Rewriting History
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------------
Rewriting History
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 4, 2007
George Tenet has a very mixed legacy. On the one hand, he presided over the
two biggest intelligence failures of this era -- Sept. 11 and the WMD
debacle in Iraq. On the other hand, his CIA did devise and carry out
brilliantly an astonishingly bold plan to overthrow the Taliban in
Afghanistan. Tenet might have just left it at that, gone home with his
Presidential Medal of Freedom and let history judge him.
Instead, he's decided to do some judging of his own. In his just-released
book, and while hawking it on television, Tenet presents himself as a
pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hellbent on
going to war, slam dunk or not.
Tenet writes as if he assumes no one remembers anything. For example:
"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration
about the imminence of the Iraqi threat."
Does he think no one remembers President Bush explicitly rejecting the
imminence argument in his 2003 State of the Union address in front of just
about the largest possible world audience? Said the president, " Some have
said we must not act until the threat is imminent" -- and he was not one of
them. That in a post-Sept. 11 world, we cannot wait for tyrants and
terrorists to gentlemanly declare their intentions. Indeed, elsewhere in
the book Tenet concedes that very point: "It was never a question of a
known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise."
Tenet also makes what he thinks is the damning and sensational charge that
the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, had been focusing on Iraq
even before Sept. 11. In fact, he reports, Cheney asked for a CIA briefing
on Iraq for the president even before they had been sworn in.
This is odd? This is news? For the entire decade following the 1990
invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was the single greatest threat in the region and
therefore the most important focus of U.S. policy.
U.N. resolutions, congressional debates and foreign policy arguments were
seized with the Iraq question and its many post-Gulf War complications --
the weapons of mass destruction, the inspection regimes, the cease-fire
violations, the no-fly zones, the progressive weakening of sanctions.
BINGO! -- DSH
Iraq was such an obsession of the Clinton administration that Bill Clinton
ultimately ordered an air and missile attack on its WMD installations that
lasted four days. This was less than two years before Bush won the
presidency.
How soon we forget. -- DSH
Is it odd that the administration following Clinton's should share its
extreme concern about Iraq and its weapons?
Tenet is not the only one to assume a generalized amnesia about the recent
past. One of the major myths (or, more accurately, conspiracy theories)
about the Iraq war -- that it was foisted upon an unsuspecting country by a
small band of neoconservatives -- also lives blissfully detached from
history.
The decision to go to war was made by a war cabinet consisting of George
Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld.
No one in that room could even remotely be considered a neoconservative.
Nor could the most important non-American supporter of the war to this
day -- Tony Blair, father of new Labor.
The most powerful case for the war was made at the 2004 Republican
convention by John McCain in a speech that was resolutely "realist." On the
Democratic side, every presidential candidate running today who was in the
Senate when the motion to authorize the use of force came up -- Hillary
Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd-- voted yes.
Outside of government, the case for war was made not just by the
neoconservative Weekly Standard but -- to select almost randomly -- the
traditionally conservative National Review, the liberal New Republic and the
center-right Economist.
Of course, most neoconservatives supported the war, the case for which was
also being made by journalists and scholars from every point on the
political spectrum -- from the leftist Christopher Hitchens to the liberal
Tom Friedman to the centrist Fareed Zakaria to the center-right Michael
Kelly to the Tory Andrew Sullivan.
And the most influential tome on behalf of war was written not by any
conservative, let alone neoconservative, but by Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's
top Near East official on the National Security Council. The title: "The
Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq."
Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that
past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not
ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a
few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works.
Ray O'Hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:UI81i.68$y33...@eagle.america.net...
> Spot On!
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Rewriting History
>
> By Charles Krauthammer
> Friday, May 4, 2007
krauthammer is a fascistic anti-freedom asshole.
gibso...@yahoo.com
The Brits are good at rewriting history!
dapra
> Spot On!
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Rewriting History
>
> By Charles Krauthammer
> Friday, May 4, 2007
>
> George Tenet has a very mixed legacy. On the one hand, he presided over the
> two biggest intelligence failures of this era -- Sept. 11 and the WMD
> debacle in Iraq.
>
That's very disingenuous for Krauthammer to say. The WMD's and Al-Quida
connections were the best hoax, supported by George Tenet, ever
committed on the American people. Krauthammer supported every
allegations all the way. He should praise it, as the best of his
achievements.
>
> On the other hand, his CIA did devise and carry out
> brilliantly an astonishingly bold plan to overthrow the Taliban in
> Afghanistan. Tenet might have just left it at that, gone home with his
> Presidential Medal of Freedom and let history judge him.
>
"brilliantly an astonishingly bold plan"? One might think we got a new
Switzerland there after five years. Not a government ready to throw us
out to save their skin.
>
> Instead, he's decided to do some judging of his own. In his just-released
> book, and while hawking it on television, Tenet presents himself as a
> pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hellbent on
> going to war, slam dunk or not.
>
> Tenet writes as if he assumes no one remembers anything. For example:
> "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration
> about the imminence of the Iraqi threat."
>
Tenet is not innocent, he is a coconspirator as Krauthammer is.
>
> Does he think no one remembers President Bush explicitly rejecting the
> imminence argument in his 2003 State of the Union address in front of just
> about the largest possible world audience? Said the president, " Some have
> said we must not act until the threat is imminent"
>
So? You had to make it "imminent". What's our boot licking English
friends are for, but to supply 'evidence' of chemical attacks in 45
minutes? Of course Berlusconi out done Tony. Supplying false 'evidence'
for the mushroom cloud.
One would admire the corruption and manipulation of the White House, if
it would not cost a $ 1 trillion by the time it's over.
Billy the Kid, Al Capone are insignificant 'heroes' comparing to Bushs
heist.
>
>-- and he was not one of
> them. That in a post-Sept. 11 world, we cannot wait for tyrants and
> terrorists to gentlemanly declare their intentions. Indeed, elsewhere in
> the book Tenet concedes that very point: "It was never a question of a
> known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise."
>
The Bush administration don't care of the "question of a known", let
alone justice. They arrest or kill and torture. Justice has been
exorcised from their vocabulary.
>
> Tenet also makes what he thinks is the damning and sensational charge that
> the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, had been focusing on Iraq
> even before Sept. 11. In fact, he reports, Cheney asked for a CIA briefing
> on Iraq for the president even before they had been sworn in.
>
> This is odd? This is news? For the entire decade following the 1990
> invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was the single greatest threat in the region and
> therefore the most important focus of U.S. policy.
>
It was just as much threat as Poland were to Germany.
>
> U.N. resolutions, congressional debates and foreign policy arguments were
> seized with the Iraq question and its many post-Gulf War complications --
> the weapons of mass destruction, the inspection regimes, the cease-fire
> violations, the no-fly zones, the progressive weakening of sanctions.
>
> BINGO! -- DSH
>
> Iraq was such an obsession of the Clinton administration that Bill Clinton
> ultimately ordered an air and missile attack on its WMD installations that
> lasted four days. This was less than two years before Bush won the
> presidency.
>
Clinton, the best advocate for the corporate oligarchy, of course
supported the imperial take over of Iraq's oil fields. Even you, DSH
can't be that naive to believe that Clinton was much different from
Bush. Of course no one could be as stupid as Bush.
>
> How soon we forget. -- DSH
>
> Is it odd that the administration following Clinton's should share its
> extreme concern about Iraq and its weapons?
>
> Tenet is not the only one to assume a generalized amnesia about the recent
> past. One of the major myths (or, more accurately, conspiracy theories)
> about the Iraq war -- that it was foisted upon an unsuspecting country by a
> small band of neoconservatives -- also lives blissfully detached from
> history.
>
> The decision to go to war was made by a war cabinet consisting of George
> Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld.
>
Who was not a CEO of that group? Condy, the one who missed her high
school lessons, and Colin, who never learned much to do anything but salute.
Well, I've tried to rip Krauthammer's editorial apart, but it's time to
go to sleep. I leave the rest to someone else.
Soren Larsen
> Spot On!
>
> BINGO! -- DSH
>
> Iraq was such an obsession of the Clinton administration that Bill
> Clinton ultimately ordered an air and missile attack on its WMD
> installations that lasted four days. This was less than two years
> before Bush won the presidency.
>
> How soon we forget. -- DSH
We dont forget fast enough to let dimwits like Krauthammer
rewrite history.
Operation Desert Fox
"MISSION GOALS: To degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use
weapons of mass destruction. To diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage
war against his neighbors. To demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the
consequences of violating international obligations."
The mission goal were to degrade Saddams _ABILITY_ to produce wmd's.
Nothing about Saddam actually having or producing wmd's.
The bushevics are getting desperate.
Soren Larsen
--
History is not what it used to be.
William Black
<gibso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178937982.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Brits are good at rewriting history!
>
Let's have some examples.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> <gibson_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
A.J.P. Taylor, Winston S. Churchill, E. P. Thompson, Mallory, Jack
Straw, etc
William Black
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1178967118.4...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 12, 6:42 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> <gibson_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1178937982.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Brits are good at rewriting history!
>>
>> Let's have some examples.
>>
>
> Straw, etc
>
as reminiscences, politicians write anecdotal stuff, erm... what's wrong
with EP Thompson?
You may not agree with his conclusions but he's certainly a historian of
some renown.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I believe A.J. P. Taylor was an historian "whose conclusions people
did not agree with and was a historian of some renown".
Specifically Churchill and his WWI attempt to make the whole
Dardanelles affair "not my fault".
I threw Thompson in to light a candle. "This perspective infused
Thompson's early work on Morris, and he later regretted that he had
allowed ''some hectoring political moralisms, as well as a few
Stalinist pieties, to intrude upon the text.'' These moralisms and
pieties did not survive the Soviet repression of the Hungarian revolt
of 1956, and by the time he wrote ''The Making of the English Working
Class'' (which began as the first chapter of a history of the English
labor movement, but swelled to 848 pages), he had broken both with the
Communist Party and with orthodox Marxism."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/07/01/reviews/010701.01belllt.html
Mallory is probably considered "sacred text" by ahb and shm people,
Straw is an example of someone banging a shoe on the table to get
attention.
William Black
> Specifically Churchill and his WWI attempt to make the whole
> Dardanelles affair "not my fault".
Churchill was not, and never pretended to be, a historian.
He was a journalist who became a politician.
He is on record as saying 'History will be kind to me, I intend to write
it'.
History is not a book of memoirs.
Neither is it, despite the protestations of Hines and his mates, a list of
immutable facts, the facts tend to change as time passes.
History is the interpretation of the past for the people of today.
A historian is someone who interprets the past in a way that is
comprehensible to the people of today.
After that we get to historical philosophy, which I think we've been
through often enough, in s.h.m anyway, before...
Ray O'Hara
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xBi1i.14159$d9.1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1178969403.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Specifically Churchill and his WWI attempt to make the whole
> > Dardanelles affair "not my fault".
>
> Churchill was not, and never pretended to be, a historian.
so 'his life of marlborough' his 'history of the english speaking people'
his 'forgotten war'{the east front 1914-17} arn't histories.
wrong ,black. winnie the fool wrote a lot of history, very good ones too.
it was at politics and military strategy where he was a fool.
Ray O'Hara
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:46458c70$0$13984$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
krauthammer is pro-israel and he sees the U.S as a tool for israel. he cares
nothing for america, also being confined to a wheelchair{he's parapalegic}
has twiated his mind and made him a bitter man.
its tough to criticize the neo-cons here as it gets you called anti-semitic.
Les Cargill
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
<snip>
>
> That's very disingenuous for Krauthammer to say. The WMD's and Al-Quida
> connections were the best hoax, supported by George Tenet, ever
> committed on the American people. Krauthammer supported every
> allegations all the way. He should praise it, as the best of his
> achievements.
>
Since there is never perfect intelligence, is the attribution
"hoax" appropriate? I'd say the "best" hoax was the sinking
of the Maine, fully pushed by the Hearst newspapers.
I'm just saying - isn't that how the game has been rigged
all along? Tenet said so, so he's the one goes down for it
if it's not true? Didn't the Bush cadre set it up that way?
The rest of us get the "benefeit" if
he's right, and he falls on his sword if he's wrong.
Just IMO, but *we* are ultimately accountable. Scapegoating
Tenet does nothing to prevent such "misdeeds" next time.
After all, the insularity of the Vulcan tribe in Murkin
politics is a survival tactic. One that worked. Since
that insularity is a proscribed defense against the very
electoral process... didn't *we* do that, too?
Also also - compared to the rhetoric in newspapers
describing Lincoln, Bush is rather well-thought-of.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Have you read Violet Bonham Carter's analysis of that? It
at least sheds some light on it. She's an unapologetic
apologist, but the context is much uglier than we might
imagine. Winston effectively sent himself to be killed
at the Front after that.
> I threw Thompson in to light a candle. "This perspective infused
> Thompson's early work on Morris, and he later regretted that he had
> allowed ''some hectoring political moralisms, as well as a few
> Stalinist pieties, to intrude upon the text.'' These moralisms and
> pieties did not survive the Soviet repression of the Hungarian revolt
> of 1956, and by the time he wrote ''The Making of the English Working
> Class'' (which began as the first chapter of a history of the English
> labor movement, but swelled to 848 pages), he had broken both with the
> Communist Party and with orthodox Marxism."
> http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/07/01/reviews/010701.01belllt.html
>
> Mallory is probably considered "sacred text" by ahb and shm people,
> Straw is an example of someone banging a shoe on the table to get
> attention.
>
SO how's Schama? I kind of like his writing, at least.
--
Les Cargill
TMOliver
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote ....
>
> krauthammer is pro-israel and he sees the U.S as a tool for israel. he
> cares
> nothing for america, also being confined to a wheelchair{he's parapalegic}
> has twiated his mind and made him a bitter man.
> its tough to criticize the neo-cons here as it gets you called
> anti-semitic.
>
>
Come on, ray. You're not really an anti-Semite, simply a blathering racist,
self condemned in the body of your work.
I must admit to be nothing of a Krauthammer admirer, finding him too
subjective in judgment and in occasional over-response perhaps a bit
"twisted", but if I used a psychologist's speculum to peer inside his head,
I'm sure I'd find a personality far less obsessed, twisted and warped into
undeniable paranoia and encroaching psychosis than the level conveyed in
your posts. Compared to his wheelchair, you must be bound into a Riker
frame, harnessed at all four extremities with a big strap amidships, then
suspended upside down so you won't aspirate your own bile. I can only
conclude that you must have been the victim of a really dismal childhood,
long periods of being bullied at school, substantial frustration, ongoing
rejection by both small dogs and women (even desperate ones or flaming
codependents), or a long period in service in the lower tier of a
slave-rowed galley.
I hope you're not young, condemning those around you to long years of
coexistence alongside one so obviously troubled.
TMO
Jack Linthicum
> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote ....
When he worked for NPR he smelled too. We shared a building.
William Black
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:pZadnV744f59fdjb...@rcn.net...
Knights' by John Steinbeck and 'The Sword in the Age of Chivalry' by Ewart
Oakeshott.
If you can't see it then you've got a problem.
Churchill was a journalist and a populist. he never pretended to be a
historian.
Also, I wonder how you make him a fool at politics?
He was a cabinet minister with two different parties in government,
something nobody else has managed this century.
After this he managed to become Prime Minister twice, also an achievement
not to be treated with contempt.
Mind you, you're a nasty little shit aren't you.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pZadnV744f59fdjb...@rcn.net...
>
>
>
> > "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:xBi1i.14159$d9.1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
You should pass that information on to the Churchill Society, although
one of the returns from "Winston Churchill historian" google got it
righter than most: Winston Churchill has a 19th century historian.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=570
Winston Churchill the Historian
by The Lord Blake, F.B.A. J.P.
Annual Meetings of the Sir Winston S. Churchill Society
Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, Canada, May 1988
I AM MOST grateful, flattered and honoured to be the guest speaker
this year at the Sir Winston Churchill Societies of Edmonton, Calgary
and Vancouver. In advance of your formal invitation I received a
letter from your Patron, Lady Soames, urging me to accept it when it
came. I replied from Austin, Texas, where I was on a visit, that I
needed no urging. It would be a pleasure to say something, however
inadequate, about the greatest statesman of the 20th century.
In passing let me say (or endorse what your president has said)
how sad I am that Lord Soames died recently. He was a pillar of
support to his father-in-law and of course an important political and
diplomatic figure in his own right. Another grievous loss from the
inner ring of those intimate with Sir Winston is Sir John Colville.
His book, The Fringes of Power, is one of the most illuminating of all
the memoirs that have appeared from the Churchill "circle" - alas by
the course of nature an inevitably diminishing", band.
I was myself never one of them. I did not know Sir Winston
personally. I only saw him once in the flesh. That was at the funeral
of Professor Lindemann, Lord Cherwell, one of his oldest and closest
friends, despite being a total vegetarian and non-smoker. Lindemann I
knew very well. I was one of his executors and a trustee of his
estate. Churchill greatly relied on him for scientific and
technological advice. I will always remember Sir Winston walking down
the Christ Church Cathedral aisle with tears pouring down his cheeks
on that sad occasion.
I propose to speak tonight about Sir Winston as a historian rather
than statesman and war leader. I imagine you have already heard a
great deal about him in the latter roles, and I should say at once
that they are his principal claims to fame. His role as historian is a
secondary aspect of his extraordinary career. He was the greatest
statesman in the history of what he called "The English-Speaking
Peoples." But his four volumes with that title do not make him their
greatest historian. Nor do his other works. He is not on a par with
his hero, Edward Gibbon, or his bete noire, Thomas Babbington
Macaulay.
One could compare him with Disraeli, who wrote a number of novels
but whose reputation does not stand or fall by them. Disraeli was
never a Dickens or a Thackeray. The best of his novels are perceptive,
witty and at times very amusing. But they are not profound. They are
in two dimensions rather than three. The same might be said about Sir
Winston Churchill's works of history. He could paint a vivid scene in
marvelous language. He did always convincingly explain why it was
there to be painted.
Many of his historical writings are autobiographical as well. His
multi-volume accounts of the two world wars are examples. He played a
major personal part in each and he never claimed to be writing a
definitive history of either. Sir William Deakin told Martin Gilbert:
"Winston's attitude to the war memoirs was, 'this is not history -
this is my case.' "
Churchill himself wrote of The World Crisis, title of his first
world war memoirs: "It is not for me with my record and special point
of view to pronounce a final conclusion. That must be left to others
and at other times. I present it as contribution to history."
<more>
Jamie H
<tmoliv...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote:
>
>"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote ....
>
>>
>> krauthammer is pro-israel and he sees the U.S as a tool for israel. he
>> cares
>> nothing for america, also being confined to a wheelchair{he's parapalegic}
>> has twiated his mind and made him a bitter man.
>> its tough to criticize the neo-cons here as it gets you called
>> anti-semitic.
>>
>>
>Come on, ray. You're not really an anti-Semite, simply a blathering racist,
>self condemned in the body of your work.
>
Krauthammer is one of the leading dunces in the neo-con movement -
which is VERY pro-Zionist/Israel. We're in a lot of trouble because we
support the Zionist movement and are blindly following the neo-cons
over the edge.
OTOH, I think it's in very poor taste to go after his disability.
Jamie
I'll be on Air America Phoenix as a guest host!
Monday 5/14 from 3pm-6pm AZ time (6pm-9pm Eastern)
1480am in Phoenix or www.novamradio.com
Please come visit (and subscribe) to my political newsgroup!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jamie_Grams/
Listen to Air America Phoenix or the NovaMNetwork?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAPHX_Friends
Listen to the podcast of my History Talk Radio Show on 3/3/07
http://tinyurl.com/2vaxhc
Jamie H
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
><gibso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1178937982.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> The Brits are good at rewriting history!
>>
>Let's have some examples.
Shakespeare? :)
Jamie H
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Churchill was not, and never pretended to be, a historian.
>
Ohhhhh, I missed that they were supposed to have been historians.
Bede? :D
History is a horrible thing to pin-down. It's like that old lesson
about the blind men and the elephant.
Jack Linthicum
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:02:35 -0500, "TMOliver"
>
>
>
>
> >"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote ....
>
> >> krauthammer is pro-israel and he sees the U.S as a tool for israel. he
> >> cares
> >> nothing for america, also being confined to a wheelchair{he's parapalegic}
> >> has twiated his mind and made him a bitter man.
> >> its tough to criticize the neo-cons here as it gets you called
> >> anti-semitic.
>
> >Come on, ray. You're not really an anti-Semite, simply a blathering racist,
> >self condemned in the body of your work.
>
> Krauthammer is one of the leading dunces in the neo-con movement -
> which is VERY pro-Zionist/Israel. We're in a lot of trouble because we
> support the Zionist movement and are blindly following the neo-cons
> over the edge.
>
> OTOH, I think it's in very poor taste to go after his disability.
>
Why? He plays it like it's a talent.
Jack Linthicum
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:41:01 GMT, "William Black"
>
> >Churchill was not, and never pretended to be, a historian.
>
> Ohhhhh, I missed that they were supposed to have been historians.
>
> Bede? :D
>
> History is a horrible thing to pin-down. It's like that old lesson
> about the blind men and the elephant.
>
> Jamie
>
> I'll be on Air America Phoenix as a guest host!
> Monday 5/14 from 3pm-6pm AZ time (6pm-9pm Eastern)
> 1480am in Phoenix orwww.novamradio.com
>
>
> Listen to Air America Phoenix or the NovaMNetwork?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAPHX_Friends
Or the noise and the echo, cut the commercial in a newsgroup, we all
are not impressed.
Ray O'Hara
gallipoli was his baby, he screwed up twice in north africa, first
crippling o'connor after he defeated the italians to bail out greece. and
later again after battleaxe for more tangental adventures. it was his
insistnce on showing the flag that lost repulse and PoW.
he did everything he could to stop the invasion of france, he wanted to
invade the balkans to forestall the russians, who he hated more than the
germans. and before he was PM he wanted england to declare war on russia and
send troops to finland during the winter war.
he was tossed out in disgrace in WWI and tossed out quickly after WWII
because looking bulldoggy and givng pithy speeches was no longer nessessary
but knowing how to manage a country was.
and so you claim he was a journalist , then what are all the histories he
wrote.
mind you are as soft as a sneaker full of puppy shit
Ray O'Hara
"Les Cargill" <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4645ed3b$0$27015$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> dapra wrote:
>
> > D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > That's very disingenuous for Krauthammer to say. The WMD's and Al-Quida
> > connections were the best hoax, supported by George Tenet, ever
> > committed on the American people. Krauthammer supported every
> > allegations all the way. He should praise it, as the best of his
> > achievements.
> >
>
> Since there is never perfect intelligence, is the attribution
> "hoax" appropriate? I'd say the "best" hoax was the sinking
> of the Maine, fully pushed by the Hearst newspapers.
>
the maine didn't explode and sink?
> I'm just saying - isn't that how the game has been rigged
> all along? Tenet said so, so he's the one goes down for it
> if it's not true? Didn't the Bush cadre set it up that way?
>
tenet is as guilty as the rest. he just won't take the entire fall for the
chimpenfuhrer and his toadies
> --
> Les Cargill
Ray O'Hara
yes he does.
the trouble isn't suppoprting israel its that the neo-cons want us to be
subsevient to israel. the cheers in tel aviv on 9/11 rivalled those in
riyad, tehran, and baghdad.
Akor...@aol.com
Pakistan (probably Bush's most valuable ally, who should get all the
support we can give him).
More generally, if we can find enlightened generals like Musharraf,
they may be the only leaders strong enough, in some countries, to
withstand attacks by terrorist extremists. Jumping immediately into
democracy, with weak leaders, as we did in Iraq, may result in a
government not strong enough to withstand the attacks from the
terrorists.
Similar to early 1930s, the best chance to stop Hitler might have been
to support the centrist/conservative German generals, who opposed
radical elements like the Nazis.
We probably should have kept the Iraqi army together, found some Iraqi
generals willing to work with us, and used that army to keep order in
Iraq.
One thing we might try is to invite Russian oil companies to become
involved in Iraq. That would give Russia a stake in a successful
outcome in Iraq. Russia can still play either a constructive or
destructive role in Iraq, as they have a lot of influence in the
region. In general we need to align our policy more closely with
Russia instead of being blinded by cold war thinking.
Prussia and Russia were good allies in Clausewitz's time, there is no
reason USA and Russia can't be good allies now and in the future.
One humorous touch is anti-administration critics quoting Clausewitz
as if he would support their pacifist views. Clausewitz might
criticize the administration for not doing a better job of rounding up
political support for the war, and the way the war was executed, but
his writings make Bush and Cheney look like the pacifists, in
comparison :-)
Clausewitz was with the Russian army during Napoleon's invasion of
Russia, his "Campaign in Russia in 1812" is excellent writing.
Tankfixer
mary.p...@rcn.com mumbled
>
> "Les Cargill" <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4645ed3b$0$27015$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> > dapra wrote:
> >
> > > D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > That's very disingenuous for Krauthammer to say. The WMD's and Al-Quida
> > > connections were the best hoax, supported by George Tenet, ever
> > > committed on the American people. Krauthammer supported every
> > > allegations all the way. He should praise it, as the best of his
> > > achievements.
> > >
> >
> > Since there is never perfect intelligence, is the attribution
> > "hoax" appropriate? I'd say the "best" hoax was the sinking
> > of the Maine, fully pushed by the Hearst newspapers.
> >
>
> the maine didn't explode and sink?
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
William Black
<Akor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179012891....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> We need to more closely align our policy with that of Musharraf in
> Pakistan (probably Bush's most valuable ally, who should get all the
> support we can give him).
You're kidding right?
We're talking about a military dictator who overthrew a legitimate elected
democratic government.
He's a supporter of international terrorism. The UK just locked up a number
of Muslim young men for life who trained at an LeT camp in Pakistan. The
camp was permitted because it ostensibly trained people to attack India.
Attacking India by terrorism is official policy in Pakistan.
They're still burying the bodies of the people who objected when this bloody
handed murderer ordered his troops to open fire on some people who objected
to his sacking the Supreme Justice of Pakistan for opposing his increasing
Islamification of the country.
That's before we get to the ISI and its sponsorship and training of the
Taliban forces fighting your own army and Pakistan providing safe havens in
its North West Province and even doing a formal deal with the 'bad guys'.
Pakistan IS the problem.
That the USA is supporting him is an international scandal.
Jack Linthicum
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:l%m1i.5122$Wf...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:pZadnV744f59fdjb...@rcn.net...
>
> > > "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:xBi1i.14159$d9.1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > >> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
The Russian held his little adventures after WWI in the Caspian
against him.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> <Akorps...@aol.com> wrote in message
Musharref is target trying to govern a country of assassins
William Black
>
"Live by the sword..." and all that.
There weren't any terrorists there before the USA paid serious money to
Pakistan to sponsor terror in Afghanistan..
Now he's hip deep in trouble and the US government, as always, is trying to
distance themselves from the mess having finally realised that it's a
snakepit.
Musharref is a 'bad guy' in anyone's estimation.
However the predilection of the USA for the sort of leaders who wear Raybans
indoors is well known.
The British prefer elderly gentlemen farmers who went to school here.
I'm not sure if it's any better, Gadaffi was one of ours...
Andrew Chaplin
Would it help if someone pointed out that he wears Ray-Bans too?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
The Highlander
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>he was tossed out in disgrace in WWI and tossed out quickly after WWII
>because looking bulldoggy and givng pithy speeches was no longer nessessary
>but knowing how to manage a country was.
Actually, regarding WW2, that is totally untrue, but then, of course I
was there and you weren't. I do think though that as someone
purporting to take an interest in history, getting some of your facts
straight would be a magnificent gesture of goodwill towards the
reality we call history.
Churchill's popularity never waned after WW2. However the voters,
especially those who fought overseas, never forgot that it was the
Conservative Party under Neville Chamberlain who mismanaged Britain
into the war in the first place, and once the National Government was
dissolved and an election called, they took their revenge by voting
against the Conservatives and electing a Labour government.
My grandparents' generation always distrusted Churchill because of his
willingness to arm the police and hunt down a band of anarchists who
took refuge in a house on Smith Street, in London. There was a
shoot-out which horrified the nation and thereafter Chrchill was seen
as an impetuous hothead by older voters.
>
>and so you claim he was a journalist , then what are all the histories he
>wrote.
He was both. Do stop fiddling with your penis and try to keep up.
>
>mind you are as soft as a sneaker full of puppy shit.
Mr. O'Hara, I would like to draw your attention to something you seem
unware of. I understand that you live in a country whose natives
regard the famous of other countries as cardboard cut-outs unless it
can be proved otherwise by the giving and receiving of citations; in
itself a custom among you which speaks to the pathetic paucity of your
knowledge and education, in that not only should such such matters be
part of anyone's personal intellectual library, but also the fact that
demanding citations in the usual peremptory manner reeks of the John
Wayne stand-off; American culture at its absolute bottom.
Your society is famous for its closed-mindedness and your own
reputation here among what I hesitate to call your peers, has already
been made clear to any reader of the replies to your posts; but has it
ever occurred to to you that happily libelling anyone who attracts
your attention, simply underlines your essentially bankrupt morality?
And while we are on the subject of destroying reputations, I might
mention that your own national icon, George Washington, as sleazy a
politician as any who have disgraced the White House, made much of his
patriotic gesture in refusing a salary and claiming only his expenses;
yet what he subsequently claimed as "expenses" would have won a
standing ovation from the executive suite at Enron, as a glance
through his financial records demonstrates.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwseries5.html
Chilon, a Greek poet and one of the seven sages of Greece, said, "De
mortuis nil nisi bonum - Say nothing but good about the dead."
Good advice, which Cholon himself took. Considering that his
reputation has endured for more than 2,600 years (well, at least among
those of us who have been properly educated), do you not think that
perhaps it might be to your benefit to reflect on that advice,
especially given that your own reputation stands no higher than the
knee of a squatting grasshopper?
I don't wish to be unkind; it is simply that the conversation here
sometimes reaches the level of a group of itinerant field hands taking
a course in art appreciation at the Louvre - in French of course.
Back to your books my boy, and I expect to see a five page essay on
the life and times of Winston Chrchill by Monday afternoon, which does
not bear the unmistakeable stamp of a swift swipe and paste through
Wikipedia.
And don't be too downcast by my little scolding; console yourself with
the thought that when you are dead and buried, some day your
descendants, seeking to trace their ancestry will stop in front of
your grave and will look at each other in puzzlement until one asks,
"In Memoriam? Where's that?" And your lineal descendant will say
patronizingly, "It's a town in Ireland, dummy!" At least you haven't
sunk that far.
Jack Linthicum
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:12:22 -0400, "Ray O'Hara"
>
>
>
>
> >"William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:l%m1i.5122$Wf...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> >> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:pZadnV744f59fdjb...@rcn.net...
>
> >> > "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:xBi1i.14159$d9.1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> >> >> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Dry that stuff off and spread it on your crops.
Jamie H
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Or the noise and the echo, cut the commercial in a newsgroup, we all
>are not impressed.
Well, aren't you the nice man? I had it set to only run once and my
newsreader didn't stop.
Have a pleasant day,
Jack Linthicum
> On 12 May 2007 14:43:23 -0700, Jack Linthicum
>
> >Or the noise and the echo, cut the commercial in a newsgroup, we all
> >are not impressed.
>
> Well, aren't you the nice man? I had it set to only run once and my
> newsreader didn't stop.
>
> Have a pleasant day,
Oh, the computer did it?
Jamie H
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Oh, the computer did it?
Yep