Neocons vs America
Bill Jerdee
America. Once lured inside, visitors are provided with an
altruist hump (see "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers") and sent out
to "spread democracy". Fortunately, Dr. Yaron Brook of the
Ayn Rand Institute has rammed a 2000-pound cruise missile right
into the stinking foundations of their insidious little
enterprise with his recent talk entitled
"Neoconservatives Vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11"
The talk is available for free on the Institute's web site:
www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_ari_events
Listen up, boys and girls, this one's too important to miss.
-Bill Jerdee
Don't Panic
Bill Jerdee wrote:
> The Neocons have built a patriotic-looking house in mainstreet
> America. Once lured inside, visitors are provided with an
> altruist hump (see "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers") and sent out
> to "spread democracy". Fortunately, Dr. Yaron Brook of the
> Ayn Rand Institute has rammed a 2000-pound cruise missile right
> into the stinking foundations of their insidious little
> enterprise with his recent talk entitled
>
> "Neoconservatives Vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11"
Why don't you share what he said in the "talk"? Probably something
along the lines of "neoconservatives aren't tough enough on terrorist
regimes", or "torture, smorture"?
No missile here.
Mark
past articles published by ARI -- and recall that Yaron Brook has been
ARI's executive director since before 9-11-2001 -- and based on
admiring reviews of his "Neocons vs. America" talk.
Yaron Brook advocated the major planks of the Neocon platform for years
without apology or criticism. Iraq was behind 9/11 and will nuke us
any day now, we must bomb it to smithereens, to hell with any Iraqis
who get in the way. ARI said or slyly insinuated this over and over
again -- you can look up "Relentless Propaganda" at
http://ariwatch.com//RelentlessPropaganda.htm
for a few choice quotes of them doing it.
Yaron Brook once participated in a lecture series featuring himself,
Gary Hull, and the Neocon Daniel Pipes. ARI advertised Mr. Pipes' talk
as follows:
"Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, is an
internationally acclaimed Middle East scholar, prize-winning columnist
and author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam, including his
newest book Militant Islam Reaches America. His talk, "The War Against
Militant Islam: Are We Winning?" is on March 25, 5:30 to 7:15 P.M., in
the Irvine Auditorium on the U of Penn campus." - ARI Press
Release, February 14, 2003, "The Defense of America Lecture
Series."
Yep, a real enemy of the American way of life.
The Intellectual Activist magazine once featured an admiring interview
of Michael Ledeen, another Neocon (and writer for National Review, and
we all know what Ayn Rand thought of that magazine). TIA and its TIA
Daily newsletter regularly quote him, Norman Podhoretz and Christopher
Hitchens, Neocons all. (Norman Podhoretz is former editor of
Commentary, a magazine which loathed Ayn Rand when she was alive.)
(TIA is published not by ARI but by Robert Tracinski, an ARI associate.
Has anyone recently sent in the card inserted in paperback copies of
Ayn Rand's books?)
And then there is ARI and the Neocons common attitude: "Israel's war
is America's war" -- perfume to neurotic olfactory nerves.
Now people can make mistakes. And when they do they say: "Oops,
Gosh I made a mistake, here's how I went wrong ... ." But Mr.
Brook doesn't do that. And judging from the reviews of his talk (I
will flesh this out when I hear the talk myself) his criticism of the
Neocons amounts to this: the Neocons aren't Neocon enough.
Yaron Brook is a colossal hypocrite. He helped put the Neocons where
they are today and now he wants you to believe he didn't do it.
For a good account of the philosophical roots of the Neocons, see
"Ayn Rand and the Noble Lie" at
http://ariwatch.com/AynRandAndTheNobleLie.htm
Pericles
rescue New Orleans. He is even willing to sacrifice his plans for the
War on Terror if more money is needed for the refugees.
Mark
circle in the White House. In fact, I'm not sure there's
anyone working in the administration ..."
The significance of "have had a chair in the past"
versus "having one now" ?
>From "Ayn Rand and the Noble Lie":
"Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Defense Secretary and now head of the
Treasury Dept., was a Ph.D. student of [Leo Strauss], at the University
of Chicago, as was Abram Shulsky, eventual director of the Pentagon's
Office of Special Plans. Strauss is popular among many other Neocons:
editor William Kristol; commentator John Podhoertz; Michael Ledeen of
Iran-Contra infamy; Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for
Intelligence; Richard Perle, director of the Project for the New
American Century ..."
Don't Panic
Pericles wrote:
> Bush's religious and altruistic side is very obvious with his desire to
> rescue New Orleans.
Except that New Orleans is part of the Union, and Iraq is not.
.
.
.
Scott Stephens
> Yaron Brook advocated the major planks of the Neocon platform for years
> without apology or criticism.
....
> And then there is ARI and the Neocons common attitude: "Israel's war
> is America's war" -- perfume to neurotic olfactory nerves.
>
> Now people can make mistakes. And when they do they say: "Oops,
> Gosh I made a mistake, here's how I went wrong ... ." But Mr.
> Brook doesn't do that. And judging from the reviews of his talk (I
> will flesh this out when I hear the talk myself) his criticism of the
> Neocons amounts to this: the Neocons aren't Neocon enough.
>
> Yaron Brook is a colossal hypocrite. He helped put the Neocons where
> they are today and now he wants you to believe he didn't do it.
That's what I was thinking too. Well said!
> For a good account of the philosophical roots of the Neocons, see
> "Ayn Rand and the Noble Lie" at
> http://ariwatch.com/AynRandAndTheNobleLie.htm
I'll have to have a look, thanks!
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
Don't ever give up what you want in life. The struggle is worth it - Ayn
Rand
**********************************
Scott Stephens
> I don't think I'm alone in saying that I find the whole construct
> "neocon" unhelpfully vague but usefully demonizing--
....
> The closest I've been able to come to any sense of what the current
> press means by "neocon" is "Former Jewish liberal who has suddenly
> decided that the Soviet Union sucks, and who wants to take the battle to
> the bad guys, just like FDR did in WWII." If there are such people, the
> stereotype continues, they're all wound up with nowhere to go, absent a
> Soviet Union, and so have made Islam the new Axis Power.
Well, not quite. I take it only around 1/2 are Jewish, but all
pro-Israel. Perhaps 1/2 of the gentiles are fundamentalists that believe
the Jews are the chosen race, and want to help them as if they were some
kind of lucky rabbits-foot. And the Jews know it, and are scared,
because they know the fundamentalists are expecting them to fight
Armageddon :-D
Peikoff's Ominous Parallels is an interesting book. America certainly
looks like a pragmatic, fascist nation. Americas racism is based on
reverse-discrimination. Christians exploit Jews to exploit other
"victim" races to exploit the main-stream Americans. Racist just the same.
Scott Stephens
Fear not. The money is going to go to Texas if Rita hits there.And
besides, I doubt they will see much of the money. Like Clinton, he can
promise the moon knowing the congress will not deliver and take the
blame for him.I hope he's lying, anyways.
Mark
and "Liberal." In a way that's a criticism as well as a defense.
Admittedly all these terms are somewhat vague.
While standing on one leg:
* A liberal is someone who looks to government to solve every
problem.
* A conservative gropes towards capitalism while altruism gives him
trouble getting there.
* A neoconservative talks conservative while acting liberal, and on a
global scale. Their keynote is intellectual deceit.
Agent Cooper says a Neocon must be a "former Jewish liberal." That's
like saying a Communist must be Jewish because Marx and Trotsky and
most of the Bolshevik leaders were.
Agent Cooper takes the existence of a Catholic Neocon as evidence that
Neocon is a useless term. In fact it's evidence that it's an
intellectual position.
Agent Cooper makes fun of Neocons by calling them mere cheerleaders.
Again, consider the analogy of the Neocons with Marx and Lenin. Ideas
matter. Intellectuals matter.
Agent Cooper calls the term Neocon "unhelpfully vague but usefully
demonizing," as if the Neocons really aren't demons -- that is, really
aren't bad. Well, what we call them doesn't much matter. Whatever we
call them they have had an incredibly bad effect on America.
Pericles
Orleans they at least had the option to evacuate or the knowledge of
the past hurricane of 1927.
Scott Stephens
> Scott Stephens wrote:
>
>> Agent Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think I'm alone in saying that I find the whole construct
>>> "neocon" unhelpfully vague but usefully demonizing--
>>
>>
>> ....
>>
>>> The closest I've been able to come to any sense of what the current
>>> press means by "neocon" is "Former Jewish liberal who has suddenly
>>> decided that the Soviet Union sucks, and who wants to take the battle
>>> to the bad guys, just like FDR did in WWII." If there are such
>>> people, the stereotype continues, they're all wound up with nowhere
>>> to go, absent a Soviet Union, and so have made Islam the new Axis Power.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, not quite. I take it only around 1/2 are Jewish, but all
>> pro-Israel. Perhaps 1/2 of the gentiles are fundamentalists that
>> believe the Jews are the chosen race, and want to help them as if they
>> were some kind of lucky rabbits-foot. And the Jews know it, and are
>> scared, because they know the fundamentalists are expecting them to
>> fight Armageddon :-D
>
>
> Not quite back atcha. If by "fundamentalists" you mean protestants with
> southern accents, those aren't "neocons." (Being pro-Israel can flow
> from many different things, but I doubt that Jeanne Kirkpatrick was
> trying to trigger the end times...)
Agreed. Neocons want big brother/nanny, their statists. Christian
conservatives view government as necessary but evil. Both groups are
pro-Israel. And their pro-Israel position is for differing reasons also.
Liberals, because Jews tend to be liberal. Conservatives, because they
are a military ally. Christians, because of a Biblical promise God made
to bless their friends.
> This is why the term/concept is of diminishing usefulness.
Agreed.
Scott Stephens
> * A neoconservative talks conservative while acting liberal, and on a
> global scale. Their keynote is intellectual deceit.
A recovering liberal Jew that wants to kick someones (anyones?) ass?
Where's Kolker?
> Agent Cooper makes fun of Neocons by calling them mere cheerleaders.
> Again, consider the analogy of the Neocons with Marx and Lenin. Ideas
> matter. Intellectuals matter.
In spite of the insightful arguments Leonard Peikoff makes in Ominous
Parallels, I still tend to believe blood (sentiment and religion) is
thicker than water (ideology).
I'll try to be more formal, after I finish the book though. Ideas have
an ostensive basis in geometry, are a ledger for the emotions, but do
not trump them.
> Agent Cooper calls the term Neocon "unhelpfully vague but usefully
> demonizing," as if the Neocons really aren't demons -- that is, really
> aren't bad. Well, what we call them doesn't much matter. Whatever we
> call them they have had an incredibly bad effect on America.
I suspect the term was coined by the NY Times people, when they need
some kind of synthesis to unite liberals with conservatives in the cause
of making the world safe for a pax Americana statist mixed-economic
empire. Yuk.
Sentiment may trump reason, but pragmatism begets "a strife of interests
masquerading as a contest of principles"!
Bill C
"Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote in message
news:1127314427.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> For a good account of the philosophical roots of the Neocons, see
> "Ayn Rand and the Noble Lie" at
> http://ariwatch.com/AynRandAndTheNobleLie.htm
Is that your website Mark?
I guess you're the same Mark promoting neocon conspiracy on Free Republic.
The support for his (or your) three best claims that the Administration is
"manipulating us with lies" didn't hold up to light:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1321375/posts?page=32#32
Bill
Pericles
to like him. I just can't afford it anymore.
Mark
dishonest is floating in cloud cuckooland.
Here's another link about the Administration's deceit and ARI's
complicity in it:
http://ariwatch.com/ALotOfExplainingToDo.htm
Mark
Mark
Mark
stereotyping to the term "neocon," and thus destroying its meaning.
Sure, some people do use it that way, but most don't, including those
who call themselves neocons.
If Mr. X said:
People use "apples" to mean purple fruit.
And I said:
Mr. X says "apples" must mean purple fruit.
my meaning would be clear enough without elaborating.
Agent Cooper talks to us as if we are babies:
"Bush is President, his Cabinet is his Cabinet, his
undersecretaries are his undersecretaries. See?
It's right on their nametags there. How's about we
look at *Bush's* ideas and those of his immediate
advisors in order to see *which* ideas matter?"
Fine, only Bush is as empty of ideas as a bucket with its bottom rusted
out. Agent Cooper denigrates as "cheerleaders" the people Bush has
surrounded himself with, but these people have had a major influence on
what Bush has done. "Cheerleaders" is a belittling term. If you
didn't mean it that way, you can't hold me responsible.
Bush's neocon advisors may have been subordinate on the organization
chart, but they were powerful none the less.
Agent Cooper said the term "Neocon" is useful for "demonizing."
"Demonizing" is a word that makes sport of what is being demonized, as
if the Neocons really aren't all that bad. I pointed this out and he
replies (ellipses at end his):
"Yup, just like white people. They really *are* bad.
Dja know that Hitler was white? Just goes to show ya ..."
Opaque sarcasm I for one don't understand.
Don't Panic
Pericles wrote:
> Except that with an inadequate military we are all dead.
Yeah, and with an adequate military fighting bogus wars we're also
dead.
> In New
> Orleans they at least had the option to evacuate or the knowledge of
> the past hurricane of 1927.
Oh please, just about every local in the world has been visited with
some kind of natural/man-made disater within the past century, that's
no reason to up and leave, just cause "something happened here back in
'27."
Last year, three hurricanes passed over the same county in Florida. Do
you think that's adequate reason to evacuate for good?
Ken Gardner
>Agent Cooper talks to us as if we are babies:
[...]
Wrong. He only talks to you that way. And he has good reasons.
[...]
Ken
Malrassic Park
<sco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Don't ever give up what you want in life. The struggle is worth it - Ayn
>Rand
I still can't believe that such a stupid quote came out of Rand's
mouth.
Scott Stephens
What the fuck, there isn't anything better to die for, since we're all
going to die. Just that God All Mighty would bless me with a bit of
Plutonium, but no! Fuck the bastard!
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
Don't ever give up what you want in life. The struggle is worth it - Ayn
Rand
**********************************
Scott Stephens
> Malrassic Park wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:54:35 +0000 (UTC), Scott Stephens
>> <sco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Don't ever give up what you want in life. The struggle is worth it -
>>> Ayn Rand
>>
>>
>>
>> I still can't believe that such a stupid quote came out of Rand's
>> mouth.
>
>
> What the fuck, there isn't anything better to die for, since we're all
> going to die. Just that God All Mighty would bless me with a bit of
> Plutonium, but no! Fuck the bastard!
>
> Scott
he he, Good forged post! If I wanted to say something, Ya'll know I'd
f'n say it! There are some things I'd sped Pu on, and some I wouldn't.
Yet this post wasn't mine!
Mark
By calling us babies (juvenile itself) he only admits he has no better
argument to offer.
Yaron Brook himself finds the "Neocon" designation useful, and so it
is. The problem is that his "Kill yet more random Iraqis, give the
Persians the same treatment, support Israel yet more" is the very
Neocon line he has supported all along yet now pretends to somehow
oppose.
Sure, he's against nation-building, but I'm not going to applaud 10
steps backward and 1 step forward.
Malrassic Park
<sco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:54:35 +0000 (UTC), Scott Stephens
>> <sco...@comcast.net> wrote:
.
>>>Don't ever give up what you want in life. The struggle is worth it - Ayn
>>>Rand
.
>> I still can't believe that such a stupid quote came out of Rand's
>> mouth.
.
>What the fuck, there isn't anything better to die for, since we're all
>going to die. Just that God All Mighty would bless me with a bit of
>Plutonium, but no! Fuck the bastard!
If Rand had said something along those lines I would have been more
impressed.
Mark
A conspiracy is just a consensus among criminals. Since lying to the
public to whip them up for an invasion is criminal, the word
"conspiracy" applies to the Bush Administration -- and whether we
care about Strauss or not. We needn't insist that they all be
students of Strauss, or members of the sub-sects Agent Cooper mentions,
Jaffa-Straussians and Mansfield-Straussians, to worry about this
conspiracy.
Sure, ultimately it's the President who's in charge. Agent Cooper
and I will have to disagree when I maintain that the Neocons'
influence has been instrumental in shaping the Bush Administration's
reaction to 9-11. I use "Neocons" the way Yaron Brook does.
Agent Cooper writes --
" ... I've never heard anything about Straussians
of either camp that indicated a necessary foreign
policy implication."
Forget Strauss for a moment. Surely Agent Cooper has heard the
self-styled Neocons advocate a foreign policy. (See my earlier post
for some names.) Indeed about all they've done since 2000 is
advocate "regime change" in the Middle East for the greater glory of
the U.S. and Israel. This sub-sect business of Agent Cooper's is
another strawman he sets up to knock over.
"... There were powerful forces at work in the Bush
administration leaning toward [?] toppling Saddam ...,
from Pollackesque [i.e. messy, tangled] analysis
coming from the wonks [i.e. intellectuals] ..."
Some weren't merely "leaning toward" -- Agent Cooper might have
mentioned what was coming from Cheney's and Shulksy's and Perle's
Office of Special Plans.
"... to who knows what personal feelings on Bush's
part about the man that tried to assassinate his father ..."
About that bit of propaganda see point six in my review of Harry
Binswanger's article "The Big Lie" at
http://ariwatch.com/TheBigLie.htm .
Agent Cooper continues --
"... to the ideological agitation of the sorts of folks ...
at the Weekly Standard [magazine], and their friends
scattered throughout the administration. But ... If
Bill Kristol [founder of the Weekly Standard] and
all who sail in her [meaning all the Neocons ?] were
to have disappeared without a trace, the [Iraq] war
still would have happened."
That is, had there been no Neocons the BushAdministraion still would
have invaded Iraq. Agent Cooper's own presentation suggests that's
not true. He and I will have to disagree on this point. Clearly the
Neocons are the motive intellectual force behind the worst of the Bush
Administration.
(To clinch his opposing view Agent Cooper observes that Kerry voted for
the Iraq War resolution. But would that resolution have been there to
vote on in the first place had the Neocons not influenced the Bush
Administration? Remember, some Neocons were in the thick of creating
the phony intelligence, the rest were engaged in relentless propaganda
like that from ARI.)
(Continued in Part 2 below.)
Mark
Now a new point from Agent Cooper --
"... no one had a plan for what to do *after* toppling
Saddam *except* the people that Mark is calling
neocons--it was they who were pushing the WWII
analogy, the democratization of Japan and Germany
post-war etc."
And ARI as well. Let's get back on track. We are discussing Yaron
Brook versus the Neocons, an opposition I claim is a TV wrestling
match. Consider these quotes from ARI --
**********************************
"In postwar Japan, it was Gen. Douglas MacArthur who unilaterally
drafted a new constitution--over the objections of many Japanese--and
who thus paved the way for a radical shift from tyranny to liberty.
Emulating MacArthur, by imposing upon Iraq a U.S.-written constitution
that champions the principle of individual rights, would be an ideal
means of asserting our interests." -- Peter Schwartz in "American
Appeasement in Iraq" October 6, 2003.
"Douglas MacArthur -- another great leader -- as military commander of
occupied Japan, made it his highest priority to establish the post-war
Japanese government and economy on the principle of political/economic
freedom." -- Andrew Bernstein in "Honoring Virtue" May 22, 2002 (and
all other Memorial Days).
"... Washington has refused to impose on Iraq a constitution that would
make the new regime non-threatening -- as we did in Japan after World
War II." -- Elan Journo in "The Perversity of U.S. Backing for the
Gaza Retreat" August 30, 2005.
**********************************
I think they also mention Germany somewhere. (To digress a bit, the
comparison of Japan and Germany with Iraq is weak. ARI avoids the fact
that Germany was Westernized to begin with and Japan substantially so.)
Agent Cooper continues --
"Of course, if the [Neocons' Iraq] experiment works
in the long run, the 'neocons' are vindicated. We'll
see."
In other words, kill or maim a hundred thousand -- including thousands
of U.S. soldiers -- in an experiment that might work. If it works
everything is fine, retroactively. This is crazy. The Iraq war was
immoral from the lying get go.
"... having just had to deal with a failed state as a
terrorist breeding ground, ..."
Iraq never was a "terrorist breeding ground" as far as concerned
the U.S. (Israel is not part of the U.S., which may be news to some
people here.)
"... maybe a half-failed state is better than nothing
(i.e., if the boost to Al-Qaeda is bad now, imagine
how it will be if we had just left right off the bat ...)"
Imagine how it would have been had Bush the elder not propped up Saddam
in the early 1980s. How it would have been had Bush not invaded Iraq
in 2003. Or not mucked around in the Middle East in the first place --
the Shah of Iran, aid to Egypt, Israel, etc. etc.
"... you [don't] get anywhere making sense of
these folks [the Neocons] by looking at *Strauss*,
or that you shed a *lot* of light on administration
policy by looking at this faction, because I think
they have less power than critics have claimed. ..."
Some of the Neocons themselves talk about Strauss. Agent and I will
have to disagree about the degree of Neocon influence in our
government, whether they be Straussians or sub-Straussians. They are
all at heart fascists with a militant pro-Israel streak, masquerading
as conservatives.
State-corporate alliances, contempt for individual rights and even
human decency, foreign adventures, unquestioning support of Israel --
these features distinguish a Neocon.
Bill C
into a conspiracy culture.
You repeatedly asked me to look at your ARI hit site's article "The Noble
Lie". I asked you to give me your three best examples of its unsupported
premise that "Neocon's manipulate us with lies" in post #29 here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1321375/posts?page=29#29. I ask
to debate them and got no reply. So I went ahead and outlined how absurd
they were on my own in post #32 here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1321375/posts?page=32#32 .
But your only response is juvenile name calling and asking people to read
more form your conspiracy site.
I've seen people promoting dozens political conspiracies like Christic
Institute and Contragate, the Clinton Body Count and Flight 800. But I've
never seen one who was so committed to it that he build a website, promoted
it on forums and was still willing to mentally process evidence against it.
Every one I've seen just shielded the narrow ethos that makes sense to them
by pretending that those who disagree were ignorant, corrupt or stupid. I
imagine most just move on to the next conspiracy when one plays out and
eventually burn out and retire form activism all together. Maybe they find
some kind of happiness it that, but it just looks pathetic to me.
Bill
"Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote in message
news:1127343497.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mark
" I'm not mad. Why are you? I know: it's because,
being one-eighth Jewish, I'm *part* of the conspiracy..."
If that's a joke it isn't funny.
I talk about Israel, you (and a few others) insist on talking about
"Jewishness."
Mark
Mark
"I really think you ought to take a stress pill, relax and
think things through ..."
A not too bright way of saying "Mark, you're being irrational and
stupid, I'm right, you're wrong."
It's hardly worth saying I disagree. But this bullying dampens wanting
to read Agent Cooper's posts.
Mark (not Dave)
Mark
me on Free Republic, my name-calling must have seemed over-reacting. I
lost my temper here and was rude. The rudeness was a mistake, but I
had good reason to get angry.
I do address the question of the Bush administration's honesty in the
article I referenced (repeated below). The links at the end of it fill
in any gaps in the text. The answer is clear. I've found that even
people who generally disagree with ARI Watch do at least agree that
the Bush administration is dishonest, and in particular lied to us in
their run-up to invading Iraq.
In any case I'm not obligated to debate anyone on anything.
Regarding conspiracy, look up the word. When two or more people
together commit a crime, it's a conspiracy. In his belligerent post
Bill mentions three things. Here is my take on them:
1. The Christic Institute -- evidently regarding several alleged
conspiracies it's concerned about.
A liberal enterprise -- a mixed bag, mostly bad. They're correct
about Iran-Contra and narcotics.
2. TWA Flight 800.
A missile brought it down, not electro-mechanical failure. If this
makes me a kook, you can include a couple of Navy admirals who believe
the same thing.
3. Clinton Body Count.
Many bodies have been claimed. Take the most important one: Vince
Foster. Yes, he probably was murdered, though not by Clinton or under
his orders.
Maybe I'll put these subjects on the Links page of ARI Watch, not yet
up. Then people so inclined can say: Hey, look at Mork the Dork, he
believes the CIA imports cocaine into the U.S. !!!
I would be comforted if I could believe that I'm wrong, but then I'd
have to ignore a mountain of evidence presented by reputable men.
Bill C accuses me of evasion. The epithet really applies to him.
Now how about getting back to the subject of this thread?
Scott Stephens
> The existence of
> the state of Israel surrounded by a flotilla of antisemitic lunatics,
> who are in turn floating on an ocean of the most precious source of
> energy known to industrial man must be the clearest proof against the
> theory of intelligent design I know. And they call it "the holy land"!
> Love it.
LOL, there must be a God! Who else would contrive a circumstance that
would enable cannibalistic primates to slaughter each other over delusions?
It's a deliciously brilliant method to teach humanity to share, and stop
making up lies and fighting.
Scott
--
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce
Don't ever give up what you want in life. The struggle is worth it - Ayn
Rand
**********************************
Ken Gardner
[...]
>But here's what might *not* have happened: no one had a plan for what to
>do *after* toppling Saddam *except* the people that Mark is calling
>neocons--it was they who were pushing the WWII analogy, the
>democratization of Japan and Germany post-war etc.
And this process took years. If I remember correctly, we didn't
finally leave Japan until the 1950s. But it worked out fine in the
end.
Ken
Ken Gardner
>> It's hardly worth saying I disagree. But this bullying dampens wanting
>> to read Agent Cooper's posts.
>Well, I did give you the perfect set-up to say, "so, HAL, we see that your
>mind *is* going."
>Sheesh. I have to do all the work here.
Dude, you are a very patient man! I'm thinking of starting an HPO
over or under when you will finally lose patience with Mark. The guy
is utterly humorless as well as just plain dull.
Any takers?
Ken
Mark
Sorted by date they are:
* Post 24 summary:
Considering what Mark says, Mark is a baby.
_ Comment _:
A remark worthy of those who make it. Ken argues by intimidation.
* Post 44 summary:
The U.S. occupied Japan for years, not leaving until the 1950s. "But it
worked out fine in the end."
_ Comment _:
The U.S. occupied Japan from 1945 to 1952 -- i.e. for seven years after
the war was over. Ayn Rand didn't think the expense was worth it, but
in any case ARI's comparison of Japan and Iraq is weak because Japan
was already significantly advanced and westernized, much more so than
Iraq. In addition Japanese culture had a history of being imitative.
But that is off the subject of this thread. Yaron Brook _today_ is
going about saying he is against the Neocons' nation building, whereas
_yesterday_ he was all for it, all for invading and occupying Iraq.
Yet where does he say "Gosh, I made a mistake. And here's why."?
* Post 45 summary:
Agent Cooper is "a very patient man" who will "finally lose patience
with Mark. The guy is utterly humorless as well as just plain dull."
_ Comment _:
Yaron Brook is a hypocrite destroying the Objectivist movement.
Pointing it out in detail is useful and interesting. I don't find
Ken's brand of humor appealing.
And so far that's all we have from Mr. Gardner.
Bill C
>
> In any case I'm not obligated to debate anyone on anything.
>
You're free to post your work without obligation to recognize replies that
might lead you to conclude something horrific about it. That pattern in our
nature is as common as dirt.
And you're free to dismiss counter evidence with nothing more than
a succession of links and "everybody knows". That pattern's common
to conspiracy theorists. And you're free to enjoy the rewards of that
behavior.
You asked me to look at your site in this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1321375/posts?page=22#22. I
told you the first article was ignorant. You asked me to look at another,
and I told you that I didn't have time for that site. You prodded me into
having a look anyway, and I exposed the first of several flaws in a way that
you were unable to refute. You took one step toward resolving them like I
suggested, and then quit. (Anyone can follow the "View Replies" button
and see that discussion thread.)
Then I find you here still promoting the same article, still unwilling to
continue resolving that fundamental flaw in the way we began, insisting on
moving on to a third article instead.
Of course, "I" must be the evasive one for not letting you reboot the
discussion once we were zeroing in on the absurdity of your premise and
following you to a new link... again.
No need to worry about that "comfort" from discovering you're wrong like
that.
Sorry if my tone is belligerent. It's how I feel so it comes out that way.
I hate seeing potential wasted or potential mislead.
Bill
Matt Barrow
"Bill C" <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote in message
news:K4XYe.238$%H2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> "Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote
>>
>> In any case I'm not obligated to debate anyone on anything.
>>
>
> You're free to post your work without obligation to recognize replies that
> might lead you to conclude something horrific about it. That pattern in
> our
> nature is as common as dirt.
http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050606.gif
http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050608.gif
Bill C
"Matt Barrow" <mattb...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:6fXYe.49$Aj4....@news.uswest.net...
>
> http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050606.gif
> http://www.junkscience.com/images/nq050608.gif
Mark
a bromide that -- doesn't by itself make my position on every subject
erroneous or hypocritical.
"Conspiracy theorist" has come to be a pejorative term. "Conspiracy"
is a legitimate concept. (You brought up the subject, not me.)
> You took one step toward resolving them [alleged
> flaws in maintaining Bush Admin. is dishonest] ...
> then quit.
I quit all right. It was clear from your manners -- as it is now --
that had I continued I would just subject myself to more arrogance and
rudeness. However, I agree with you that I should not have been the
same to you in turn.
> ... I find you here still promoting the same article ...
Still? I still think it's a great article. You disagree and I'm not
obliged to try to convince you.
You seem to take my quitting as evidence that the article is wrong. I
disagree that it's such evidence. On the other hand it's not evidence
the article's right either. I can leave it up to the reader to judge
the article for himself. I acknowledge that one reader, you, think
it's wrong.
Here's something we can discuss though, if you want. After all, you
asked for just _one_ lie. Here's a whopper: Bush praises
"individual rights" (see http://ariwatch.com/HowToKillAnIdea.htm ).
He thinks individual rights are a good thing. He says he promotes
individual rights. Now how do you square that with his behavior? The
torture memos he evidently approved and their consequence, his Katrina
New-Deal-like program, his suspension of habeas corpus, and so forth
and so on?
Well, someone might defend him this way: Hey, he wasn't lying! He
just doesn't know what individual rights are.
Well then, wasn't it dishonest to use a term the meaning of which he
hasn't a clue? Someone might reply: Hey, he doesn't know he doesn't
know! He's just, well, stupid. But honest. Yes sir, honest as the
day is long.
Actually, he's worse than Bill, the meaning-of-is guy.
As for the run-up to the Iraq invasion, I personally (and I'm aware
you disagree) think, based on the journalistic record, that it's
crushingly obvious the Bush Administration lied us into war. Read
especially about the Office of Special Plans. Call it political
self-deception if you want, but he lied none the less.
Bill C
> I quit all right. It was clear from your manners -- as it is now --
> that had I continued I would just subject myself to more arrogance and
> rudeness.[snip]
> Here's something we can discuss though, if you want....
So I'm too rude for you to continue failing to defend your 3 best examples
of Bush lies, but you now want to discuss a 4th with me? And this post was
too "arrogant and rude" that you needed to quit after it?:
"Tell me if this is an acceptable:
"To summarize, your 3 best examples of Bush Administration lies are 1)
Military action in Iraq was a last resort, 2) Iraq was behind 9/11 and 3)
Iraq possessed WMDs. So if I effectively counter evidence that they lied
with regard to these three issues (beyond the way virtually all commonly
promote their agenda in an adversarial environment) then you'll retract the
claim that neocons manipulate us with lies.
"If that's fair and you want to go forward, I want to take these one at a
time. I first need something very specific that represents your claim to the
first. If it's an article that makes several accusations using the [Downing
Street] memo, I need you to tell me which one you want to focus on.
"Also, FWIW, I think that your second type of lie is probably too
speculative to be resolved, but I'll give it a try."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1321375/posts?page=31#31
Whoa! What a jerk I was... How could you debate after trash talk like
that...
That absurd excuse is a stupid thing to try to pull off. Right now, "you"
look like as big a "liar" as Bush, and you're only doing it to defend your
blog and perhaps your anonymous pride.
I charitably gave you three opportunities to support your charge that
neocons manipulate us with lies. I'm not moving to a 4th simply because you
sense your best three are ridiculous, at least not until you recognize
that. I would be foolish to allow you to change focus again without you
recognizing your error.
Since you want to discuss your forth best example, you should be willing to
pick up from the above Free Republic post and discuss the first of your
first three, just like I asked. I promise people will see me at least as
civil and fair as they see you as honest.
Bill
Mark
1. Bush lies when he says he defends individual rights.
Answer that first, or admit you are wrong, please. The following are
three more lies (your summary's wording was _incorrect_, and I
suspect purposely designed to undermine the claims):
2. Bush lied when, about the time of the Downing Memos, he insisted
that he didn't want to invade Iraq.
3. Bush lied when he kept insinuating that Iraq was behind 9/11. (He
did this, for example, by repeatedly mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the
same sentence.)
4. Bush lied when he said he had _proof_ (understood to mean
sincerely acquired evidence that supported beyond a reasonable doubt)
that:
A. Iraq had:
a. massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons.
b. unmanned drones capable of flying over the continental U.S.
c. a nuclear weapons program on the verge of success.
d. missiles of a certain size and range.
and
B. Sadaam was about to use one or more of the above against the
continental United States.
Doubtless you yourself believe you can counter all this, as otherwise
you would not persist. I suspect this is going to end up in a debate
over sources, therefore we must agree on three things:
1. Reputable reporters employed by reputable news sources (AP, NYT,
etc.) are credible.
2.. Willful blindness is the same as a lie. Don't play mental games.
If Bush should have known something, then Bush either did know it or
else didn't care to know it -- and lied when he said he had sincerely
investigated and didn't know it.
3. You must address my news links on "A Lot of Explaining to Do."
If we can agree on that, then I will read what you have to say about 1,
2, 3, 4Aa, 4Ab, 4Ac, 4Ad, and 4B. I understand you are going to show
that Bush -- that is, the Bush Administration -- was forthright with
the American public on all this.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> "Tell me if this is an acceptable:
> "To summarize, your 3 best examples of Bush Administration lies are 1)
> Military action in Iraq was a last resort, 2) Iraq was behind 9/11 and 3)
> Iraq possessed WMDs. So if I effectively counter evidence that they lied
Perhaps lied. Or perhaps mistaken and mislead by abominable
intelligence. To show a lie you have to show intent to deceive.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
>Ken Gardner's total contribution to this thread so far is three posts.
>Sorted by date they are:
[...]
You are a dork.
Ken
Bill C
The only way differences of opinions can be resolved is if they're addressed
one at a time like I suggested. If someone just blasts a spray of vague
charges, they can't be resolved reasonably.
I also said several times that I was only willing to address 3 of your best
cases that Bush lied, and explained why I wouldn't allow you bring new ones
up until we try to resolve these first. But if you work fairly with me on
your original 3, I'll work with you fairly on whatever else you want to
bring up.
Please pick which of the original 3 you want to begin with. If it's the
Downing Street memos, show me the best sentence. It doesn't have to be just
one sentence of course, but try to be specific and start with your best one.
And please pick your best part of that multi-part final charge that you want
to defend first. I offered to refute your 3 best, not 8.
I'm fine with treating reputable news reporter quotes, data and observations
etc. as fact unless contradicted by something with similar credibility.
Opinions are not facts of course.
And since you call reputable AP, NYT etc. reporters "credible", lets use
their work as the standard for credibility. What does not rises to the level
of "willful" blindness or lies in their work should not do so for the
Administration. If they promote an agenda in "news" stories through subtle
language selection and fact placement, giving some but lesser attention to
contrary evidence and you call them credible, then let that standard apply
to the Administration. And if on some rare occasions old media reporters
misspeak in a way that they clearly aren't trying to claim in their more
carefully prepared work and they're still called credible, then let the same
standard apply to the Administration.
Also, lets do our best to stay focused and not chop replies up with inline
comments. I suspect neither of us have time for that. I have a lot going on
now, so please give me a day to reply especially if research is required.
I look forward to putting our disagreements behind us and moving forward.
Bill
Bill C
news:dh467q$dmn$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Perhaps lied. Or perhaps mistaken and mislead by abominable intelligence.
> To show a lie you have to show intent to deceive.
>
> Bob Kolker
I agree, but I can see Mark's point that intent can be presumed with
overwhelming evidence. But people sometimes have a problem judging
that in a reasonable way.
If I ask for his 3 best examples, and he can't come up with 3 that on their
own are overwhelmingly supported, then his opinions are more likely skewed
by a kind of cultural group think.
For instance, if most of his associations think Bush manipulates us with
lies, and they seek out thousands of stories and examples in that regard
that have at least a small chance of being true, then taken as a whole they
begins to look overwhelming. It tends to snowball as they begin to immerse
themselves in that culture, begin to dismiss contrary evidence, and further
isolate themselves in that culture.
The same phenomena applies everywhere, including intelligence agencies. I
have just little background in that. Twenty years ago I worked as an
Intelligence Analyst in the USMC, and Nicaragua was presumed to be the
beachhead of Soviet/Cuban intervention into America. I read
countless presentations and documents to that regard. Then as a 20 year old
I was kind of honored with the responsibility of updating our Division's
Nicaraguan Intelligence Estimate, probably a 250 page document, but doing so
led me in a direction that I didn't anticipate.
After 2 months, I'd stripped a lot of extraneous stuff out of it and
realized that the few real indicators of the Soviet expansion in that
regard were being reanalyzed and re-explained in ways that made them look
more numerous, more recent, more confirmed and more threatening overall. I
gave my boss a 35 page document with most of that removed. It was never
published, and I was never told why. They probably wrote if off as
uninteresting. People dismiss what doesn't interest them. And that's what
probably happened with our WMD intelligence. That's what happens with
virtually all conspiracy theorists.
Bill
Matt Barrow
"Bill C" <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote in message
> People dismiss what doesn't interest them. And that's what
> probably happened with our WMD intelligence. That's what happens with
> virtually all conspiracy theorists.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030820-081256-6822r.htm
Remember those satellite photos in the NY Times at the SAME TIME this guy
describes the action?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Jim Klein
Uh huh. So how were the facts he alleged? True or false?
That's quite an interesting comment for you to make, considering that you've
gone so far as counting lines in posts. I wonder how you'd justify that,
as you whine about citing the actual content of posts.
IOW if citing content makes one a "dork," what word do you reserve for
someone who counts lines as if that means something?
I fancy myself a wordsmith and I can hardly figure that one out!
Metadork, maybe? Or should it be megadork? Which would you prefer?
jk
Malrassic Park
>Ken Gardner's total contribution to this thread so far is three posts.
>Sorted by date they are:
You can now add post #28 summary...
*Mark is a dork*
... to that list.
goo...@nobsys.net
Trying Google...
Matt Barrow wrote:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030820-081256-6822r.htm
Great article. Thanks. I heard about those photos.
It's a big effort to untangle subplots leading into that war. Some
claims in that article are fact while others seem to be speculating as
to the meaning of the authors assembly of facts, but as a whole it's at
least as substantive and supported as anything I've seen claiming "Bush
lied" about WMDs.
Bill
Bill C
Bill
Mark
We can divide lies into three categories:
1. Saying what a rational man would know was untrue.
2. Insinuating: saying something you know will be interpreted
a certain way, a way that a rational man would know is untrue.
3. Speaking with a reckless disregard for the truth, failing to look
at or care about contrary evidence.
Doubtless some people in the Bush Administration -- include President
Bush here -- on some neurotic level believe what they say. But I
reject Bob Kolker's definition that this means they aren't lying. When
someone simply _doesn't care_ about the truth and utters what isn't
true, they are lying in my book. This is a common sense view.
Otherwise anything goes. Bob Kolker's definition would make it
virtually impossible to say with any certainty that the Bush
Administration lied unless they confess to it outright, because there
is no way we can go into their minds and tell what they _really_
believed. Especially if they haven't got much in the way of minds.
That (quoting Bill C.)
"People dismiss what doesn't interest them. And that's what probably
happened with our WMD intelligence."
doesn't cut it. That's an indictment, not an excuse.
Call it willful self-deception, or wishful thinking -- the fact is they
lied.
Bill C. requests three lies. In my opinion here's the three worst
ones:
1. Bush lies when he says he defends individual rights. (See
http://ariwatch.com/TheBigLie.htm for a quote.)
2. Bush lied when he said he had proof -- meaning sincerely acquired
evidence, evidence that was not sorted out from contrary evidence,
evidence that supported beyond reasonable doubt -- that Sadaam would
soon use WMD against the continental United States.
3. Over and over the administration insinuated that Iraq was behind
9-11. (From "The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq," Christian
Science Monitor, March 14, 2003: "In his prime-time press conference
last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush
mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more
times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.")
Bill C. maintains that Bush was in fact truthful in all the above, and
that therefore we must doubt that he could have been lying about
anything else (Downing Street memos, WMD, etc.). The conclusion would
be absurd. The Administration doesn't get a free pass for telling the
truth a few times. Everything must be examined on its merits.
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
> Three days or get out of town? :)
>
> We can divide lies into three categories:
> 1. Saying what a rational man would know was untrue.
What about plain old mistakes.
> 2. Insinuating: saying something you know will be interpreted
> a certain way, a way that a rational man would know is untrue.
How does one know ahead of time how something will be taken. Knowing
that implies a denial of free will.
> 3. Speaking with a reckless disregard for the truth, failing to look
>
> at or care about contrary evidence.
In other words, mistakes are sins, not merely factually wrong. By the
way, this definition indicts Aristotle since he failed to look at or
care about contrary evidence to some of his statements in -Physics-.
>
> Otherwise anything goes. Bob Kolker's definition would make it
> virtually impossible to say with any certainty that the Bush
> Administration lied unless they confess to it outright, because there
> is no way we can go into their minds and tell what they _really_
> believed. Especially if they haven't got much in the way of minds.
The Bushies were also victims of poor intelligence. They bear
responsibility for not crosschecking their intelligence sources are
giving sufficient weight to interpretations other than what they
favored, but this is a long way from lying or deception. It is bad
judgement and sloppy thinking for which they should bear responsibility.
>
> That (quoting Bill C.)
> "People dismiss what doesn't interest them. And that's what probably
> happened with our WMD intelligence."
> doesn't cut it. That's an indictment, not an excuse.
So you say. Then most of is stand indicted at sometimes in our lives.
Its such a bitch, not being perfect like you.
>
> Call it willful self-deception, or wishful thinking -- the fact is they
> lied.
Seeing what one wishes to see or is morally convinced is true is not
lying. Where is the intent to deceive? Have you shown it?
>
> Bill C. requests three lies. In my opinion here's the three worst
> ones:
>
> 1. Bush lies when he says he defends individual rights. (See
> http://ariwatch.com/TheBigLie.htm for a quote.)
What about promoting elections in Iraq. Does that promote individual
rights. A simple Yes or No will suffice. Sometimes the Bushies are less
than sufficiently carefully with the downside effects of their policies
on individual rights. In some issues they are opposed, as in the case of
abortion. They way you put it, you imply (or I infer) that the Bushies
oppose individual rights in each and every case.
>
> 2. Bush lied when he said he had proof -- meaning sincerely acquired
> evidence, evidence that was not sorted out from contrary evidence,
> evidence that supported beyond reasonable doubt -- that Sadaam would
> soon use WMD against the continental United States.
He had the same proof as every major nation's intelligence services had.
Saddam ran a skillful and clever bluff to give the impression he
possessed WMDs in 2003. In view of the fact that he had at one time
possessed such weapons (he had 10,000 Kurds gassed, is that WMD enough
for you?) so it lent plausibility to his bluff and his coy actions. He
wanted to appear bigger and more powerful than he really was so he could
continue his oppressions and bullying.
>
> 3. Over and over the administration insinuated that Iraq was behind
> 9-11. (From "The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq," Christian
> Science Monitor, March 14, 2003: "In his prime-time press conference
> last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush
> mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more
> times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.")
I never heard that, even once. The fear and it is a plausible one, is
that Saddam would give or threaten to give WMD technology to various
terror groups, including al Quedah.
>
> Bill C. maintains that Bush was in fact truthful in all the above, and
> that therefore we must doubt that he could have been lying about
> anything else (Downing Street memos, WMD, etc.). The conclusion would
> be absurd. The Administration doesn't get a free pass for telling the
> truth a few times. Everything must be examined on its merits.
The Bushies were sloppy in their intelligence gathering and
interpretations and a we bit to anxious to take action where it was
thought action would succeed. That genius, Don Rumsfeld, figured the
Iraqis would rise as one, once Saddam was deposed and fall in with plans
to make Iraq a reasonably free and democratic country. It more or less
worked out that way in Germany and Japan following WW2, but neither of
those nations was Moslem. Rumsfeld had an eager audience in Dubyah,
shame on Dubya, for swallowing that fantasy uncritically.
The Bushies have plenty to be ashamed of and to answer for, but cynical
and deliberate lying is not one of those things. There was sloppy
thinking, wishful thinking, bad judgement and failure to attent to facts
and details. That is supportable indictment and bad enough.
You are ill disposed toward Dubyah, his cronies and his ilk and that has
biased your judgement. While I am not a Bush fan (I would have preferred
McCaine) I am not a Bush hater either. I have come to expect very little
from our leaders so I am not overly disappointed. You are. And do you
think Gore would have done any better. If Gore had won, Saddam would
still be in power, playing his little games with us. Is that what you want?
Bob Kolker
Bill C
> 2. Bush lied when he said he had proof -- meaning sincerely acquired
> evidence, evidence that was not sorted out from contrary evidence,
> evidence that supported beyond reasonable doubt -- that Sadaam would
> soon use WMD against the continental United States.
Bush never said that. Please link to a quote where "Bush said he had proof
that Saddam would soon used WMD against the continental United States". Be
specific.
I've told you several times why I'd only giving you 3 opportunities to prove
that "Neocons manipulate us with lies". It looks like disingenuous
posturing when you keep inserting a new one as your "best of 3" as if the
subject of replacement never came up. I'm growing impatient. I have much
better things to do that play juvenile games on forums . I already
compromised and promised to address your 4th after your first 3. I'm being
generous and sincere with you here. If that maters to you, you'll try to do
the same.
Mark
Bush and friends aren't dishonest, according to Bob, they just make
mistakes:
The only mistake the neocons made was thinking they could get away with
using 9-11 as a pretext for whatever they want.
> How does one know ahead of time how something
> will be taken. Knowing that implies a denial of free
> will.
Bush mentions 9-11 and Sadaam in the same breath again and again, yet
he - or his neocon speechwriters - didn't INTEND for it to be
taken as an association?
Come on!
I wrote:
"[One way of lying is] speaking with a reckless disregard
for the truth, failing to look at or care about contrary
evidence."
And Bob replies:
> In other words, mistakes are sins, not merely
> factually wrong.
That's not what I said. Speaking with reckless disregard for the
truth is not just making a mistake.
> The Bushies were also victims of poor intelligence.
Read about the Office of Special Plans. Some victims! This is not
merely a case of "not crosschecking their intelligence" "bad
judgment and sloppy thinking" or being "sloppy in their
intelligence gathering".
> Its such a bitch, not being perfect like you.
This is a straw man with sarcasm thrown in. I'm not asking for
perfection. I'm asking for simple honesty.
I wrote:
"Call it willful self-deception, or wishful thinking --
the fact is they lied."
and Bob replies:
> Seeing what one wishes to see or is morally
> convinced is true is not lying. Where is the
> intent to deceive?
Evidently Bob can't see the distinction between the two -- "seeing what
one wishes to see" versus
what one is morally convinced is true."
Bob might as well say: "Yes, Bush is dishonest as hell, but he
didn't lie."
When I wrote:
"Bush lies when he says he defends individual rights.
(See http://ariwatch.com/TheBigLie.htm for a quote.)"
obviously Bush was referring to individual rights as such, including in
America. America is my main concern. Kolker's mind seems to be in
Iraq. (And even in Iraq Bush is not defending individual rights.)
> Sometimes the Bushies are less than sufficiently
> carefully with the downside effects of their policies
> on individual rights.
Weasel words galore. The neocons have a wide fascist streak. Sure,
they're inconsistent about it, but that doesn't make the incredible
harm they are doing go away.
Mark
earth, commanding aircraft carriers, inter-continental ballistic
missiles, stealth bombers, and thousands of nuclear warheads, say the
danger from Saddam was imminent if he or his handlers didn't EXPECT
YOU TO THINK HE HAD PROOF?
You call me disingenuous. Likewise, pal.
You have your three alleged lies. The ball's in your court.
J B
"the corporation" documentary?
"Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote in message
news:1127845018....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Mark
No. I haven't seen that documentary.
ARI published a press release about it:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10127
I haven't seen anything else.
If Bernstein's account of the film is accurate I'd trash the film too.
Speaking on the subject in general: These days if anyone made a film
about corporations, I'd want to see it spend a significant
amount of time describing how many corporations willing and eagerly
promote fascism, or take advantage of fascist policies without
protesting the system, like the fiction character Orren Boyles.
Mark
Mark
Matt Barrow
> news:1127845018....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Come on Bill C, would the president of the most powerful country on
> earth, commanding aircraft carriers, inter-continental ballistic
> missiles, stealth bombers, and thousands of nuclear warheads, say the
> danger from Saddam was imminent if he or his handlers didn't EXPECT
> YOU TO THINK HE HAD PROOF?
That's an assertion, not a proof.
>
> You call me disingenuous. Likewise, pal.
I'd call you a complete fraud and moron.
>
> You have your three alleged lies. The ball's in your court.
>
You swung and missed, you didn't connect. Play your games with someone naive
enough to fall for your BS.
Bill C
> Come on Bill C, would the president...[snip]... say the
> danger from Saddam was imminent if he or his handlers didn't EXPECT
> YOU TO THINK HE HAD PROOF?
>
> You call me disingenuous. Likewise, pal.
So you discovered that Bush didn't say what you thought was your best (or
second best) example of a Bush lie, but say it's still a lie because he must
have expected us to think it because he said something else. (which it turns
out that he didn't say at all)
First, one doesn't depend on the other. Bush publicly justified the war for
a conjunctions of reasons, none of which were "proof that Saddam would soon
use WMD against the continental United States".
Second, Bush never as you say stated that Saddam was an "immanent danger".
But if you're immersed in opposition sub-culture that wants that to be true
(so they can say he lied when saying it), you might never know it.
Just like I told you in my last post on Free Republic, you're not getting
the breadth of information you need. And now you're grossly unprepared to
defend the first of your www.ariwatch.com accusations.
This is from Bush's 2003 State of the Union:
""Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us
on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come
too late." More here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20031017.shtml
Despite this, people with little reputation to lose have tried to lift off
the cuff quotes from thousands of Administration statements to claim Bush
"implied" an immanent threat. But when you read the lists, they always "fail
to look at or care about contradictory evidence" as you say - They're trying
to prove a lie with a lie.
Want to take another stab at this one?
Bill
Don't Panic
Bill C wrote:
> "Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote
> > Come on Bill C, would the president...[snip]... say the
> > danger from Saddam was imminent if he or his handlers didn't EXPECT
> > YOU TO THINK HE HAD PROOF?
> >
> > You call me disingenuous. Likewise, pal.
>
> So you discovered that Bush didn't say what you thought was your best (or
> second best) example of a Bush lie, but say it's still a lie because he must
> have expected us to think it because he said something else. (which it turns
> out that he didn't say at all)
>
> First, one doesn't depend on the other. Bush publicly justified the war for
> a conjunctions of reasons, none of which were "proof that Saddam would soon
> use WMD against the continental United States".
>
> Second, Bush never as you say stated that Saddam was an "immanent danger".
> But if you're immersed in opposition sub-culture that wants that to be true
> (so they can say he lied when saying it), you might never know it.
"Absolutely."
· White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an
"imminent threat," 5/7/03
"This is about imminent threat."
· White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Well, of course he is."
· White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the
question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in
that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03
I can already see how you're going to weasel out of this one.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970
Don't Panic
Bill C wrote:
>
> Second, Bush never as you say stated that Saddam was an "immanent danger".
> But if you're immersed in opposition sub-culture that wants that to be true
> (so they can say he lied when saying it), you might never know it.
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September
11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on
September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before
or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on
September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward
a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it
such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
· Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
Reggie Perrin
> [...]
> The Bushies have plenty to be ashamed of and to answer for,
> but cynical and deliberate lying is not one of those things.
> There was sloppy thinking, wishful thinking, bad judgement and
> failure to attent to facts and details. That is supportable
> indictment and bad enough.
Boring old ground, I know, but I just have to say:
What I found most objectionable about the propaganda war here in the UK
was the infamous "sexing up" process, by which tentative intel was
dressed up as fact. The govt systematically eliminated caveats and
qualifying remarks from the JIC reports before presenting them to the
public. That, IMHO, is equivalent to plain old-fashioned lying.
I don't pretend to have followed events in the US with the same care,
so I do not make the same charge against the Bush administration. That
said, I note that your govt didn't go to any great pains to disabuse
the American people of the notion that Iraq was behind 9/11, or that
Saddam had ties to Al-Queda. If not dishonest, they were less than
candid.
Robert J. Kolker
> I don't pretend to have followed events in the US with the same care,
> so I do not make the same charge against the Bush administration. That
> said, I note that your govt didn't go to any great pains to disabuse
> the American people of the notion that Iraq was behind 9/11, or that
> Saddam had ties to Al-Queda. If not dishonest, they were less than
> candid.
Government folk are generally less than candid. Are the Bushies any less
than other admimistrations. Look at FDR. All the time he was feigning
not to go to war he was looking for ways to go to war.
Bob Kolker
Bill C
"Don't Panic" <vobb...@aol.com> wrote
>
> "This is about imminent threat."
> · White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
>
That McClellen quote was referring to Turkey, not the US, in order to
invoke NATO missile protection in the run-up to the war. That's an example
of the kind of dishonesty promoted on blogs with little to lose. Promoting
lies to prove a lie. Cute.
Flesher and Barlet's comments are at worse rare misstatements in an
otherwise overwhelmingly consistent justification for war with a growing and
serious threat, not imminent.
I don't agree with all this authors conclusions, but here's an objective
analysis of it all:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html
"As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics
and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the
evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting
this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some
evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent
threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that
the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant
information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush
administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring
important, though isolated, evidence."
That story was updated here after complaints from the left:
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_11_09_archive.html
Mark
FDR?
If FDR is the standard of truthfulness, Bush is indeed honest. So was
Pinocchio.
Mark
for the Bush Administration, saying that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
right now:
"Flesher [Fleischer] and Barlet's [Bartlett's] [not to mention
Rumsfeld's] comments are at worse [worst] rare misstatements ..."
At worst? At best they are ... what?
Bill thinks the Administration's statements -- warning that Iraq was an
immanent threat to America -- can be discounted, they just don't
matter. One wonders why.
How does Bill know they are misstatements? If Fleischer or Bartlett
or Rumsfeld "misspoke," then why didn't they issue a
correction afterward? The subject was important after all.
These spokesmen were whip up the people to approve the invasion: We
must invade Iraq before they attack us, there is little or no time to
wait. And that was the overwhelming tenor and spirit of the other Bush
Administration's pronouncements.
Bill would divide those pronouncements into two kinds, immanent versus
dangerous -- as if the former weren't the sauce for the salad.
Mark
http:ariwatch.com
Bill C
> · White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
That McClellen quote was referring to Turkey, not the US, in order to
Bill C
> If Fleischer or Bartlett
> or Rumsfeld "misspoke," then why didn't they issue a
> correction afterward? The subject was important after all.
>
They probably didn't correct it because no one brought it up to them. And
that's because it wasn't an issue at the time. And that's because the
Administration's case for war as a gathering threat was obvious. And now no
one but conspiracy theorists seeking some kind of maniacal "salad sauces"
consider it significant. Not even opposition propagandists trying to
promote "Bush lied" waste time asking for clarification. Slight ambiguity is
easier to promote than a correction.
I gather your above gripe and refusal to grasp the obvious was the last
support for your claim that "Bush said that he had proof that Saddam would
soon use WMDs on the US". I can't imagine a less supported allegation, but
I'm satisfied to move on.
Your second accusation was that because Bush mentioned 9/11 eight times in a
news conference regarding the Iraq War in which Saddam was repeatedly
mentioned, it was scheme to make people believe that Saddam was responsible
for 9/11.
To accept that, you have to ignore the obvious for the conspiratorial.
Support for Bush is more vulnerable if he's seen as engaged in a "second"
war. The Administration's opposition tries to de-link the Iraq War from the
War on Terror and the Administration counters it. The War on Terror and 9/11
references were consistent with promoting that link. What's your evidence
for a wild wacky conspiracy alternative?
Bill
Mark
"If Fleischer or Bartlett or Rumsfeld 'misspoke' [when
they each said that Iraq was an immanent threat], then why
didn't they issue a correction afterward? The subject was
important after all."
Bill replies:
"... probably ... because no one brought it up to them. And
that's because it wasn't an issue at the time. And that's
because the Administration's case for war as a gathering
threat was obvious."
Why would anyone need to call attention to them what they said? And it
_was_ an issue at the time, indeed _the_ issue. And the "case for
war as a gathering threat" sounds like an immanent threat to me. In
any case, not only was there no immanent threat from Iraq there was no
gathering threat either.
Referring to the Administration's repeated statements that Iraq was a
threat to the U.S. Bill writes:
"... no one but conspiracy theorists seeking some kind
of maniacal "salad sauces" consider it significant.
A fine argument!
"Your second accusation was that because Bush
mentioned 9/11 eight times in a news conference
regarding the Iraq War [and several other times
besides that news conference -- Mark] in which
Saddam was repeatedly mentioned, it was scheme
to make people believe that Saddam was responsible
for 9/11.
"To accept that, you have to ignore the obvious for
[i.e., and instead believe] the conspiratorial."
No, we need only listen to what Bush said.
Referring to a link between the Iraq War and the "War on Terror" Bill
writes:
"The War on Terror and [Bush's] 9/11 references
[linking 9/11 to Iraq -- Mark] were consistent with
promoting that link."
Indeed, and those references were lies. Bush had no valid evidence
that Sadaam had a role in the 9/11 attack, yet Bush repeatedly
insinuated -- and continues to do so by the way -- that he did.
Bush will have to stand behind -- or cringe beneath -- the three lies I
gave as examples of the Administration's lies.
Another lie -- there are so many -- is the Administration claiming that
all U.S. torture is initiated by the personnel actually engaging in it,
rather than by the highest levels of government (Rumsfeld at lowest).
See the links in the "Torture" article at the website below.
Jim Klein
> The only mistake the neocons made was thinking they could get away with
> using 9-11 as a pretext for whatever they want.
I don't get it. What's the mistake?
jk
Don't Panic
Bill C quotes some objective analysis which was not his own:
> Specifically, while there's some
> evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent
> threat, there's much more that it did not.
Yeah that's what I'm saying.
> Those attempting to assert that
> the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant
> information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush
> administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring
> important, though isolated, evidence."
And this objective analysis puts you square in the camp of ignorant
people who say the administration (or was it just Bush?) never used the
phrase "imminent".
.
.
.
Bill C
> http://ariwatch.com
Back to accusation 1)
If someone of any significance really think two Administration members off
the cuff affirmatives represented a change in policy and were anything other
than misstatements, they can ask for clarification. If after two years no
opposition reporter asked for one, it's just more proof that they know the
answer and think more points can be made promoting the slight ambiguity.
Regarding accusation 2)
The only way I understand your reply is if you're assuming (but not stating)
that linking the Iraq War (IR) with the War on Terror (WOT) is not possible
without claiming that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. If so, then that's
the core of our disagreement on this one.
The WOT was not called the War on 9-11 Terrorists or the War on al-Qaeda.
Alternative frameworks for the war would play to the enemy's strengths,
enabling them to morph into other groups who's guilt couldn't be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, enabling them to strengthen in relative safety.
Removing the WMD threat by Iraq was seen by most as the next logical step
following the Taliban overthrow. Their potential to covertly supply WMDs to
the next 9-11 like terrorists attacks "was" Iraq's "growing and dangerous
threat". How on earth could a war against that be promoted without
referring to 9-11?
Bill
Don't Panic
Bill C wrote:
>
> The WOT was not called the War on 9-11 Terrorists or the War on al-Qaeda.
> Alternative frameworks for the war would play to the enemy's strengths,
> enabling them to morph into other groups who's guilt couldn't be proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt, enabling them to strengthen in relative safety.
That's why I prefer to call it "The War on Evildoers." Then there's no
mistaking who's who, and there's no worrying about it ever having to
let up.
.
.
.
Bill C
Don't Panic
Bill C wrote:
> That one was Halliburton's idea.
Halliburton who?
,
,
,
Matt Barrow
"Bill C" <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote in message
> That one was Halliburton's idea.
What was?
Bill C
"Matt Barrow" <mattb...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:knA%e.31$3d5....@news.uswest.net...
> What was?
Sorry, I should have quoted "Don't Panic"'s statemetment.
I was just playing with him, saying Halliburton wanted to change it to the
War on Evildoers.
Bill C
> Indeed, and those references were lies. Bush had no valid evidence
> that Sadaam had a role in the 9/11 attack, yet Bush repeatedly
> insinuated -- and continues to do so by the way -- that he did.
>
So Mark, we haven't heard from you in almost two days.
Are you still trying to imagine a better way to promote Iraq's potential to
WMD enable 9-11 like attacks that doesn't reference 9-11? Then tell us why
not doing that makes Bush guilty of insinuating that Saddam was responsible
for 9-11.
Bill
Mark
that Bush is profoundly dishonest.
Note the manner of the man:
"So Mark, we haven't heard from you in almost two days."
and
"Are you still trying to imagine ..."
Bill can imagine what I imagine all he wants. I've made my points.
The reader can judge for himself who is right.
Matt Barrow
"Bill C" <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote in message
Playing with Bob Vogel (Don't Panic) is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Bill C
> ...I've made my points.
> The reader can judge for himself who is right.
Okay Mark, here's your opportunity to support your third example of how
"neocons manipulate us with lies". (third until you wanted to add some.) You
said that the Downing Street Memos prove he lied in saying military action
was a last resort. Show us exactly where they do that. Please be specific
rather than weave a labyrinth of charges and opinions. Just start with the
most damning sentence or two. I don't think it exists.
And as I told you earlier, for war to be anything but a last resort, someone
needed to advance a clearly better plan for removing Saddam's WMD threat in
the WOT. I've never seen a reasonable one, much less one that was so much
better that only a "liar" would discount it as you claim.
Bill
Matt Barrow
"Bill C" <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote in message
>
> "Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote in message
> news:1128200152....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> ...I've made my points.
>> The reader can judge for himself who is right.
>
> Okay Mark, here's your opportunity to support your third example of how
> "neocons manipulate us with lies". (third until you wanted to add some.)
> You said that the Downing Street Memos prove he lied in saying military
> action was a last resort. Show us exactly where they do that. Please be
> specific rather than weave a labyrinth of charges and opinions. Just start
> with the most damning sentence or two. I don't think it exists.
>
on conversations and briefing that never reached higher than 2nd level in
the American Intelligence community (i.e., he never even spoke with a
*direct* assistance to Bush's).
Mark
"... someone needed to advance a clearly better plan
for removing Saddam's WMD threat ..."
There was no such threat. Even after the U.S. gave WMD to Saddam in
the early 1980s.
We had the Administration saying publicly that it didn't want to invade
Iraq, and behind the scenes we had -- as seen by the British as related
in the Downing Street memos -- well, here is "Kathy's blog" account:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Who wrote the [Downing Street] memo ...?
Matthew Rycroft, foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, wrote the "eyes
only" memo, actually the minutes of a Downing Street cabinet meeting
held in July 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq.
What exactly does the memo say, in American English ...?
Some guy named "C" (Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's spy
agency MI6) reported on his recent visit to America. "C" said George
Bush "wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action" and
that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
This is a fancy way to say they were cooking intelligence, which, in
even plainer language, means lying.
...
There were other damning statements, too, like the fact that the
evidence was "thin," and that "Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North
Korea or Iran." ... There was also talk about whether the war was
legal, but those at the meeting agreed this fine point didn't bother
the Americans.
...
... The memo also talks about the need for creating political cover by
giving Saddam a UN ultimatum which they (mistakenly) thought he would
ignore. ... There was further discussion about goading Saddam into
taking military action ... by increasing bombing in the no fly zones.
Plus "C" reports there was little planning taking place for the
aftermath of war.
Where'd ... "C" get his information? ... ?
"C" aka Richard Dearlove got his info straight from the horse's
mouth...in this case, his counterpart at the CIA, George Tenet ... as
well as members of the National Security team in Washington.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill urges me not to:
"weave a labyrinth of charges and opinions."
thus insinuating that my charges are labyrinthine and in any case
merely opinions no one else would hold. I disagree.
Bill C
> Correct me if my memory here is faulty, but the DSM was an *opinion* based
> on conversations and briefing that never reached higher than 2nd level in
> the American Intelligence community (i.e., he never even spoke with a
> *direct* assistance to Bush's).
It sounds like you know more than I do.
Bill C
> Some guy named "C" (Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's spy
> agency MI6) reported on his recent visit to America. "C" said George
> Bush "wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action" and
> that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
> This is a fancy way to say they were cooking intelligence, which, in
> even plainer language, means lying.
That bit from the memo is hearsay thrice removed. Here's the paragraph:
"[Richard Dearlove, Head of MI-6] reported on his recent talks in
Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was
now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military
action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
NRO notes that is "impressions of an aide of the impressions of
British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to
in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking".
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp
The rest of your "proof" consists of an opposition blogger's impression of
those impressions.
Here's more on that excerpt from the same article:
"This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could
elaborate; by "fixed around" did they mean that intelligence was being
falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to
support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter - it is the
purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information
decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.
"But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate
his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments
in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House
had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions
supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that
"administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure
analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction capabilities" or that "the Vice President's visits to the
Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were
perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the
briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure
analysts to change their assessments." One would think that the Senate
investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand
impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able
to elaborate, one hopes he will.
"The memo itself notes that the British assumed that Saddam had limited WMD
capabilities - and the September 24, 2002, British white paper on the topic
spelled out exactly what Whitehall believed to be the facts. Surely, this
was not the result of pressure from the vice president or any other American
officials."
Do you have anything from the DSM that you think proves Bush lied about
going to war as a last resort?
Bill
Don't Panic
Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Playing with Bob Vogel (Don't Panic) is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Nothing gets by you, Sherlock. Great detective work! I thought for sure
that transposing the "b" and the "v" in my e-mail address would throw
my scent but you seemed much too astute!
Bill's a bore. You see, he thinks I'm a leftist, thus the lame-o
Haliburton crack. That's playful to Bill, using a wisecrack with a
pointed character assassination rather than a wisecrack that has a
point.
Now this right here, this is play for me, because you'd have liked to
have show all your objectivist friends how great you were in exposing
me, when everybody here already knows who I am.
Kudos!
Mark
National Security team in Washington. From there to "C" (Richard
Dearlove) is first hand. From "C" to us is second hand. What of
it? We can't expect a signed confession. And as Kathy says: "
'C' didn't become head of MI6 by distorting conversations in
meetings with his superiors."
A Senate investigation by itself means nothing. A cross-eyed wolf
would investigate henhouse affairs as well.
Karen Kwiatkowski corroborates the Downing memos. She was an Air Force
officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia unit
during the year before the Iraq invasion. She says the Pentagon's Iraq
war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and
ties to terrorists: "It wasn't intelligence, -- it was propaganda
... They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it
sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by
juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."
She has written several articles about this. See for example
"The New Pentagon Papers"
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-09.htm
See also Seymour Hersh's
"Selective Intelligence"
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
If Bill is interested in the truth -- I'm beginning to believe he's
as interested as the Bush administration -- he'll look into this
beyond quoting conclusions of Senate investigations or Neocon National
Review editorialists.
Bill's technique is to persist no matter what evidence is presented
to him. He is free to declare until he's blue in the face that the
Bush Administration was honest with us. Bill is going to have the last
word. He's welcome to it. At some point I have to disengage from
this discussion, and the reader can judge for himself which of the
following describes the Bush Administration: rationally honest or
amazingly corrupt.
Bill C
attempts to get HPO to accept them)
"Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote
> George Tenet was part of the Administration, as were the members of the
> National Security team in Washington. From there to "C" (Richard
> Dearlove) is first hand. From "C" to us is second hand. What of
The Downing Street Memo noted in your excerpt that "Bush wanted to remove
Saddam, through military action", not that Tenet wanted to do so. That
means that it's reporting an opinion of Bush's intent from opinions of
"unnamed" administration officials (not Tenet). Then it's reporting
Dearlove's
opinion of them. Then the minute taker "C"'s summary (opinion) is the DSM.
Three levels of conjecture does not approach "proof" of a lie (especially
when a reasonable alternative to force which was ignored has not been
identified).
I find Kwiatkowski kind of interesting, but haven't found anything in her
work approaching proof. I read that near the end of her career she didn't
want to go to the Pentagon's defense policy board, but was "volunteered" for
it after others turned it down, and described herself as a "cynical but
willing staff officer". I suspect some of her claims are true, but also
think that she saw what she expected to see. Funny, that's what she's
accusing the neocons of, what I described seeing while briefly in Marine
intel and what I've accused you of. (See an alternative pattern to
conspiracy developing yet?)
It sounds like there was a social and operational division between what she
calls "the senior grey beard" neocons and her group of coworkers who laughed
at her anonymous critical columns (and kept them secret) .
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2004/9/21Kwiatkowski.html . I haven't seen quotes
from her or specific descriptions of events that proves lies, just opinions
of actions and intent promoting neocon conspiracy labyrinths. You've
already promoted that, but you don't prove opinions of conspiracies with
opinions of conspiracies. That's a hard thing to break away from, I
understand. (It's also exactly what that quote you lifted from her said the
neocons were doing with the intel.)
I'm showing good faith in letting you go to an alternate source after you
discovered that the DSM doesn't prove Bush lied, but we still need factual
evidence, not just a cynical staff officer's opinion after being half way on
the inside. Maybe there's more from her. I've only read a little of her.
And FWIW, I don't know what you smoked prior to that prissy fit saying I'm
"blue in the face promoting that the Bush administration as honest with us".
"You" are the one going around forums promoting your blog's "neocons
manipulate us with lies" conspiracy. I'm still just pressing you to find
your first factual piece of evidence to support your first three examples of
it.
Bill