PDA

View Full Version : Spin this



stan v
03-12-2003, 06:36 AM
Some day I may get tired of having to perform these wake up calls. How boring would this place be? Pacifists/liberals, take note.



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003



EDITORIALS & OPINION
September 11 and Iraq

- The supposedly tenuous nature of the connection between Saddam Hussein and the September 11, 2001, attacks on America has become a linchpin in the argument of those opposing war in Iraq. “American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing,” President Carter wrote in Sunday’s New York Times. “Despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn’t there,” a staff editorial in Sunday’s Times said. “The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies in the region.”
These claims are disingenuous. Virtually everyone acknowledges that the September 11 attacks were carried out by a network headed by Osama bin Laden. The question, then, is the nature of the relationship between Iraq and Mr. bin Laden.

Here’s what the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, said in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 11: “Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of Osama bin Laden. We know Zarqawi’s network was behind the poison plots in Europe that I discussed earlier as well as the assassination of a U.S. State Department employee in Jordan. Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to Al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two Al Qaeda associates; one of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources. And it is consistent with the pattern of denial and deception exhibited by Saddam Hussein over the past 12 years.”

Providing “training in document forgery and bomb-making” is a far cry from merely having terrorists who happen to live within a country’s borders.

On top of the Tenet testimony to Iraq’s Al Qaeda links, we have the matter of the April 2001 meeting in Prague between a leader of the September 11 attacks, hijacker Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi government official, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, who was expelled from the Czech Republic later in April. The latest of the Czech officials directly involved to comment was the Czech ambassador to the United Nations, Hynek Kmonicek. Reports Edward Jay Epstein, “The last statement to date was made on October 26th, 2002, by Ambassador Kmonicek, who was deputy Foreign Minister at the time and served the expulsion notice on al-Ani. He flatly told the Prague Post that ‘the meeting took place’ and that ‘the Czech government collected detailed evidence of the al-Ani/Atta meeting.’”

In addition, there are the reports — in the New York Times, in Aviation Week, and in the New Republic — of the Iraqi government training camp at Salman Pak, where Islamic militants were trained in hijacking around a Boeing 707.

The relevant congressional resolution here is the one passed September 14, 2001, by a vote of 98 to 0 in the Senate and a vote of 420 to 1 in the House of Representatives. It said “the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future attacks of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Note the words aided and harbored.

There would be a logic to this war even if there weren’t links between Iraq and the September 11 terrorists, just as there was for a preemptive strike against Al Qaeda before September 11 — in other words, before there were any September 11 terrorists. Still, there’s a lot more evidence here than commonly thought, and one can only wonder at the motives of those who would belittle, ignore, or deny it.



Copyright 2002 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. All rights reserved. back to top

Scott Rosen
03-12-2003, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
one can only wonder at the motives of those who would belittle, ignore, or deny it.These are the same people who think our foreign policy is controlled by a conspiracy of "Israeli interests."

stan v
03-12-2003, 06:49 AM
Amazing isn't it? How some will post their knowledge of bullies on one board, state various techniques in facing them, then discount the need to stand up to one when he's in our face. When it comes right down to it, no gonads will be grabbed. Well, not in an offensive manner. :eek:

stan v
03-12-2003, 07:39 AM
LeeG(reenwood, not!), you asked why I thought Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. Here's one of many articles that illustrate the connection. You not seeing the link doesn't make me any difference. I'm thankful that W sees it, and more thankful that Clinton/Carter are not in office.

Gresham CA
03-12-2003, 07:51 AM
Stan,
There are people out there that will stand for themselves but have no sense for what it takes to stand for this country as a single united entity.

stan v
03-12-2003, 08:02 AM
Charles, absolutely right on. Even more disturbing to me is that some think W is more dangerous! How do these Americans become so, so, ....tainted? I want to see pictures of each and every one of you anti's. I bet you're grungy looking. And if you don't have a camera, borrow one from the bum sitting next to you.

Garrett Lowell
03-12-2003, 08:06 AM
I gotta admit, Stan, I love reading your posts! Quite the character. :D :D :D :D

LeeG
03-12-2003, 08:08 AM
Stan,(hot dog stand or not), the reasons for going into Iraq have squat to do with Al Queda,,wash/rinse/repeat, 9/11 was not an Iraqi operation. Develop the argument put forward by Rumsfield and crew that the reason is to secure a region who's instability is inimical to US interests. period. You are looking for reasons why santa clause exists because that is what sounds good on tv. for example "they hate us because we're free",,,,"they have WOMD",,,etc.

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
Amazing isn't it? How some will post their knowledge of bullies on one board, state various techniques in facing them, then discount the need to stand up to one when he's in our face. When it comes right down to it, no gonads will be grabbed. Well, not in an offensive manner. :eek: I am standing up to the bullies...Smirk, Cheney, Rumsfeld. They're trying to bully the UN into doing what they've been planning to do long before 9/11. :rolleyes:

Gee, if Geo Tenet, Director of the CIA says it, it must be true! :rolleyes:

Is Saudi Arabia "harboring" terrorists? Egypt? Isreal?

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Gresham CA:
Stan,
There are people out there that will stand for themselves but have no sense for what it takes to stand for this country as a single united entity.3 years in the infantry gave me a taste of that.

stan v
03-12-2003, 08:14 AM
Would that be, OUR infantry?

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
Would that be, OUR infantry?That would in fact, Mr v! The 4th & the 5th.

Gresham CA
03-12-2003, 08:30 AM
Swamp_yankee,
I thank you for your service. What I said could just as easily be applied to the UN. United Nations resolutions aparrently(sp?) mean nothing when the members that have no resolve to back what they themselves have called for will not stand together. This is not President Bush's war. It is global, as evidenced by the attacks in Bali, Africa and Russia by Muslem extremists. I'm not a hawk but I do see that something MUST be done and as with anything, getting something done has to be started by someone. My 2 cents. Have a nice day.

On Vacation
03-12-2003, 08:36 AM
Oyster
.
Member # 5154

posted 03-10-2003 01:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARREN, I AM SUCKED INTO THE IDEA THAT TALK IS CHEAP, AFTER 12 YEARS, 3 MONTHS, ONE SMALL WAR DIRECTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS VOTE AND RESOLUTION, AND WE FELL FOR THE IDEA OF FOLLOWING THEIR MANDATE AND LEAVE AFTER IT WAS OVER,, 3,000 LIVES ON OUR MAINLAND, ONE U.S. NAVY SHIP BLOWN UP BECAUSE OF A PRESIDENT AND ADMINSTRATION SO SHORT SIDED TO CONTINUE CUTBACKS AND SEND OUR MILTARY PEOPLE OFF WITH A TANK OF FUEL TO DEPEND ON A KNOWN TERRORIST NATION TO REFUEL, EMBASSIES BLOWN UP IN FOREIGN LANDS,

A RESORT ISLAND BLOWN UP IN YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS BY FANATICS, THE SELLING OUT, BY OUR LAST PRESIDENT TO NORTH KOREA, EQUIPMENT TO MAKE NUCLEAR BOMBS, IN EXCHANGE FOR NOW FAILED NEGOTIATIONS BY ANOTHER PEACE MAKER LIBERAL,

THE OBSTRUCTION BY THE HEAD INSPECTOR, HANS BLIX OF HIDING INFORMATION OF BOMBS, AND EQUIPMENT FOR MAKING AND DISPERSING CHEMICAL WEAPONS, THE BRUTAL KILLINGS BY CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON SADMANS OWN CITIZENS AND OPPOSITION LEADERS, THE FALSE REPORTS GIVEN TO THE U.N. ALONG WITH THE EXTRA TIME GIVEN TO MAKE CORRECTIONS TO ANY MISIMFORMATION THERE MAY HAVE BEEN IN IT,

THE PAST HISTORY OF DAMAGING AND DESTROYING AND CREATING AN ENVIROMENTAL DISASTER WITH THE SITTING OF FIRES TO KUWAITT OIL FIELDS,

I CAN GO ON WITH THE LIST, BUT THE MINDEST AND THE INTENT FOR THESE GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO DESTROY THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF A FREE AND OPEN SOCIETY FOR ONES GAIN OF POWER, GIVE ME GOOD REASON TO SAY ENOUGH OF STATIS QUO.

PRESIDENT BUSH, DICK CHENEY, DONALD RUMSFIELD AND COMPANY HAS NEVER LAUNCHED MUSTARD GAS OR CHEMICAL KILLING AGENTS TO DESTROY THEIR OPPONENTS AND DIG UNDERGROUND TUNNELS TO HIDE BIOLOGICAL AGENTS AND STRORED AND CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPONS IN OUR COUNTRY'S SCHOOL HOUSES,

IT IS TIME FOR THIS WORLD TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AL QUADA WAS ALLOWED TO TRAIN FREELY IN COUNTRIES WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST PRESIDENT AND NOTHING BUT MISSLES WERE LAUNCHED TO ACT WITH GOOD INTENTIONS AFTER THE FACT. OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, ALONG WITH IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, DID NOTHING TO TIGHTEN UP THE WALLS AROUND THIS COUNTRY, EXCEPT TO REMOVE AN INNOCENT 12 YEAR OLD KID, WITH MACHINE GUNS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY AND BACK TO A RUTHLESS DICTATORSHIP, IN CUBA.

THE PAST POLICIES HAVE NOT WORKED WITH DEALING WITH DICTATIORSHIP NATIONS AND THIS WORLD IS FULL OF PEOPLE THAT WISH TO KILL US. THEY ARE ON A MISSION TO TAKE THIS WORLD BACK TO THE STONE AGE, IF ALLOWED TO.

TIME FOR A NEW DIRECTION. THERE IS A STATE HERE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HAS A SLOGAN. READ IT VERY CAREFULLY.

LIVE FREE OR DIE.

I CHOOSE THIS ACTION ON THIS DAY, MARCH 10, 2003. APPOLOGIES FOR WHAT I WRITE? NOPE. I CALLED NO ONE HERE ANY NAMES, AND NEVER SAID THAT ANYONE WITH A DIFFERENT OPINION WAS NUTS. THIS IS MY BELIEF, FROM MY OWN BRAIN, AND FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, WITH PART OF IT INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS MESS. GOOD DAY.

Edited this day, March 12, 2003. Yes Charles, a person may not like the leaders, but a person only has to look at the recent past, yes very recent past.

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Oyster:
Oyster
.
Member # 5154

posted 03-10-2003 01:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME FOR A NEW DIRECTION. THERE IS A STATE HERE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HAS A SLOGAN. READ IT VERY CAREFULLY.

LIVE FREE OR ...
...right there on the Massachussetts border, because they've actually got an economy & culture & stuff.

Gresham CA
03-12-2003, 08:42 AM
Morning Mike,
Lost your e-mail ad. Where did you post that? Send me an e-mail, I've got some questions.

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Gresham CA:
Swamp_yankee,
This is not President Bush's war. It is global, as evidenced by the attacks in Bali, Africa and Russia by Muslem extremists. I'm not a hawk but I do see that something MUST be done and as with anything, getting something done has to be started by someone. You know, I agree with this 100%.

Something should be done.

This is not Bush's war (alone).

Don't fall for that old Canard that "opposing Bush is supporting Hussein." Alan D. Hyde can quote Disraeli till he's blue in the face. I'm not ashamed of exercising my constitutional rights. I'm not a traitor. I'm an American.

I don't think the Bush team has a clue, but that doesn't slow them down. I think their current course of action is ill-conceived and their rhetoric overly simplistic. Ultimately, this war will cause more harm than good. I think the Russians and the French understand that.

On Vacation
03-12-2003, 08:49 AM
I will send you an e-mail. I have to catch the last of the morning tide in about a hour, but will answer it later in the day.

This was in the topic of WWMD and stuff by Donn.
Warren got pretty upset with me. And this was my reply to the whole mess.

http://media5.hypernet.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=008441;p=4

Gresham CA
03-12-2003, 09:06 AM
Swamp_yankee,

No one has said anything about you being a traitor, far from it.

I am not falling for anything because I know that the rhetoric is not aimed at me but Sadam and Al-Queda(sp? again).

As for being clueless, I being a part of Joe Public, realize that I am not privvy to all the info that the President and his team does. Do you have a special line on that or are you just basing your clues on what our UNBIASED media is feeding us?

huisjen
03-12-2003, 09:09 AM
Hey Filter Feeder, can you figure out how not to use all caps. It's still rude, and makes it harder to read.

And Gerbil Boy, you really ought to learn the difference between an editorial and an article.

Anyway, if something has to be done (and I do agree that something should be done), does that mean war? When someone has, say, a bad appendix, an axe is not the tool of choice for removing it. Nor is it a solo job.

And after all Gerbil Boy's arguements that Shrub has a clue, the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda are no stronger than the connections between the USA and the training of various Central American Hit Squads. Does that mean the way to stop violence in Central America is to topple the US? I don't think so.

So once we make a mess there in Iraq, were still left with 85% of Saudis who think we're the source of evil in the world. We're left with a similar situation in Pakistan. We're left with another country in the region that has nukes and doesn't get along with it's neighbors: Israel. We're left with a nutcase in North Korea who's ready to throw a tantrum (an a nuke armed tantrum at that) to get the world to suck up to him. We have economic stagnation and Shrub wants to gut the economy further.

Nobody here likes Saddam Hussein, but he's still not our biggest concern, and we shouldn't put all our other issues on the back burner and pretend that he is. Forget Saddam. Where's Osama?

Dan

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Gresham CA:
Swamp_yankee,

No one has said anything about you being a traitor, far from it.

I am not falling for anything because I know that the rhetoric is not aimed at me but Sadam and Al-Queda(sp? again).

As for being clueless, I being a part of Joe Public, realize that I am not privvy to all the info that the President and his team does. Do you have a special line on that or are you just basing your clues on what our UNBIASED media is feeding us?1) Because I oppose Bush's policies in the middle east, I've been called a traitor and an 'appeasor' on this board and elsewhere in the media and public discourse (soemtimes personally, sometimes by association). I have know other way of interpreting that Disraeli quote about cosmopolitanism than as a implied questioning of my patriotism.

2) No, I have no 'special information.' But I don't, will never, believe that the authorities 'know better' than I do. The Bush administration has done nothing to earn my trust. With the exception of Colin Powell, there's nobody in that administration that I believe has ever uttered an hjonest word in their lives.

Does Chirac of France not have access to to that information? How about Putin of Russia - He was KGB ferchrissakes! The Germans, they're in the dark on this, too?

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by huisjen:

And after all Gerbil Boy's arguements that Shrub has a clue, the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda are no stronger than the connections between the USA and the training of various Central American Hit Squads. Does that mean the way to stop violence in Central America is to topple the US? I don't think so.
DanOooooh! GOOD ONE (sic, all caps)! :D

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by swamp_yankee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by huisjen:

And after all Gerbil Boy's arguements that Shrub has a clue, the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda are no stronger than the connections between the USA and the training of various Central American Hit Squads. Does that mean the way to stop violence in Central America is to topple the US? I don't think so.
DanOooooh! GOOD ONE (sic, all caps)! :D </font>[/QUOTE]BTW, huisjen, this is usually where Oyster comes in and ask "what kind of boat do you have, what right do you have to express your opinions (that differ from his) on this forum." Just a heads up!

Gresham CA
03-12-2003, 10:00 AM
Swamp_yankee,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gresham CA:
Swamp_yankee,

No one has said anything about you being a traitor, far from it.

I am not falling for anything because I know that the rhetoric is not aimed at me but Sadam and Al-Queda(sp? again).

As for being clueless, I being a part of Joe Public, realize that I am not privvy to all the info that the President and his team does. Do you have a special line on that or are you just basing your clues on what our UNBIASED media is feeding us?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Because I oppose Bush's policies in the middle east, I've been called a traitor and an 'appeasor' on this board and elsewhere in the media and public discourse (soemtimes personally, sometimes by association). I have know other way of interpreting that Disraeli quote about cosmopolitanism than as a implied questioning of my patriotism.

2) No, I have no 'special information.' But I don't, will never, believe that the authorities 'know better' than I do. The Bush administration has done nothing to earn my trust. With the exception of Colin Powell, there's nobody in that administration that I believe has ever uttered an hjonest word in their lives.

Does Chirac of France not have access to to that information? How about Putin of Russia - He was KGB ferchrissakes! The Germans, they're in the dark on this, too?

--------------------
Tyrone Slothrop
I have not called you a traitor. I don't know you.

I feel everyone in any political office is put in the position to bend the truth now and again. Nature of the job. The current President, I feel, is less bendy than his predicesor(sp?)

Our government agencies (CIA, FBI, INS) do not share information between themselves. Much less other governments.

huisjen
03-12-2003, 10:09 AM
Tyrone, thanks for the warning, but I've seen just how Oyster whips back and forth for myself. First he defends himself as not being opposed to reasonable dissent, then he wails that those who express such dissent have no moral authority because they've never supported our country and liberties by actual combat. (There's a hint of age-ism in there somewhere too.) And he doesn't even realize how silly the contrast between the two statements makes him look. Finally, when someone spells out the facts as clear as day, he counters with assumptions, inuendo, and spin, and learns nothing. :rolleyes:

Dan

[ 03-12-2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: huisjen ]

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Gresham CA:
Swamp_yankee,

I have not called you a traitor. I don't know you.

I feel everyone in any political office is put in the position to bend the truth now and again. Nature of the job. The current President, I feel, is less bendy than his predicesor(sp?)

Our government agencies (CIA, FBI, INS) do not share information between themselves. Much less other governments.No, you did not call me a traitor. That's true. ...others have. ADH I mentioned by name (recent thread), and stan v has used the term 'appeaser' to characterize the anti war position.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think Clinton was a pathological liar, but lying about a blow job never really struck me as a constitutional crisis: I don't think he should have ever been asked the question (the Starr investigation got way out of hand). I'm not defending the man, I didn't like him and think he did a great deal of harm to the progressive agenda. A republican in Dems clothing.

However, I think Smirk is also a patholical liar, and that Cheney and Rumsfeld are worse.

Russia, Germany & France, I believe, have their own intelligence communities. I also know that intelligence agencies share information when they feel it is in their benefit to do so. The Massaud (sp?) & the CIA in the middle east, M1-5 & the FBI re the IRA, ...

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
"..he counters with assumptions, inuendo, and spin.."

"However, I think Smirk is also a patholical liar, and that Cheney and Rumsfeld are worse."The qualifier "I think" indicates that that is my belief.

Do you think Smirk was entirely forthcoming regarding his (purported) history of alcohol & drug abuse?

Whjat about Cheney's stonewalling of Congress regarding his dealing with Enron & the energy task force?

What about Rummy's trip to Iraq in the 80s?

Although, as I point out, it is my opinion, It's not an opinion that I've formed in a vacuum.

LeeG
03-12-2003, 10:58 AM
AND your mother wears army boots

Wild Wassa
03-12-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Oyster:

"This was in the topic of WWMD and stuff by Donn.
Warren got pretty upset with me. And this was my reply to the whole mess."

Not at all Oyster Mike, not at all was I upset.

Nor do I hope anything has changed in our friendship Oyster. It takes more than vigerous discussion to ruin the friendship that I hope we had built up. Also, how can I keep up with speed typists. I'd get nothing else done.

I'm still holding my trumpcard though. I'm not answering Donn's questions, because he instantly rejects anything others say by being too literal. No imagintion.

To the rest of you if your egos are so fragile then god help you.

The good guys on the site have balls, the snipers don't.

Warren.

ps, The fundamentalists might unhappily prove my point for me because I know the Neo-cons are.

[ 03-12-2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
...promulgated by innuendo and spin.Give a concrete example?

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:
AND your mother wears army boots...all the better to kick your shiftless ass! ;)

On Vacation
03-12-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by huisjen:
Tyrone, thanks for the warning, but I've seen just how Oyster whips back and forth for myself. First he defends himself as not being opposed to reasonable dissent, then he wails that those who express such dissent have no moral authority because they've never supported our country and liberties by actual combat. (There's a hint of age-ism in there somewhere too.) And he doesn't even realize how silly the contrast between the two statements makes him look. Finally, when someone spells out the facts as clear as day, he counters with assumptions, inuendo, and spin, and learns nothing. :rolleyes:

DanNo where can anyone link any assault to my questions about why anyone would spend their life and full days on a Wooden Boat Forum posting the majority of post for the day about the evils of living in the United States. No spin to that, just an up and down question.

If someone rebutes attacks,[i.e. us southern racists creatures, and the Jews are given special treatment by this country, and policies are being dictated by a certain race or ethnic group] like me, or questions it, its called threats and attacks. Well the elites of this forum group can't see the forest for the trees. TALK ABOUT BIGOTRY. :rolleyes:

I express my thoughts, most of all written by my own brain, and put it up for all to read, If you choose to disagree with it, then respond with more than just newspaper opinion polls or a slanted political website writings. It just that simple if you really wish it to be an open forum.

If not, it is seen to be a daily motive oriented agenda more than anything else.

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Oyster:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by huisjen:
No where can anyone link any assault to my questions about why anyone would spend their life and full days on a Wooden Boat Forum posting the majority of post for the day about the evils of living in the United States. No spin to that, just an up and down question.
That's true, because you (or someone else) took down the thread in which you tried to bully me off the board. :rolleyes:

Garrett Lowell
03-12-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by swamp_yankee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Oyster:

Originally posted by huisjen:
No where can anyone link any assault to my questions about why anyone would spend their life and full days on a Wooden Boat Forum posting the majority of post for the day about the evils of living in the United States. No spin to that, just an up and down question.
That's true, because you (or someone else) took down the thread in which you tried to bully me off the board. :rolleyes: </font>I'm sorry, s_y, but I'm going to need more substantial evidence; rock solid proof. You haven't convinced me, I need to see the smoking gun. smile.gif

[ 03-12-2003, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Garrett Lowell ]

On Vacation
03-12-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Wild Wassa:
Originally posted by Oyster:

"This was in the topic of WWMD and stuff by Donn.
Warren got pretty upset with me. And this was my reply to the whole mess."

Not at all Oyster Mike, not at all was I upset.

Nor do I hope anything has changed in our friendship Oyster. It takes more than vigerous discussion to ruin the friendship that I hope we had built up. Also, how can I keep up with speed typists. I'd get nothing else done.

I'm still holding my trumpcard though. I'm not answering Donn's questions, because he instantly rejects anything others say by being too literal. No imagintion.

To the rest of you if your egos are so fragile then god help you.

The good guys on the site have balls, the snipers don't.

Warren.

ps, The fundamentalists might unhappily prove my point for me because I know the Neo-cons are.I am not upset at all. I don't like being called any ignorant anything or be accused of threats, when I reply with straight issue thoughts and direct questions in open forum. Stick to the issues and reply, one and all, or ignore one and all, to anything anyone speaks about or ask about, no matter how passionate one will posts.

This topic was about the Jews and its association with this administration. Well, no matter what this adminsitration does, it is said to be for money. Well people are dieing around the world, all races, all colors, all religions. How can some be so narrow minded not to see this. Sadamn, and Sadamn only controls these cards right now. Why don't all of the Anties and all of the foreign countries that oppose us doing anything, stop his aggression?

We are seeing now that he has been producing quite a stockpile of weapons since the ceasefire in the last Gulf War. But we are not being patient. We are not doing silent diplomacy. We are being bullies. We are the aggressors.

But the U.N. will be allowing Irag to become head of a group that is suppose to dictate and write policies about the countries around the world acting in a civil manner. Boy, how blind can countries around the world be that does not see such hypocracy? Kinda like a certain political party here in the U.S., do as I say, not as I do.

[ 03-12-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

LeeG
03-12-2003, 11:27 AM
Army boots,,,actually I had an interesting experience in a corporate team building thang/exercise wherein we taught a bunch o' high tech office folks some basic kayaking skills and rescues. One of the games was having folks capsize en masse and unbeknownest to each other develop various "injuries" or diabilities that required getting everyone back in their boats before snack time (food,,we all like food),,so anywho the one remaining "victim" who just so happened to be the elder executive who put this whole thing together REFUSED assistance. Which was pretty odd considering the whole goal of the day was "team building". The one fellow who didn't break with the game plan was this young ex-marine wearing,,,black combat boots. It was the most bizarre and subtle clashes of culture in a recreational setting. The "boss" unable to stick with the game plan, allow a subordinate to facillitate a rescue when it was obvious the only alternative was floating and holding up the show.
Anywho, there was something absolutely right about that young fellows action to remaining in the water waiting for the boss to get on land and EVERYTHING WRONG about the chief executives ability to undermine the basis for being there so as to not even lose the appearance of power in a recreational setting.
Unintended consequences,,,yahoo! At least the employees got a glimpse of what work will be like in a crunch.

swamp_yankee
03-12-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
[QBAs long as you riddle your arguments with insults and name-calling aimed at the Bush administration, ...[/QB]So, are you saying you've never called Clinton names klike 'Slick Willy' or 'Billary'? No 'Snore/Looserman'?

I don't have any proof that you have, but I suspect how you answer will affect my (diminishing) belief in your credibility.

Meerkat
03-12-2003, 04:07 PM
Pasted Stan:

On top of the Tenet testimony to Iraq’s Al Qaeda links, we have the matter of the April 2001 meeting in Prague between a leader of the September 11 attacks, hijacker Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi government official, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani A meeting that never took place. Disputed and dismissed by everyone from the CIA to Moussad.

More hype.

huisjen
03-12-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by swamp_yankee
quote:
Originally posted by Oyster:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by huisjen:
No where can anyone link any assault to my questions about why anyone would spend their life and full
days on a Wooden Boat Forum posting the majority of post for the day about the evils of living in the
United States. No spin to that, just an up and down question.
</font>[/QUOTE]Someone needs to figure out how quoting works, because there's a quote there that I didn't make, but which is attributed to me. I don't spin things by calling other people's posts "about the evils of living in the United States." That's the sort of BS that the filter feeder pulls, and then claims that there's no spin in that. :rolleyes:

Dan

Meerkat
03-12-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Scott Rosen:
[QBThese are the same people who think our foreign policy is controlled by a conspiracy of "Israeli interests."[/QB]
On July 8, 1996, Richard Perle, now the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory group that reports to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, presented a written document to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spelling out a new Israeli foreign policy, calling for a repudiation of the Oslo Accords and the underlying concept of "land for peace"; for the permanent annexation of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip; and for the elimination of the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad, as a first step towards overthrowing or destabilizing the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The document was prepared for the Jerusalem and Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a think tank financed by Richard Mellon-Scaife. The report, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," was co-authored by Perle; Douglas Feith, currently the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy; David Wurmser, currently special assistant to State Department chief arms control negotiator John Bolton; and Meyrav Wurmser, now director of Mideast Policy at the Hudson Institute.

Two days after he received the foreign policy blueprint from Perle, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered a speech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, which strongly echoed the IASPS outline. The same day, the Wall Street Journal published excerpts from the IASPS document, and the next day, July 11, 1996, the Journal editorially endorsed the Perle document.

Beginning in February 1998, the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a concerted effort, in league with the Netanyahu government in Israel, and the Perle Israeli agent-of-influence networks inside the United States, to induce President William Clinton to launch a war against Iraq, under precisely the terms spelled out for Netanyahu in the "Clean Break" paper. The war was to be launched, ostensibly, over Iraq's possession of "weapons of mass destruction." United Nations weapons inspectors were, at this time, still on the ground inside Iraq.

To buttress the war drive, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook issued an official lying "white paper" on the Iraqi drive to obtain WMD. On Feb. 19, 1998, Richard Perle and former Congressman Stephen Solarz released an "Open Letter to the President," demanding a full-scale U.S.-led drive for "regime change" in Baghdad. The dangerously incompetent military scheme for the overthrow of Saddam that was published in the Open Letter, has been recently revived by the Perle-led network of "chickenhawks" in the office of Secretary of Defense—but has been summarily rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the signators on the original Perle-Solarz letter were the following current Bush Administration officials: Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State Department), John Bolton (State Department), Doug Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David Wurmser (State Department), and Dov Zakheim (Defense Department).

President Clinton rejected the February 1998 demand for war, sending both Netanyahu and Blair into fits of rage.

On Aug. 6, 1998, Angelo Codevilla, the Washington, D.C. co-director of IASPS (along with David Wurmser), penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, demanding the freeing of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. Codevilla argued that Pollard had been right to pass U.S. classified material to Israel, because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Days later, two members of the Netanyahu cabinet contacted Vice President Al Gore, demanding Pollard's release.

After again rejecting the Netanyahu and Blair demands for war on Iraq in November 1998, President Clinton—under the impeachment onslaught, led by the Mellon-Scaife-funded apparatus—finally caved in and authorized Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, as he was returning on Air Force One from a visit to Israel. But the 70 days of bombardment did not eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime, and the issue remained dormant for the next three years ... until Sept. 11, 2001.

Within moments of the 9/11 attack on Washington and New York, the same Pollard-linked American networks who had designed the Netanyahu foreign policy were on the warpath, demanding that President Bush go to war against Iraq, despite the fact that, to this day, there is no plausible evidence linking Iraq to the September 2001 irregular warfare attacks. The Sharon government in Israel instantly declared that the attack had been ordered by Saddam Hussein, and called for massive retaliation against Baghdad.

On Sept. 22, 2001, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made a feverish pitch for war on Iraq at a Camp David meeting with President Bush and most of the Cabinet. Wolfowitz had been brought into the inner circle of George W. Bush a year before the 2000 Presidential elections, at the initiative of former Secretary of State George Shultz. By 1999, Wolfowitz and Condi Rice had become co-responsible for pulling together the Bush campaign foreign policy and national security team, which Ms. Rice dubbed "The Vulcans." Wolfowitz immediately brought "X Committee" Israeli agent-of-influence Richard Perle into the inner sanctum, from where he has been peddling the Netanyahu-Israeli foreign policy agenda from day one. Perle most recently staged the July 10, 2002 Defense Policy Board session, which demanded the purging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of all opponents of the Iraq war, and called for a U.S. military occupation and takeover of the Saudi oil fields and a total break with the House of Saud—just as his July 1996 IASPS "Clean Break" study had proposed.

This is but the briefest of summaries of the massive evidence in hand. The current campaign to induce President Bush and the U.S. Congress into a war with Iraq, one that would surely unleash the "Clash of Civilizations," is a direct continuation of the Pollard affair. President Bush is being pressured—from inside his own national security apparatus—to adopt an Israeli Likud foreign policy! What nation is dictating policy to the United States? This is a scandalous hoax, far worse than the Gulf of Tonkin affair of the late 1960s.

From the point that Perle, Feith, the Wurmsers, et al. first delivered the "Clean Break" policy to Netanyahu, this crowd has been obsessed with inducing the United States government to adopt and implement it. All prior efforts failed, until Sept. 11, 2001 created a new context for reviving and pushing it—under the guise of the "war on terrorism." Does this raise questions about the true, mysterious authors of the 9/11 attack? What are the links between the events of Sept. 11 and the subsequent unabated drive for war against Iraq?

From Perle and Feith, to others pressing the Netanyahu scheme from outside the Administration—including Frank Gaffney, Steven Bryen, and Michael Ledeen—the entire crew were among the leading suspected Israeli spies, tasking Jonathan Pollard to steal the most precious national security secrets of the U.S.A., from inside the Reagan-Bush national security apparatus. They avoided prosecution, and later emerged as "The Vulcans," assigned to "teach" President Bush the ins and outs of foreign and national security policy. Isn't it time that these co-conspirators joined Jonathan Pollard behind bars? Isn't it time for President Bush to give these clowns a "September Surprise"?