especially at the network level. How high up in the government was it sanctioned? I can't tell you. I don't know whether it was run by Qusay [Hussein] or [Izzat Ibrahim] al-Duri or someone else. I'm just not sure. But to say Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism is flat wrong."

STILL, some insist on saying it. Since early November, Senator Carl Levin has been spotted around Washington waving a brief excerpt from a February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment of Iraq. The relevant passage reads: "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."

Levin treats these two sentences as definitive proof that Bush administration officials knew that Saddam's regime was unlikely to work with Islamic fundamentalists and ignored the intelligence community's assessment to that effect. Levin apparently finds the passage so damning that he specifically requested that it be declassified.

I thought of Levin's two sentences last Wednesday and Thursday as I sat in a Dallas courtroom listening to testimony in the deportation hearing of Ahmed Mohamed Barodi, a 42-year-old Syrian-born man who's been living in Texas for the last 15 years. I thought of Levin's sentences, for example, when Barodi proudly proclaimed his membership in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and again when Barodi, dressed in loose-fitting blue prison garb, told Judge J. Anthony Rogers about the 21 days he spent in February 1982 training with other members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood at a camp in Iraq.

The account he gave in the courtroom was slightly less alarming than the description of the camp he had provided in 1989, on his written application for political asylum in the United States. In that document, Barodi described the instruction he received in Iraq as "guerrilla warfare training." And in an interview in February 2005 with Detective Scott Carr and special agent Sam Montana, both from the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, Barodi said that the Iraqi regime provided training in the use of firearms, rocket-propelled grenades, and document forgery.

Barodi comes from Hama, the town that was leveled in 1982 by the armed forces of secular Syrian dictator Hafez Assad because it was home to radical Islamic terrorists who had agitated against his regime. The massacre took tens of thousands of lives, but some of the extremists got away.

Many of the most radical Muslim Brotherhood refugees from Hama were welcomed next door--and trained--in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Spanish investigators believe that Ghasoub Ghalyoun, the man they have accused of conducting surveillance for the 9/11 attacks, who also has roots in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, was trained in an Iraqi terrorist camp in the early 1980s. Ghalyoun mentions this Iraqi training in a 2001 letter to the head of Syrian intelligence, in which he seeks reentry to Syria despite his long affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reaching out to Islamic radicals was, in fact, one of the first moves Saddam Hussein made upon taking power in 1979. That he did not do it for ideological reasons is unimportant. As Barodi noted at last week's hearing, "He used us and we used him."

Throughout the 1980s, including the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam cast himself as a holy warrior in his public rhetoric to counter the claims from Iran that he was an infidel. This posturing continued during and after the first Gulf war in 1990-91. Saddam famously ordered "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) added to the Iraqi flag. Internally, he launched "The Faith Campaign," which according to leading Saddam Hussein scholar Amatzia Baram included the imposition of sharia (Islamic law). According to Baram, "The Iraqi president initiated laws forbidding the public consumption of alcohol and introduced enhanced compulsory study of the Koran at all educational levels, including Baath Party branches."

Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law who defected to Jordan in 1995, explained these changes in an interview with Rolf Ekeus, then head of the U.N. weapons inspection program. "The government of Iraq is instigating fundamentalism in the country," he said, adding, "Every party member has to pass a religious exam. They even stopped party meetings for prayers."

And throughout the decade, the Iraqi regime sponsored "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state." Dickey continued:

    Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it.

In the face of such evidence, Carl Levin and other critics of the Iraq war trumpet deeply flawed four-year-old DIA analyses. Shouldn't the senator instead use his influence to push for the release of Iraqi documents that will help establish what, exactly, the Iraqi regime was doing in the years before the U.S. invasion?

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 10:37 AM

Woody:

See Mudcat FAQs on how to make blue clickies and guidelines on pasting stuff.   

I am still dubious about the Slman Pak claims, just as I was the last time they were brought up here, by Old Guy IIRC. I could be wrong, though. It happened a coupla times.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 10:44 AM

Zawahiri tells Bush to admit Iraq defeat

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/detail.asp?ID=74964&GRP=D

"There they are today... pleading to get out of Iraq and begging for negotiations with the mujahedeen,"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 11:29 AM

Zawahiri, talking like that, is very likely to wake a sleeping giant and find himself in smithereens because he puffed himself up prematurely.

The United States has not yet declared war on Al Qeda, or really mobilized in a flat-out national effort. So far it's been a clique operation, with a half-assed "war on terror" managed by indifferent skills in many ways.

But if he goes too far, and invokes the national spirit of war with his posturing, and the gloves come off the way they did when the whole country rolled out a war effort in WW I and WW II, he is likely to end up wishing he had been more discreet, methinks.

I hope he comes to his senses before that happens.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Bligh
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:39 PM

From http://impeachblanco.org/

Impeach Kathleen Blanco
                 
This is a sad time for all of us who live in Louisiana. While I'm personally thankful for the efforts of thousands of people from across America who have helped us in our state's greatest time of need, I'm enraged by the lack of responsibility displayed over the last few weeks by many of the officials we elected.

Kathleen Blanco, the Governor of Louisiana is completely responsible for our state's lack of preparedness and for mishandling the rescue and relief operations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Governor Blanco's incompetence and disregard for the citizens of Louisiana before the hurricane struck and her inexplicable actions in the days afterward can only be considered dereliction of duty. Louisiana needs a new Governor, and I hope you'll join me in demanding a Recall Election.

Specifically Governor Kathleen Blanco:

   1. Failed to execute the state's emergency plan to safeguard the citizens of Southern Louisiana by not ordering a mandatory evacuation of the affected parishes before Hurricane Katrina hit.
   2. Purposefully withheld food, water and hygiene items from the tens of thousands of victims stranded at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center in an effort to get them to leave the area.
   3. Delayed sending the Louisiana National Guard to maintain order in the city of New Orleans for four days, allowing snipers to hamper rescue efforts and permitting looters to ransack homes and businesses.
   4. Chose to spend the days after Hurricane Katrina engaged in partisan bickering and finger pointing rather than giving FEMA and the U.S. military the authority they needed to take over the rescue effort, relieve suffering, and save lives.

        
Kathleen Blanco on CNN

Governor Blanco is indecisive, more concerned with politics than duty, and has demonstrated a serious lack of judgment that clearly shows she is the wrong person to be the chief executive of Louisiana. I believe Governor Blanco should be removed from office immediately and replaced by a competent individual with the ability to take responsibility and make the decisions necessary to lead our state. Louisiana state law provides a remedy, and that remedy begins with a Petition to Recall.

Governor Blanco, you can point the finger at whoever you want. You can shift the blame, obfuscate the truth, and deny culpability in as many press conferences as you like. Until the day you stand before the citizens of Louisiana, admit your mistakes, and accept responsibility for your poor choices, I will not rest. Your actions cost lives, and you will be held accountable.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 10:09 PM

Salman Pak revisited

Amos:

There is a boatload of documents coming to light soon about Saddam training 2000 terrorists per year in 3 different camps in Iraq.

I thought I would tip you off so you can have a lightning fast rebuttal all ready to go.

I don't know why they are hanging onto it. Maybe they are holding it forelease just before the 2006 elections to show how stupid the anti-war candiates are or maybe they don't want the terrorists that they have identified by class photos, to know that they have been identified.

Yup. They took photos of the graduating classes with the instructors. Think they had a year book too?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 10:42 PM

Yeah, impeach Blanko... I'm all fir that... But be sure to get the real culprit first and we all know who that is... Yeah, the guy who was too busy vacationaing to be bothered with "My job is to protect the American people"...

You Bushites need to Google up "Brownshirts" 'cause you all fit the description to the T...

And long c&P's don't change the fact that Donnie Rumsfeld took a bunch of gifts to Saddam **after** he had gassed the Kurds...

Like what's that about???

In yer own words, please, that is if any of you have enough IQ points to actaully compose a rebuttal...

Biggest bunch of loser cryabbies that I've ever run into this current crop of couargous GUESTS are!!! Sho nuff brave... Give 'um all a big old bravery metal...

Bunch of chickensh'ts far as I can see... Can't compose their own arguemnts but drag in long C&P's that most of the time don't have nuthin' to do with the subject at hand...

Yeah, when it come to the current crop of GUEST's it's mental midget time... Might of fact, when you crybabies see MMT know that I'm talking about you... If yer snart 'nuff to remember that.... Might wanta write it down... Oh, I forgot, you only have learned C&P.... Hmmmmmm? Yer stuck...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 11:18 PM

Well it's a funny world. Here I have been saying that since the invasion of Iraq, it appeared to me to be an unruly, unwarrned and extreme thing to do, and NOW I find out they are just about to release a bunch of new documents that justify it all completely!! I swan!!

I stand by to be humbled, Old Guy; but before that occurs, let me ask a last question, if I may. I don't know much about declaring wars, but how come all that intell wasn't made known to the Congress at the time when we did not declare war on Al Queda?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:19 AM

I guess the time we did not declare war on Al-Quaeda goes back to 1776

Could you rephrase that?

All the new documents that you are already trying to characterize as phony,about 2 million of them, papers, floppys/ hard drives, CDs, tapes, Etc were captured during the liberation and in Afghanistan.

Now they are in Quatar with people anylizing them. The "DOCEX" project.

So far they have only processed 50,000 of them and they have amassed this new information. Apparently the people doing the analysis are pissed that none of it has been released to the public and are leaking it to the press to speed things up.

You could Google it up easy if you would take words like liar and idiot out of the search box. go to google news and search on salman pak new 2 million "DOCEX" project

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:36 AM

YEah, OG, I saw that information. I must say, you're getting much sharper lately. Good on ya.

I was simply commenting that one would not be wise to use what comes out of DOCEX as an explanation for a decision made three years before it wa known, in any case; but I look forward with interest to hearing what comes out of DOCEX.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:06 PM

It was suspected three years before and denied by peace mongers so you think it should be ignored but when forged documnets are floated they should be believed.

Good thinking. Keep your French firing squad manual handy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 05:00 PM

I think you may have missed my point, sir. The documents "floated" in the Rather case were forged in form but were apparently, according to witnesses involved, accurate as to content.

My point about the emerging documents is not that they should be discredited or ignored, if they are genuine and accurate, but that trying to use them retroactively to justify an invasion that occurred before they were known about when their information was not known would be meretricious and illogical. Because, you see, if Bush knew about any of them, and they supported his decisions to wage war, he surely woudl have used them in defense considering all the uproar that was raised against his invasion of Iraq and since.

I am curious that you use the word "peace monger" as a parallel construction to the term war-monger, which is often used as a term of censure.

Is it your belief that those who wage peace, or promote peace, are somehow doing a disservice? Is peace in some way a condition you think is bad for the nation?   In other words, what do you have against peace-mongering that you would use this peculiar turn of phrase to refer to it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 05:57 PM

If you think peace monger is good you should be happy. I think it is the opposite of a war monger.

Peace mongers belligerontly and sometimes violently try to force others to stop believing in what they believe in and join them in their crusade. They accuse war mongers of doing exactly what they are doing.

Now you are questioning forthcoming evidence even before you see it. That is not prejudice is it? Pre judging things before you even know what it is, is smart right? It might prove you wrong and above all you need to be right or your whole purpose for living goes up in smoke.

Now you are building up a case to say that even it the documents are real they not have any importance where as before you were saying that even if the documents were not real they still have importance.

Good for you Amos, you can have it both ways because as a liberal you can make your own rules for everybody to go by and rule number one is no body that opposes me can make their own rules. Sort of like a perpetual motion machine, perfect in every way.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 06:03 PM

Old Guy:

I didn't say we should question the evidence. I said we should not use it to explain things that happened before it was known. You may not have noticed it but in this universe, time is pretty much one-directional. It would be a serious distortion of truth to try and move events around in past time in order to make them look more rational than they were.

In other news:

Martin Wolf: The failure to calculate the costs of war
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48ad9c0a-820f-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html

"    Before the Iraq war began, Lawrence Lindsey, then president George
W. Bush's economic adviser, suggested that the costs might reach
$200bn. The White House promptly fired him. Mr Lindsey was indeed
wrong. But his error lay in grossly underestimating the costs. The
administration's estimates of a cost of some $50-$60bn were a fantasy,
as were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and much else.



So far the government has spent $251bn in hard cash. But the costs
continue. If the US begins to withdraw troops this year, but maintains
a diminishing presence for the next five years, the additional cost
will be at least $200bn, under what Profs Bilmes and Stiglitz call
their "conservative" option. Under their "moderate" one, the cost
reaches $271bn, because troops remain until 2015.



With these costs taken into account, the total macroeconomic costs may
add up to $750bn and total costs to $1,850bn.



It is possible to argue that the benefits for Iraq, the Middle East
and the world will outweigh all these costs. But that depends on the
emergence, in Iraq, of a stable and peaceful democratic order. That
has not yet been achieved.

Even those who supported the war must draw two lessons. First, the
exercise of military power is far more expensive than many fondly
hoped. Second, such policy decisions require a halfway decent analysis
of the costs and possible consequences. The administration's failure
to do so was a blunder that will harm the US and the world for years
to come."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 12:13 AM

Maybe history is of no use to you.

When was the last time or even the first time somebody correctly estimated the cost of a war? Was your estimate high or low or are you a Monday Morning quarterback?

Assuming someone some time missed the estimate were they hounded out of office for such a horrific blunder?

Liberals fail to put things into perspective. If their Mickey D's Big Mac is dried out they have a hissy fit regardless of how many others had the same thing happen to them or if they have had the same thing happen 75 times before or if 90% of the people in the world would give their left nut for a dried out Big Mac.

What ever happens right now is the worst thing in the world regardless and heaven help anybody who trys to put it in context with reality.

Well be prepared for a life of being unsatisfied regardless of how loud you wail about it and how many people you criticize.

You just don't like Bush because he won. Admit it and get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:58 AM

Your guesses about what I like and why are off base, by a mile, but thanks for making them.

I imagine from your handle that you might have been involved in an earlier war in some way, OG. Is that right?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:19 AM

Elizabeth Holtzman, writing for The Nation, says:

The Impeachment of George W. Bush

By ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, The Nation
[from the January 30, 2006 issue]

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President.

At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong.

Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail, something I have written about in these pages [see Holtzman, "Torture and Accountability," July 18/25, 2005]. These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq. But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate.

As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.

The framers of our Constitution feared executive power run amok and provided the remedy of impeachment to protect against it. While impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity.

But impeachment and removal from office will not happen unless the American people are convinced of its necessity after a full and fair inquiry into the facts and law is conducted. That inquiry must commence now....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:38 AM

Your assumption is way off base but what is your reason for liking George Bush so much?

Your pro-Kerry anti-Bush year and a half rant is an obvious smoke screen.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:28 AM

I like Bush for the same reason I like Emmett Kelly, or perhaps Monty Python. A good dose of bizarre unreality reminds me of what is real and what is important in life, such as:

human life
respect for individuals
the rights of free association, free speech, and freedom from invasion of privacy
An opportunity to build a great nation which contributes to a great species on a great planet
an opportunity to work out a human destiny perhaps a bit higher than the lizard-brain dramatizations which have governed our kind in so many of its ridiculous tooth-and-claw chapters.

...among others. He highlights these values by contrast, just as a clown does, or a Punch and Judy puppet, something of which he also reminds me.

So you have not known war in this lifetime? Does it strike you as uncomfortable to defend so energetically, if not coherently, something so large in human experience, so overwhelming, and so violent, of which you have no personal contact? It would me. I have seen humans violently lost, but not by acts of war, myself. But I have known peace, and have known relatively sane political times, as well as those times of political lunacy which seem to be wafting us along just now.

Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,G
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:02 AM

Have not been in here for ages and find that nothing has changed. The sources of many posts can be construed as biased either to the left or just plain anti GWB. That is okay, it is a free country and that enables all to write columns, editorials, etc. without a committent to veracity.

By the way, how were you able to obtain a copy of the Elizabeth Holtzman upcoming column for 'The Nation'? Almost 3 weeks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:22 PM

Click on the link provided where it says "The Nation", and Voila!

Enjoy the article.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:20 PM

So what's not to like?

Face it, he controlls you. Your anger gives him strength.

If GWB went away you would fall apart.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM

Your assertion is merely risible, mov Vieux. I would no more fall apart then the Sphinx would fall apart if you were to vanish.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,old guy
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:16 PM

sic semper anarchos

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:10 PM

Well, Old Guy, I guess it's time to twell you a little bout Amos... Perhaps a little past time but he is the California "Walkin' Jukebox"


Now, I realize that this is a folk music web-joint so, even if you don't know nuthin' about music (which don't matter to me much here) there's oemthing that you have to understand about folks who can play any somg that has ever been wriiten and that is, well, you just can't go pigeon holin' 'umto what ever pigeon hole thst is convient to you...

Amos is a very talented and complex person who thinks on muti-levels....

I mean no disrespect to you, O-Guy, but it's you that is here in the tis folk music joint attacking a muscian and complex thinker that prolly can play you under the table...

Now, and firgive me if you you have indeed put in the time to be a rwal player, but there's a spiritaul payoff that come from playin' lots and lots of music... There's is this point where things become increasingly clear aas to values and what is important... Every ggod musican knows of what I speak... Amos, though he'd prolly say "Awwww, shucks" knows of what I speak...

This alone does not give Amos's arguments an automatic B+ but it sho nuff has to be factored into any assesments of his thoughts...

(But Bobert. Are you saying that a musicans view points are more valid than a non musican?)

Well, yeah, kinda am.... Muscians are patient... They have to be or they quit... Patience, in figuring out life, is a virtue... Impatience is just winning arguemnts at any cost... Don't much matter if yer on the wrong side... Just win the danged thing...

Muscians??? Different midset... Hey, we've all made all the deasl and sacrifices so we are able to lok at stuff differently...

Please excuse my little tangent here, O-Guy, but you don't come accross as someone who spent hours with the art... I eman no disrespect only making an observation...

Amos has put in those hours. I have put in those hours and ther's something in the process that aloows folks to empty the "ordinary li9fe" and see thi gs differnetly...

The Bush folks are totally dependent of folks who know the ordinary life and folks like Amos and me, they have written off...

You prolly don't have a clue what I am talking about but Amos and I know... Ain't no, haha-we-know-the-secret-handshake thing here but next tiem you think that Amos is someone whoes thoughts should be quicky dispensed of, think again....


Like I said, you prolly don't have a clue what I have just said...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:26 AM

I under stand what you are trying to say Bobert but the thread says non music.

I don't have a thing against music except rap and that heavy acid stuff. I mostly like bluegrass but not the whiney stuff. I like classical, big band, rock, pop, new age, folk, irish, hell I even listen to middle east music on Link TV. I found a cool Syrian song once called Odawoola or something like that that rocked.

I don't have a thing against musicians. I like musicians. My wife plays the piano, my grand son has a banjo, guitar, keyboard, drums, trumpet and excels on the clarinet. My Bro in law plays bluegrass and I go to his house some times. I have some Amish friends up in new york and both families play bluegrass.

One finger on my left hand has the end mashed and It is too blunt to make chords. I even tried a bass guitar cause the strings are so far apart but the strings hurt. I am on the lookout for a tenor sax and one day I am going to snag one and give it a go.

There aint nothing wrong with playing music and the more people playing it the better the world will be.

However, entertainment folks think they have superior intelligence when it comes to the way things should be vs the way they are and they try to use their musical or, more often, their acting status to promote "a better world" They try to persuade other folks that are pretty well satisfied to revolt against the system. They use their popularity like a tool.

People gather here and spout their enlightened views on things and get sustenance from each other. They think no body will oppose them here. they feel safe, cloistered and protected. They get out of touch with way the other 90 % thinks.

When somebody stumbles in a sees nuggets of truth like George Bush is worse that Adolph Hitler, their hackles stand up a little and they say well it is time somebody told these people that they are not the chosen ones, the keepers of the truth and they proceed to enlighten the enlightened ones.

Well it's like stirring up a nest of meany bees and they start swarmin all over you a stingin you with real mean words like asshole, idiot, fuck you, dumb ass. Words that are nasty and mean spirited at the same time they are accusing "them" of being mean.

Then you give them some facts to try to prove to them that they don't necessarily know everything and they immediately find a superficial reasons why your facts are invalid. Then you say where are your facts? and they proceed to tell you people's opinion or their own opinion and say that it is fact. You point out to them how they try to use sarcasm and name calling and distortion of their opponents names to try prove their unprovable position on something.

Do the same to them and they finally start looking for some real facts but only the ones they cherry pick. You get them nailed down to a simple question that they can't answer with out contradicting themselves and they shift to something else. You hear astounding new philosophical theories like "Stats are for losers"

After a certain amount of countering their non facts with your real facts they get backed into a corner and get reeeaaal mean and tell you to get out of our town, you don't belong here

Amos is probably an OK guy but for whatever the reason he is way off in his thinking processes. He may be too smart. I see he has a trail a mile wide about all the weird crap in his past and I don't think he is qualified to be telling other people what is normal or abnormal. Suppose he ran for public office? How would his record compare to his arch enemy?

I saw his anti-Bush pro-Kerry thread and when I saw Kerry on TV badmouthing anything that looked like progress in Iraq, I started an anti-Kerry thread. Well purty soon Amos was attacking and telling me how stupid I was so I did the same on his thread. even after Bush won and Kerry lost he kept it up like some poor demented soul. Like those Japanese soldiers they found over in the Phillipines (I got branded a racist for celling them Japs) 60 years after the war ended. I guess he thinks if he gets the thread long enough no body will wait while it loads and nobody will oppose his perfect logic.

Hey Amos buddy, have a few pina coladas or a pull on the jug and stare at the fish tank for a while. The world aint gonna cave in any time soon and you don't have to keep propping it up.

Now you people can rant and rave and do all the name calling you want as is your right but you won't change anything unless you get involved in public service and then maybe you can change things.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:41 AM

Well, Old Guy, I am sorry to have put you through the wringer a few times. I think, and Ihope you can see, that when I have done so, it has been in response to logical or communication problems in your assertions, mostly. Go look through our various heated exchanges and see if that isn't so. Like asserting I didn't know the Onion article was a parody, or asserting I was posting blogs when in fact I was posting articles from the Post. Or all that underhanded crap about Dianetics. All the ad hominem categorizations and secre-identity posts you've created to vent your spleen about my viewpoint...

I think you will find that on the few occasions when you have set forward plain facts, I have been quite polite about it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:44 AM

"Suppose he ran for public office" Now THAT would be interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:38 PM

Amos:

I think you are still carrying baggage from the Scientology era, like battle fatigue or flashbacks. You are most definately educated, possibly too educated to see practicality or non practicality in every day things.

I have yet to see you put things into perspective. You allways exhibit the extremes only.

Not seeing a whole lot that needs to be changed I feel no need to run for office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 04:36 PM

Dear Old Guy:

Well, it seems you are going to drum up some sort of judgement or opinion no matter what I say.

THere was actually one lesson I learned during the period I studied Scientology, which I have retained: don't draw conclusions from illogical data, or your conclusions will be flawed. That includes, largely, data written by less than discriminating media hacks, bias-punters, quill-for-hires and so on.

But in order to apply such a rule you have to develop a sense for when data is complete, consistent, normalized in sequence, reasonable in its assessment of importances and un-importances, and sensible about the true sources of things.

But I didn't need to learn all that while in Scientology, I could have learned it from an ordinary study of logic, or just living life with my eyes open.

It just made the process a little faster to see it up close.

Aside from that your opinions about me are pretty far off the mark, speaking as the owner of said identity, and I leave them to you with pleasure. If you ever want to correct them, I'd be happy to help, but that doesn't seem likely.

As for Bush, one of the reasons why I continuously find new articles protesting his nuttiness is that he is always on the go inventing new nutty things to be criticized for. It's not that I hate him personally. It is his abuse of authority that I take extreme exception to, and that same is abuse is what motivates me to speak out.

If he were replaced with a more rational person, with a higher sense of ethics and communication I would gladly turn my attention to plenty of other things.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:48 PM

An interesting contrast between the views of Bush and Spielberg from The Globalist (Susan Braden )


Spielberg Vs. Bush: Movies and Assassinations        


Who would have thought that the creator of E.T. and Jurassic Park would eventually focus his cinematic lens on high matters of state in a very contemporary context? Sounds improbable? Not to any viewers of Steven Spielberg's new movie "Munich." Susan Braden explains that the movie presents a moral delema similar to one the United States faces today.


Juxtaposing U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to permit the CIA to hunt and kill designated individuals anywhere in the world against Steven Spielberg's new film, "Munich," raises interesting questions about the value of targeted assassinations.

The issue is not simply whether assassinations are an effective tool in stopping terrorism. At issue is whether assassinations support or undermine the larger U.S. political agenda.

While President Bush evidently believes they are critical to stopping terrorism, Spielberg's film suggests the contrary.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush issued a secret decree that determined that killing an al Qaeda operative was an act of self-defense and, therefore, not an assassination — which would be illegal.

In the same finding, he thereby authorized the creation of CIA hit units. In May 2005, one of these units was credited with killing al Qaeda operative Haitham Yemeni in Pakistan. Subsequently, in December 2005, another unit reportedly killed Hamza Rabia, a top al Qaeda operative, and four others. ...

---

I remember back when we concurred that sending the CIA out on assassinations was below our ethical minimum of bestiality; Mister Bush obviously has a different minimum.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 08:07 PM

Amos:

Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this:

What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind?

Hints:

It cost US tax payers $2 million per day.

Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs.

1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed.

He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions."

It was kept secret from Congress.

When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare.

A little perspective never hurt anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Condi
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:28 PM

Whaaat?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 12:49 AM

The quote is from JFK's SOU address.

What was the "secret war" that was witheld from the Congress?

And are you asserting that such an act in the past parallels and justifies Bush's today?

I had an ancestor who went forth under the leadership of a King, who used religion as a pretext to try and break open some trade channels that went through the Middle East. In the course of his duty my ancestor slew men and women by the sword, pillaged and stole, and spilled innocent blood all the way from Macedonia to Mecca.

So tell me, wise Old Guy....would I then be justified in taking up my sword and slaying people in order to establish some sort of trade channel? Or would I be choosing a barbaric relic for a precedent?

In short, WTF does JFK's conduct have to do with this? Do you think it somehow exonerates your much beloved Leader for crimes against humanity?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,G
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 08:39 AM

Snuck in again and saw where bobert is coming to the shoring up of Amos. Geez! Like Amos needs that from you. Amos does well on his own and your trying to"help" is a distraction to others. Do you remember telling me that I was in deep doodoo when you saw Martin G. agreeing with me and misconstrued that as support. Well, your attempting to back Amos is like tosing a concrete block to a man drowning in a pond.

Now, in keeping with the title of this thread, "Popular views of the Bush Administration", I shall add this one;

I am glad GWB is in the Whitehouse at the present time as compared to the ranting and raving antics of Gore, Kerry and Dean.
Am I happy about about everything? Well, has anyone else been that way in the last 30 years?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 08:59 PM

Like who don't have firm perspective of yer agenda, G-GUEST...

It's steal as much from the working class as you can while yer guy has power... Nothin' more... Nuthin less...

It aint about Amos, or Affirmative Action, or Abortion but a redisribution of wealth to the wealthy..

And, hey, congrates to you and yer team... Yer doing one heck of a good job pillaging...

Fir now...

Watch yer back, however, when kids like my son-in-laws who all live in the "Southern Strategy" states, figure out yer ball game 'cause you won't get them back... Obviously, you don't understand southern culture...

When they figure out yer game, you won't get them back...Believe me... I grew up in the South...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:10 PM

Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this:

What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind?

Hints:

It cost US tax payers $2 million per day.

Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs.

1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed.

He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions."

It was kept secret from Congress.

When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare.

A little perspective never hurt anybody.





None of the above is true, BTW. Love to irritate you guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:30 PM

I don't know who posted the above but here is my post again.
I saw a program about this war on the History channel. I researched it and came up with these facts which I beleive are true and far exceed anything GWB has done and Congress was not even aware that it was going on so they could not disapprove it.
The reason I put it in a question format is so that anti-old guyers here would have to actually search for come facts to find the answer instead of giving and quoting opinions. If this person was held to the same scrutiny and critisim that GWB is held to, he should have been burned at the stake instead of mere impeachment.

Amos:

Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this:

What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind?

Hints:

It cost US tax payers $2 million per day.

Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs.

1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed.

He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions."

It was kept secret from Congress.

When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare.

A little perspective never hurt anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:40 PM

What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind?

Hints:

It cost US tax payers $2 million per day.

Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs.

1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed.

He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions."

It was kept secret from Congress.

When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare.

A little perspective never hurt anybody.





None of the above is true, BTW. Love to irritate you guys.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:30 PM

I don't know who posted the above but here is my post again.
I saw a program about this war on the History channel. I researched it and came up with these facts which I beleive are true and far exceed anything GWB has done and Congress was not even aware that it was going on so they could not disapprove it.
The reason I put it in a question format is so that anti-old guyers here would have to actually search for come facts to find the answer instead of giving and quoting opinions. If this person was held to the same scrutiny and critisim that GWB is held to, he should have been burned at the stake instead of mere impeachment.

Amos:

Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this:

What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind?

Hints:

It cost US tax payers $2 million per day.

Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs.

1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed.

He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions."

It was kept secret from Congress.

When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare.

A little perspective never hurt anybody.






None of the above is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 06 - 10:15 PM

I am a childish irritating asshole with nothing to contribute so I just play games.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:49 AM

You drinking alone again, sir?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM

Amos has been hoisted by his own petard.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:01 PM

The 'secret war' took place on the watches of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:12 PM

I suppose your complexity and incomprehensibility is a function of some brain disease, but whatever the cause, you have my sympathy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 07:41 PM

From The Voice of America news feed:

Republican Senator Criticizes Bush Administration Over Iraq
By Mike O'Sullivan
Los Angeles
12 January 2006
O'Sullivan report - Download 447k


One vocal critic of the Bush administration is a member of the president's own party. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says he worries about the United States getting bogged down in Iraq, and about what he sees as an unhealthy concentration of power in the presidency. The outspoken senator shared his views at a town hall meeting in Los Angeles.

Senator Hagel says he sometimes gets e-mails calling him a traitor. "One of the comments that I received lately was a very straightforward piece of advice, that is, 'Senator, shut your mouth. Do what the president tells you to do. That's why we elected you.'"

The senator reminded his listeners that the U.S. government has three equal partners, the legislature and the judiciary, in addition to the president and his administration.

The blunt words, he adds, are not what he hears from his fellow senators, but he admits that some Republican colleagues think he is out of line in his public statements. He repeated some of his criticisms in a meeting sponsored by the group Town Hall Los Angeles, held in the newly opened National Center for the Preservation of Democracy. He says progress in Iraq is up to the Iraqis.

"The United States represents the most significant stabilizing factor in Iraq and has for the last three years, but at the same time, we are probably the most destabilizing factor in Iraq. And that has to be sorted out, and that will be sorted out," he said. "And it goes back, it seems to me, to the Iraqi people, and will reside within the Iraqi government's decisions as to where they want to go."

Last month, Iraqis voted for members of their 275-member national assembly, which will select a president and two deputy presidents, who in turn will appoint a prime minister to run the government.

The debates over Iraq and U.S. presidential powers in the war on terrorism have highlighted tensions between the president and some members of Congress, most often Democrats. But on some issues, the critics also include Republicans. Senator Hagel sees this administration, like some before it, as asserting greater powers in its relations with Congress than the constitution grants it.

The most recent dispute concerns news leaks that the president authorized wiretapping of telephone calls between suspected terrorists and U.S. citizens without court approval. The White House says the president has the authority to authorize the wiretaps, and that they are necessary to protect American lives. Critics say the president does not have that power, and Mr. Hagel says he wants a hearing on the issue.

Recent opinion polls show some 58 percent of Americans are unhappy with the president's handling of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 07:49 PM

Amos, you will never be a spin doctor of any note. When you say that "58 percent of Americans are unhappy with the president's handling of Iraq" you demonstrate a poor understanding of realpolitik. From the Bush camp, that should be read as "42% support the President's handling of Iraq and those other assholes just didn't respond properly because they don't really understand the situation."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 08:15 PM

Amos:

I don't need any sympathy just a straight answer from an expert like you. I guess you are an expert the way you tell everbody that they are stupid if they don't think like you.

After a year and a half how many people have you convinced of anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:23 PM

Sorry, I don't do spin real well; but let me add that the quote is not mine, but VOA's.

Old Guy, you miss again.

A