BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:54 AM

Old Guy, you using actual facts here and I think that is against the laws governing posts in this and other threads.
Good work, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:19 AM

Another Bobert prediction here:

If this story is even somewhat true about this judge's rulin' it will be debunked... Just as all the others have been...

Why would I predict this???

Well, it's rather obvious.... Seein' as every other reason for invading Iraq has been debunked if the Bush administration thought it was true they'd have this story splattered accross the world...

Don't need no Scooter Libby to figure that one out...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 12:26 PM

Old Guy:

I am SO pissed. I just spent twenty minutes composing a thoughtful reply to your article, which I read with care and interest. And JUST as I went to post it here, the Cat farted and ate the damn post whole.

I will try and reconstruct some of it -- but you know that's never a sgood as the original.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:51 PM

Time Magazine's Joe Klein, columnist, comments on the relative skills of various Presidents' administrations on the "Permanent Campaign" of PR that is required of the Administration by our ravenous media community and technology:

"..George W. Bush may be the very best. Indeed, his Administration represents the final, squalid perfection of the Permanent Campaign: a White House where almost every move is tactical, a matter of momentary politics, even decisions that involve life and death and war. That is what the Scooter Libby indictment is really all about.

"It is about trying to spin a war.

"Bush's White House is a conundrum, a bastion of telegenic idealism and deep cynicism. The President has proposed vast, transformational policies—the remaking of the Middle East, of Social Security, of the federal bureaucracy. But he has done so in a haphazard way, with little attention to detail or consequences. There are grand pronouncements and, yes, crusades, punctuated with marching words like evil and moral and freedom. Beneath, though, is the cynical assumption that the public doesn't care about the details—that results don't matter, corners can be cut and special favors bestowed.

"Bush opposed a Department of Homeland Security, then supported it as a campaign ploy—and then allowed it to be slapped together carelessly, diminishing the effectiveness of the agencies involved.

"The White House proposed a massive Medicare prescription-drug plan and then flat-out misrepresented the true costs (and quietly included a windfall for drug companies). Every bit of congressional vanity spending, every last tax cut, was approved. Reagan proved that "deficits don't matter," insisted Vice President Dick Cheney. ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

Bush's call for sacrifice made manifest:

"Four soldiers from the Army's Task Force Baghdad soldiers died Monday when their patrol struck a roadside bomb in Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad in an area known as the ``triangle of death.''

Two other soldiers from the 29th Brigade Combat Team were also killed in a bombing Monday near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. The U.S. military also said a Marine was killed Sunday near Amiriyah, 25 miles west of Baghdad.

Those deaths raised the death toll for October to more than 90, the highest monthly total since January when 107 American service members died. The latest deaths brought to 2,025 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003.

In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said there is no readily apparent explanation for why the number of U.S. casualties was higher in October than in previous months. But he said the insurgents' roadside bombs - which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs - are getting more sophisticated.

``We see an adversary that continues to develop some sophistication on very deadly and increasingly precise stand-off type weapons - IEDs, in particular. They're obviously quite capable of killing large numbers of noncombatants indiscriminately, and we're seeing a lot of that, too,'' Di Rita told reporters.

The insurgents continually search for new and more effective ways to use IEDs, he said, while U.S. forces look for new ways to counter the IED threat.

``We're getting more intelligence that's allowing us to stop more of these things, find more of them. So we're learning from them (the insurgents) and the enemy is learning from us, and it's going to be that way for as long as there is an insurgency,'' Di Rita said.

Before dawn Monday, Marines backed by jets attacked insurgent positions near the Syrian border, destroying two safe houses believed use by al-Qaida figures, a U.S. statement said. The statement made no mention of casualties, but Associated Press Television News video from the scene showed residents wailing over the bodies of about six people, including at least three children.

At the local hospital, Dr. Ahmed al-Ani claimed 40 Iraqis, including 12 children, were killed in the attack. But the claim could not be independently verified.

APTN footage from the scene showed Iraqi men digging through the rubble of several destroyed concrete buildings with a pitchfork or their hands. In the building of a nearby home, women cried over the bodies of about half a dozen blanket-covered bodies lined up on a floor. Some of the blankets were opened for the camera showing a man and three children.

``At least 20 innocent people were killed by the U.S. warplanes. Why are the Americans killing families? Where are the insurgents?'' one middle-aged man told APTN. ``We don't see democracy. We just see destruction.'' He didn't give his name.

Elsewhere, two separate mortar attacks in Baghdad and northern Iraq killed three Iraqi people and wounded 11 on Monday. "

(From the UK Guardian, this date).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 03:16 PM

Amos:

It have trouble with my dialup cutting out before I post. I use wordpad and paste it into the text box.

Anyway how about Salman Pak and the double decker bus?

The site I quoted at PBS.org has conveniently put a disclaimer on the right hand side of the screen since they published the interview. That's because they, like the Dem=mocrats, want to distance themselves from their previous thinking that Iraq had WMD's

There were aerial images of Salman Pak that you could on the 707 in on the net but they have all disappeared except at Rush Limbaugh's site. If I put a link here to something from Rush Limbaugh it would certainly bring an outcry from the anti-war crybabies here.

Also why do the Muslim extremists hate us and want to kill us?

I think it is because we support Israel. The next time Israel does something not to our liking we should cut them off. Let them go it alone. The Arabs would attack and Israel would make mincemeat out of them. Israel is fierce, well disciplined (unlike a lot of Americans) and fully capable of defending themselves.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:39 PM

Hatred is inherent in insanity, often. If group "X" wants to kill "group Y" it is always because they have been given ugly information about that group. In most cases the vast majority of any group do not have the despicable attributes that are plastered onto them by the hate-mongers. "They" is always someone, and a small minority of any "they" is actually as rabid as they are painted.

Because this is true I get very leery of anyone making grand assertions about hatred.

As to Salam Pak I think the article you presented to is very powerful and persuasive. But I don't think it is true. The reason i do not is essentially that the only reason those who wanted a war with Iraq woul dnot have promoted this interview all over creation is because they (a) knew it would be debunked and knew it to be false or (b) they were too dumb to realize a golden opportunity had been handed to them on a platter to demonize Iraq and everything about the regime therein in one fell swoop. I seriously doubt the latter; however mad these men may be, they are not stupid in managing PR. Short-term, anyway. Given the number of media outlets BEGGING for a jot or tittle of something electrifying to feed their revenues from the Administration, why was PBS's cut-and-dried case for aggression against the U.S. by Hussein never raised on high as a rallying flag for war? Doesn't make sense, given how many other far-fetched or downright false data points the Bush machine has flau8nted as an excuse for all this killing.

So although it is really interesting and compelling data, I have to discount it, on the basis that it is the work of a single source, and lacks certain earmarks of fact that I would expect to see. You will recall a similar cloud of false information about Saddam Hussein and his WMD program was promoted by (primarily) one self-serving Iraqi exile all over Washington, and he storred up a real hoorah's nest with his assertions of WMD that never materialized -- the ones thart Rumsfield confidently said would be found around Tikrit to the north, south, east and west (meaning anywhere at all).

I'd be interested if any other independent sources came up with the same diagnosis of that camp. Independent verification can be very important sometimes. Especially wherte assertions of hatred and manslaughter on a large scale are involved.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:55 PM

"Also why do the Muslim extremists hate us and want to kill us?"

Well, Old Guy, I'm not sure that all of the terrorists and potential terrorists start out as "Muslim extremists." And as to why so many Middle Easterners hate us so much, I think I gave a pretty good explanation of that at 30 Oct 05 – 07:43 PM. I sometimes wonder if you read any of the other posts on this thread. Go give it a look.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:45 PM

And just fir the record, Old Guy, from my vantage point seems that you do more than yer fair share of playin' crybaby...

Sometimes it takes more courage and wisdom not to fight...

In the discipline of martrial arts that I learned the question was asked, "When is it RIGHT to fight" The answer, "Never"... No, while defense is sometimes necessary it is not RIGHT... That's why I learned the concept of "minimum force"...

If the Bush administration had more folks who understand fighting, war and defense, then they would never have attacked Iraq... The folks who made these decisions-- desisions made for political and business (oil) interests-- were not folks who knew much about anything other than politics... None of the inner circle had even fought in a war... Most had never even served in the military and the one who had, didn't fight and went AWOL!!!

This does not make for wise decision making... About the only person who was trying to slow down the push was Colin Powell but even he could not slow down the thrisrt for war by a bunch of folks who knew nuthin' of war...

Yeah, you may think that being anti-war is somehow being a crybaby... You couldn't be more wrong if you lived to be a thousand years old...

But don't just take my word fir it... Google in Massanutten Military Academy (1963 thru 1965) and see how many of my good friends, guys I had played sports with and partied on weekends off, died in Vietnam... Then consider that there were only about 80 of us in each class... You do the math...

Yeah, you wanta call me a crybaby, pal, fine but you don't have a friggin' clue...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM

No, let me make it even easier fir ya, Old Guy...

Just cut and paste:

http://www.massanuttenalum.org/memorial/...

Hey, I don't know if you went to Vietnam or didn't... I didn't but a large number of my classmates did... Far larger in percentage than in other schools... These are just the friends I lost... Many more came home really messed up...

We ain't atlin' about a school that gradutates 300 kids, Old Guy, but maybe 80...

Yeah, please check this out and I don't care what you call me but these friends of mine laid down their lives in a stupid war started by a bunch of folks who, like the current batch, din't know squat about war...

Yeah, you take a good look into the faces of my friends who died and come back and twell me just why you support this current stupid war...

Will ya do that, neighbor???

BObert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:51 PM

Hmmmmm?

http://www.massanuttenalum.org/memorial/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:56 PM

Yeah, that one works...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:20 PM

Let me make it real easy:   CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:29 PM

Today's News after the fall under indictment of Scooter Libby:

Cheney's new security adviser linked to bogus information on Iraq


BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND WARREN P. STROBEL

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney replaced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby as his national security adviser on Monday with an aide identified by a former Iraqi exile group as the White House official to whom it fed information on Iraq that turned out to be erroneous.

The Bush administration relied on some of the information from the Iraqi National Congress to argue that Saddam Hussein had to be ousted before he could give banned biological or chemical weapons to al-Qaida for strikes on the United States.

But no such weapons were discovered after the March 2003 invasion, and U.S. intelligence agencies and the independent commission on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks found no evidence of operational cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida.

The White House announced on Monday the elevation of John Hannah to replace Libby as Cheney's national security adviser. Earlier in the day it announced that Libby would be arraigned Thursday in federal court on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice. He was expected to plead innocent.

The White House also announced that David S. Addington, who's been Cheney's legal counsel, would assume Libby's duties as chief of staff. Like Hannah, Addington has played a quiet, though influential, role in the vice president's office. The Washington director of Human Rights Watch accused Addington of helping draft policies that led to the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice president's office has previously denied that Hannah received INC information. Cheney's office didn't respond immediately to questions Monday about Hannah and Addington.

The INC's leader, Ahmad Chalabi, now a deputy prime minister in Iraq, was close to Cheney and other senior administration architects of the invasion. The INC supplied Iraqi defectors whose information turned out to be false. It has insisted that it tried its best to verify defectors' claims before passing them to the United States.

On June 26, 2002, the INC wrote a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee staff identifying Hannah as the White House recipient of information gathered by the group through a U.S.-funded effort called the Information Collection Program. Knight Ridder obtained a copy of the letter and previously reported on it.

The letter, written by Entifadh Qanbar, then the director of the INC's Washington office, identified 108 articles in leading Western news media to which it said the INC had funneled the same information that it fed to Hannah, as well as a senior Pentagon official.

The information included a claim by an INC-supplied defector, Adnan Ihsan al-Haideri, that he had visited 20 secret nuclear, biological and chemical warfare facilities in Iraq.

Haideri's claim first appeared in a Dec. 20, 2001, article in The New York Times and then in a White House background paper, "A Decade of Deception and Defiance," released in conjunction with a Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the U.N. General Assembly by Bush.

Haideri, however, showed deception in a CIA-administered lie detector test three days before The New York Times article appeared, and was unable to identify a single illicit arms facility when he accompanied U.S. weapons inspectors to Iraq in January 2004, Knight Ridder reported in May of last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

A New York Times editorial speaks critically of the hypocrisy of the House and the so-called "Patriot Act", done in darkness, without debate, and serving no patriot:

The House's Abuse of Patriotism

Published: October 31, 2005
In the national anguish after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress rushed to enact a formidable antiterrorism law - the Patriot Act - that significantly crimped civil liberties by expanding law enforcement's power to use wiretaps, search warrants and other surveillance techniques, often under the cloak of secrecy. There was virtually no public debate before these major changes to the nation's legal system were put into effect.

Now, with some of the act's most sweeping powers set to expire at the end of the year, the two houses of Congress face crucial negotiations, which will also take place out of public view, on their differences over how to extend and amend the law. That's controversy enough. But the increasingly out-of-control House of Representatives has made the threat to our system of justice even greater by inserting a raft of provisions to enlarge the scope of the federal death penalty.

In a breathtaking afterthought at the close of debate, the House voted to triple the number of terrorism-related crimes carrying the death penalty. The House also voted to allow judges to reduce the size of juries that decide on executions, and even to permit prosecutors to try repeatedly for a death sentence when a hung jury fails to vote for death.

The radical amendment was slapped through by the Republican leadership without serious debate. The Justice Department has endorsed the House measure, and Representative James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Judiciary Committee chairman, who is ever on the side of more government power over the individual, is promising to fight hard for the death penalty provisions. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:25 PM

First of all, Don, thanks fir the assist... Sometimes when folks is out wavin' the flag they forget to put the faces and stories with that daily death tolls...

I knew 3 of the 6 purdy well and was real close with Guy Nelson...

Hey, he should have a wife and kids but when we all graduated we could go straight into training and be in Nam within a few months as officers... My friends din't get achance to have a wife and kids 'cause of another stupid war fought fir another list of astupid lies and reasons...

Now, as fir the Patriot Act???

It is a shame... Whe the US most needed a handle on dealing with terrorism, the Bush administartion took to spyin' on it's own citizens????!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

Like how many US citizens were involved in the 9/11 attcaks???

Like in case Old Guy wasn't countin', it was ZERO!!!!

But it seesm that the main thrust of Bush's war on terrorism is spyin' on Americans??????

Like, maybe Old Guy would like to explain this logic???

Or not....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 10:24 PM

I am familiar with Massanutten Military Academy having had two sons that went there.

Tell me why people join the military? Why do people become policemen or firefighters? They will eventually be exposed to danger and the possibility of dying in action.

Non of them are drafted. Why don't you picket the recruiting offices?

How many of your buddies died from auto accidents, drugs, tobacco or alcohol? All those deaths could have been avoided if common sense prevailed. Time Mag showed a soldier in Iraq smoking a cigarette. I said that the soldier had a bigger chance of dying from cancer caused by the tobacco than he did from combat.

Why do we have military forces? To kill people that want to kill us.

Have you seen any attacks in the US lately? Maybe it is because the people that want to kill us are fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes it is a mean old world and I ain't crying about it. I didn't make it but I grasp it the way it is instead of the way I think it should be.

Now you guys and girls with no stomach for life as it is can make yourself miserable if you want. You can seek out an individual to blame everything on in an attempt to feel better. You can come to Amos for some support for your crybaby position on life but tomorrow, next year, ten years from now the world will be the same or worse.

I am not having any of it.

There was a 707 at Salman Pak. I could see it in the satellite image. It had two different wings. It was just pieced together out of junk for training purposes. Nothing like that existed in Afghanistan.

I could not see the double decker bus or the train but I think they were most likely there. Look for yourself:
http://www.tortlaw.com/images/Salman%20Pak%20terror%20facility.jpg

I first heard about Salman Pak on PBS in a program narrated by a former Clinton staffer.

Also I just found this on PBS.org by R. James Woolsey director of the C.I.A (1993-1995)

"What do you make out of the reports that his (Saddam's) ambassador in Turkey, for instance, was an intelligence operative or official, and that he went to see bin Laden in Afghanistan? Is that substantial?

I've heard those reports, and if Mr. Hijazi went to see bin Laden or anybody in the leadership of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- I think that was in 1998 -- that, to me, would be yet another substantial piece of information suggesting that Saddam and not only Al Qaeda has been behind some of these terrorist incidents against us and indeed, that Saddam and Al Qaeda could quite well be working together."
"We shot a few cruise missiles into an empty building in the middle of the night. I think he probably laughed at the time and is still laughing. I think that the fact that he did that and the fact that he's working hard on weapons of mass destruction -- ballistic missiles, nuclear, chemical, bacteriological especially -- that's enough as far as I'm concerned."
http://www.pbs.org/search/redir/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/woolsey.html
Of course this interview was before the "Bush Lied" era.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 11:24 PM

God, Old Guy, those ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons programs were all Bushwah! The missiles could not have reached past Kuwasit despite all claims earlier to the contrary by yer guy, and the NBC stuff either never existed or had been completely dismantled by the time Bush decided they were there.

Going out to kill on the basis that someone wants to kill you -- but hasn't tried to -- is pretty [paranoid and pretty unbalanced behavior. If an individual thought that way, he'd be locked up, for good and sufficient reason.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 07:38 AM

Just fir the record, Old Guy, let me ask you one question. In all seriousness do you really believe that Saddam had plans to attack the United States???

Yes_______

No________

I mean, if deep down inside you, beyond yer partisanship, you really believe this as a core belief that irre4gardless of any evidence, then it is perhaps a waste of time debating the issue with you...

I remember the other photos that Powell showed the folks at the UN and, while sinister and menacing looking from satalites, when we got to examine the sites first hand weren't scarey at all... Remember the mobile labs??? Purdy scarey from the air but all rusted out hulks of metal from the ground...

Hey, up until a couple months ago I owned a double decker bus and I guess from 200 miles out in space it might have looked sinister but up closwe it was right cute...

One man's double bus is another man's percieved WMD...

I think you, as well as a few of yer Fox buds and a few PBS wingnuts, are going to band together and one day be part of a small group of folk, much like the folks who don't think the US went to the moon, who have annual conventions and a monthly newsletter...

BTW, what years did yer two sons attend Massanutten?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:12 PM

From The Atlantic:
The Lesson Of Miers: Excellence Should Be Paramount

The withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination shows that excellence does matter and that mediocrity isn't always rewarded.
.....

Nobody should enjoy the humiliation of Harriet Miers, a person of estimable character who has accomplished much and deserves no opprobrium.

But the failure of President Bush's foolish, self-indulgent nomination was a victory for a principle: that we should insist that new justices combine character with extraordinary capabilities to deal with the enormous challenges that they will face. Chief Justice John Roberts more than fit the bill. Harriet Miers fell far short.

---

Foolish? Self-indulgent? The American people would see right through someone who was foolish and self-indulgent; they'd never vote for him. Now, would they? ... Well, would they? ...Well.....would they???


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 05:22 PM

Reuters reports (1 Nov 05):

By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing.

Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.

America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say.

"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.

"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.

Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books).

Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 06:08 PM

Why would anyone want their sons to attend Massanutten other than possibly a choice given by the Judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:22 PM

Well, you do have a point there, GUEST...

Did I want to be shipped off to military scholl??? Well, not really, but, hey, I'm real glad I did it...

Opened up some doors and provided me with some fantastic memories...

Okay, I know this is a Bush thread but, ahhhh, first day I got there two guys come in my room and pin me against the wall and get up in my face screamin' "Hey, we hear you like to fight. You wanta fight?"

"Ahhhh, ain't likin' the odds here, guys" I said...

Fast forward one month... Had both these guys, both officers, eatin' outta my hand and wantin' to tell me all their stories...

Yeah, military school is alot like bein' in the real deal an' you go thru stuff with folks..;.

Like I said, didn't wanta go but glad I did...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 11:58 AM

Bobert:

It was in the 80's

No I don't believe Saddam had any plans of attacking the US, too chickenshit. He liked to bully his neighbors like Iran and Kuwait."

The missles did exist. Several landed in Israel and one landed in Saudi Arabia in Gulf I and one in Kuwait in Gulf II. Saddam got dinged just befor Gulf II by the UN because the missles under manufacture had a longer range that the UN allowed him to have. Too long of a range for self defense.

"Like how many US citizens were involved in the 9/11 attcaks???"

How do you mean involved? Killed? Injured? participated? Were affected by?

I'd probably a million were affected.

Remember when good old peaceable Jimmy Carter attacked Panama to oust Noriega? Was pineapple face planing any attacks on the US? Carter was a Democrat though and gets a pass.

That reminds me. Ever heard of the carter doctrine?

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Shame on warmongering, lying, greedy oilman Bush for enforcing the policy of a pervious Democrat President. No pass for him.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM

"An attempt by any OUTSIDE FORCE [emphasis mine] to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America. . . ."

Old Guy, maybe you aren't aware of what was going on in the world at the time Carter made that statement. Iraq could hardly be considered as "outside" of the "Persian Gulf region" (you might like to take a look at a good map). Did it ever enter your mind that Carter was refering to the Soviet Union?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:24 PM

Old Guy:

I missed something in your last post -- what attempt to control the Persian Gulf was Bush responding to under the Carter Doctrine? I understand the earlier annexarion of Kuwait was clearly a violation; it strikes me as odd that Bush pere did not invoke the doctrine as far as I remember; in fact somehow he let Hussein get theimpression the U.S. would consider it a local probelm and not intercede. Never did understand that -- I think it was Rumsfield, but I oculd be wrong about that, who gave Saddam that impression. Or it could have been that lady ambassador (just the thing to send into a Muslim dictatorship for effective PR, eh?).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 02:49 PM

On Truth, Justice, and the American Way:


Report: CIA has secret al-Qaida prison

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al-Qaida captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement, the Washington Post reported.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents, the paper said Tuesday on its Web site.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism, the Post said. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities - referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents - are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country, it said. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 03:13 PM

The New York Times remarks -- late, but not never -- on the hypocrisy and stealth levied against the American public by early Bushie manipulations:

Remember That Mushroom Cloud?
             E-Mail This
Published: November 2, 2005

The indictment of Lewis Libby on charges of lying to a grand jury about the outing of Valerie Wilson has focused attention on the lengths to which the Bush administration went in 2003 to try to distract the public from this central fact: American soldiers found a lot of things in Iraq, including a well-armed insurgency their bosses never anticipated, but they did not find weapons of mass destruction.

It's clear from the indictment that Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff formed the command bunker for this misdirection campaign. But there is a much larger issue than the question of what administration officials said about Iraq after the invasion - it's what they said about Iraq before the invasion. Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, may have been grandstanding yesterday when he forced the Senate to hold a closed session on the Iraqi intelligence, but at least he gave the issue a much-needed push.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet, to name a few leading figures, built support for the war by telling the world that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical weapons, feverishly developing germ warfare devices and racing to build a nuclear bomb. Some of them, notably Mr. Cheney, the administration's doomsayer in chief, said Iraq had conspired with Al Qaeda and implied that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.

Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee did a good bipartisan job of explaining that the intelligence in general was dubious, old and even faked by foreign sources. The panel said the analysts had suffered from groupthink. At the time, the highest-ranking officials in Washington were demanding evidence against Iraq.

But that left this question: If the intelligence was so bad and so moldy, why was it presented to the world as what Mr. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, famously called "a slam-dunk" case?

Were officials fooled by bad intelligence, or knowingly hyping it? Certainly, the administration erased caveats, dissents and doubts from the intelligence reports before showing them to the public. And there was never credible intelligence about a working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Under a political deal that Democrats should not have approved, the Intelligence Committee promised to address these questions after the 2004 election. But a year later, there is no sign that this promise is being kept, other than unconvincing assurances from Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican who is chairman of the intelligence panel, that people are working on it.

So far, however, there has been only one uncirculated draft report by one committee staff member on the narrow question of why the analysts didn't predict the ferocity of the insurgency. The Republicans have not even agreed to do a final report on the conflict between the intelligence and the administration's public statements.

Mr. Reid wrested a commitment from the Senate to have a bipartisan committee report by Nov. 14 on when the investigation will be done. We hope Mr. Roberts now gives this half of the investigation the same urgency he gave the first half and meets his commitment to examine all aspects of this mess, including how the information was used by the administration. Americans are long overdue for an answer to why they were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 07:11 PM

Involved in the "attack" means exactly that... There were a lot of vitums of the attack but "involved" in the attack is purdy straight forward, Old Guy...

You know exactly what I am askin' here, pal...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 08:47 PM

In his new book on the US in Iraq, New Yorker writer George Packer calls the (Iraq) conflict "the Rashomon of wars" – one whose cause, like the brutal crime at the centre of the Japanese film, remains little understood despite multiple retellings.

"Why did the US invade Iraq?" he wrote. "It still isn't possible to be sure – and this remains the most remarkable thing about the Iraq war." Two and half years after the US launched the war, with more than 2,000 US soldiers killed and the monthly death toll still rising, questions over how and why the US went to war are again roiling Washington.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday used a highly unusual procedural manouvre to force the Republican majority into concluding a long-promised Senate intelligence committee investigation into whether the White House was selective and misleading in its use of intelligence on Iraq to make the public case for going to war.

This follows the indictment last Friday on perjury charges of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the powerful chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, arising out of the investigation into whether White House officials broke laws to try to intimidate a critic of the war. He is due to be arraigned before a federal judge in Washington today.

Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, charged that the indictment "provides a window into what this is really about: the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq, and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions."

The charge is stunning, because it is sharply at odds with two exhaustive investigations into the lead-up to the war. The 511-page report of the Senate intelligence committee last year, and the 618-page report of a White House-appointed team led by Laurence Silberman and Charles Robb this year, reached nearly identical conclusions: that President George W. Bush was a blameless victim of faulty intelligence. And both concluded that the intelligence was skewed by poor tradecraft and weak analysis – not by political pressure from the administration to manufacture a case for war.

But those conclusions have never seemed wholly persuasive, in part because they conflict with what former officials have said about the decision to go to war. Richard Clarke, the former terrorism tsar, and Paul O'Neill, former Treasury secretary, have both said that Mr Bush was obsessed with Iraq immediately after the September 11 attacks.

According to numerous accounts, the president made the decision to go to war well before US intelligence agencies began to warn seriously in the summer and autumn of 2002 that Iraq might be reconstituting its nuclear weapons programme. Richard Haass, the former State Department director of policy planning, told Mr Packer that in June 2002 he had met Mr Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to express the department's misgivings over going to war. "Save your breath," she is said to have responded. "The president has already made up his mind."

The criticisms over how the US went to war do not come only from those who stand to gain politically. Lawrence Wilkerson, for 16 years the top aide to Colin Powell, former secretary of state, stunned Washington last month when he claimed that every critical foreign policy decision in the administration's first term, including the decision to go to war in Iraq, was made by a small secretive "cabal" headed by Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary. Any dissenting administration voices were ignored. Ms Rice "was simply steamrolled by this cabal".

---

Steamrolled by a cabal -- thus, the nation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:53 PM

My congrates to Harry Reid fir invokin' this little used rule< Rule 21, written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers to allow a minority party to close the Senate for private debate when necessary...

The Repubs have been sandbaggin' fir 2 and a half friggin' years... They don't want to have to answer the tought questions, like whay the heck the US is in Iraq, where incidently another 3 Americans were killed todasy along with some 20 Iragis...

Yeah, at some point in time the Bush administartion is gonna have to come clean with the American people... Up until now allo they have gotten is either one lie after another or a bunch flag wavin' pablum....

(Pass the Depends, thank you...)

So, though I am still very much a Green, I like to see anyone stand up to the current batch of corporatist crooks....

Right on, Harry...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 08:28 AM

Yes Military school is good for the soul even if you do not enter the military. It teaches you discipline. It gives you a benchmark to gage your own personal freedom by. In other words you don't know how free you are unless you have it taken away for a while.

B No I don't know what you mean by involved.

If you mean aided or perpetrated the attack, I don't think any Americans did they were naturalized immigrants. There could have been some second generation immigrants that helped with the attack that we do not know about (yet)

There are sleeper cells in the US and around the world. Obviously they are concealed so that existing law enforcement methods cannot find them. They are trained to be undetectable. What method do you proposed to find these cells?

I have no problem with the patriot act cause I have nothing to hide.

Now how about that "attack" on Panama to make a regime change?

I was totally wrong on blaming it on Carter. It was during the Bush I administration but I don't recall any protests about it.

I can't imagine that all the anti-war experts here missed my error.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:29 AM

Have fun beatin' that dead horse, Old Guy, but I can guarentee ya that yer the only one readin' this thread that don't realize it's been dead fir quite some time now...

(Typical Bush tactic, Bobert... Change the subject or get into an discussion on the meanin' of the word "is"... Hmmmmm, wonder where theylearnt up that little terickery???)

Hey, attackin' Panama weren't nuthin' to to frame on the wall either....

Or Polk's Mexican War... Or. the Spainish Amwerican War.... Or the dumbass Vietnam War... Korea don't look too good on the wall either... And had the United States and it's allies had a more pro-human dforiegn policy after the 1st "War to End All Wars" then therwe wouldn't have been a 2nd "War to End All Wars"...

No, what the United States needs is a Department of Peace and spend money and resources cretaing good will and conflict resolution rather... Be a lot cheaper than what we got now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM

A friend who is highly placed in our National Park service draws attention to the following which can be found in its entirety here.

It is one of the more brilliant signs of creeping Fascism in a literal, not metaphoric or rhetorical sense.

Today the Senate passed the bill authorizing oil exploration in the National Arctic WIlderness. But a far more insidious degradation of our Park heritage is underwy as well, about which more later. Meanwhile, consider the following article on the requirement for loyalty oaths for GS 13 and above management personnel in the National Park Service to be eligible for promotion, and consider whether or not this erodes their sacred right to free thought:

"For Immediate Release: October 13, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt [phone]

POLITICAL SCREENING FOR ALL PARK SERVICE MANAGERS — Mid-Level Managers Picked for Fealty to "the President's Management Agenda"

Washington, DC — The National Park Service has started using a political loyalty test for picking all its top civil service positions, according to an agency directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the new order, all mid-level managers and above must also be approved by a Bush administration political appointee.

The October 11, 2005 order issued by NPS Director Fran Mainella requires that the selection criteria for all civil service management slots (Government Service grades or GS-13, 14 and 15) include the "ability to lead employees in achieving the …Secretary's 4Cs and the President's Management Agenda." In addition, candidates must be screened by Park Service headquarters and "the Assistant Secretary [of Interior] for Fish, and Wildlife, and Parks," the number three political appointee in the agency.

The order represents a complete centralization of Park Service promotion and hiring in what has traditionally been a decentralized agency. More strikingly, the order is an unprecedented political intrusion into what are supposed to be non-partisan, merit system personnel decisions.

The President's Management Agenda includes controversial policies and proposals such as aggressive use of outsourcing to replace civil servants, reliance on "faith-based initiatives" and rollbacks of civil service rights. Interior Secretary Gale Norton's "4Cs" is a slogan she uses to express her management approach: "4 Cs: communication, consultation, cooperation, all in the service of conservation."

"It is outrageous that park superintendents must swear political loyalty to the Bush agenda and parrot hokey mottos in order to earn a promotion," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "The merit system is supposed to be about ability, not apple polishing."

The order applies to all hires for park superintendents, assistant superintendents and program managers, such as chief ranger or the head of interpretive or cultural programs. Overall, the policy applies to more than 1,000 mid-level management and supervisory positions in the Park Service.

"Presidents come and go but the civil service is designed to serve whoever occupies the swivel chair in the Oval Office," Ruch added. "It is downright creepy that now every museum curator, supervising scientist and chief ranger must be okayed by a high-level political appointee."

---

Those of you who recall the ancient history of the Magna Carta know that fealty-oaths (except for a brief spell under Joseph McCarthy) went out with King John.

Galloping backwards, King George the Eggplant-Hearted leads his nation backward into ever-expanding past glories...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM

In 1916, largely due to the effort of Gifford Pinchot, the United States established the National Park Service (NPS) and organized it through the passage of the 1916 NPS Organic Act. It's emphasis was completely clear -- that these lands be managed as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, and that human activities in those Parks be limited to such actions as would leave them unimpaired.

For some time, the Bush Administration has been readying a major dilution of the 1916 Organic Act and the occasional clarification which have been hitherto issued on it, all of which maintained its standards and intent for the unimpairment of National Park lands and wildlife.

One testimony delivered to Congress by a veteran Parks executive can be found on this page; it is thoughtful and well-reasoned, not inflammatory but completely clear about why the revisions being prepared to dilute the NPS charter are unneeded.

A far more damning and detailed presentation can be found on this page, in the form of a statement to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources on behalf of a large Coalition of NPS executives:

"The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is over 430 individuals, all former employees of the National Park Service, with more joining us almost daily. Together we bring to this hearing more than 12,000 years of experience. Many of us were senior leaders and many received awards for stewardship of our country's natural and cultural resources. As rangers, executives, park managers, biologists, historians, interpreters, planners and specialists in other disciplines, we devoted our professional lives to maintaining and protecting the National Parks for the benefit of all Americans-those now living and those yet to be born. In our personal lives we come from a broad spectrum of political affiliations and we count among our members, five former Directors or Deputy Directors of the National Park Service, twenty-three former Regional Directors, or Deputy Regional Directors, twenty-seven former Associate or Assistant Directors and one hundred and eight former Park Superintendents or Assistant Superintendents."

Speaking for this highly experienced body before the Senate Committee, Mister Castleberry points out that "The draft of proposed Management Policies of the National Park Service that was released for comment on October 19, like its earlier version—Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman's rewrite that became public information in August—is a drastic and dangerous departure from a longstanding national consensus. It is driven neither by law, by any conservation need, or by any failure of practical application. Little has changed since the present Policies became effective only four years ago."

He goes on to ask, "If improvement cannot be demonstrated as the goal, one must conclude that the motivation stems from the personal agendas of a few nearly anonymous appointees in the Department of Interior who know that they could not achieve the same goals by asking the Congress to change the laws.

This is the first time since Assistant Director Tolson started writing administrative policies back in the 1940's that superintendents and their staffs have not been included in any proposed re-writes of such policy documents. Under the new process the vast majority of superintendents and staff members only input into the proposed revisions would be to comment, as members of the general public, after the policies have been developed.

During this past summer, Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman labored quietly to create a draft of Management Policy revisions, carefully limiting knowledge of his work to a small number of others and forbidding them to share it broadly.

Since the need for a revised policy did not originate from NPS career employees, nor from the visiting public, a reasonable question emerges, as to its origin. When asked, the political employee, Mr. Hoffman declined to identify anyone who had urged the changes.

After Hoffman's disastrous proposals were exposed in August, public reaction was so powerful that the Department of the Interior quickly disavowed them, calling the draft "devil's advocacy," and "intended to promote discussion."

Aside from noting that the national parks are more in need of the advocacy of an angel than of a devil, one can only wonder how much real discussion might be generated by a draft passed hand to hand among a gagged and silent few."

I excerpt a few specific examples of this corrosive undermining of the National Parks institution by an ill-mannered Bush appointee, and invite you to read the orginal testimony in total. It is a stunning example of creeping Fascism at work against the national interest.

"Present Park Service policies deleted by Hoffman: "Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant."

(This mandate) –"is independent of the separate prohibition on impairment, and so applies all the time, with respect to all park resources and values, even when there is no risk that any parks resources and values may be impaired."

From the 1916 Organic Act of Congress creating the National Park Service: "The – National Park Service – shall promote and regulate the use – of national parks – as provided by law, by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment for the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

A 1978 act of congress further emphasized preservation in the Redwoods Amendment "Congress further reaffirms, declares and directs the promotion and regulation of various areas of the National Park System –shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by the first section of the Act of August 25, 1916, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these area shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by congress."

The effect of the Hoffman deletion of these two paragraphs deletes the clear mandate of congress in the management of national parks that the primary purpose of managing parks is preservation of the resources.

A specific application of the Hoffman changes that weaken the Park Service mandate to preserve resources includes this change to planning for cultural resources.

Present Park Service management policies direct park planners to "always seek to avoid harm to cultural resources." The Hoffman rewrite directs park planners to "always seek to avoid 'unacceptable' harm to cultural resources."

The effect of this Hoffman rewrite is to direct that there is acceptable harm to cultural resources, in direct conflict with current policies that direct planners to always seek to avoid harm.

A Hoffman deletion allows visitor activities to degrade the experience of other visitors to the park.

Present Park Service management policy deleted by Hoffman: "the Service will not allow visitors to conduct activities that unreasonably interfere with –the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic or commemorative locations within the park."

The effect of the Hoffman deletion allows uses by some visitors to unreasonably interfere with the experience of the park by other visitors.

The Hoffman rewrite weakens the protection of natural soundscapes in a park:

Present Park Service management policy deleted by Hoffman: "The National Park Service will preserve to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks."

The Hoffman rewrite adds: "The National Park Service will restore degraded soundscapes wherever practicable and will protect natural soundscapes from degradation due to unacceptable noise.""...

For the entire statement see http://www.npsretirees.org/05_1101-Castleberrytestimony.htm.

Regards,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:33 PM

Old Guy:

OG: The missles did exist. Several landed in Israel and one landed in Saudi Arabia in Gulf I and one in Kuwait in Gulf II. Saddam got dinged just befor Gulf II by the UN because the missles under manufacture had a longer range that the UN allowed him to have. Too long of a range for self defense.

While the U.S. maintained in 2002 that Iraq still had SCUDs (the ones used in GW1) hidden, in fact, none were found. The U.N. inspectors, before the war, went to check of one supposed "SCUD" site, and came up with chickens**t. Literally. The building the U.S. intelligence had told them (after stonewalling for months the U.N. inspectors on the "intelligence" despite the requirements of UNSCR 1441 that they make any such "evidence" known) was a SCUD hiding site turned out to be a chicken farm. Other "intelligence" that was checked out by the U.N. inspectors before Dubya started his "war of choice" was similarly wrong, to the point that one inspector referred to it as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" (albeit using slightly less polite terms).

The disputed missiles (which were not SCUDs) had perhaps a couple flights beyond the 150 km nominal maximum range allowed (and even this was in dispute), but only in test flights, which didn't include an actual payload. No matter; Saddam acquiesced to the demand to destroy them and they were being dismantled by the inspectors before Dubya decided to get U.S. servicemen killed.

BTW, your "Salman Pak" stuff is also debunked. After the war, the inspections teams found nothing to indicate that the facility was used for anything other than what the Iraqis claimed: For counter-hijacking training (and this makes sense; you don't hijack an airliner with an assault from the outside, but that's what you have to do when trying to subdue hijackers who have already taken it over ... so training to hijack doesn't need a real airplane, but training to storm the plane does).

Your quotes of Dems and such also claiming Saddam had weapons are, many of them, old and out-of-date, and most do not claim that Saddam indisputable had WMD, as Dubya's maladministration did. In fact, some of these purported supporting quotes don't even mention WMD at all.

You know, the "Dem quotes" and the "Salman Pak" garbage you're floating here sounds like you're hooked up on an IV to the RW foamer/RNC "spin points". These are the same things I've seen repeatedly put forth by apologists for the maladministration and other RWers, and they've been repeatedly debunked and discredited. That won't stop the RW from trotting them out again and again as if sheer repetition makes something true.

As for people needing to cover their own arses for their former beliefs that there were WMD, you might find some, but I'm not one of them. I paid attention, read the papers and such, and knew that there was nothing before the first shot was fired. As did plenty of others. As I said above, the weapons inspectors had already checked out much of the U.S. "intelligence" and found it to be nonsense. And they were reporting this. The Niger papers were proven to be (bad) forgeries. But the maladministration, rather than said, "now wait a minute, maybe we ought to go take a closer look at our 'intelligence'", rather just blasted away ... and to a very sorry end.

Many of those who did think that Saddam had WMD did so because of the garbage information that the maladministration was feeding them. And don;t go off claiming that they had the same "information" that the maladministration did; that's not true. Pretty much everything they were given to look at was filtered through the maladministration before it ever got to them, and was what the maladministration wanted them to see (which is why we really need an investigation about how the OSP and WHIG, and Cheney's office, cooked the books).

OG: Remember when good old peaceable Jimmy Carter attacked Panama to oust Noriega? Was pineapple face planing any attacks on the US? Carter was a Democrat though and gets a pass.

Ummm, Panama was Bush I's baby..... If you get things like this, so easily found on the Internet (if you are sufficiently senescent that you can't remember without that help), wrong, I can understand why you're falling for the Salman Pak and other RTW garbage you're spewing here.

As far as provable lies from Dubya, how about this one:

Asked about those infamous 16 words in his State of the Union Address about Iraq shopping in Niger for yellowcake uranium, the leader of the free world replied: "The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power ..."

You can Google it and find other reports of this. Seriously, Dubya either thinks that Saddam "wouldn't let [the inspectors] in", or he out-and-out lied!   Now no serious person believes that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in; hell, it was in all the newspapers, TV reports, clips of the inspectors (amongst other things) dismantling those disputed MR missiles, etc. So either Dubya's a liar, or so manifestly divorced from any semblance of reality that it's imperative we invoke the 25th Amendment and remove him from any position where he can do any more damage.

Here's more Dubya lies.

I suspect, though, Old Guy, that you aren't going to take advantage of this opportunity to edumacate yourself just a little, and will continue listening to Limbaugh and the like and parroting the same old RNC song until the whole damn country falls apart ... and then say "Whattha?!?!?!" in amazement that things blew up without your ever having the slightest clue.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:37 PM

Castleberry's closing remarks deserve quoting:

Former Director Roger Kennedy has accurately identified the Hoffman
>strategy. The August draft threatened to take off a leg. The October
>draft says "no, no, we will only take off a foot," and hopes we will be
>relieved and grateful at the somewhat diminished harm. It was the bitter
>duty of the career National Park Service employees to whom the Department
>of Interior is now attributing this draft to diminish the severity of the
>amputation. They did the best they could, but harm has only been
>diminished or masked, not eliminated. Fortunately, there are over 430
>National Park Service retirees whose jobs are not at risk, and we can say
>what the career employees cannot-that there is NO need for any amputation
>at all, and any amputation is unacceptable.
>
>    Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees challenges
>the Department of the Interior to explain why this revision is needed. The
>public certainly did not ask for it-95percent of American park visitors
>rate their visits good to excellent. Perhaps the Department, instead of
>telling us that 100 National Park Service employees worked on the draft
>could tell us what percentage of National Park Service career professionals
>believes the October proposal is actually needed-specifically whether it is
>better or worse than the policies now in effect. We have been there and we
>know the answers-they are not needed and they are not only worse than the
>present policies but if adopted they will place the heritage of all
>Americans in extreme jeopardy.
...

(Ibid).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:58 PM

What GUEST, Arne Langsetmo said Old Guy...

That's what I was tryin' to point out to you... If Bush and Rove thoguth it had any shread of credibility, they would have played it in spades....

Problem is, like I said, this story, like all the others that have been fabricated to justify the invasion od Iraq, are false...

There comes a time in most men's lives when they just look at the realities of the situation and say "Hey, screw this hand. I din't like if from the very start." and quit bettin'....

That is about where you are, Old Guy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:47 PM

Arne:

Thanks for a well-arrayed rebuttal.

A little clarity is a thing of grace.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:48 PM

Latin America prepares to 'say no to Bush'

· Maradona leads protests at summit in Argentina
· Opponents gather in high profile alternative meeting

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Friday November 4, 2005
The Guardian

George Bush left his problems at home yesterday only to find himself flying into a whole new world of hurt at the Summit of Americas in Argentina, where tens of thousands of protesters, led by the football star and broadcaster Diego Maradona, were due to greet the president in a "say no to Bush" march.
The president can expect an equally unfriendly welcome from some of the leaders and top officials attending the summit in the seaside town of Mar del Plata. Among those he can expect to come face to face with is Hugo Chavez, the outspoken president of Venezuela who has accused the Bush administration of attempting to orchestrate a coup against him and last week said the US was planning to invade his country. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 11:22 PM

Slate on Bush-Rove:

When Bush was re-elected, everyone hailed Rove's strategy as a masterstroke. But would Rove's protégé have eked out victories in 2000 and 2004 absent special circumstances, lame opponents, and good luck? Less than a year into Bush's second term, the president's approval rating is down around 40 percent. Many things have gone wrong for Bush, but the underlying problem is his relationship to the constituency that elected him. Bush's debt to his big donors and to religious conservatives has boxed him in and pitted him against the national consensus on various issues. His extremism is undermining Rove's realignment.

The problem has become clear with Bush's difficulties in filling Sandra Day O'Connor's slot on the Supreme Court. The Harriet Miers nomination was an attempt to satisfy both the militant conservative base and the eternally moderate American electorate. With the Alito nomination, Bush has acknowledged that splitting this difference is impossible. Faced with a choice, he has chosen, once again, to dance with the ones who brought him. But by appointing a superconservative, Bush risks propelling his increasingly beleaguered administration even further toward the right-hand margin—a place where his party cannot win future national elections.

Bush aims to be the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. But he has never understood the genius of Reagan's method, which was to placate the religious right without giving in where it mattered. Reagan could proclaim his undying support for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion without doing anything to endanger Roe v. Wade. (He was the one who nominated O'Connor, remember?) In the same way, Bill Clinton managed to keep liberal interest groups onboard without advancing their politically untenable wish list. But whether because he is less adroit or because he truly believes, Bush seems able to appease his base only by surrendering to its wishes. He has caved to conservatives on Terri Schiavo, on stem-cell research, on Social Security privatization, and on "intelligent design." Now, most important, he is caving by at least creating the appearance that he is trying to get enough votes on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe.

Bush's failure at base-pacification is not entirely his fault. The evangelicals, who were pragmatically willing to settle for half a loaf during the Reagan and Bush 41 years, now feel empowered, emboldened, and owed. James Dobson and Pat Robertson don't understand that they would do their cause the most good by keeping their mouths shut and not scaring everyone witless. Conservatives of all kinds are in a militant mood heightened by their success in muscling Bush on Miers. They do not realize how their militancy alienates not just the left, but the swingers in the center whom Republicans need to win.

Rove is actually the second Republican realigner to stumble in this way in recent years. After the 1994 election, Newt Gingrich had his own visions of political sugarplums. Gingrich's unsuccessful revolution was more libertarian and less moralistic. He thought the new Republican majority would coalesce around shrinking government (a theme Bush has soft-pedaled, preferring to undermine government through neglect and incompetence). Gingrich was also, frankly, a little nuts. But he failed because he made the same basic mistake that Rove did. Gingrich thought he'd won a mandate for radical change and enshrined a new governing majority. He forgot about the country's nonideological majority, which likes Medicare, Social Security, national parks, and student loans. Republicans have retained control of Congress since Gingrich's downfall, but only by reversing his austerity program and spending like a bunch of drunks.

---

Elsewhere in the same issue:

"Some "top White House aides," says the WP, have argued the
president won't be able move beyond the leak case so long as
Rove sticks around. "You can not have that [fresh] start as
long as Karl is there," said a "GOP strategist who has
discussed the issue with top White House officials." About
20 paragraphs down, the paper explains that the Rove
"discussions," such as they are, have been "informal" and
involve "people inside and outside the White House." =

=

To continue reading, click here:
http://letters.slate.com/WART035984023E4C033753D1907D30
"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 12:49 AM

Bobert and Amos:

Gosh, shocks, yer welcome. Glad I could offer a few points. Doubt it will do no good tho.

FWIW, I've dealt with the likes of OG on UseNet and the blogs for many years now. Same MOP, same song and dance. Hell, sometimes they even propagate the same typos/errors in the stuff that gets passed around in the RW "echo chambers".....

Here's some stuff on Salman Pak and other stories, for those that care to know the actual facts.... This and more will come out, perhaps in the Plamegate trial(s), perhaps in the Round 2 of the SSIC if the Republican Congress can be shamed (or terrified) enough to actually try and find out exactly HTF things managed to get sooooooo bollixed up.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 03:18 AM

Bob Herbert:Secrets and Shame
The New York Times

Thursday 03 November 2005

Ultimately the whole truth will come out and historians will have their say, and Americans will look in the mirror and be ashamed.

Abraham Lincoln spoke of the "better angels" of our nature. George W. Bush will have none of that. He's set his sights much, much lower.

The latest story from the Dante-esque depths of this administration was front-page news in The Washington Post yesterday. The reporter, Dana Priest, gave us the best glimpse yet of the extent of the secret network of prisons in which the CIA has been hiding and interrogating terror suspects. The network includes a facility at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.

"The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism," wrote Ms. Priest. "It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions."

The individuals held in these prisons have been deprived of all rights. They don't even have the basic minimum safeguards of prisoners of war. If they are being tortured or otherwise abused, there is no way for the outside world to know about it. If some mistake has been made and they are, in fact, innocent of wrongdoing - too bad.

As Ms. Priest wrote, "Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long."

This is the border along which democracy bleeds into tyranny.

Some of the prisoners being held by the CIA are no doubt murderous individuals who, given the opportunity, would do tremendous harm. There are others, however, whose links to terrorist activities are dubious at best, and perhaps nonexistent.

The CIA's original plan was to hide and interrogate maybe two or three dozen top leaders of Al Qaeda who were directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks or were believed to pose an imminent threat. It turned out that many more people were corralled by the CIA for one reason or another. Their terror ties and intelligence value were less certain. But they were thrown into the secret prisons, nevertheless.

A number of current and former officials told The Washington Post that "the original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored."

The secret CIA prisons are just one link in the long chain of abominations that the Bush administration has unrolled in its so-called fight against terrorism. Rendition, the outsourcing of torture to places like Egypt, Jordan and Syria, is another. And then there are the thousands upon thousands of detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. There is little, if any, legal oversight of these detainees, or effective monitoring of the conditions in which they are being held.

Terrible instances of torture and other forms of abuse of detainees have come to light. The Pentagon has listed the deaths of at least 27 prisoners in American custody as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides.

None of this has given the administration pause. It continues to go out of its way to block a legislative effort by Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, to ban the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any prisoner in US custody.

I had a conversation yesterday with Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, about the secret CIA prisons. "We're a nation founded on laws and rules that say you treat people humanely," he said, "and among the safeguards is that people in detention should be formally recognized; they should have access, at a minimum, to the Red Cross; and somebody should be accountable for their treatment.

"What we've done is essentially to throw away the rule book and say that there are some people who are beyond the law, beyond scrutiny, and that the people doing the detentions and interrogations are totally unaccountable. It's a secret process that almost inevitably leads to abuse."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 08:15 AM

"It's hard work being President" (George Bush during the 2004 campaign)

Well, George, it wouldn't be so hard if you quit diggin' in that hole yer in... Ain't rocket surgery...

Yeah, I love the new approach of trying to sell the American people on this "new beginnin" of Bush's administration... Hey, kinda like striking out in baseball and then announcing that you get another strike...

Well, given Bush's history of screwing up one thing after another it doesn't come as any surprise that he expects yet another strike... But the problem with being president, unlike Harkin Energy, is that you can't write yerself a $600,000 check and quit... Kinda like a roller coaster ride... Or in Bush's case, a prison sentence...

And ya know what? It ain't gonna get no easier for the boy 'cause he ain't gonna get another strike...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 08:34 AM

Todays Post reports on Bush's approval polls:

Bush's Popularity Reaches New Low
58 Percent in Poll Question His Integrity
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A01

For the first time in his presidency a majority of Americans question the integrity of President Bush, and growing doubts about his leadership have left him with record negative ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.

On almost every key measure of presidential character and performance, the survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.

Virtually the only possible bright spot for Bush in the survey was generally favorable, if not quite enthusiastic, early reaction to his latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel A. Alito Jr. Half of Americans say Alito should be confirmed by the Senate, and less than a third view him as too conservative, the poll found.

...

---

I don't usually care much about polls, but yo don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I guess some folks just wake up slowly, like.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,A
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 08:38 AM

Ah yes, the most fair and truthful Mr. Herbert. He writes as if he knew about the CIA camps for years. Mr. Herbert, once again, your ego is showing.
The amount of time spent om posting information not praising GWB astounds me. Not for the nature of the content but for the quantity. If I were inclined to do this, I would certainly pick a site where the readership is very large. It would appear that the chances of the 'word' being distributed widely here are very scarce and the situation is compounded by the majority of the readers being in a position to have never been eligible to vote in an US election.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:02 AM

Don't kid yourself, A. Many of us use this thread for finding articles and links, even if we're not contributing regularly. It isn't a big place like Slate, but if they want to come read this thread at Mudcat, they're more than welcome. It's a valuable resource, parked in the public view.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,A
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:33 AM

That was my point, "itisn't a big place..........."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:36 AM

Thousands stage anti-Bush protest at Summit of the Americas
11.04.2005, 09:36 AM
Excerpt from Forbes

MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina (AFX) - Thousands of protesters staged an angry demonstration here today against the presence of US President George W. Bush at the 34-nation Summit of the Americas.

Supported by the presence of Nobel Peace Prize holder Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the populist frontrunner in Bolivia's presidential race, Evo Morales, and Argentine footballer Diego Maradona, protestors were kept outside an exclusion zone around the summit venue by riot police.

'Bush, fascist, you are a terrorist!' protestors shouted under rainy skies, as they packed streets around the summit, where the US president is hoping to revive interest in a Free Trade Area of the Americas pact.

Organizers say that up to 40,000 protestors, including anti-globalisation demonstrators, will take to the streets here today to voice their opposition to Bush and the summit.

---

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 03:36 PM

In the light of the current quibble about the significance of satellite pictures of a double-decker bus and a 707 rusting out in the desert, at first I wondered if my following screed was appropriate for a thread on "Popular Views of the Bush Administration." But upon re-reading it, it appears to be right on point. I will submit it for your consideration:

Now some people here on Mudcat seem to think that Jimmy Carter is some kind of pathetic doofus, but I've always rather admired the man, especially when I learned that he and Roselyn were not too high-and-mighty to put on work clothes, pick up hammer and saw, and go to work on Habitat for Humanity building projects. Following his activities since he left the presidency, the only conclusion I can come to is that he is a man of integrity and good will, and puts his sweat where his faith is. Among other things, he was pressed into service to oversee elections in a number of countries to make certain that everything was fair and above-board. It is my opinion that we could use his services right here at home.

This morning on my local NPR affiliate, I heard an interview with Jimmy Carter about his new book, Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis. I have been reading Rev. Jim Wallis's book God's Politics : Why the Right Gets Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, and Carter's book seems to be yet another voice saying much the same things, but from his own unique viewpoint. Carter was right in the thick of it because, being a Southern Baptist, he had direct dealings with the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference. In fact, they tried to influence him while he was president, urging him to give up his "humanist" beliefs. Carter believes in strict separation of church and state, and he also believes in the original non-doctrinal position of the Baptist Church. But when the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference radically altered its position, he resigned.

It's a most interesting interview, and I would recommend it to anyone who a) is still under the illusion that Jimmy Carter is some kind of doofus; or b) would like to get a handle on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, which Carter is not, but he knows them as well as anyone. Carter regards himself as a "conservative Christian," which, according to him, is quite different from a fundamentalist.

If you have RealPlayer, you can listen to that interview (with Steve Inskeep) and/or his longer interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross. Both interviews can be accessed HERE.

I was not aware until recently that one of the beliefs tied to the concept of being "born again" or "accepting Christ as one's Saviour" is the idea that once one is "born again," one has a special relationship with God, and that from that point on, is incapable of sin. The "born again Christian" is guided by God and therefore can do no wrong. Carter regards himself as a "born again Christian," but he does not buy this for a minute!

When I first heard this idea express some time ago, I thought that this was so far-out that I couldn't see how anyone, including a devout Christian, could seriously believe it. But as Carter put it, the fundamentalist view of being "born again" says "I am uniquely related to God and my own opinions are derived from Heaven and they must be, therefore, right. Anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong, but inferior. If I modify my positions, I am violating my faith, so I don't believe in negotiation, I don't believe in mediation, I don't believe in compromise."

[Note that George W. Bush regards himself as a "born again Christian" and he never admits a mistake.]

It was this view, and the changes the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference made in the doctrines of the religion that Carter ascribed to that prompted him to resign from any affiliation with the SBLC. Among other changes, the SBLC now maintains that:

Women must, henceforth, be subservient to men. Therefore, ordination of women is forbidden.

And, whereas the previous position was that scriptures should be interpreted by the words and actions of Jesus Christ, now "correct" interpretation of the scriptures is to be determined by the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Historically, these views represent a giant step backwards, toward the the religious beliefs extant in, and largely the cause of, the Dark Ages

Among other things, Carter is deeply concerned about the religious take-over of the American government, and the way the current administration (and the body of powerful politico-religious beliefs and organizations wielding influence over it) is affection our foreign policy:   giving preference to the use of military power over diplomacy.

Good interviews. Give them a listen.

Don Firth