Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Dana Carpender

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 1:10:04 PM8/3/04
to
Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just as the
news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one that was
really, really serious, and talking about specific buildings and all?

It was based on pre-9/11 data. Apparently there may be *no* new info at
all. http://tinyurl.com/4373v

I just pray the day never comes that there's a genuine immediate threat,
because no one is going to believe it.

Dana

Opus the Penguin

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 1:36:22 PM8/3/04
to
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:

> Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just
> as the news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one
> that was really, really serious, and talking about specific
> buildings and all?
>
> It was based on pre-9/11 data. Apparently there may be *no* new
> info at all. http://tinyurl.com/4373v

Crazy, huh? I mean, I'm willing to buy into the argument somewhat that
these things are planned years in advance. But once we're dealing with
pre-9/11 data I'd at least hope for some sort of *argument* as to why
they think these plans are still in effect. Just assuming the plans are
still being pursued suggests that we don't seriously believe we've
disrupted Al Qaeda's operations in the past three years. Hmmmm....

> I just pray the day never comes that there's a genuine immediate
> threat, because no one is going to believe it.

If I owned a TV station I'd play _Brazil_ non-stop for the week leading
up to the election.

--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!

kay w

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 1:50:08 PM8/3/04
to
Previously, Dana said, in part:

> Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just
> as the news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one
> that was really, really serious, and talking about specific
> buildings and all?
> It was based on pre-9/11 data. Apparently there may be *no* new
> info at all. http://tinyurl.com/4373v

I don't know what you want them to do. We have been warned that AQ expects to
do somethg big and awful between now and the elections, and then they find a
laptop with tons of pictures, diagrams, floorplans, etc, on some specific
buildings in New York. What response would you have liked for them to have
made?

"Intelligence officials said that the remarkably detailed information about the
surveillance -- which included logs of pedestrian traffic and notes on the
types of explosives that might work best against each target -- was evaluated
in light of general intelligence reports received this summer indicating that
al Qaeda hopes to strike a U.S. target before the November presidential
elections."

Your article goes on to say:

Other officials also stressed that, however long ago al Qaeda operatives
compiled the surveillance details, the information was new to U.S. intelligence
agencies and was almost unprecedented in the depth of its details. "All this
stuff was fresh to us," one official said.

At the CIA's daily 5 p.m. counterterrorism meeting Thursday, the first
information about the detailed al Qaeda surveillance of the five financial
buildings was discussed among senior CIA, FBI and military officials. They
decided to launch a number of worldwide operations, including the deployment of
increased law enforcement around the five buildings.

A senior intelligence official said translations of the computer documents and
other intelligence started arriving on Friday. "We worked on it late, and
through that night," he said. "We had very specific, credible information, and
when we laid it in on the threat environment we're in," officials decided they
had to announce it.

"It's not known whether the plot was active and ongoing," the official added.
"It could have been planned for tomorrow, or it could have been scrapped. Maybe
there were other iterations of it. In this environment, this was seen as
pertinent information to get out to the public. There was discussion over the
weekend, should we wait until Monday?"

Initially, top administration officials had decided to wait until yesterday to
announce the alert, but more intelligence information was coming in -- both new
translations of the documents, and analysis of other sources' statements --
that deepened their concern about the information, and persuaded them to move
ahead swiftly. "There was a serious sense of urgency to get it out," the senior
intelligence official said.
********

So, yeah, the AQ research might be 3 years old...so what? How much are the
floor plans of those building gonna change?

So you tell me. You're in charge of warning the American people of potential
threats. AQ, the whole wolrd knows, wants to blow something up. A cache of
maps, floorplans, suggested explosives, etc, for a few particularly important
buildings is found. What do you think you should do?? Just sit on it?

--
In midevil times most of the people were alliterate. The greatest writer of the
time was Chaucer, who wrote poems and verse and also wrote literature.


danny burstein

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 1:59:16 PM8/3/04
to
In <20040803135008...@mb-m10.aol.com> scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) writes:

>I don't know what you want them to do. We have been warned that AQ expects to
>do somethg big and awful between now and the elections, and then they find a
>laptop with tons of pictures, diagrams, floorplans, etc, on some specific
>buildings in New York. What response would you have liked for them to have
>made?

And then "they said they found.... ". Keep in mind the credibilty of the
current Administration is about as high as an elephant's toe.

That 1960s guy had photos he shared with the world. When the Russkies shot
down KAL-007 we played intercepted pilot->ground radio tapes.

> So, yeah, the AQ research might be 3 years old...so what? How much are the
>floor plans of those building gonna change?

Well, I dunno about that place in Jersey, but Citicorp here in NYC made
soem very significant design changes about a year ago.

short version: an Oklahoma sized truck bomb will still kill plenty of
people near it, but will no longer have any realistic chance of pulling
hte building down. So it would be dozens of casualties, not thousands.


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Greg Goss

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 3:01:35 PM8/3/04
to
Opus the Penguin <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote:

>Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
>> Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just
>> as the news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one
>> that was really, really serious, and talking about specific
>> buildings and all?
>>
>> It was based on pre-9/11 data. Apparently there may be *no* new
>> info at all. http://tinyurl.com/4373v
>
>Crazy, huh? I mean, I'm willing to buy into the argument somewhat that
>these things are planned years in advance. But once we're dealing with
>pre-9/11 data I'd at least hope for some sort of *argument* as to why
>they think these plans are still in effect. Just assuming the plans are
>still being pursued suggests that we don't seriously believe we've
>disrupted Al Qaeda's operations in the past three years. Hmmmm....

The file dates indicate that at least one of the files was updated in
Jan 04. It is impossible to tell from the file date what was changed
at that point. The siezed computer was in the possession of at-large
AQ leaders as of a couple of weeks ago.

>
>> I just pray the day never comes that there's a genuine immediate
>> threat, because no one is going to believe it.
>
>If I owned a TV station I'd play _Brazil_ non-stop for the week leading
>up to the election.

--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

chrisgreville

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 3:19:28 PM8/3/04
to

"kay w" <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20040803135008...@mb-m10.aol.com...

> Previously, Dana said, in part:
>
<Snip >


> Initially, top administration officials had decided to wait until
yesterday to
> announce the alert, but more intelligence information was coming in --
both new
> translations of the documents, and analysis of other sources'
statements --
> that deepened their concern about the information, and persuaded them to
move
> ahead swiftly. "There was a serious sense of urgency to get it out," the
senior
> intelligence official said.
> ********

<Cynical view>

Which of the two presidential candidates has an important convention coming
up in two days time?

</Cynical view>

Chris Greville


Bermuda999

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 3:48:31 PM8/3/04
to
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w)

>So you tell me. You're in charge of warning the American people of potential
>threats. AQ, the whole wolrd knows, wants to blow something up. A cache of
>maps, floorplans, suggested explosives, etc, for a few particularly important
>buildings is found. What do you think you should do?? Just sit on it?

The ghost of Arthur Fonzarelli stirs

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 4:43:27 PM8/3/04
to
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just as the
> news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one that was
> really, really serious, and talking about specific buildings and all?

> It was based on pre-9/11 data.

Nope. The data was recently seized on a laptop.

> Apparently there may be *no* new info at
> all. http://tinyurl.com/4373v

Nope. While much of the survailance data wrt to the targets is indeed
several years old, the files show that they were updated as late as
January this year. Do _you_ want to bet the lives of thousands of
innocent americans that it's all expired?

> I just pray the day never comes that there's a genuine immediate threat,
> because no one is going to believe it.

I know you'll stoop to anything to try to make people belive that the Bush
Adminstration will stoop to anything, but this is a tad rediculous: Now
they aren't allowed to do thier job, eh?

John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.

huey.c...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 5:34:01 PM8/3/04
to

...who, like the Department of Terror- er, Homeland Security Threat
Awareness Level, has definitely jumped the shark.

--
Huey

John Hatpin

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:01:06 PM8/3/04
to
Dana Carpender wrote:

I like the bit where it says:

'At a news conference announcing his proposed intelligence reforms,
Bush said the alert shows "there's an enemy which hates what we stand
for."'

Maybe, in the cramped recesses of the brain of Bush, a small lamp is
finally emitting light. Perhaps, over years, it will dawn on him that
attacking, invading and occupying countries, particularly in the
Middle East, is not a good idea.

The British learned their lesson with Israel, and people are still
paying for that massive cock-up with their lives. Perhaps Bush needs
to carry around a big piece of paper with the words "LEAVE THE MIDDLE
EAST ALONE" written on it. In bright red crayon.

In fact, I'd suggest a second piece of paper, one that says "HOW ABOUT
NORTH KOREA OR CHINA INSTEAD?" Then, when Bush feels he needs votes,
he can accuse them of something or other and send in the troops. At
least he'd possibly be reducing the chances of harm to his country
rather than exacerbating them.

How long should it take the most powerful leader in the western world
to get the simple message "don't fuck with the Middle East"? Has Bush
never read a history book? Does he think that Iraq is just like
Texas, but with more oil and less steak?

In fact, am I the only one who sees this whole Middle East operation
as ill-considered and propaganised, and the shifting of blame onto
intelligence being simply cooking the books of history?

--
John Hatpin

kay w

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:19:41 PM8/3/04
to
Previously,

Dana's Washington Post article siad, in part:


>> Initially, top administration officials had decided to wait until yesterday
to
>> announce the alert, but more intelligence information was coming in -- both
new
>> translations of the documents, and analysis of other sources' statements --
>> that deepened their concern about the information, and persuaded them to
move
>> ahead swiftly. "There was a serious sense of urgency to get it out," the
senior
>> intelligence official said.


ChrisG:


><Cynical view>
>Which of the two presidential candidates has an important convention coming
>up in two days time?
> </Cynical view>


Which? The Dems were done, and the Repubs aren't up until the end of the
month.

kay w

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:21:19 PM8/3/04
to
Previously, and greatly snipped:

Mr Hatpin:


>How long should it take the most powerful leader in the western world
>to get the simple message "don't fuck with the Middle East"? Has Bush
>never read a history book?

We don't stress British history in our schools.

Perhaps we should rethink that.

Dana Carpender

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:40:42 PM8/3/04
to

kay w wrote:

> Previously,
>
> Dana's Washington Post article siad, in part:
>
>>>Initially, top administration officials had decided to wait until yesterday
>
> to
>
>>>announce the alert, but more intelligence information was coming in -- both
>
> new
>
>>>translations of the documents, and analysis of other sources' statements --
>>>that deepened their concern about the information, and persuaded them to
>
> move
>
>>>ahead swiftly. "There was a serious sense of urgency to get it out," the
>
> senior
>
>>>intelligence official said.
>
>
>
> ChrisG:
>
>><Cynical view>
>>Which of the two presidential candidates has an important convention coming
>>up in two days time?
>></Cynical view>
>
>
>
> Which? The Dems were done,

And were *all over* the news.

Dana

Joe Shimkus

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:51:52 PM8/3/04
to
In article <pb10h0l0uoaid4ued...@4ax.com>,
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

> In fact, am I the only one who sees this whole Middle East operation
> as ill-considered and propaganised, and the shifting of blame onto
> intelligence being simply cooking the books of history?

Most assuredly no, you are not the only one. Unfortunately, the
bastards are gonna get away w/ making a scapegoat of the intelligence
community.

--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A

Windows has always aspired to be Mac-like without Microsoft ever really
understanding what that even means. - Robert Cringely

John Dean

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:53:31 PM8/3/04
to
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
>> Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just
>> as the news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one
>> that was really, really serious, and talking about specific
>> buildings and all?
>>
>> It was based on pre-9/11 data. Apparently there may be *no* new
>> info at all. http://tinyurl.com/4373v
>
> Crazy, huh? I mean, I'm willing to buy into the argument somewhat that
> these things are planned years in advance. But once we're dealing with
> pre-9/11 data I'd at least hope for some sort of *argument* as to why
> they think these plans are still in effect. Just assuming the plans
> are still being pursued suggests that we don't seriously believe we've
> disrupted Al Qaeda's operations in the past three years. Hmmmm....
>
At the height of the IRA terrorism campaign on the British mainland
there were periodic announcements that information had been 'discovered'
(usually from a waste paper basket in a flat that had been abandoned by
a terrorist cell a week before the Police raided it) about IRA plans.
Usually on the lines of 'Plans to explode bombs in major targets' which
always meant airports / railway stations / Government offices and other
places I bet you'd never guess in a million years. Plus IRA
'death-lists' were turned up from time to time. Surprisingly, these
featured Government Ministers, ex-Government Ministers, senior Police
Officers, Intelligence Officers, Protestant members of Parliament for
Northern Ireland constituencies, journalists who consistently criticised
the Republican movement and, yes, many more you'd never be able to guess
at.
The information obtained suggested the terrorists made a habit of
observing potential targets and reconnoitring possible areas of
operations. No shit Sherlock, I hear you cry. None of this information
stopped them murdering a Member of Parliament inside the Houses of
Parliament, murdering another outside his own front door, assassinating
the British Ambassador to Ireland, landing mortar bombs on the Office of
the Prime Minister and damn near killing every member of the Thatcher
cabinet by blowing up the hotel they were using for their annual party
conference.
So let me make some guesses what has been going on with Al Qaida inside
the USA. They will have been gathering information about the movements
of and security surrounding members of Government, senior Police
Officers, Intelligence Officers and journalists who have been
particularly outspoken against terrorism. They will have scoped out, as
much as possible, the layout and defences of Government Offices,
Airports, Rail stations and other unguessable places. They will have
listed places where an attack - by bomb, chemical agent or whatever -
would cause maximum loss of life - busy working areas and such. They
will have listed places where a major explosion and the destruction of
property will have maximum impact on American and World opinion - Statue
of Liberty, Lincoln Memorial, Wall St, Boulder Dam, you name it. They
will compile information about timings of comings and goings. They will
update their information whenever possible. It is possible to work out
all this and more besides without ever laying hands on a single document
or Email and without interrogating a single suspect.
Same thing will be happening in my country and many others.
Unless Governments have *solid* new information, they are kidding us if
they ostentatiously increase security. measures.
--
John Dean
Oxford


Joe Shimkus

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:58:59 PM8/3/04
to
In article <PNSPc.1203$bA6.6...@newshog.newsread.com>,
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> > Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just as the
> > news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one that was
> > really, really serious, and talking about specific buildings and all?
>
> > It was based on pre-9/11 data.
>
> Nope. The data was recently seized on a laptop.

Right & wrong. The data was recently acquired by the USofA; the data so
acquired (w/ one exception) was pre-9/11.

> Nope. While much of the survailance data wrt to the targets is indeed
> several years old, the files show that they were updated as late as
> January this year.

*One* file was updated this past January and what that update was isn't
clear at this time.

> Do _you_ want to bet the lives of thousands of
> innocent americans that it's all expired?

Of course not. And that it can be used for political purposes, why
that's just gravy.

>
> > I just pray the day never comes that there's a genuine immediate threat,
> > because no one is going to believe it.
>
> I know you'll stoop to anything to try to make people belive that the Bush
> Adminstration will stoop to anything, but this is a tad rediculous: Now
> they aren't allowed to do thier job, eh?

"You lied; you will always be a liar."

- paraphrased from Kwai Chang Caine, "Kung Fu"

(Hey, sometimes there is good stuff on TV.)

Greg Goss

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 6:56:17 PM8/3/04
to
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

>In fact, I'd suggest a second piece of paper, one that says "HOW ABOUT
>NORTH KOREA OR CHINA INSTEAD?" Then, when Bush feels he needs votes,
>he can accuse them of something or other and send in the troops. At
>least he'd possibly be reducing the chances of harm to his country
>rather than exacerbating them.

Um ....

Please don't.

Don't tell Bush to try a stare-down with China.


http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200477.asp
"This Summers exercise will be the largest concentration of American
naval force off the Chinese coast since World War II."

Crashj

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 7:46:34 PM8/3/04
to
"kay w" <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20040803182119...@mb-m18.aol.com...

> Previously, and greatly snipped:
>
> Mr Hatpin:
> >How long should it take the most powerful leader in the western world
> >to get the simple message "don't fuck with the Middle East"? Has Bush
> >never read a history book?
>
> We don't stress British history in our schools.
>
> Perhaps we should rethink that.

Is that what the French were trying to tell us? We need to study their
history too?
--
Crashj


David Zeiger

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 7:59:05 PM8/3/04
to
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:01:06 +0100, John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Maybe, in the cramped recesses of the brain of Bush, a small lamp is
>finally emitting light. Perhaps, over years, it will dawn on him that
>attacking, invading and occupying countries, particularly in the
>Middle East, is not a good idea.

Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
out for the US, didn't it?

>
>The British learned their lesson with Israel, and people are still
>paying for that massive cock-up with their lives. Perhaps Bush needs
>to carry around a big piece of paper with the words "LEAVE THE MIDDLE
>EAST ALONE" written on it. In bright red crayon.

So, if the US, even under the full authority of the UN, were to
go do something in Sudan to try and stop the problems there, you
know that it will be used by extremist groups in the Middle East
proper as further proof of US-led Evil Imperialism and whatnot.
So should we just leave Sudan alone because we don't want to
cause trouble in the Middle East?

And hey, say that something magical happens, and oil no longer
becomes a concern, along with anything else in the Middle East
that we would really want, natural-resource wise. So if we
then take your advise and everyone leaves the Middle East to their
own devices, how long do the Kurds last? God only knows that
nobody, including the current administration, has really been
as helpful to them as they probably deserve, but I bet there
still better off at the moment than they would have been if we
had not cared what happens in that part of the world for the
past 10-20 years or so.

And what exactly does "Leave the Middle East Alone" mean, anyway?
Is it just military intervention? Do we let western-based
companies make inroads into those countries, and if regime
change happens and any westerners working for those companies
at the time get rounded up and executed, do we just kinda
shrug our shoulders and leave them alone? Or is there a
criteria then for breaking that rule?

Or does leaving them alone mean something like what the US
does to Cuba--no companies allowed there, no visits, no nothing?
That hasn't seemed to win the US a whole lot of friendship either,
why would it work in the Middle East?

There are a whole slew of arguments against Bush's current
Middle East policy. "We should just leave them alone" is
probably one of the least well-thought-out ones, to put it
mildly.

>
>In fact, I'd suggest a second piece of paper, one that says "HOW ABOUT
>NORTH KOREA OR CHINA INSTEAD?" Then, when Bush feels he needs votes,
>he can accuse them of something or other and send in the troops. At
>least he'd possibly be reducing the chances of harm to his country
>rather than exacerbating them.

So your idea of promoting US and and world health and stability
involves fighting a land war in Asia against a country explicitly
known to have nuclear capability? And you think Bush is the
one who's stupid and has ill-considered foreign policy?

--
David Zeiger dze...@the-institute.net
Whenever I find myself in a difficult situation, I ask myself "What
Would Jesus Do?" The mental image of my opposition being cast into
pits of hellfire for all eternity *is* comforting, but probably not
what the inventors of the phrase had in mind.

Dana Carpender

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 8:07:11 PM8/3/04
to

David Zeiger wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:01:06 +0100, John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Maybe, in the cramped recesses of the brain of Bush, a small lamp is
>>finally emitting light. Perhaps, over years, it will dawn on him that
>>attacking, invading and occupying countries, particularly in the
>>Middle East, is not a good idea.
>
>
> Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
> between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
> out for the US, didn't it?
>

Well, we weren't really leaving them alone. We were funding and arming
the Taliban.


> So your idea of promoting US and and world health and stability
> involves fighting a land war in Asia against a country explicitly
> known to have nuclear capability? And you think Bush is the
> one who's stupid and has ill-considered foreign policy?

Are you admitting that we attacked the nation we could easily beat,
instead of the one that actually poses a threat to us?

Dana
>

huey.c...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 8:09:41 PM8/3/04
to
Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > In fact, am I the only one who sees this whole Middle East operation
> > as ill-considered and propaganised, and the shifting of blame onto
> > intelligence being simply cooking the books of history?
> Most assuredly no, you are not the only one. Unfortunately, the
> bastards are gonna get away w/ making a scapegoat of the intelligence
> community.

Having been in military intelligence, I have to say that the one
thing that feels worse than being very publicly wrong is to be right,
and ignored.

In a wargame, I once witnessed the following exchange:
Bn TF Battle Captain: "Holy shit! They have a tank?"
S-2: "Yeah. And if you look at the map on the bottom right corner of
the first page of the oporder, you'll see that the tank is RIGHT THE
HELL WHERE I SAID IT WOULD BE."

And I'm sure at least a couple of the poor grunts that ran into that
tank cursed "those idiots in intelligence" who never said anything
about a tank. That's the hardest part about intel, or counterterrorism,
or community policing, or even simple preventive maintenance and clean
living: nobody ever notices when something really bad _doesn't_ happen.
"Today, nothing blew up" isn't news, and it's hard to get funding for
your government wombat repellent formula just because there ain't no
wombats around. Want attention? Want funding? You need to get overrun
by wombats first.

I see that they've updated
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
with some comments on the results of the 9/11 commission:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/could/911commission.html

Unattributed FBI agent, clearly upset at bureaucratic barriers to the
investigation, in an email dated Aug. 29, 2001:
"Someday, someone will die and the public will not understand."

I bet that guy can't sleep. And I bet Barbara Bodine and Louis Freeh
probably sleep pretty good. Where's the justice in THAT?

--
Huey

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 9:22:43 PM8/3/04
to
Joe Shimkus wrote:
> In article <pb10h0l0uoaid4ued...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>In fact, am I the only one who sees this whole Middle East operation
>>as ill-considered and propaganised, and the shifting of blame onto
>>intelligence being simply cooking the books of history?
>
>
> Most assuredly no, you are not the only one. Unfortunately, the
> bastards are gonna get away w/ making a scapegoat of the intelligence
> community.
>

Well, I'd say probably just CIA and the rest of State Department.
Defense Intelligence agencies seem to have come through unscathed.

I'd like to see an express prohibition on CIA editorializing
intelligence, as it's done for the last fifty or so years. It's the
only agency that can product so-called "finished intelligence" where as
everyone else reports just the facts, no opinion tossed in.

Bill

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 9:27:49 PM8/3/04
to

The French think they should be the center of everyone's universe.

Bill

John Hatpin

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 9:49:25 PM8/3/04
to
David Zeiger wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:01:06 +0100, John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>Maybe, in the cramped recesses of the brain of Bush, a small lamp is
>>finally emitting light. Perhaps, over years, it will dawn on him that
>>attacking, invading and occupying countries, particularly in the
>>Middle East, is not a good idea.
>
>Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
>between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
>out for the US, didn't it?

Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11, when GWB promised to
find ObL and promised to bring him to justice.

Of course, GWB then decided ObL wasn't important, and decided to
concentrate on another country with no connection to Al Qaeda, and
stated that the hunt for ObL, who had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,
was irrelevant. Of course, since his meddling, AQ has become involved
with Iraq in major way.

As we know, GwB has recently been photographed literally holding hands
with the leader of the country which mainly produced the 9/11
terrorists, and which continues to donate to the GWB fund. Give me
one good reason why Saudi Arabia should continue be a great friend of
the USA, and omit the word "oil". Try it, it's a fun exercise.

Saudi leaders torture and kill their opponents. This is not news -
it's not even new. But GWB is quite happy to be pictured, hand in
hand, with the Saudi potentate. Let's try to omit the word "oil" from
that relationship.

>>The British learned their lesson with Israel, and people are still
>>paying for that massive cock-up with their lives. Perhaps Bush needs
>>to carry around a big piece of paper with the words "LEAVE THE MIDDLE
>>EAST ALONE" written on it. In bright red crayon.
>
>So, if the US, even under the full authority of the UN, were to
>go do something in Sudan to try and stop the problems there, you
>know that it will be used by extremist groups in the Middle East
>proper as further proof of US-led Evil Imperialism and whatnot.
>So should we just leave Sudan alone because we don't want to
>cause trouble in the Middle East?

That's stupid. Sudan is about humanitarian aid - Iraq is about
grabbing for dollars. For that matter, so is Saudi. If you can't see
a clear pattern here, I pity you.

>And hey, say that something magical happens, and oil no longer
>becomes a concern, along with anything else in the Middle East
>that we would really want, natural-resource wise. So if we
>then take your advise and everyone leaves the Middle East to their
>own devices, how long do the Kurds last? God only knows that
>nobody, including the current administration, has really been
>as helpful to them as they probably deserve, but I bet there
>still better off at the moment than they would have been if we
>had not cared what happens in that part of the world for the
>past 10-20 years or so.

How much of the motivation of GWB's administration for the invasion of
Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq was motivated by a love of the Kurds?
I'll give you a clue: it's spelt "Z-E-R-O". Note that other
countries, friendly to the USA and/or lacking massive oil reserves,
continue to persecute the Kurds. I'll name Turkey, for one. Has GWB
ever proposed an invasion of Turkey to free the Kurds?

In case you don't know, the answer is "no". Turkey has no significant
oil reserves, you see. Your administration doesn't give a shit about
Turkey.

>And what exactly does "Leave the Middle East Alone" mean, anyway?
>Is it just military intervention? Do we let western-based
>companies make inroads into those countries, and if regime
>change happens and any westerners working for those companies
>at the time get rounded up and executed, do we just kinda
>shrug our shoulders and leave them alone? Or is there a
>criteria then for breaking that rule?

It means a lot. Applying "western" rules by force to Arab countries
is plainly silly. You might as well be a Catholic force-feeding a Jew
pork chops on the basis that Catholics like pork chops.

If you don't get that analogy, you're not qualified to comment on the
status of western intervention in the Arab world.

>Or does leaving them alone mean something like what the US
>does to Cuba--no companies allowed there, no visits, no nothing?
>That hasn't seemed to win the US a whole lot of friendship either,
>why would it work in the Middle East?

What the hell has Cuba got to do with all of this? I might as well
mention Australia or New Zealand.

>There are a whole slew of arguments against Bush's current
>Middle East policy. "We should just leave them alone" is
>probably one of the least well-thought-out ones, to put it
>mildly.

To put it mildly, I think you don't know the first fucking thing about
how the Arab/Moslem world works. You think you can enforce democracy,
and that the populace will buy it. You think that the USA's position
in the Arab world is based on some sort of wish for freedom and peace.

Look again. Squint, if you need to. It's economic. It's mainly to
do with two factors: (1) oil. and (2) access to more oil.

Remember that GWB isn't unconnected with the oil industry? Remember
how his Dad invaded Kuwait? Remember how Dad stopped short of the
Iraqi border? Know how to spell the word "economics"?

Shit, the term "Occam's Razor" is long overdue in this discussion.

>>In fact, I'd suggest a second piece of paper, one that says "HOW ABOUT
>>NORTH KOREA OR CHINA INSTEAD?" Then, when Bush feels he needs votes,
>>he can accuse them of something or other and send in the troops. At
>>least he'd possibly be reducing the chances of harm to his country
>>rather than exacerbating them.
>
>So your idea of promoting US and and world health and stability
>involves fighting a land war in Asia against a country explicitly
>known to have nuclear capability? And you think Bush is the
>one who's stupid and has ill-considered foreign policy?

You missed the joke. The joke is this (and I'm sure you'll chuckle):
GWB sent troops into Iraq on the basis of Iraqi links with terrorism,
specifically Al Qaeda. Iraq had no significant relationship with Al
Qaeda, and little interest in terrorism. Until the US/UK invasion,
that is.

Today, Iraq is in a worse state than it's ever been, and there is no
firm hope of recovery. And Al Qaeda are now very active there - this
is probably their greatest recruitment drive yet. Hatred of Israel
(have you thought of that yet?) is higher than ever.

So yes, Bush is the one who's stupid and has ill-considered foreign
policy, to use your words.

The shocking thing about this is that the USA is so unwilling to learn
from the lessons of the creation of Israel in Palestine. People are
still being killed there every day, but no-one seems to want to know
what went wrong, Condemned to repeat it.

--
John Hatpin

John Hatpin

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 9:57:20 PM8/3/04
to
kay w wrote:

>Previously, and greatly snipped:
>
>Mr Hatpin:
>>How long should it take the most powerful leader in the western world
>>to get the simple message "don't fuck with the Middle East"? Has Bush
>>never read a history book?
>
>We don't stress British history in our schools.
>
>Perhaps we should rethink that.

To be fair to GWB, any US history book he read would probably tell a
glad tale of the land of milk and honey. It would describe how the
Jewish people found a homeland, and all lived happily ever after.

And it would have lots of nice pictures, which the Prez could fill in
with crayons. None of these pictures would show the atrocities
committed by either side. Just the milk and the honey.

--
John Hatpin

David Zeiger

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:15:19 PM8/3/04
to
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:07:11 GMT, Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net>
wrote:

>David Zeiger wrote:
>Well, we weren't really leaving them alone. We were funding and arming
>the Taliban.

Eh, I don't recall us doing too much of that through the Clinton and
early Bush II administrations. They had a lot of arms left over
from us from their fight with the Russians, sure, but after the
Russians withdrew and the Talbian took over, we pretty much
left them about as alone as possible in this modern world.

That's not to say that Clinton should have flattened the place,
mind you, it's simply countering the idea that "leaving them
alone" necessarily results in increased safety.

>> So your idea of promoting US and and world health and stability
>> involves fighting a land war in Asia against a country explicitly
>> known to have nuclear capability? And you think Bush is the
>> one who's stupid and has ill-considered foreign policy?
>
>Are you admitting that we attacked the nation we could easily beat,
>instead of the one that actually poses a threat to us?

Ummm, no. Well, unless you count any nation that has nukes
as "posing a threat," then I suppose China does, but then
so does France and Great Britain.

Other than that, China does not pose any particular massive
threat to the security of the US *unless* we attack them, so
John's encouragement to attack is rather silly.

North Korea is rather like Iraq was. Tin-pot dictators,
WMDs that, if they're not there, it's not through general
lack of trying by those dictators throughout the years. Both
have histories of aggression towards neighbors, curtailed
only via a fairly massive US military presence on their
border combined with fairly nasty worldwide economic sanctions.
Both are in the midst of fairly nasty political nests, elements
of which will get very mad at the US if (when) it attacks.

So to say that attacking Iraq made things worse while attacking
China or North Korea is more likely to make things better is
pretty stupid.

This is not a defence of the Iraq attack in any way, this is
a repudation of the claim that military action in the far east
is any "safer" than action in the middle east.

Blinky the Shark

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:04:30 PM8/3/04
to
John Hatpin wrote:

> Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
> Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11, when GWB promised to
> find ObL and promised to bring him to justice.

You're thinking of "never eat oysters in months with an aitch".

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263

An Important Health Reminder http://snipurl.com/healthyshark

Hank Gillette

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:29:44 PM8/3/04
to
In article <20040803135008...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:

> Other officials also stressed that, however long ago al Qaeda operatives
> compiled the surveillance details, the information was new to U.S.
> intelligence
> agencies and was almost unprecedented in the depth of its details. "All this
> stuff was fresh to us," one official said.

Coming up at 11: Bush declares earth is round. "It's news to me," he
says.

--
Hank Gillette

"I trust God speaks through me." -- George W. Bush, July 9, 2004

Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:33:18 PM8/3/04
to
>From: John Hatpin nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk

>
>The British learned their lesson with Israel, and people are still
>paying for that massive cock-up with their lives. Perhaps Bush needs
>to carry around a big piece of paper with the words "LEAVE THE MIDDLE
>EAST ALONE" written on it. In bright red crayon.

Yeah because -that- works.

Oh, wait, no it doesn't.


Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:34:04 PM8/3/04
to
>From: scu...@aol.comatose (kay w)

>We don't stress British history in our schools.
>
>Perhaps we should rethink that.
>

American schools barely stress history period.


Lots42 The Library Avenger

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:39:36 PM8/3/04
to
>From: John Hatpin nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk

>>Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
>>between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
>>out for the US, didn't it?
>
>Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
>Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11,

Exactly the point.

>Of course, GWB then decided ObL wasn't important,

Bullshit.

> and
>stated that the hunt for ObL, who had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,
>was irrelevant.

Bullshit.

>As we know, GwB has recently been photographed literally holding hands
>with the leader of the country which mainly produced the 9/11
>terrorists,

And? It's called diplomacy, not 'I love this man'.

>Saudi leaders torture and kill their opponents. This is not news -
>it's not even new. But GWB is quite happy to be pictured, hand in
>hand, with the Saudi potentate.

Yes, because a handshake means 'I support everything this man does'. Get your
head out of Paranoia Land.

>That's stupid. Sudan is about humanitarian aid - Iraq is about
>grabbing for dollars.

That's true. Because if it wasn't, we wouldn't have helped them rebuild and
helped then gain soveriegntry. We also would have taken over all the oil
fields.

But wait. We did help them rebuild. We did help them gain soveriengtry. We
didn't grab all the oil fields.

Looks like you're spouting more bullshit.

>You missed the joke. The joke is this (and I'm sure you'll chuckle):
>GWB sent troops into Iraq on the basis of Iraqi links with terrorism,
>specifically Al Qaeda. Iraq had no significant relationship with Al
>Qaeda, and little interest in terrorism.

Bullshit again. Saddam paid terrorists to explode Isreali citizens. Wow, you
really are missing a lot of things, are you?

>
>Today, Iraq is in a worse state than it's ever been,

Pure outright lies.

huey.c...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:41:47 PM8/3/04
to
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek <leret...@putaindencule.com> wrote:
> I'd like to see an express prohibition on CIA editorializing
> intelligence, as it's done for the last fifty or so years. It's the
> only agency that can product so-called "finished intelligence" where as
> everyone else reports just the facts, no opinion tossed in.

In tin, in the newsgroup view, your posts look like this:
16 o 29 Its Good to be the King... Bill, the Peripateti

Not having a proper education in the (latin? greek?) whatever
language that is, but figuring that was some kind of analog
construction for 'literati', to google I go.

"The raison d'etre and often the business of the Peripateti is
to enlighten working journalists about ethics, usually in onsite visits
that stir dollops of Kant and utilitarianism with case-studies of
ethical dilemmas taken from everyday practice."

So, the question I have is this: ...how do you do the walkin' around the
Lyceum thing, and post to usenet at the same time?

Have you totally geeked out and gotten a Xybernaut running linux?
http://www-anw.cs.umass.edu/~fagg/projects/wearables/xybernaut/

--
Huey

artyw

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 10:50:14 PM8/3/04
to
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote in message news:<20040803182119...@mb-m18.aol.com>...

> Previously, and greatly snipped:
>
> Mr Hatpin:
> >How long should it take the most powerful leader in the western world
> >to get the simple message "don't fuck with the Middle East"? Has Bush
> >never read a history book?
>
> We don't stress British history in our schools.
>
> Perhaps we should rethink that.

If Bush were around during the Cold War, would we have invaded the
Soviet Union? They had WMDs and committed all sorts of atrocities.
Of course, the history books said "Don't fuck with the USSR." Hitler
ignored those books (and couldn't be bothered to watch Alexander
Nevsky, apparently). Reagan make jokes about bombing Russia, but that
was about the closest we came.

Bermuda999

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 11:04:57 PM8/3/04
to
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:

> Other officials also stressed that, however long ago al Qaeda operatives
> compiled the surveillance details, the information was new to U.S.
> intelligence
> agencies and was almost unprecedented in the depth of its details. "All
>this
> stuff was fresh to us," one official said.

.

"If you haven't seen it, it's new to you!"
-former NBC rerun ad campaign


Bill Van

unread,
Aug 3, 2004, 11:50:55 PM8/3/04
to
In article <20040803135008...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:

> So you tell me. You're in charge of warning the American people of potential
> threats. AQ, the whole wolrd knows, wants to blow something up. A cache of
> maps, floorplans, suggested explosives, etc, for a few particularly important
> buildings is found. What do you think you should do?? Just sit on it?
>

I don't know how many times since 9/11 there have been warnings of this
kind from U.S. intelligence -- that there was a heightened chance of an
attack within the U.S., people should be vigilant, etc.

But there hasn't been an attack. Nor has there been an apprehended
attack. No explosives trucks or caches found, no AQ cells busted, no bad
guys picked up trying to sneak through security. No evidence at all that
there really was imminent danger or that any of the warnings was based
on more than a political need to raise the temperature a little.

I don't doubt that AQ would very much like to blow up something
significant in the U.S. and that vigilance is needed. What I doubt is
whether this administration is telling the truth every time it issues
such a warning. Given that we know they've lied about other things, that
there is never any proof that their warnings were substantial, and that
this time at least, the warning grabbed the headlines just as the
Democrats were riding a wave of media attention, I find it difficult to
believe them.

Under the circumstances, don't you have some doubts?

bill

kay w

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:04:59 AM8/4/04
to
Previously,

Me(kay):


>> So you tell me. You're in charge of warning the American people of
potential
>> threats. AQ, the whole wolrd knows, wants to blow something up. A cache of
>> maps, floorplans, suggested explosives, etc, for a few particularly
important
>> buildings is found. What do you think you should do?? Just sit on it?

BillVan:


>I don't know how many times since 9/11 there have been warnings of this
>kind from U.S. intelligence -- that there was a heightened chance of an
>attack within the U.S., people should be vigilant, etc.
>
>But there hasn't been an attack. Nor has there been an apprehended
>attack. No explosives trucks or caches found, no AQ cells busted, no bad
>guys picked up trying to sneak through security. No evidence at all that
>there really was imminent danger or that any of the warnings was based
>on more than a political need to raise the temperature a little.
>
>I don't doubt that AQ would very much like to blow up something
>significant in the U.S. and that vigilance is needed. What I doubt is
>whether this administration is telling the truth every time it issues
>such a warning. Given that we know they've lied about other things, that
>there is never any proof that their warnings were substantial, and that
>this time at least, the warning grabbed the headlines just as the
>Democrats were riding a wave of media attention, I find it difficult to
>believe them.
>
>Under the circumstances, don't you have some doubts?

Of course, but you haven't answered my question....you get this information
indicating specific targets, when you already feel sure AQ is building up to do
something before the election. Do you sit on it, or announce it?

kay w

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:07:17 AM8/4/04
to
Previously, and snipped:

BillVan:


>Under the circumstances, don't you have some doubts?

Oh, just as I sent the last post, Bill Clinton said, on Letterman, that he has
no doubt that raising the alert level was the right thing to do, and says he
doesn't believe at all that it was politically motivated.

Bill Van

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:30:38 AM8/4/04
to
In article <20040804000459...@mb-m18.aol.com>,
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:

> BillVan:

> >Under the circumstances, don't you have some doubts?
>
> Of course, but you haven't answered my question....you get this information
> indicating specific targets, when you already feel sure AQ is building up to
> do
> something before the election. Do you sit on it, or announce it?

I think by now, after so many false alarms, I'd be very tempted not to
sit on it, but to heighten security, especially around the alleged
targets, without a public announcement.

All the announcement does that the rest of it doesn't is scare the hell
out of the public, and I have begun to suspect that scaring the public
is the reason for it.

bill

SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:38:02 AM8/4/04
to

>
> Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
> between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
> out for the US, didn't it?

theres, um, gotta be a middle ground between "leave alone" and "invade
and occupy", doncha think?

chrisgreville

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:43:31 AM8/4/04
to

"John Hatpin" <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q8g0h0hom2f3tjh67...@4ax.com...

>
> And it would have lots of nice pictures, which the Prez could fill in
> with crayons.


First thing that would have to happen is for one of his aides to say
"No Mr. President, hold the crayon at the other end".

Chris Greville


SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:45:22 AM8/4/04
to

>
> Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
> Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11, when GWB promised to
> find ObL and promised to bring him to justice.

id say as soon as OBL started putting salt in our game, and we knew he
was there, we had a right to go in. that was pre-9/11, yes, even during
the clinton years.


>
> Of course, GWB then decided ObL wasn't important, and decided to
> concentrate on another country with no connection to Al Qaeda, and
> stated that the hunt for ObL, who had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,
> was irrelevant. Of course, since his meddling, AQ has become involved
> with Iraq in major way.

are they? or no? seems like a good training ground to take potshots at
our troops, learn to build and use bombs, that kinda thing.


>
> As we know, GwB has recently been photographed literally holding hands
> with the leader of the country which mainly produced the 9/11
> terrorists, and which continues to donate to the GWB fund. Give me
> one good reason why Saudi Arabia should continue be a great friend of
> the USA, and omit the word "oil". Try it, it's a fun exercise.

its nigh impossible.

> The shocking thing about this is that the USA is so unwilling to learn
> from the lessons of the creation of Israel in Palestine. People are
> still being killed there every day, but no-one seems to want to know
> what went wrong, Condemned to repeat it.

first you get the money, then you get the power. guess who has a lot of
money and power?
>

SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:50:28 AM8/4/04
to

Lots42 The Library Avenger wrote:

>>From: John Hatpin nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk
>
>
>>>Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
>>>between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
>>>out for the US, didn't it?
>>
>>Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
>>Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11,
>
>
> Exactly the point.
>
>
>>Of course, GWB then decided ObL wasn't important,
>
>
> Bullshit.

so bullshitty we put 50k troops in afghanistan, and 500k in iraq? bush
has proven he cant run a business, and putting all your assets in a lark
venture is stupid.


>
>
>>and
>>stated that the hunt for ObL, who had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,
>>was irrelevant.
>
>
> Bullshit.

he was on film saying words to that effect.


>
>
>>As we know, GwB has recently been photographed literally holding hands
>>with the leader of the country which mainly produced the 9/11
>>terrorists,
>
>
> And? It's called diplomacy, not 'I love this man'.

i guess you have to be diplomatic to people youre indebted to, otherwise
youre just rude and they shut the flow of money off. its called "being a
suckass".


> Pure outright lies.

so are you a bush liar, or bush denier?

SoCalMike

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:53:16 AM8/4/04
to

Lots42 The Library Avenger wrote:

there has to be an alternative to sticking our nose in everyones
business, then crying when it gets punched a few times.

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:07:52 AM8/4/04
to
"Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com> writes:


>I'd like to see an express prohibition on CIA editorializing
>intelligence, as it's done for the last fifty or so years. It's the
>only agency that can product so-called "finished intelligence" where as
>everyone else reports just the facts, no opinion tossed in.

A moratorium on "Team B" analysis might be warranted particularly.


--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ fhqwhgadshgnsdhjsdbkhsdabkfabkveybvf

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:15:14 AM8/4/04
to
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 The Library Avenger) writes:


>>Of course, GWB then decided ObL wasn't important,

>Bullshit.

>> and
>>stated that the hunt for ObL, who had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,
>>was irrelevant.


March, 2002:

"We haven't heard from him in a long time," Bush told reporters at
the White House. "I truly am not that concerned about him."

The "him", of course, being Bin Laden.

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:11:19 AM8/4/04
to
Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> writes:

>John Hatpin wrote:

>> Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
>> Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11, when GWB promised to
>> find ObL and promised to bring him to justice.

>You're thinking of "never eat oysters in months with an aitch".

Arrr, that he be.

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:19:52 AM8/4/04
to
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) writes:

>Previously, and snipped:

>BillVan:
>>Under the circumstances, don't you have some doubts?

>Oh, just as I sent the last post, Bill Clinton said, on Letterman, that he has
>no doubt that raising the alert level was the right thing to do, and says he
>doesn't believe at all that it was politically motivated.


Much as I like the guy, Bill Clinton wouldn't say anything if Bush
literally tracked cow flop on his office carpet if anyone else was
around. That's the feeling I get about him anyway.

huey.c...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:49:03 AM8/4/04
to
Bill Van <bil...@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
> I think by now, after so many false alarms, I'd be very tempted not to
> sit on it, but to heighten security, especially around the alleged
> targets, without a public announcement.
> All the announcement does that the rest of it doesn't is scare the hell
> out of the public, and I have begun to suspect that scaring the public
> is the reason for it.

"Homeland Security officials did not comment on reports that John Ashcroft
intends to retire after the election, although there are unconfirmed
reports that he would like to spend more time at home with his family,
scaring the shit out of ~them~." --Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show"

--
Huey

David Zeiger

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:52:25 AM8/4/04
to
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 02:49:25 +0100, John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
>Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11, when GWB promised to
>find ObL and promised to bring him to justice.

Right. The US left them alone, and they assisted ObL and friends to
kill several thousand people in the US. Therefore the strategy of
"leave them alone" didn't really work real well in that case, did
it?

Of course, I find it rather interesting that you chose to ignore the
assistance given to ObL by the Talbian, choosing instead words that
imply that the government of Afghanistan was just kinda sitting there
doing nothing until the big bad GWB blew them up.

Hard to tell with you at this point if that's just ethiclly repulsive
spin on your part or if you're so blinded by your anit-GWB venom that
you've actually convinced yourself that the Talbian were just kinda
caught in the middle.

[snipped a bunch of stuff that's completely irrelevent to the question
under discussion, namely "Is 'just leave the middle east alone' good
US foreign policy?" But it's a heck of a rant, really. But man, if
Mrs Hatpin isn't putting out, porn is much more satisfying a subject
to get yourself in a froth over rather than the leaders of foreign
countries]

>That's stupid. Sudan is about humanitarian aid - Iraq is about
>grabbing for dollars.

Hmmm, but your original claim was "Leave the Middle East Alone."

Now it's "Leave the Middle East alone, unless you can claim it
as humanitarian aid."

Really, John, try to stay consistent. Furthermore, in terms of
local area stability and US safety from extremist groups, the
*reason* for the intervention is largely irrelevent. You think
anti-US interests are going to be giving their audiences a full
and true account of the reasons and rationale for any given
intervention?

And finally, I think your characterization of the Iraq invasion
to be far more a matter of your personal opinion than anything
resembling pure truth.

What I believe is that GWB was acting out of what could reasonably
termed humanitarian motives. Namely, I believe he came into office
already strongly believing that Iraq was a serious threat (probably
largly due to family history). And so when opportunity came, he
heard what he wanted to hear, probably gave more weight to stuff
that matched what he was expecting, etc. Unfortunate, to be sure,
but no different than you or me. Or Kerry, for that matter.

Now, were some of the people giving him advice motifated by greed?
Oh, certainly. Welcome to government (and if you think that any
mission to Sudan will be free of profiteering, well, think again).

But I think GWB's primary motivation was that he actually did think
that Iraq was a threat to the world at large. So in his eyes,
I think it was a humanitarian mission.

He fucked up in who he listened to, and it's certainly reasonable
to state that that kinds of fuck up is enough that he shouldn't
get a second shot, but I think it still stands that *his* intentions
were good ones.

>How much of the motivation of GWB's administration for the invasion of
>Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq was motivated by a love of the Kurds?
>I'll give you a clue: it's spelt "Z-E-R-O".

Read for comprehension please, I never stated anywhere that helping
the Kurds was a motivation, in fact, I rather said the opposite.
*My* question is this--had we taken your advice and just left the
Middle East completely to its own devices, would the Kurds even
be in the relatively poor condition they are now?

Hmmm, but under your revised policy of "Leave the Middle East
Alone, unless it's for Humanitarian purposes," I guess we still
would have invaded and kicked Saddam out when he started purging
Kurds again, which owuld have left us in pretty much the same
position as we are now.

>It means a lot. Applying "western" rules by force to Arab countries
>is plainly silly.

Silly? Perhaps. Also possibly inevitible. Western capitalism is
pretty relentless, even outside of the Big Oil you are so focused
on. The world is getting smaller, more interconnected, and like
it or not, more homogenized. It will take a long time, and probably
a lot of blood will be spilled along the way, but while the final
product, so to speak, may look pretty different than what we have
now, I think it will be primarily grounded in "western" concepts.

And *that* is one of the main reasons why "leaving them alone"
will not work. You'll get drawn into it anyway.

> You think you can enforce democracy, and that the populace will buy it.

Japaneese culture was as different, if not more so, than Arab
culture is to western culture, yet, the US managed to enforce
democracy and the people bought it.

So is it possible? Yes. I don't think Arabs have any anti-democracy
brain lobe special in their genetic makeup or anything, so of course
it's possible.

Are we going about it the right way at the current time? Well,
doesn't much look that way. I also entertain the possibility that
in todays MTV-hyped-gotta-have-it-nowNowNOW world we will no longer
allow the time it takes to develop such a thing anymore ("Hey,
wow, the provisional government's been in place a whole month
and violence is still going on, it must be a failure!")

> You think that the USA's position
>in the Arab world is based on some sort of wish for freedom and peace.

Overall, it is. Both on a fundamantal philosophical level and on
a more crass level that, long-term, peace is better for business.

There are certainly short-term lapses in that. And long-term
lapses when a need is felt to push towards a larger goal (ie
the Cold War). Both of those are nasty, and have very much
contributed to why the area is as fucked up as it is,
but the long term goal is an increase in freedom and peace.

huey.c...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 3:29:16 AM8/4/04
to
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> David Zeiger wrote:
> > John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Maybe, in the cramped recesses of the brain of Bush, a small lamp
> >> is finally emitting light. Perhaps, over years, it will dawn on
> >> him that attacking, invading and occupying countries, particularly
> >> in the Middle East, is not a good idea.

> > Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
> > between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
> > out for the US, didn't it?
> Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
> Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11, when GWB promised to
> find ObL and promised to bring him to justice.

Any business at all?

1) USS Cole
2) Embassy bombings
3) the _first_ World Trade Center bombing
4) (accepting "the Bush Doctrine" without pointing out the obvious
inconsistencies, which is hard) that whole business of opressing
women, non-muslims, large statues of Buddha, and basically everybody
that didn't do whatever the Taliban told 'em to do.

Choose as many as you like.

> As we know, GwB has recently been photographed literally holding hands
> with the leader of the country which mainly produced the 9/11

> terrorists, and which continues to donate to the GWB fund. Give me
> one good reason why Saudi Arabia should continue be a great friend of
> the USA, and omit the word "oil". Try it, it's a fun exercise.

It's the only major arab country allied with the US in the region. If
unilateralism is bad, you gotta ally with ~somebody~, and that would
seem to be what the whole Carlysle/Haliburton/Bandar Bush thing is about.

> Saudi leaders torture and kill their opponents. This is not news -
> it's not even new. But GWB is quite happy to be pictured, hand in

> hand, with the Saudi potentate. Let's try to omit the word "oil" from
> that relationship.

Okay, substitute 'influence' or 'the ability to project military power
for long periods of time'.

> > So, if the US, even under the full authority of the UN, were to
> > go do something in Sudan to try and stop the problems there, you
> > know that it will be used by extremist groups in the Middle East
> > proper as further proof of US-led Evil Imperialism and whatnot.
> > So should we just leave Sudan alone because we don't want to
> > cause trouble in the Middle East?


> That's stupid. Sudan is about humanitarian aid

Not yet, it isn't. We learned that lesson in Somalia.
First: get rid of the roving bands of militias that are doing the
torturing and raping and killing. After all of those guys are gone,
THEN it's a humanitarian problem. You can't stop a war by sending them
boatloads of food, you can only make it a better-fed war.

> How much of the motivation of GWB's administration for the invasion of
> Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq was motivated by a love of the Kurds?

> I'll give you a clue: it's spelt "Z-E-R-O". Note that other
> countries, friendly to the USA and/or lacking massive oil reserves,
> continue to persecute the Kurds. I'll name Turkey, for one. Has GWB
> ever proposed an invasion of Turkey to free the Kurds?
> In case you don't know, the answer is "no". Turkey has no significant
> oil reserves, you see. Your administration doesn't give a shit about
> Turkey.

Turkey is another ally, same as Saudi Arabia. And they do have some oil
reserves, they're just using it a whole lot faster than they can
currently get it out of the ground.

> >And what exactly does "Leave the Middle East Alone" mean, anyway?
> >Is it just military intervention? Do we let western-based
> >companies make inroads into those countries, and if regime
> >change happens and any westerners working for those companies
> >at the time get rounded up and executed, do we just kinda
> >shrug our shoulders and leave them alone? Or is there a
> >criteria then for breaking that rule?


> It means a lot. Applying "western" rules by force to Arab countries

> is plainly silly. You might as well be a Catholic force-feeding a Jew
> pork chops on the basis that Catholics like pork chops.
> If you don't get that analogy, you're not qualified to comment on the
> status of western intervention in the Arab world.

That's a non-answer. The question is "if regime change happens and any
westerners working for those companies at the time get rounded up and
executed, do we just kinda shrug our shoulders and leave them alone?"

> > There are a whole slew of arguments against Bush's current
> > Middle East policy. "We should just leave them alone" is
> > probably one of the least well-thought-out ones, to put it
> > mildly.
> To put it mildly, I think you don't know the first fucking thing about
> how the Arab/Moslem world works. You think you can enforce democracy,
> and that the populace will buy it. You think that the USA's position


> in the Arab world is based on some sort of wish for freedom and peace.

> Look again. Squint, if you need to. It's economic. It's mainly to
> do with two factors: (1) oil. and (2) access to more oil.

Look again. It's economic. It's mainly to do with one factor: stability.
The Taliban managed to fuck up Afghanistan pretty good - well enough
that it'll be a while before gunfire in the streets stops being a daily
occurrance there. The government-backed muslim militias in Sudan are
right now in the process of doing the same things. Iraq? I dunno why the
fuck George W. Bush invaded Iraq. Maybe a rogue democrat played a
practical joke on him, and put a cube that said "Invade Iraq" in his
magic 8-ball. How the hell was he supposed to know that the guy would
actually do it?

But US foreign policy has been pretty constant in that we're not
advancing some grand wish of freedom and peace, that we're quite happy
to ignore the freedom and just go with peace. The US has supported some
pretty bad dudes over the years (to include Saddam!) and I don't see
that stopping. Just don't kill enough people to cause an international
uproar and destabilize the region, and the US could give a shit that
your insane wife has a thousand pairs of shoes. Just DON'T MAKE ME COME
OVER THERE, CAPISCE?

> Remember that GWB isn't unconnected with the oil industry? Remember
> how his Dad invaded Kuwait? Remember how Dad stopped short of the
> Iraqi border? Know how to spell the word "economics"?
> Shit, the term "Occam's Razor" is long overdue in this discussion.

I agree. In the context of US history, a long series of "it seemed like
a good idea at the time" and "well, he's not quite as evil as that other
guy" and clear inconsistencies, and you're pointing at the GB2
presidency and claiming that 20-20 hindsight and bad decisions aren't
the rule rather than the exception? Well? Quick: name three US
presidential administrations that didn't have at least a couple big
foreign policy fuckups.

Now, I'll grant you that invading Iraq was one huge mother of a
hundred-billion-dollar fuckup, but to claim that this is an isolated
event caused by the Michael Moore conspiracy theory - dude, Occam's
Razor is gonna go through that like shit goes through geese.

Some countries have a Dunkirk or a Dien Bien Phu. The US? The US has a
proven track record that demonstrates the ability to fuck up on a much
larger scale, much more regularly. Why does George W Bush shock you?

> So yes, Bush is the one who's stupid and has ill-considered foreign
> policy, to use your words.

You can't have it both ways. It's either stupid and ill-considered, or
it's a conspiracy.

> The shocking thing about this is that the USA is so unwilling to learn
> from the lessons of the creation of Israel in Palestine. People are
> still being killed there every day, but no-one seems to want to know
> what went wrong, Condemned to repeat it.

If you don't appreciate that the sun never sets on the American Empire,
your only other option is to work for the EU to get their collective
shit together so there's another effective world power. Otherwise,
you're pretty much doomed to more bull-inna-china-shop diplomacy under
the direction of whatever melonhead we elected last time.

That's US foreign policy in a nutshell. America: like it, or don't.
And if you choose "don't", you'd better act fast, because that stuff
is just ~flyin'~ off the shelves. Can't keep it in stock. EVERYBODY
wants "don't".

--
Huey

chrisgreville

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 3:53:33 AM8/4/04
to

"kay w" <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20040803181941...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> Previously,
>
> Dana's Washington Post article siad, in part:
> >> Initially, top administration officials had decided to wait until
yesterday
> to
> >> announce the alert, but more intelligence information was coming in --
both
> new
> >> translations of the documents, and analysis of other sources'
statements --
> >> that deepened their concern about the information, and persuaded them
to
> move
> >> ahead swiftly. "There was a serious sense of urgency to get it out,"
the
> senior
> >> intelligence official said.
>
>
> ChrisG:
> ><Cynical view>
> >Which of the two presidential candidates has an important convention
coming
> >up in two days time?
> > </Cynical view>
>
>
> Which? The Dems were done, and the Repubs aren't up until the end of the
> month.
>

FWIW, the Beeb were reporting yesterday that the President was going to a
rally/convention on Tuesday.

Chris Greville


Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 6:51:37 AM8/4/04
to


That's where tin has led you astry. It's the Peripatetic Linux Geek. I
simply wander the earth extolling the virtues of Linux. I anticipate a
death like Socrates, forced to drink Hemlock over accusations of having
led astray the youth of my land from Emperor Bill.

That Xybernaut thing scares me. However, I do have an Ipaq I'm going to
flash with Linux soon.

Bill

Richard R. Hershberger

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 8:39:44 AM8/4/04
to
Bill Van <bil...@separatethis.canada.com> wrote in message news:<billvan-D52D96...@news.telus.net>...

My guess is that the motivation is not overt politics. While it seems
that way as we get closer to the election, that doesn't explain all
the past alerts. Quite the contrary, election alerts would carry a
lot more oomph had there not been all the earlier ones.

I think that someone somewhere believes that there is some sign of
increased terrorist activity, but hasn't a clue what to do about it.
So they issue an alert. If an attack occurs and is foiled, everyone
is golden. If an attack succeeds, at least it appears that they were
trying. Even better, blame can be shifted to the local authorities:
"We told you to be vigilant, yet you let this happen!". And if
nothing happens they at worst were being prudent, and they can hint
that the alert prevented an attack.

There are two problems with this. There is the crying wolf
phenomenon: every alert with nothing happening weakens the following
alerts. Worse, local authorities have taken them at face value and
increased security. This costs money, making these alerts unfunded
mandates of the sort Republicans claim to hate.

Richard R. Hershberger

John Hatpin

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 9:20:15 AM8/4/04
to
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:

>lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 The Library Avenger) writes:
>
>>>Of course, GWB then decided ObL wasn't important,
>
>>Bullshit.
>
>>> and
>>>stated that the hunt for ObL, who had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,
>>>was irrelevant.
>
>March, 2002:
>
>"We haven't heard from him in a long time," Bush told reporters at
>the White House. "I truly am not that concerned about him."
>
>The "him", of course, being Bin Laden.

He said lots of things about ObL, and the quote I had in mind was
this, from the same month as yours:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Contrast that with this quote from exactly six months earlier:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

I don't trust Bush (or, for that matter, Blair) as far as I can throw
a Diplodocus.

More quotes here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html
and elsewhere.

--
John Hatpin

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 9:43:54 AM8/4/04
to
Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> In article <PNSPc.1203$bA6.6...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> > Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> > > Y'know that big ol' terror alert? The one that was released just as the
> > > news cycle was talking about Kerry and Edwards? The one that was
> > > really, really serious, and talking about specific buildings and all?
> >
> > > It was based on pre-9/11 data.
> >
> > Nope. The data was recently seized on a laptop.

> Right & wrong. The data was recently acquired by the USofA; the data so
> acquired (w/ one exception) was pre-9/11.

And updated revently. Dana's phrasing seemed to imply that she thought
that is was data that had been in possesion of the US for more than two
years, and they elected to issue the alert to divert attention from
Kerry's campaign.

> > Nope. While much of the survailance data wrt to the targets is indeed
> > several years old, the files show that they were updated as late as
> > January this year.

> *One* file was updated this past January and what that update was isn't
> clear at this time.

That is the detail as presented in the news, yes. I'm hardly confident
that that information is iron clad either way.

> > Do _you_ want to bet the lives of thousands of
> > innocent americans that it's all expired?

> Of course not. And that it can be used for political purposes, why
> that's just gravy.

Eh, I know I wouldn't play such games as the blow back from that sort of
game would be severe. While the Nixon adminstration has shown us that
such poor decision making is a possibility, I've yet to see anything other
than vague innuendo that this is the scase at this time.

> > > I just pray the day never comes that there's a genuine immediate threat,
> > > because no one is going to believe it.
> >
> > I know you'll stoop to anything to try to make people belive that the Bush
> > Adminstration will stoop to anything, but this is a tad rediculous: Now
> > they aren't allowed to do thier job, eh?

> "You lied; you will always be a liar."
> - paraphrased from Kwai Chang Caine, "Kung Fu"

Yes, but sometimes the Dems _do_ tell the truth. :)

John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 9:47:06 AM8/4/04
to
Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> In article <pb10h0l0uoaid4ued...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > In fact, am I the only one who sees this whole Middle East operation
> > as ill-considered and propaganised, and the shifting of blame onto
> > intelligence being simply cooking the books of history?

> Most assuredly no, you are not the only one. Unfortunately, the
> bastards are gonna get away w/ making a scapegoat of the intelligence
> community.

No you are defeinitly not alone in that: it's a powerfull appeal to those
who want to condemn the current administration (in whatever caolation
country they're in).

John Hatpin

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 9:47:38 AM8/4/04
to
chrisgreville wrote:

A: "Mr President: crayons are not a food. Take it out of your mouth."
P: "But I had crayon for lunch, and it was nice."
A: "Mr President, that was crayfish."

--
John Hatpin

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 9:57:41 AM8/4/04
to
David Zeiger <dze...@the-institute.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:01:06 +0100, John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk>

> wrote:
> >Maybe, in the cramped recesses of the brain of Bush, a small lamp is
> >finally emitting light. Perhaps, over years, it will dawn on him that
> >attacking, invading and occupying countries, particularly in the
> >Middle East, is not a good idea.

> Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
> between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
> out for the US, didn't it?

Yep. Isolationism is very tempting. Alas, it more often tends to behave
like an unpaid credit card bill: eventually the bill comes due, and when
it does it can be a whopper. 9/11 was a great example of this. Iraq on
the other hand, has been done on the cheap, in terms of treasure and lives
lost, and frankly, things seem to be going pretty well.

> >The British learned their lesson with Israel, and people are still
> >paying for that massive cock-up with their lives. Perhaps Bush needs
> >to carry around a big piece of paper with the words "LEAVE THE MIDDLE
> >EAST ALONE" written on it. In bright red crayon.

> So, if the US, even under the full authority of the UN, were to

> go do something in Sudan to try and stop the problems there, you
> know that it will be used by extremist groups in the Middle East
> proper as further proof of US-led Evil Imperialism and whatnot.
> So should we just leave Sudan alone because we don't want to
> cause trouble in the Middle East?

More over, the British lesson is one of not attempting to wrest controll
from the people of the middle east, who after all, crave much the same
things we crave. Consider the British lesson in the American Colonies.

> And hey, say that something magical happens, and oil no longer
> becomes a concern, along with anything else in the Middle East
> that we would really want, natural-resource wise. So if we
> then take your advise and everyone leaves the Middle East to their
> own devices, how long do the Kurds last?

Pretty long actually. They lasted a while before oil became king. Sure,
things would become hellish in the region, much as it is in impoverished
regions of Africa, but we would be able to stop giving a shit, as it was
no longer in our interests...

> God only knows that
> nobody, including the current administration, has really been
> as helpful to them as they probably deserve, but I bet there
> still better off at the moment than they would have been if we
> had not cared what happens in that part of the world for the
> past 10-20 years or so.

Eh, they are at a slightly higher risk of some sort of violent civil war
complete with bloody purges than they were before, but that comes with
progress. I recall a lesbian freind who was speaking with an older
lesbian couple: 'things were so much easier when we just stayed in the
closet'... change brings risk, but only through change can situations be
improved.

<snip>
> >In fact, I'd suggest a second piece of paper, one that says "HOW ABOUT
> >NORTH KOREA OR CHINA INSTEAD?" Then, when Bush feels he needs votes,
> >he can accuse them of something or other and send in the troops. At
> >least he'd possibly be reducing the chances of harm to his country
> >rather than exacerbating them.

> So your idea of promoting US and and world health and stability
> involves fighting a land war in Asia against a country explicitly
> known to have nuclear capability? And you think Bush is the
> one who's stupid and has ill-considered foreign policy?


... You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of
which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"...

David J. Martin

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 9:53:41 AM8/4/04
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> > In article <pb10h0l0uoaid4ued...@4ax.com>,
> > John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In fact, am I the only one who sees this whole Middle East operation
> > > as ill-considered and propaganised, and the shifting of blame onto
> > > intelligence being simply cooking the books of history?
>
> > Most assuredly no, you are not the only one. Unfortunately, the
> > bastards are gonna get away w/ making a scapegoat of the intelligence
> > community.
>
> No you are defeinitly not alone in that: it's a powerfull appeal to those
> who want to condemn the current administration (in whatever caolation
> country they're in).

So do you believe the Middle East operation was well-considered and
honestly presented, or is it just that you don't think the shifting of
blame onto intelligence cooks the books?

David

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 10:06:59 AM8/4/04
to
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:

> David Zeiger wrote:
> >
> > Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
> > between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
> > out for the US, didn't it?

> Well, we weren't really leaving them alone. We were funding and arming
> the Taliban.

Cite?

Some quick googling only turns up Clinton adminstration half hearted
dealings with the Taliban in an attempt to get an oil pipeline through the
region:
"While exact details of early US contacts with the Taliban or its
Pakistani handlers are unavailable, Washington’s attitude was clear.
Author Ahmed Rashid comments: “The Clinton administration was clearly
sympathetic to the Taliban, as they were in line with Washington’s
anti-Iran policy and were important for the success of any southern
pipeline from Central Asia that would avoid Iran. The US Congress had
authorised a covert $20 million budget for the CIA to destabilise Iran,
and Tehran had accused Washington of funnelling some of these funds to the
Taliban—a charge that was always denied by Washington” [Taliban: Islam,
Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia, p. 46]."

Perhaps you're refering to the US support of the Mujahadien in thier fight
against the Soviets. Many of these peeps did indeed go on to become the
Taliban after the US stopped suporting them, but that's still not
suporting and arming the Taliban.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 10:10:33 AM8/4/04
to

Today, I'm from Missouri: "Show Me". _Any_ interference may be termed as
"sticking our nose in everyones business".

Dave Wilton

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 10:18:46 AM8/4/04
to
On 03 Aug 2004 17:50:08 GMT, scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:

>So you tell me. You're in charge of warning the American people of potential
>threats. AQ, the whole wolrd knows, wants to blow something up. A cache of
>maps, floorplans, suggested explosives, etc, for a few particularly important
>buildings is found. What do you think you should do?? Just sit on it?

But what does telling the American people get you? What can someone in
San Francisco do to counter this threat? What positive steps other
than vague, "be alert" commands can be given?

The only reasons to make a press announcement are 1) to tell the
people that there are specific actions they should take or 2) to allay
fears that people might have from seeing increased security.

Instead of Tom Ridge making an announcement to CNN, Fox News, and the
world, they should have gone to the firms and institutions in those
buildings and quietly informed them of the information and asked that
their employees be notified. Local police and emergency services can
be told without a TV press conference. If there are to be visible
changes to security, they may want to go to local media so that New
Yorkers and Washingtonians don't get all worked up when they see the
extra police.

But what the administration is doing is scaremongering, plain and
simple.

--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org

Greg Goss

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:29:31 AM8/4/04
to
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:

>Of course, but you haven't answered my question....you get this information
>indicating specific targets, when you already feel sure AQ is building up to do
>something before the election. Do you sit on it, or announce it?

Clinton, in today's interview, said that it was right to announce it.
Even if the info was old (in the captured computer), details of it
were new to the people in and near the targets.

Perhaps it should have been announced as "We've discovered more
details about some of AQ's ongoing targets. Additional security
precautions are being implemented at the following buildings."

I have some criticisms about some of Ridge's phrasing, fawning about
the President's tactics, but the announcement was right to make, and
close enough to right in its actual implementation.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

Greg Goss

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:34:28 AM8/4/04
to
lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 The Library Avenger) wrote:

>>From: scu...@aol.comatose (kay w)
>
>>We don't stress British history in our schools.
>>
>>Perhaps we should rethink that.
>>
>
>American schools barely stress history period.

Our geek clique in Vancouver had an 18 year old American arrive, (We
were glad to see someone introduce some maturity into that household
otherwise occupied by a 29 year old teenager.)

In a social group self-selected for intelligence and education, she is
by far the best educated of us all. Of course, not all US schools are
as good as whatever one she went to in New Hemp Shire.

Greg Goss

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:30:18 AM8/4/04
to
Bill Van <bil...@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:

>I think by now, after so many false alarms, I'd be very tempted not to
>sit on it, but to heighten security, especially around the alleged
>targets, without a public announcement.

Apparently the extra security appeared at the Citybank building on
Friday, several days before the actual announcement.

M C Hamster

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 10:39:08 AM8/4/04
to
"chrisgreville" <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ceq4lr$2oh$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

Oh, sure, blame everything on the Beeb.

Are they suffering any fallout over the fiasco with that scientist who
committed suicide?

M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival


Joe Shimkus

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 10:48:39 AM8/4/04
to
In article <mhr1h0hv8ua5dgkhu...@4ax.com>,
Dave Wilton <da...@SPAMwilton.net> wrote:

> Instead of Tom Ridge making an announcement to CNN, Fox News, and the
> world, they should have gone to the firms and institutions in those
> buildings and quietly informed them of the information and asked that
> their employees be notified. Local police and emergency services can
> be told without a TV press conference. If there are to be visible
> changes to security, they may want to go to local media so that New
> Yorkers and Washingtonians don't get all worked up when they see the
> extra police.

Making it so publicly known also has the effect of telling "the
terrorists" what you don't know...

"A-ha, they don't know about our plans to bring down Gateway Arch.
Ahmed, scrap the plans for Citibank, we're going to St. Louie!"

--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A

Windows has always aspired to be Mac-like without Microsoft ever really
understanding what that even means. - Robert Cringely

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 11:23:13 AM8/4/04
to

A bit of both. No issue as complex as this can boiled down so succinctly
without losing important details, but yeah. the Iraq war was largely well
considered and presented honestly, and to the extent that there have been
problems from our pre-war understanding, yeah, the intellignece community
has a good bit to answer for.

Not that many here take that position.

Dana Carpender

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 11:37:51 AM8/4/04
to

SoCalMike wrote:

>
>
> Lots42 The Library Avenger wrote:
>
>>> From: John Hatpin nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk
>>
>>
>>

>>>> Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
>>>> between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
>>>> out for the US, didn't it?
>>>
>>>

>>> Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in
>>> Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11,
>>
>>
>>

>> Exactly the point.


>>
>>> Of course, GWB then decided ObL wasn't important,
>>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>

> so bullshitty we put 50k troops in afghanistan, and 500k in iraq? bush
> has proven he cant run a business, and putting all your assets in a lark
> venture is stupid.


>
>>
>>
>>> and
>>> stated that the hunt for ObL, who had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,
>>> was irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>

>> Bullshit.
>
>
> he was on film saying words to that effect.

Yep. I saw it too. Bush flip-flopped, to use the word du jour, on
"Osama bin Laden, dead or alive."

Dana

Joe Shimkus

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 11:44:24 AM8/4/04
to
In article <Bb7Qc.1555$yo4.8...@monger.newsread.com>,
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

And what does that tell you?

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 11:57:23 AM8/4/04
to
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

> He said lots of things about ObL, and the quote I had in mind was
> this, from the same month as yours:

> "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
> care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Of course, context in important:
<quote>
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's
alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't
heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is
-- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the
mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's
now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been
destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it,
and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention
the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to
their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding
at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time
on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure
that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the
coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in
Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go
in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other
struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of
those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are
performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped.
We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a
guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't
truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I
wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.
And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I
truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was
concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned
about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the
shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became
-- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to
train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute
-- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will
or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase
that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working
closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place
to hide, or a place to raise money.
<end quote>

Which is explains where that came from.

> Contrast that with this quote from exactly six months earlier:

> "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
> number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

Two days after the attack, while the smoke was still pouring from the
ruins... Sure, he made the dead or alive comment not long after that, too.
Fortunately, in time, he got a more nuanced view. Getting bin Laden is
what we all wanted, but neutralizing him will have to do.

> I don't trust Bush (or, for that matter, Blair) as far as I can throw
> a Diplodocus.

You know, I treid to find the origin of the "most important thing" quote,
to see if it was similarly taken out of context, but I'm having no luck.
Where did this quote supposedly come from?

M C Hamster

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:01:13 PM8/4/04
to
"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:cephmc...@news.gossg.org...

I agree with Greg (and Clinton). They need to come clean right away with
more about how hard, or soft, the info is, instead of a general warning.

The first day, there was just a warning. It was only the next day that the
fact about this info being years old came out. Do we know if this leaked
out? Did the administration want us to know this info was old? My wife
asked me that, and I said I hadn't seen the answer, one way or the other.

chrisgreville

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:07:48 PM8/4/04
to

"M C Hamster" <davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote in message
news:4110f4b1$0$92043$45be...@newscene.com...

> "chrisgreville" <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ceq4lr$2oh$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Which? The Dems were done, and the Repubs aren't up until the end of
> the
> > > month.
> > >
> >
> > FWIW, the Beeb were reporting yesterday that the President was going to
a
> > rally/convention on Tuesday.
>
> Oh, sure, blame everything on the Beeb.

Achshirley, I'm not. 'Twas an American analyst who pointed it out.

> Are they suffering any fallout over the fiasco with that scientist who
> committed suicide?
>

They are, after a fashion. The government is getting a slightly easier ride
than normal, but there have been some Labour whinges.

Chris Greville


chrisgreville

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:47:06 PM8/4/04
to

"Joe Shimkus" <j...@shimkus.com> wrote in message
news:joe-BFE816.1...@individual.net...


> Ahmed, scrap the plans for Citibank,

Band Name!

<we're going to St. Louie!"
>

Song Title!


chrisgreville

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 12:50:47 PM8/4/04
to

"John Hatpin" <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c2q1h0lg7l7i58otu...@4ax.com...

Really? I hoped it was a straight pretzel dipped in ketchup.

Chris Greville


Boron Elgar

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:14:04 PM8/4/04
to
On 4 Aug 2004 11:01:13 -0500, "M C Hamster"
<davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote:

I am not sure many of you see the immediate ramifications of such
increased security warnings. Since the latest one went into affect
(and remember, NYC is ALWAYS on orange status), there has been an
marked increase in the size of arms, and in armed and vested police at
the Lincoln Tunnel, more trucks being pulled over there, and more
lanes coned to make sure folks cannot hop from one to the next as
easily.

Additionally, there have been contingents of heavily armed cops at the
Meadowlands, near the Turnpike entrance & a couple of miles before the
Lincoln Tunnel. This had traffic backed up about 8-10 miles this
morning and there was not one word about it on the traffic reports.
The security searches often do not make it onto the traffic alerts, I
suppose because they do not want to warn anyone away who might be
caught otherwise.

Monday & Tuesday, this did not cause as severe a traffic problem, as I
think in addition to the usual lighter summer traffic, there were some
who did not come into the city at all due to the warnings. I guess
folks

BTW, I am already seeing signs at public parking garages in Midtown
that say no parking will be allowed during the GOP convention.

Boron


ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:42:07 PM8/4/04
to
Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> In article <Bb7Qc.1555$yo4.8...@monger.newsread.com>,
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
<snip>

> > Not that many here take that position.

> And what does that tell you?

That the members of afca are far more to the left of center than the
general population, and that even with a good command fo the facts, people
can come to different conclusions.

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:41:04 PM8/4/04
to
"Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com> writes:


>That Xybernaut thing scares me. However, I do have an Ipaq I'm going to
>flash with Linux soon.

That sounds dangerous and probably illegal. Better hope that guy from
the Office of Special Plans doesn't see that message.


--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ fhqwhgadshgnsdhjsdbkhsdabkfabkveybvf

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 1:50:11 PM8/4/04
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:

>David Zeiger <dze...@the-institute.net> wrote:


>> Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
>> between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
>> out for the US, didn't it?

>Yep. Isolationism is very tempting. Alas, it more often tends to behave
>like an unpaid credit card bill: eventually the bill comes due, and when
>it does it can be a whopper. 9/11 was a great example of this.

Funny, given that the number one call-to-arms used by AQ (prior to
Operation Iraqi Liberation) was the presence of US "infidel" bases
in the "holy" country of Saudi Arabia, that "isolationism" can get
the blame.

>Iraq on
>the other hand, has been done on the cheap, in terms of treasure and lives
>lost, and frankly, things seem to be going pretty well.

And the chocolate ration has increased, too.

John Dean

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:10:45 PM8/4/04
to
kay w wrote:
> Previously, and greatly snipped:
>
> Mr Hatpin:
>> How long should it take the most powerful leader in the western world
>> to get the simple message "don't fuck with the Middle East"? Has
>> Bush never read a history book?

>
> We don't stress British history in our schools.
>
> Perhaps we should rethink that.

As far as terrorism is concerned, *everybody* in the USA should pay
attention to British history. As long as there have been terrorists, the
British have been a target. We've had our asses kicked all over the
world, we've tried every method known to man of dealing with terrorists
from carpet bombing to murder squads through infiltration, intelligence
gathering, community policing, military law and negotiation. We've been
attacked by terrorists on *their* territory, on *our* territory and on
territory which belongs to neither of us. People who conducted terrorist
activity against us ended up National Leaders and World statesmen. And,
funnily enough, many of them remained on quite friendly terms with us
(*after* we'd gone home and left them alone). There are countries in the
world who have rarely had a Cabinet over the last 50 years or so without
at least one member who was guilty of terrorist atrocities against us.
A comprehensive study of the British Empire second half of the 20th
century in particular will you give you all the lessons you can handle.

--
John Dean
Oxford


Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:13:58 PM8/4/04
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:

>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
><snip>
>> He said lots of things about ObL, and the quote I had in mind was
>> this, from the same month as yours:

>> "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
>> care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

>Of course, context in important:
><quote>
>THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's
>alive at all.

When the President says that he knows something "in his heart", that
generally means it's not true. "My heart and best intentions tell me
that we didn't arm Middle Eastern terrorists to fund Central American
terrorists, but we did."

>Two days after the attack, while the smoke was still pouring from the
>ruins... Sure, he made the dead or alive comment not long after that, too.
>Fortunately, in time, he got a more nuanced view. Getting bin Laden is
>what we all wanted, but neutralizing him will have to do.

So nearly three years later, after blowing up Afghanistan because
they were colluding with him and Iraq because they didn't like us,
we've neutralized him to the point where our anti-terrorist department
is having news conferences to say "there might be a terror attack,
so everyone, be careful," and the number of "significant attacks"
go up to the highest they've been since Reagan was President.

I think that maybe sending 140,000 guys into the second-least-likely
Middle Eastern country [1] to harbor Al Qaeda while ObL disappears into
Johnbelushistan might just not have been the best way to wage the war
on these guys.


[1] Or least, if you consider Israel to be part of Europe. Y'know,
because of their consistently strong showing in the Eurovision contest
and whatnot. But you get my point.

John Hatpin

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 2:36:28 PM8/4/04
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

>Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
>> In article <Bb7Qc.1555$yo4.8...@monger.newsread.com>,
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
><snip>
>> > Not that many here take that position.
>
>> And what does that tell you?
>
>That the members of afca are far more to the left of center than the
>general population, and that even with a good command fo the facts, people
>can come to different conclusions.

Agreed - we are mostly left-biased here. Given that clear and
documented adherance to the facts seems to be the overriding concern
of AFCAns, this, to me, raises the question of the tenability of the
whole right-wing agenda.

And remember, we're mostly people who would benefit from a policy of
separatist wealth-making. After all, we can afford computers and ISP
fees, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Nothing personal, John - I appreciate your posts, but I don't agree
with your politics or your views on encouraging the mass ownership of
lethal firearms. I'd still buy you a beer, though.

--
John Hatpin

Greg Goss

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 3:14:45 PM8/4/04
to
huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:

>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Don't be so silly. The US didn't have any business at all in

>> Afghanistan (it's got an H in it) until 9/11, when GWB promised to
>> find ObL and promised to bring him to justice.
>
>Any business at all?
>
>1) USS Cole

Cole happened two or three weeks before the election. If they called
Kosovo a "Wag the Dog", what would they call a war declared a week
before the election? Since it takes months to put together a war
effort, it was best to leave that declaration to the Gore government.
[cuts]

>> As we know, GwB has recently been photographed literally holding hands
>> with the leader of the country which mainly produced the 9/11
>> terrorists, and which continues to donate to the GWB fund. Give me
>> one good reason why Saudi Arabia should continue be a great friend of
>> the USA, and omit the word "oil". Try it, it's a fun exercise.
>
>It's the only major arab country allied with the US in the region. If
>unilateralism is bad, you gotta ally with ~somebody~, and that would
>seem to be what the whole Carlysle/Haliburton/Bandar Bush thing is about.

Qatar set up that giant new airbase for the Americans. I think that
this allowed the US to close down the airbase (s?) in Saudi Arabia.

[cuts]
>Look again. It's economic. It's mainly to do with one factor: stability.
>The Taliban managed to fuck up Afghanistan pretty good - well enough
>that it'll be a while before gunfire in the streets stops being a daily
>occurrance there. The government-backed muslim militias in Sudan are
>right now in the process of doing the same things. Iraq? I dunno why the
>fuck George W. Bush invaded Iraq. Maybe a rogue democrat played a
>practical joke on him, and put a cube that said "Invade Iraq" in his
>magic 8-ball. How the hell was he supposed to know that the guy would
>actually do it?

The eight-ball said to invade Iran. It's just Saddam's tough luck
that the Prez is not a great reader, and sees what he expects to see.

chrisgreville

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 4:41:29 PM8/4/04
to

"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:cer8pn$ncp$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> As far as terrorism is concerned, *everybody* in the USA should pay
> attention to British history. As long as there have been terrorists, the
> British have been a target. We've had our asses kicked all over the
> world, we've tried every method known to man of dealing with terrorists
> from carpet bombing to murder squads through infiltration, intelligence
> gathering, community policing, military law and negotiation. .
>

And we invented Concentration Camps

Chris Greville


ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 4:53:25 PM8/4/04
to
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> >Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> >> In article <Bb7Qc.1555$yo4.8...@monger.newsread.com>,
> >> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> > Not that many here take that position.
> >
> >> And what does that tell you?
> >
> >That the members of afca are far more to the left of center than the
> >general population, and that even with a good command of the facts,
> >people can come to different conclusions.

> Agreed - we are mostly left-biased here. Given that clear and
> documented adherance to the facts seems to be the overriding concern
> of AFCAns, this, to me, raises the question of the tenability of the
> whole right-wing agenda.

Reading any sort of general population observation into the makup of a
self selected group like ours is shakey at best.

> And remember, we're mostly people who would benefit from a policy of
> separatist wealth-making. After all, we can afford computers and ISP
> fees, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Prior to the shutdown of the AOL boards and the subsequent influx of AOL
members, afca's general political biases were hugely Libertarian in
outlook. Does that mean that both the left and right wing agendas are
untenable? Not likely, as they've been tenning along just fine for quite
a while. A more reasonable view is that people tend to select areas to
hang out where their views tend to be reinforced (or pleasantlty
challenged).

> Nothing personal, John - I appreciate your posts, but I don't agree
> with your politics or your views on encouraging the mass ownership of
> lethal firearms. I'd still buy you a beer, though.

No offense taken. I'm used to people disagreeing with my politics, and I
recognize that the gun thing is also controversial, especially to you UK
fellows. And I appreciate the offer and would return in kind, except our
beer is crap, so I'd have to offer you one of my homebrews, or perhaps a
fine glass of my mead.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 4:56:57 PM8/4/04
to
Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:

> >John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> He said lots of things about ObL, and the quote I had in mind was
> >> this, from the same month as yours:

> >> "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
> >> care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

> >Of course, context in important:
> ><quote>
> >THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's
> >alive at all.

> When the President says that he knows something "in his heart", that
> generally means it's not true.

That's a cute line, but you know, it's not got any truth to it.

<snip>


> >Two days after the attack, while the smoke was still pouring from the
> >ruins... Sure, he made the dead or alive comment not long after that, too.
> >Fortunately, in time, he got a more nuanced view. Getting bin Laden is
> >what we all wanted, but neutralizing him will have to do.

> So nearly three years later, after blowing up Afghanistan because
> they were colluding with him and Iraq because they didn't like us,
> we've neutralized him to the point where our anti-terrorist department
> is having news conferences to say "there might be a terror attack,
> so everyone, be careful,"

Yep. You would rather we went back to the Clinton adminstration tactic of
burying our head in the sand no doubt?

> and the number of "significant attacks"
> go up to the highest they've been since Reagan was President.

Cite?

> I think that maybe sending 140,000 guys into the second-least-likely
> Middle Eastern country [1] to harbor Al Qaeda while ObL disappears into
> Johnbelushistan might just not have been the best way to wage the war
> on these guys.

As you've stated many times before.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 4:58:32 PM8/4/04
to
Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:
> >David Zeiger <dze...@the-institute.net> wrote:

> >> Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
> >> between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
> >> out for the US, didn't it?

> >Yep. Isolationism is very tempting. Alas, it more often tends to behave
> >like an unpaid credit card bill: eventually the bill comes due, and when
> >it does it can be a whopper. 9/11 was a great example of this.

> Funny, given that the number one call-to-arms used by AQ (prior to
> Operation Iraqi Liberation) was the presence of US "infidel" bases
> in the "holy" country of Saudi Arabia, that "isolationism" can get
> the blame.

Yep. It's a funny old world. I suppose you'd rather have Let Iraq get
away with invading Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia, eh?

Joe Shimkus

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 5:53:15 PM8/4/04
to
In article <t4cQc.1574$yo4.8...@monger.newsread.com>,
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@stanford.edu> wrote:

> > So nearly three years later, after blowing up Afghanistan because
> > they were colluding with him and Iraq because they didn't like us,
> > we've neutralized him to the point where our anti-terrorist department
> > is having news conferences to say "there might be a terror attack,
> > so everyone, be careful,"
>
> Yep. You would rather we went back to the Clinton adminstration tactic of
> burying our head in the sand no doubt?

To use the oh, so erudite phraseology of Lots....Bullshit!

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact

> Clarke told me that in the mid-nineties łthe C.I.A. was authorized to
> mount operations to go into Afghanistan and apprehend bin Laden.˛
> President Clinton, Clarke said, łwas really gung-ho˛ about the
> scenario. łHe had no hesitations,˛ he said. łBut the C.I.A. had
> hesitations. They didnąt want their own people killed. And they
> didnąt want their shortcomings exposed. They really didnąt have the
> paramilitary capability to do it; they could not stage a snatch
> operation.˛ Instead of trying to mount the operation themselves,
> Clarke said, łthe C.I.A. basically paid a bunch of local Afghans, who
> went in and did nothing.˛

> In 1998, Al Qaeda struck the American embassies in Kenya and
> Tanzania, killing more than two hundred people. In retaliation,
> Clinton signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A.
> to kill bin Laden. It was the first directive of this kind that
> Clarke had seen during his thirty years in government. Soon
> afterward, he told me, C.I.A. officials went to the White House and
> said they had łspecific, predictive, actionable˛ intelligence that
> bin Laden would soon be attending a particular meeting, in a
> particular place. łIt was a rare occurrence,˛ Clarke said. Clinton
> authorized a lethal attack. The target date, however‹August 20,
> 1998‹nearly coincided with Clintonąs deposition about his affair with
> Monica Lewinsky. Clarke said that he and other top national-security
> officials at the White House went to see Clinton to warn him that he
> would likely be accused of łwagging the dog˛ in order to distract the
> public from his political embarrassment. Clinton was enraged. łDonąt
> you fucking tell me about my political problems, or my personal
> problems,˛ Clinton said, according to Clarke. łYou tell me about
> national security. Is it the right thing to do?˛ Clarke thought it
> was. łThen fucking do it,˛ Clinton told him.
>
> The attacks, which cost seventy-nine million dollars and involved
> some sixty satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles, obliterated
> two targets‹a terrorist training camp outside Khost, in Afghanistan,
> and a pharmaceutical plant thought to be manufacturing chemical
> weapons in Khartoum, Sudan‹and were notorious failures. łThe best
> post-facto intelligence we had was that bin Laden had left the
> training camp within an hour of the attack,˛ Clarke said. What went
> wrong? łI have reason to believe that a retired head of the I.S.I.
> was able to pass information along to Al Qaeda that an attack was
> coming,˛ he said.
> Clarke also blames the military for enabling the Pakistanis to
> compromise the mission. The Pentagon did what we asked them not to,
> he said. We asked them not to use surface ships. We asked them to use
> subs, so they wouldnt signal the attack. But not only did they use
> surface shipsthey brought additional ones in, because every captain
> wants to be able to say he fired the cruise missile.


> After the 1998 fiasco, Clinton secretly approved additional
> Presidential findings, authorizing the killing not just of bin Laden
> but also of several of his top lieutenants, and permitting any
> private planes or helicopters carrying them to be shot down. These
> directives led to nothing. łThe C.I.A. was unable to carry out the
> mission,˛ Clarke said. łThey hired local Afghans to do it for them
> again.˛ The agency also tried to train and equip a Pakistani commando
> force and some Uzbeks, too. łThe point is, they were risk-averse,˛ he
> said.

Blinky the Shark

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 5:51:51 PM8/4/04
to
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek wrote:

> That's where tin has led you astry. It's the Peripatetic Linux Geek. I
> simply wander the earth extolling the virtues of Linux. I anticipate a
> death like Socrates, forced to drink Hemlock over accusations of having
> led astray the youth of my land from Emperor Bill.

> That Xybernaut thing scares me. However, I do have an Ipaq I'm going to
> flash with Linux soon.

I just read that HP's bringing out a laptop Linux line.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263

An Important Health Reminder http://snipurl.com/healthyshark

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 6:46:32 PM8/4/04
to
SoCalMike wrote:
>
>
> Lots42 The Library Avenger wrote:
>
>>> From: John Hatpin nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>> The British learned their lesson with Israel, and people are still
>>> paying for that massive cock-up with their lives. Perhaps Bush needs
>>> to carry around a big piece of paper with the words "LEAVE THE MIDDLE
>>> EAST ALONE" written on it. In bright red crayon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah because -that- works.
>>
>> Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
>>
>
> there has to be an alternative to sticking our nose in everyones
> business, then crying when it gets punched a few times.

Sure. We pull out of the UN, pull out of NATO and tell the world to go
screw itself. When it wants foreign aid, let it go to France and
Germany. When it wants help stopping some genocide, let it ask China
and Vietnam to send in the troops.

Bill

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 6:46:02 PM8/4/04
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:

>Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:
>> >David Zeiger <dze...@the-institute.net> wrote:

>> >> Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
>> >> between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
>> >> out for the US, didn't it?

>> >Yep. Isolationism is very tempting. Alas, it more often tends to behave
>> >like an unpaid credit card bill: eventually the bill comes due, and when
>> >it does it can be a whopper. 9/11 was a great example of this.

>> Funny, given that the number one call-to-arms used by AQ (prior to
>> Operation Iraqi Liberation) was the presence of US "infidel" bases
>> in the "holy" country of Saudi Arabia, that "isolationism" can get
>> the blame.

>Yep. It's a funny old world. I suppose you'd rather have Let Iraq get
>away with invading Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia, eh?

Hardly, but I really don't think that the isolationist policy that
the US didn't pursue was responsible for our being attacked, and
it seems rather absurd to blame a policy that wasn't followed for an
event that did occur.

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 6:41:02 PM8/4/04
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:

>Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> >Of course, context in important:
>> ><quote>
>> >THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's
>> >alive at all.

>> When the President says that he knows something "in his heart", that
>> generally means it's not true.

>That's a cute line, but you know, it's not got any truth to it.

Maybe, maybe not. But "deep in my heart I know ..." is very different
from "available evidence indicates that ...", and given that AQ's
still been very active and ObL continued to send out recordings,
I think "on the run" or "neutralized" are just wishful thinking.

On the other hand, ObL's continual recorded material output may
be something like Tupac Shakur's[1], and it's not like AQ are going
to say "oh yeah, his kidney failed and he died."

><snip>


>> >Fortunately, in time, he got a more nuanced view. Getting bin Laden is
>> >what we all wanted, but neutralizing him will have to do.

>> So nearly three years later, after blowing up Afghanistan because
>> they were colluding with him and Iraq because they didn't like us,
>> we've neutralized him to the point where our anti-terrorist department
>> is having news conferences to say "there might be a terror attack,
>> so everyone, be careful,"

>Yep. You would rather we went back to the Clinton adminstration tactic of
>burying our head in the sand no doubt?

As opposed to "preemption" of non-threats? It's a tough choice,
I'll admit. What I'd prefer was that we devote our military
resources to fighting against actual threats and to intervening
in situations where (a) it's clearly warranted and (b) there's
an exit strategy.

>> and the number of "significant attacks"
>> go up to the highest they've been since Reagan was President.

>Cite?

The State Department, this year.

>> I think that maybe sending 140,000 guys into the second-least-likely
>> Middle Eastern country [1] to harbor Al Qaeda while ObL disappears into
>> Johnbelushistan might just not have been the best way to wage the war
>> on these guys.

>As you've stated many times before.

I'm sure that's the first time I said "Johnbelushistan", but yeah.


[1] Well known dead rapper, and according to the Office of Special
Plans also a member of Saddam's Fedayeen, al-Qaida, and the Miami Heat.
(footnote applies to this post, not two posts ago)

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 6:52:00 PM8/4/04
to
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> "Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>I'd like to see an express prohibition on CIA editorializing
>>intelligence, as it's done for the last fifty or so years. It's the
>>only agency that can product so-called "finished intelligence" where as
>>everyone else reports just the facts, no opinion tossed in.
>
>
> A moratorium on "Team B" analysis might be warranted particularly.
>
>

Yet, we now have members of the 9/11 commission complaining that the
intelligence community like "imagination". No. They have plenty of that
as demosntrated over the last twenty years. What they need to focus in
on are concrete, independently verifiable resources and leave
imagineering to Disney.

Bill

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 6:52:46 PM8/4/04
to
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) writes:
>
>
>>Previously, and snipped:
>
>
>>BillVan:
>>
>>>Under the circumstances, don't you have some doubts?
>
>
>>Oh, just as I sent the last post, Bill Clinton said, on Letterman, that he has
>>no doubt that raising the alert level was the right thing to do, and says he
>>doesn't believe at all that it was politically motivated.
>
>
>
> Much as I like the guy, Bill Clinton wouldn't say anything if Bush
> literally tracked cow flop on his office carpet if anyone else was
> around. That's the feeling I get about him anyway.
>

Clinton's shown a surprising and unexpected discretion about commenting
on Bush and foreign policy.

Bill

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 6:58:37 PM8/4/04
to
"Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com> writes:

>Joseph Michael Bay wrote:

>> Much as I like the guy, Bill Clinton wouldn't say anything if Bush
>> literally tracked cow flop on his office carpet if anyone else was
>> around. That's the feeling I get about him anyway.


>Clinton's shown a surprising and unexpected discretion about commenting
>on Bush and foreign policy.

I can't recall an ex-POTUS publically being critical of a POTUS, or
of another ex-POTUS, actually.

Bill Van

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 7:02:31 PM8/4/04
to
In article <cer8pn$ncp$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:

> As far as terrorism is concerned, *everybody* in the USA should pay
> attention to British history. As long as there have been terrorists, the
> British have been a target. We've had our asses kicked all over the
> world, we've tried every method known to man of dealing with terrorists
> from carpet bombing to murder squads through infiltration, intelligence
> gathering, community policing, military law and negotiation. We've been
> attacked by terrorists on *their* territory, on *our* territory and on
> territory which belongs to neither of us. People who conducted terrorist
> activity against us ended up National Leaders and World statesmen. And,
> funnily enough, many of them remained on quite friendly terms with us
> (*after* we'd gone home and left them alone). There are countries in the
> world who have rarely had a Cabinet over the last 50 years or so without
> at least one member who was guilty of terrorist atrocities against us.
> A comprehensive study of the British Empire second half of the 20th
> century in particular will you give you all the lessons you can handle.

Although a look back at the several centuries that came before will
provide some idea of where those late 20th century events came from.

Reading your post, I immediately thought of this:

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Don't take this personally; it's not meant that way. I am also descended
from folks who colonized other parts of the world and, uhm, severely
patronized their inhabitants. But this business of using military might
to impose your will on other countries, no matter how nobly intended,
can lead to really awful, long-lasting hangovers.

bill

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 7:22:59 PM8/4/04
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

> SoCalMike <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lots42 The Library Avenger wrote:
>>
>>>>From: John Hatpin nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk
>>>
>>>>The British learned their lesson with Israel, and people are still
>>>>paying for that massive cock-up with their lives. Perhaps Bush needs
>>>>to carry around a big piece of paper with the words "LEAVE THE MIDDLE
>>>>EAST ALONE" written on it. In bright red crayon.
>>>
>>>Yeah because -that- works.
>>>
>>>Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
>
>
>>there has to be an alternative to sticking our nose in everyones
>>business, then crying when it gets punched a few times.
>
>
> Today, I'm from Missouri: "Show Me". _Any_ interference may be termed as
> "sticking our nose in everyones business".
>
>
>
>
> John

I'm originally from Missouri. It's no longer the "Show Me" state.
After yesterday, it's officially the "Hate You" state.

Bill

Dana Carpender

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 7:30:54 PM8/4/04
to


I guess I missed it. What happened in Missouri yesterday?

Dana

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 7:53:39 PM8/4/04
to
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> "Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>That Xybernaut thing scares me. However, I do have an Ipaq I'm going to
>>flash with Linux soon.
>
>
> That sounds dangerous and probably illegal. Better hope that guy from
> the Office of Special Plans doesn't see that message.
>
>

I'll just trot out the LP line:
"Haven't you been replaced with a volunteer yet?"

Bill

Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek

unread,
Aug 4, 2004, 7:57:01 PM8/4/04
to
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> ra...@westnet.poe.com writes:
>
>
>>David Zeiger <dze...@the-institute.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Because, of course, leaving Afganistan alone for a decade or so
>>>between the time the Russians pulled out and 9/11 really worked
>>>out for the US, didn't it?
>
>
>>Yep. Isolationism is very tempting. Alas, it more often tends to behave
>>like an unpaid credit card bill: eventually the bill comes due, and when
>>it does it can be a whopper. 9/11 was a great example of this.
>
>
> Funny, given that the number one call-to-arms used by AQ (prior to
> Operation Iraqi Liberation) was the presence of US "infidel" bases
> in the "holy" country of Saudi Arabia, that "isolationism" can get
> the blame.
>
>
>>Iraq on
>>the other hand, has been done on the cheap, in terms of treasure and lives
>>lost, and frankly, things seem to be going pretty well.
>
>
> And the chocolate ration has increased, too.
>

But they lack a great song like "Lili Marlene". You can't possibly have
a great occupation song without Marlene Dietrich.

Bill

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages