Bush the murderer?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 11:20:32 AM1/13/04
to
Ok so now that there is some evidence that Bush might have been planning
the war against Iraq (yes I know allegations and such, but come on...)
from the beginning months and months before even 9-11, why aren't people
taking it a step further and coming to the conclusion that somehow,
someone, somewhere LET 9-11 happen. Is this just to far for someone to
go? I for one don't think it is, considering he has lied to us this
whole time.

--
Night_Seer


Donald Shepherd

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 11:55:54 AM1/13/04
to

Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 4:00:16 PM1/13/04
to


Let? Didn't you mean 'helped'?


--
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.

Daryl

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 5:18:45 PM1/13/04
to
In article <3LCdnUrVqZ_...@speakeasy.net> Night_Seer (ecamacho4athotmaildotcom)
wrote...

To see that and other conspiracy theories dissected,
and a well-reasoned alternative proposition about
what led to 9/11, go here:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/

And surely you're not unaware of the Project for the
New American Century, the "conservative" think tank
or lobby or whatever you want to call it, which includes
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Quayle, Wolfowitz, Perle
etc. among it's signatories? No one who had read their
website could have doubted that actions of this kind
(using American military muscle for policy objectives
not just defence) was going to be in the works, even
prior to the election.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

What has fueled a lot of the conspiracy theorist types
is the fact that this group published a paper saying
that it would take "another Pearl Harbor" to get the
American public behind its policies. That was about
a year before 9/11. Now of course the statement itself
is quite innocent and has undoubtedly been used in lots
of contexts before, but to a conspiracy theorist or the
just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.

IMO it's more reasonable is to assume that once the
attacks actually happened they would no doubt see it as
the time to carry out their policies, and that doing so
supports the idea that the intent to carry out those
policies pre-existed the events of 9/11 and were not
created merely _as a response to_ the events of 9/11.
Anything more than that is stretching it, IMHO.


--
Daryl - still working on a new email address...

Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:03:33 PM1/13/04
to

Thanks, Daryl, I always like to hear yours and Sanfords comments
about the state of affairs. It just seems like many things are just too
convinient. And while I completely understand that it might have been
assumed that baby Bush would want to finish Daddy Bush's war (it didn't
really suprise me to hear it), even from the get go, before all of 9-11
happened, it has more to do with him lying to the American public than
that. The fact that there are no WMDs, no known connections to Al
Qaeda, and all these companies making billions of dollars from this war,
companies that have direct connection to the president himself, well you
know it all been said before. I just don't understand how people can
still trust him and want to support him further in the coming
elections...I think I'm more naive than I ever thought.

--
Night_Seer


Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:14:38 PM1/13/04
to


While I like to push the "Bush actually did
9/11" button, what seems much more plausable
is that he knew it was being planned and did
nothing to stop it.

Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:17:14 PM1/13/04
to


Why? Different people have different
reasons. The people you need to be
really worried about are the ones who's
ears perked up whan Bush dropped the
word 'Crusade'. These people actually
want a global religious war because they
believe they are bringing on the Second
Coming.

Sanford Manley

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:33:57 PM1/13/04
to
Night_Seer spake thusly:

Keep in mind there are other explanations:

Regime change in Iraq was a priority before Bush
ever came to office. 9-11 underscored the need.

Saddam himself believed he had WMD and may have
been deceived himself. Further, he used that belief to
intimidate his neighbors and overawe his friends. Further
he played the game by *acting* as if he had them. Its
a plain fact that we know he had WMD...just ask the
thousands of dead Kurds and Iranians. IMHO, the
time to act was not after he had reconstituted and proved
it with another attack on us or his neighbors or Israel.
I sincerely believe the *real reason* for the attack on Iraq
has to do with Israel: something that has been continually
played down because it is unpopular on both sides of
the political spectrum. An attack on Israel, and a counter
attack might have brought a unified response from
those sympathetic to Iraq. There is plenty of precedent
for that. Given these facts and observations, it made whatever
intelligence, right or wrong regarding Iraq too compelling
to ignore. Further, the no-fly zone and embargo was
proving to be costly and ineffective in turn.

A careful study of the corporate world shows that
very few companies could take on the tasks called
for by the administration in the time frame requested.
Practically all multinational corporations have ties
to this administration in the same way that most democrats
can be shown to have ties to unions, environmentalists,
and progressive organizations.

Now I am not pleased nor do I feel the execution of the
entire affair was very good, but the conduct of this war
is no better and no worse that WWII prior to Midway,
Korea, or practically any other war.

--
Sanford M. Manley
Outlasting the trolls since 1994!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/

Sanford Manley

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:34:30 PM1/13/04
to
Anatta_anicca_dukkha spake thusly:

Based on what evidence?

--
Sanford M. Manley
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are
someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their
passions a quotation." - Oscar Wilde
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/

Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:50:49 PM1/13/04
to

Does this mean that it is OK? Do you not think it is getting worse
just by the fact that we have not learned anything from our mistakes.
One thing that really bothers me, is how many people are comfortable
with the fact that its "always been this way", and it will never change.
They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied about a BJ, but they do
nothing when Bush lies about an all out war? This makes very little
sense to me. Our actions in WWII reflect that era, our actions today
should reflect what we have learned from 2 WORLD wars plus countless
others.
To stay the course is to bring about our own demise. We should be
outraged, not satisfied that this is no better or worse than WW2.

P.S. I've never really studied the corporate world much, but I'd like to
see the facts that bring about that conclusion.

--
Night_Seer


Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:53:22 PM1/13/04
to

Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
with the 9/11 investigation.

In law, you are innocent until proven
guilty. In politics, you are guilty
until proven innocent.

Sanford Manley

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 7:56:55 PM1/13/04
to
Night_Seer spake thusly:

>> Now I am not pleased nor do I feel the execution of the
>> entire affair was very good, but the conduct of this war
>> is no better and no worse that WWII prior to Midway,
>> Korea, or practically any other war.
>
> Does this mean that it is OK? Do you not think it is
> getting worse just by the fact that we have not learned
> anything from our mistakes. One thing that really bothers
> me, is how many people are comfortable with the fact that
> its "always been this way", and it will never change.

Whether or not I am comfortable with it, its a fact


> They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied about a BJ,
> but they do nothing when Bush lies about an all out war?

This is the foundation for the sentiment: payback.
There is no evidence that Bush lied and copious
indications he was mislead or believed what he
wanted to believe.

> This makes very little sense to me. Our actions in WWII
> reflect that era, our actions today should reflect what
> we have learned from 2 WORLD wars plus countless
> others. To stay the course is to bring about our own
> demise. We should be outraged, not satisfied that this
> is no better or worse than WW2.

I am outraged that Bush is called a murderer, but that is
my problem. We live in world full of murderers.

We and others have not learned. There are limitations to
human nature.


> P.S. I've never really studied the corporate world much,
> but I'd like to see the facts that bring about that
> conclusion.

Size, multinational reach, experience, ability to act quickly.

--
Sanford M. Manley
I am a Marxist, a Groucho Marxist
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/

Sanford Manley

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 8:00:38 PM1/13/04
to
Anatta_anicca_dukkha spake thusly:
>>>> for policy objectives not just defense) was going to

>>>> be in the works, even prior to the election.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>>>>
>>>> What has fueled a lot of the conspiracy theorist types
>>>> is the fact that this group published a paper saying
>>>> that it would take "another Pearl Harbor" to get the
>>>> American public behind its policies. That was about
>>>> a year before 9/11. Now of course the statement itself
>>>> is quite innocent and has undoubtedly been used in lots
>>>> of contexts before, but to a conspiracy theorist or the
>>>> just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
>>>> to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.
>>>>
>>>> IMO it's more reasonable is to assume that once the
>>>> attacks actually happened they would no doubt see it as
>>>> the time to carry out their policies, and that doing so
>>>> supports the idea that the intent to carry out those
>>>> policies pre-existed the events of 9/11 and were not
>>>> created merely _as a response to_ the events of 9/11.
>>>> Anything more than that is stretching it, IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>> While I like to push the "Bush actually did
>>> 9/11" button, what seems much more plausible

>>> is that he knew it was being planned and did
>>> nothing to stop it.
>>
>>
>> Based on what evidence?
>>
>
> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
> with the 9/11 investigation.
>
> In law, you are innocent until proven
> guilty. In politics, you are guilty
> until proven innocent.

With the judgment ye judge, so shall ye
be judged.

I hope you hold President Dean/Clinton/Lieberman/
Gephardt/Sharpton/Mosely-Braun/Kucinich/Edwards/
etc to the same standard.

I predict you will be disappointed.

Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 8:08:16 PM1/13/04
to

Not interested.

>
> I hope you hold President Dean/Clinton/Lieberman/
> Gephardt/Sharpton/Mosely-Braun/Kucinich/Edwards/
> etc to the same standard.


I shall.

>
> I predict you will be disappointed.


Nope. Whoever will be another power hungry
politician. I only hope we learn to make
the politicians afraid of us.

Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 8:10:29 PM1/13/04
to
Sanford Manley wrote:
> Night_Seer spake thusly:
>>> Now I am not pleased nor do I feel the execution of the
>>> entire affair was very good, but the conduct of this war
>>> is no better and no worse that WWII prior to Midway,
>>> Korea, or practically any other war.
>>
>> Does this mean that it is OK? Do you not think it is
>> getting worse just by the fact that we have not learned
>> anything from our mistakes. One thing that really bothers
>> me, is how many people are comfortable with the fact that
>> its "always been this way", and it will never change.
>
> Whether or not I am comfortable with it, its a fact
>
>
>> They tried to impeach Clinton because he lied about a BJ,
>> but they do nothing when Bush lies about an all out war?
>
> This is the foundation for the sentiment: payback.
> There is no evidence that Bush lied and copious
> indications he was mislead or believed what he
> wanted to believe.
>

You are assuming that I cared one bit for Clinton. The sentiment is
brought about by the fact that Bush himself in his 2000 campaign was
giving Clinton a hard time for having troops in other parts of the world
and stretching our military thin, while the whole time he was planning
this Iraqi action from the get go of his presidency. Is that not I
guess that's more hipocrisy than lying, but I really see no difference.
Another thing, I hear this "believe what he wanted to believe" crap
all the time and its straight up bullshit. He believed what he wanted
to believe is equivalent to lying to himself, and the American public as
a whole.

>> This makes very little sense to me. Our actions in WWII
>> reflect that era, our actions today should reflect what
>> we have learned from 2 WORLD wars plus countless
>> others. To stay the course is to bring about our own
>> demise. We should be outraged, not satisfied that this
>> is no better or worse than WW2.
>
> I am outraged that Bush is called a murderer, but that is
> my problem. We live in world full of murderers.
>

It was a question more than calling him that, but I would gladly put the
two words together again.

> We and others have not learned. There are limitations to
> human nature.
>
>
>> P.S. I've never really studied the corporate world much,
>> but I'd like to see the facts that bring about that
>> conclusion.
>
> Size, multinational reach, experience, ability to act quickly.

According to whom? Who's to say many smaller specialized companies
couldn't work faster, without the beauracracy a large corporation
brings. Companies who actually understand Iraq better than any large
corporation ever will?

--
Night_Seer


Daryl

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 10:50:28 PM1/13/04
to
In article <OR%Mb.47525$8H.100682@attbi_s03> Anatta_anicca_dukkha (no...@all.com)
wrote...

I can see why people think so, but truthfully I
think if he had known it was being planned he
would have done all he could to stop it, and he
would have still had an excuse to go into
Afghanistan without the handicap of suspicions
about his motives or competence. No, I think
the Fifth Estate's theory is the best one I've
seen yet. (mind you, I'm biased)

Daryl

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 10:50:29 PM1/13/04
to
In article <8fGdnWPt4-x...@speakeasy.net> Night_Seer
(ecamacho4athotmaildotcom) wrote...

Heh, me too! :)

Here's another reason to be a little more forgiving
of GWB et al. It appears that Saddam's people were
all basically working on secret weapon fictions in
order to a) please him and not get shot, and b) get
on the funding gravy-train. Western intelligence
picked up the same reports that were designed to
fool Saddam himself. So it's believable that GWB
wasn't engaging in blatant deception so much as
creative salesmanship, at least on the WMD account.

Donald Shepherd

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 11:08:46 PM1/13/04
to
Sanford Manley wrote:
> Anatta_anicca_dukkha spake thusly:
>
>
>>While I like to push the "Bush actually did
>>9/11" button, what seems much more plausable
>>is that he knew it was being planned and did
>>nothing to stop it.
>
>
> Based on what evidence?
>

I got this e-mail petition signing request in support of the Ellen
Mariani lawsuit. I haven't read it all yet, but it does make a bunch of
claims. Here are a few:

1. NY Times: Bush Warned bin Laden Would Hijack Planes
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by
American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was
seeking to hijack aircraft..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html

2. CNN: Bush briefed on hijacking threat before 9-11
"President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up
to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility
that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a
U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday"
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/index.html

3. UK Guardian: Bush knew terrorists would hijack planes
"George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September
that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin
Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday…. The
memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information
passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda
operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of
Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for
his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,718312,00.html

There's a bunch more.

Here's the website for the petition drive:

http://www.911forthetruth.com

Don

Daryl

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 11:06:12 PM1/13/04
to
In article <eU%Mb.47537$8H.100276@attbi_s03> Anatta_anicca_dukkha
(no...@all.com) wrote...

I don't buy that. It's pretty close to the
worldview that GWB et al want promoted.

I still stand by the Dune theory. Sure, the
Fremen hated the Empire, but it took a Paul
Atreides to galvanize them and make the
Emporer himself come to Arrakis where he
would be defeated because of the home-sand
advantage.

Daryl

unread,
Jan 13, 2004, 11:06:12 PM1/13/04
to
In article <uv0Nb.11324$eq....@bignews6.bellsouth.net> Sanford
Manley (manl...@bellsouth.net) wrote...

>
>> In law, you are innocent until proven
>> guilty. In politics, you are guilty
>> until proven innocent.
>
>With the judgment ye judge, so shall ye
>be judged.
>
>I hope you hold President Dean/Clinton/Lieberman/
>Gephardt/Sharpton/Mosely-Braun/Kucinich/Edwards/
>etc to the same standard.
>
>I predict you will be disappointed.

Not much for going out on a limb are ya? Come
now, let the spirits speak through you as they
do with me... :)

Lazarhat

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 11:42:33 AM1/14/04
to
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
news:Ue3Nb.45137$Ru3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...

So where's our Mu'a'dib?

-l

--
to email me, remove the 'burnt_crusty_bits' from the email addy


Lazarhat

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 12:11:18 PM1/14/04
to
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
news:903Nb.45114$Kg3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...

Every time he get up to the podium to give an 'important address to the
nation', my skin just crawls -- he sounds like he's just reading a book
report that he was rich (and powerful) enough to have bought from some
brainiac who DIDN'T major in Budweiser and Cocaine in college (as he did),
and it seems everything he does policy-wise is calculated exactly to make
his daddy's 'New World Order' a reality. He even has guys from Daddy's
administration running the show. Shadow President < cough, cough > Dick <
cough > Cheney
< cough >.

What is more galling lately is that he's soft on North Korea and Pakistan as
well as China, Russia, France and Germany -- all countries that continue to
support the Libya's and Iraq's of the world by supplying them with missiles,
nuclear technology and possible chemical WMDs. Hell -- the USA is just as
guilty for selling them a lot of the weapons we have (well, not the USA per
se, but American arms manufacturers). We've been getting choppers shot down
because of all the leftover stinger missiles that we practically gave to
Afghanistan when they were fighting against Russia. How's that for
comeuppance?

Bottom line -- we reap what we sow. If American (or any other) arms
manufacturers continue to sell to nations that profess the desire to
overthrow us, we deserve what we get, which is why all this shit needs to
stop! We need to nip it! Nip it in the bud! It's damn well time worldwide to
begin the process -- the world needs more plows and no more guns and ammo.

Carpet bomb the enemy in $5.00 off coupons to MickeyD's! A PS2 in every
house! More weed for all! I'll see your 75 virgins in Paradise and raise you
one skanky ho' from the east-side who knows _all_ the nasty stuff, and
(summoning up the Samuel L. Jackson voice) WHO WILL PRO-CEED to get ALL up
in yo' bidness NOW, TODAY, baybee -- not in some future life...

That's my platform. Vote for me in 2004.

-l

< mu'a'dib-ing >

Fred Kepler

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 12:27:26 PM1/14/04
to

"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
news:99_Mb.44584$iQ3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...

I wouldn't put anything past them,
but I admit that there's no solid evidence
to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
(Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
or environmental issues.)

Fred


Fred Kepler

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 12:43:42 PM1/14/04
to
"Sanford Manley" <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:r60Nb.11002$eq....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

I will agree that the world is a better place without Saddam in
power.

I guess my real qualms (even deeper than the question whether
Bush lied, or was mislead) are: who gave us the "right" to
invade a country that did us no direct harm? and was it worth
the price? How many innocent Iraqis have died thus far? How many
Americans? What's the price in human life (as well as dollars
and cents) of attempting to restore some sort of order to Iraq?

We can apply felicific calculus, and say that a few thousand
lives spent now is justified in terms of how many more Saddam
might have massacred in the future-- but that only works if
you're not one of the thousands killed in the current conflict.

Like the lengthy discussions of what to do with the kids who
shoot up their high schools, or Minkfoot's question about
ethical treatment of animals intended for slaughter: the most
extreme views seem to have the most logical flaws, while my own
waffling offers no solution at all.

Fred


Fred Kepler

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 12:52:17 PM1/14/04
to
"Daryl" has a pitch for Hollywood:

>
> Here's another reason to be a little more forgiving
> of GWB et al. It appears that Saddam's people were
> all basically working on secret weapon fictions in
> order to a) please him and not get shot, and b) get
> on the funding gravy-train. Western intelligence
> picked up the same reports that were designed to
> fool Saddam himself. So it's believable that GWB
> wasn't engaging in blatant deception so much as
> creative salesmanship, at least on the WMD account.
>
>
> --
> Daryl - still working on a new email address...

This would be a great premise for a (dark) comedy.
Change a few names, have bumbling generals vying for
WMD dollars, and the ruthless dictator anxious for results.
Add a few slapsticky tours of phony weapns sites to satisfy
the big bad boss, and maybe a musical number.
Needless to say, a BUBCO production.
I'll bet Sanford and dale could have a draft script ready in a
week's time.

Fred


Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 1:53:09 PM1/14/04
to

But waffling opens more eyes than sitting around saying, "ah its always
been this way"

--
Night_Seer


buddhashortfatguy

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 2:12:56 PM1/14/04
to
"Sanford Manley" <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:r60Nb.11002$eq....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Daryl:


> >> No one who had read their
> >> website could have doubted that actions of this kind
> >> (using American military muscle for policy objectives
> >> not just defence) was going to be in the works, even
> >> prior to the election.

We were doing joint exercizes w/ the Tajiks & Uzbeks 1-2 yrs prior to 9/11.
The storm was brewing, we were girding for war, as was necessary. Al Qaeda's
HQ was in Afghanistan.

Daryl:


> >> but to a conspiracy theorist or the
> >> just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
> >> to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.

Everyone was speculating it might take another Pearl Harbor before the USA
really did something tangible against the terrorists. The 1st WTC bombing
warranted action, the perpetrators openly state they were hoping to kill
250,000 people, toppling both towers at midday.

NS:


> > The fact that there are no WMDs,

That's not a "fact." It may be true, but you can't tell me it's a 100%
bonifide fact.

Why hasn't Bush planted "throw-down" WMDs? Surely there are resources at his
disposal to arrange a nice tidy cache of WMDs. Would you like to suggest his
administration is too honest to attempt such a deceipt?

OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs "out
there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are reluctant to
divulge any of their current intelligence on the matter. There's the
possibility that material witnesses fear for their lives and won't tell, but
the other possibility is that the WMDs are on the loose and the decision has
been made to say nothing about it.

NS:


> > no known connections to Al Qaeda,

There's recent evidence to the contrary... one of Saddams boys put an Iraqi
intelligence agent on an honor roll in a local rag, citing his work with
"bin Laden's people."

NS:


> > and all these companies making billions of dollars
> > from this war, companies that have direct connection to
> > the president himself,

They make contributions to Democrats too. There are more companies also
connected to Bush & Co. who are troubled by the effect of the deficit
increase. A few military suppliers can't make a war happen, not even in US
military culture.

Sandy:

> An attack on Israel, and a counter
> attack might have brought a unified response from
> those sympathetic to Iraq. There is plenty of precedent
> for that.

Indeed... all-out war in the Mid East could well turn into WW III.

> Given these facts and observations, it made whatever
> intelligence, right or wrong regarding Iraq too compelling
> to ignore. Further, the no-fly zone and embargo was
> proving to be costly and ineffective in turn.

Costly in monetary terms, not much compared to the cost of conquering Iraq.
But costly, in terms of the web of Catch-22's, absolutely.

I've had many mixed sentiments re: Iraq, but I think history will show it
had to be done for the manifold reasons cited and more.

+-------------------------
To e-mail me,
replace "REPLACETHIS" with buddhashortfatguy

dt

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 2:04:20 PM1/14/04
to
Fred Kepler wrote:

They're bringing back the draft????

Unfortunately, all of the actors we'd need are already dead.

Hail Freedonia!

DT

buddhashortfatguy

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 2:34:40 PM1/14/04
to
"Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote

>
> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
> with the 9/11 investigation.

That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!

I see no firm proof of any conspiracy, so far it's just speculation. Looks
to me like you're just trying to find one more reason to hate Bush.

Clinton's FBI & the rest knew there were terrorists trying to bomb buildings
in NYC before the first WTC bombing. So should we be accusing Clinton of
some kind of conspiracy? How 'bout blaming Clinton for not going after bin
Laden & al Qaeda earlier, when he had several chances? Clinton's a
Trilaterialist Bildeberger, maybe he's the mastermind of this conspiracy?

There's a broader question that everyone seems to miss when they start
looking for a convenient scapegoat: Was there political will for a massive
mobilization of the entire government before 9/11? Nobody expected the level
of carnage of 9/11 with the airplanes - predicting airplane hijackings was a
problem to begin with - cracking down on airport security and civil
liberties with just spotty reports and anecdotes wouldn't have been possible
before 9/11. Moreover, the most consistent pattern had been car/truck
bombings. And even though the original masterminds of the WTC truck bombing
(1992?) openly stated they wanted to kill 250,000 people, nobody in gov't
seemed to know what the hell to do about it, except maybe set some plans
into place. Which is probably all that our bureaucracies were functionally
capable of doing at the time. It seems more reasonable to assert that the
result was that important intelligence got sidelined or ignored and inertia
set back in.

/lee

buddhashortfatguy

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 2:53:47 PM1/14/04
to
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
news:803Nb.45111$Kg3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...

> I can see why people think so, but truthfully I
> think if he had known it was being planned he
> would have done all he could to stop it, and he
> would have still had an excuse to go into
> Afghanistan without the handicap of suspicions
> about his motives or competence. No, I think
> the Fifth Estate's theory is the best one I've
> seen yet. (mind you, I'm biased)

Yes these conspiracy theories have served as an albatross around Bush's
neck.

Hijacking planes was a long-known problem and the judgetment was probably
made, understandably so, that the odds were in favor of an ordinary
hijacking
- i.e. hostage-taking - and not a vaster scheme involving grandiose
self-immolation.

The military/security planners probably mischaracterized al Qaeda's mission
and methods, expecting an ordinary hijacking, thinking al Qaeda would be
averse to inciting the USA into all-out war.

A hijacking without a long protracted siege or quid pro quo still seems
counterintuitive: In the past terrorism had been understood as a means of
manipulating policy - with hostages, PR and some kind of attempt at
negotiation. As such, hijackers would want to avoid a massive kill as they
would be counterproductive to the stated ends of the terrorist's causes. In
essence, 9/11 was in the realm of speculation and it seemed unthinkable.

Both sides guessed wrong. bin Laden was reputed to have guessed wrong - that
we wouldn't invade Afghanistan. It's much much more plausible that both
sides misjudged each other's capacity for planning and action.

It still seems totally crazy and weird, like a bizarre dream, even when I
take the 1st WTC bombing into account. So it's perfectly reasonable to say
that a large kill seemed either unlikely or unimaginable before 9/11.

/lee

Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 3:33:16 PM1/14/04
to
buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>
>>Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>with the 9/11 investigation.
>
>
> That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!


As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.

Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 3:41:03 PM1/14/04
to


I don't buy that on Osama's part. I think he guessed completely
correctly -- although I bet the response was beyond his wildest
dreams.

Osama was looking for a global religious war. I bet he thought
he'd have to pull off several 9/11s to get one started. Other
than that, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

Osama's looking for his place in history as a great martyr to
Allah. Bush is well on his way to giving Osama what he wants.


>
> It still seems totally crazy and weird, like a bizarre dream, even when I
> take the 1st WTC bombing into account. So it's perfectly reasonable to say
> that a large kill seemed either unlikely or unimaginable before 9/11.
>
> /lee
> +-------------------------
> To e-mail me,
> replace "REPLACETHIS" with buddhashortfatguy
>
>

Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 5:28:34 PM1/14/04
to
In article <100asbn...@corp.supernews.com> Lazarhat
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
>So where's our Mu'a'dib?

Hate to tell you but you're the empire...you don't
get one.

Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 5:35:27 PM1/14/04
to
buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> "Sanford Manley" <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:r60Nb.11002$eq....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Daryl:
>>>> No one who had read their
>>>> website could have doubted that actions of this kind
>>>> (using American military muscle for policy objectives
>>>> not just defence) was going to be in the works, even
>>>> prior to the election.
>
> We were doing joint exercizes w/ the Tajiks & Uzbeks 1-2 yrs prior to
> 9/11. The storm was brewing, we were girding for war, as was
> necessary. Al Qaeda's HQ was in Afghanistan.
>

As I said, this was obvious to just about anyone...even the fact that
Bush might go into Iraq as well, might have been fairly obvious. That
wasn't my point. Its one thing and go after those who attacked us in
Afghanistan, its another to use that as an excuse to invade a sovereign
nation because your daddy got his feelings hurt.

> Daryl:
>>>> but to a conspiracy theorist or the
>>>> just plain suspicious it looks like evidence of intent
>>>> to let or cause the 9/11 attacks to happen.
>
> Everyone was speculating it might take another Pearl Harbor before
> the USA really did something tangible against the terrorists. The 1st
> WTC bombing warranted action, the perpetrators openly state they were
> hoping to kill 250,000 people, toppling both towers at midday.
>

This might have had an impact in showing terrorists around the world
that we weren't invulnerable, but I still see nothing of interest here
with regards to Iraq. If anything, it should have shown this or any
administration what was possbile, and force the CIA or whoever is
supposed to be protecting us to do some damn protecting.

> NS:
>>> The fact that there are no WMDs,
>
> That's not a "fact." It may be true, but you can't tell me it's a 100%
> bonifide fact.
>

Correct, there is no facts shown from either side so far...

> Why hasn't Bush planted "throw-down" WMDs? Surely there are resources
> at his disposal to arrange a nice tidy cache of WMDs. Would you like
> to suggest his administration is too honest to attempt such a deceipt?
>
> OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs
> "out there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are
> reluctant to divulge any of their current intelligence on the matter.
> There's the possibility that material witnesses fear for their lives
> and won't tell, but the other possibility is that the WMDs are on the
> loose and the decision has been made to say nothing about it.
>

What if monkeys came flying out of my ass...would you send in a
premptive strike of monkey butler training crews?

> NS:
>>> no known connections to Al Qaeda,
>
> There's recent evidence to the contrary... one of Saddams boys put an
> Iraqi intelligence agent on an honor roll in a local rag, citing his
> work with "bin Laden's people."
>

there's evidence both ways...when will we see the truth...probably
never.

> NS:
>>> and all these companies making billions of dollars
>>> from this war, companies that have direct connection to
>>> the president himself,
>
> They make contributions to Democrats too. There are more companies
> also connected to Bush & Co. who are troubled by the effect of the
> deficit increase. A few military suppliers can't make a war happen,
> not even in US military culture.
>

How many of these other companies are multi-nationals, and can pour
rediculous sums of money into the Presidents lap. How many of these
companies was the president or other members of the white house actually
a part of?

> Sandy:
>
>> An attack on Israel, and a counter
>> attack might have brought a unified response from
>> those sympathetic to Iraq. There is plenty of precedent
>> for that.
>
> Indeed... all-out war in the Mid East could well turn into WW III.
>

What about Korea, China, several places in South America...have you ever
seen a list of the things the CIA has done "in our name"? The slaughter
of thousands of people in Panama, the sticking our noses in countries
like Bolivia, Gutemala, etc, etc. And don't ever forget Saddam was one
of our lackeys until he got out of our control. I think we'd do well
enough starting WW3 on our own without anyones help.

>> Given these facts and observations, it made whatever
>> intelligence, right or wrong regarding Iraq too compelling
>> to ignore. Further, the no-fly zone and embargo was
>> proving to be costly and ineffective in turn.
>

So basically evidence...circumsantial or not, true or not, MADE UP or
not, as long as it says what you want it to say...is evidence enough to
go in and kill thousands of Iraqi's, and still hundreds of our own
troops, who are dying still today.

> Costly in monetary terms, not much compared to the cost of conquering
> Iraq. But costly, in terms of the web of Catch-22's, absolutely.
>
> I've had many mixed sentiments re: Iraq, but I think history will
> show it had to be done for the manifold reasons cited and more.
>
> +-------------------------
> To e-mail me,
> replace "REPLACETHIS" with buddhashortfatguy

There's very little talk of cost in lives...not only those directly
affected, but those indirectly affected...
--
Night_Seer


Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 5:44:03 PM1/14/04
to
In article <2_eNb.35903$6y6.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Fred Kepler
(fke...@att.net) wrote...

>
>I wouldn't put anything past them,

I would. There are limits to their depravity I am
sure. For instance, they wouldn't stoop so low as
to do anything to interrupt the vital trickle-down
flow.


>but I admit that there's no solid evidence
>to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
>(Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
>or environmental issues.)

That so many could believe it of them says
something about the state of affairs.

Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 5:44:04 PM1/14/04
to
In article <100au1k...@corp.supernews.com> Lazarhat
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...

Somebody had to build those missiles and somebody had
to build the replacement choppers. It sounds like a
win-win situation, doesn't it?


>Bottom line -- we reap what we sow. If American (or any other) arms
>manufacturers continue to sell to nations that profess the desire to
>overthrow us, we deserve what we get, which is why all this shit needs to
>stop! We need to nip it! Nip it in the bud! It's damn well time worldwide to
>begin the process -- the world needs more plows and no more guns and ammo.

How much would it have hurt, really, to not sell any
more landmines?


>Carpet bomb the enemy in $5.00 off coupons to MickeyD's! A PS2 in every
>house! More weed for all! I'll see your 75 virgins in Paradise and raise you
>one skanky ho' from the east-side who knows _all_ the nasty stuff, and
>(summoning up the Samuel L. Jackson voice) WHO WILL PRO-CEED to get ALL up
>in yo' bidness NOW, TODAY, baybee -- not in some future life...
>
>That's my platform. Vote for me in 2004.

Well shee-it pardner, ya done got mah vote! (except
for, you know, the not bein' Merkin thing)

buddhashortfatguy

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 5:51:51 PM1/14/04
to
"Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:vsSdnQvmNqR...@speakeasy.net...

> Its one thing and go after those who attacked us in
> Afghanistan, its another to use that as an excuse to invade a sovereign
> nation because your daddy got his feelings hurt.

Do you really believe that was the reason? Or that oil & control were the
real reasons?

Please tell me ... that you don't think there were othe manifold rationale
to go jam our arm into the teaming ant mound that is the Mid East?


> > OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs
> > "out there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are
> > reluctant to divulge any of their current intelligence on the matter.
> > There's the possibility that material witnesses fear for their lives
> > and won't tell, but the other possibility is that the WMDs are on the
> > loose and the decision has been made to say nothing about it.
>
> What if monkeys came flying out of my ass...would you send in a
> premptive strike of monkey butler training crews?

If monkeys came flying out of your ass, my strikeforce wouldn't be
preemptive, now would it?

> How many of these other companies are multi-nationals, and can pour
> rediculous sums of money into the Presidents lap. How many of these
> companies was the president or other members of the white house actually
> a part of?

What are you looking for - small town democracy?


> What about Korea, China, several places in South America...have you ever
> seen a list of the things the CIA has done "in our name"?

I'm an old Iran-Contra activist. Different topic. And no, I don't look
forward to the "School of the Americas" starting a new campus called "School
of the Mid East."

> I think we'd do well
> enough starting WW3 on our own without anyones help.

And let's not forget the USA'd go apeshit after a mass kill from a terrorist
WMD. That'd be WWIII too.

> So basically evidence...circumsantial or not, true or not, MADE UP or
> not, as long as it says what you want it to say...

You are thinking in legalistic terms, right vs. wrong.

> is evidence enough to
> go in and kill thousands of Iraqi's, and still hundreds of our own
> troops, who are dying still today.

Evidence, schmevidence. Iraq was a dirty deed that had to be done.

> There's very little talk of cost in lives...not only those directly
> affected, but those indirectly affected...

Baloney... There's plenty of talk about lives... the lives of the Kurds and
swamp arabs, the lives of Iraqis who would've continued to die, in extra
numbers, under the callous and murderous regime of Saddam & his sons.

And yes, we're putting our kids into harm's way taking the initiative in
Iraq, pushing the front of the terror war right into the heart of the Middle
East. It's a tremendous sacrifice some have paid and will pay, and we will
very likely out of it with a very bitter taste.

/lee


buddhashortfatguy

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 5:53:16 PM1/14/04
to
"Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...

> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> > "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
> >
> >>Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
> >>with the 9/11 investigation.
> >
> > That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
>
> As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.

So you're saying your politics are such that accusation and innuendo rule?

Might as well say you hate Bush.

/lee

buddhashortfatguy

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 5:55:49 PM1/14/04
to
"Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
news:zPhNb.66375$I06.304287@attbi_s01...

lee wrote:
> > Both sides guessed wrong. bin Laden was reputed to have guessed wrong -
that
> > we wouldn't invade Afghanistan. It's much much more plausible that both
> > sides misjudged each other's capacity for planning and action.
>
> I don't buy that on Osama's part. I think he guessed completely
> correctly -- although I bet the response was beyond his wildest
> dreams.
>
> Osama was looking for a global religious war. I bet he thought
> he'd have to pull off several 9/11s to get one started. Other
> than that, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

Yes I've made the same observation... that Osama seeks to galvanize muslims
and create a dialectic where the west is chased out of Araby, etc.

> Osama's looking for his place in history as a great martyr to
> Allah. Bush is well on his way to giving Osama what he wants.

Nope, that's been accounted for and is being dealt with separately.....
you'll see.

Lazarhat

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 6:14:33 PM1/14/04
to
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
news:mojNb.352$a71...@nntp-post.primus.ca...

'You're'? Dude, I'm (geographically and perhaps ideologically) practically a
Canadian! I'm just waiting for you canukistanis to issue me the utilikilt...

Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 6:15:52 PM1/14/04
to
In article <f7hNb.2124$n8....@be1.texas.rr.com> buddhashortfatguy (REPLA...@yahoo.com)
wrote...

Did you read the Fifth Estate thing?

I'm still convinced that the USA has been baited into
a war over there (the Dune theory). I don't believe
for a second that bin Laden thought that the USA
wouldn't invade Afghanistan, and bring all its pals.
It's not believable. He knew what the neocons wanted
to do. He had to know. He's no idiot, despite the
Hollywood stereotypes of wild-eyed Islamic fanatics.

Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 6:31:29 PM1/14/04
to
In article <100bjap...@corp.supernews.com> Lazarhat
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...

>
>> >
>> >So where's our Mu'a'dib?
>>
>> Hate to tell you but you're the empire...you don't
>> get one.
>>
>'You're'? Dude, I'm (geographically and perhaps ideologically) practically a
>Canadian! I'm just waiting for you canukistanis to issue me the utilikilt...

Utilikilts are made in Seattle. Well, that's practically
Canuck too, so hell, yer in boy!

Lazarhat

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 6:57:36 PM1/14/04
to
"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
news:ljkNb.450$Ll2...@nntp-post.primus.ca...

LOL!

Wooohooo, eh?

Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 7:00:44 PM1/14/04
to
buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
> news:vsSdnQvmNqR...@speakeasy.net...
>
>> Its one thing and go after those who attacked us in
>> Afghanistan, its another to use that as an excuse to invade a
>> sovereign nation because your daddy got his feelings hurt.
>
> Do you really believe that was the reason? Or that oil & control were
> the real reasons?
>
> Please tell me ... that you don't think there were othe manifold
> rationale to go jam our arm into the teaming ant mound that is the
> Mid East?
>

Of course not, but they haven't bothered to tell me yet either...or
anyone in America for that matter...why don't they just set the record
straight, rather than give "conspiracy theorists" like myself so much
fodder.

>
>>> OTOH, what if the administration has solid evidence there are WMDs
>>> "out there" somewhere, but are unable to recover them and are
>>> reluctant to divulge any of their current intelligence on the
>>> matter. There's the possibility that material witnesses fear for
>>> their lives and won't tell, but the other possibility is that the
>>> WMDs are on the loose and the decision has been made to say nothing
>>> about it.
>>
>> What if monkeys came flying out of my ass...would you send in a
>> premptive strike of monkey butler training crews?
>
> If monkeys came flying out of your ass, my strikeforce wouldn't be
> preemptive, now would it?
>

Well yeah I guess your right...I should have said evidence of AEMs (ass
ejected monkeys)

>> How many of these other companies are multi-nationals, and can pour
>> rediculous sums of money into the Presidents lap. How many of these
>> companies was the president or other members of the white house
>> actually a part of?
>
> What are you looking for - small town democracy?
>

Sure why not...this oligopoly has gone on disguised as a democracy for
too long.

>
>> What about Korea, China, several places in South America...have you
>> ever seen a list of the things the CIA has done "in our name"?
>
> I'm an old Iran-Contra activist. Different topic. And no, I don't look
> forward to the "School of the Americas" starting a new campus called
> "School of the Mid East."
>

Different topic, but in the whole scheme of things, does it all not give
groups a reason to hate us...why is that topic not covered..why do these
people hate us so much?

>> I think we'd do well
>> enough starting WW3 on our own without anyones help.
>
> And let's not forget the USA'd go apeshit after a mass kill from a
> terrorist WMD. That'd be WWIII too.
>

and AEMs as well.

>> So basically evidence...circumsantial or not, true or not, MADE UP or
>> not, as long as it says what you want it to say...
>
> You are thinking in legalistic terms, right vs. wrong.
>

Very well how do you want me to think?

>> is evidence enough to
>> go in and kill thousands of Iraqi's, and still hundreds of our own
>> troops, who are dying still today.
>
> Evidence, schmevidence. Iraq was a dirty deed that had to be done.
>

Uggg, how can I argue with that...

>> There's very little talk of cost in lives...not only those directly
>> affected, but those indirectly affected...
>
> Baloney... There's plenty of talk about lives... the lives of the
> Kurds and swamp arabs, the lives of Iraqis who would've continued to
> die, in extra numbers, under the callous and murderous regime of
> Saddam & his sons.
>

Whom we put into power...

> And yes, we're putting our kids into harm's way taking the initiative
> in Iraq, pushing the front of the terror war right into the heart of
> the Middle East. It's a tremendous sacrifice some have paid and will
> pay, and we will very likely out of it with a very bitter taste.
>
> /lee


I can agree with some of that, but this front of terror now resides
worldwide, in our own backyard. You can say all of the blame must be
put on the terrorists, but then again, my definition of terrorist
organization includes the CIA. Be thankful you are not Middle Eastern
or look middle eastern the next time you take a flight...cause you might
never come back, and be lost in some island in some no mans land of
Earth, where laws don't mean shite.


--
Night_Seer


Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 7:01:49 PM1/14/04
to
buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>>> with the 9/11 investigation.
>>>
>>> That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
>>
>> As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
>
> So you're saying your politics are such that accusation and innuendo
> rule?
>
> Might as well say you hate Bush.
>
> /lee

Or love him...works either way.

--
Night_Seer


Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 7:03:36 PM1/14/04
to

What you got the scoop on where they are really keeping Osama...and when
the Bushites think will be the optimum time to stuff him down some hole
and then "capture" him, so that the election will be a landslide? Do
tell. :-P

--
Night_Seer


Night_Seer

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 7:05:42 PM1/14/04
to
Daryl wrote:
> In article
> <2_eNb.35903$6y6.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Fred
> Kepler (fke...@att.net) wrote...
>>
>> I wouldn't put anything past them,
>
> I would. There are limits to their depravity I am
> sure. For instance, they wouldn't stoop so low as
> to do anything to interrupt the vital trickle-down
> flow.
>

Keeping it going is not out of league with their derpavity...in fact I
would venture to say it is part of it.

>
>> but I admit that there's no solid evidence
>> to support my dimmest views of the current administration.
>> (Unless one were to cite their record on economic, social,
>> or environmental issues.)
>
> That so many could believe it of them says
> something about the state of affairs.

--
Night_Seer


Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 7:03:55 PM1/14/04
to
In article <bKjNb.23700$RV5....@fe2.texas.rr.com>
buddhashortfatguy (REPLA...@yahoo.com) wrote...

>
>Evidence, schmevidence. Iraq was a dirty deed that had to be done.

Lots of people agree on that but disagree on
*how* it had to be done. How makes all the
difference when it comes to bloodshed on that
scale.

Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 11:49:03 PM1/14/04
to
In article <TqGdnZRwh_9...@speakeasy.net> Night_Seer (ecamacho4athotmaildotcom)
wrote...

>
>Daryl wrote:
>> In article
>> <2_eNb.35903$6y6.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Fred
>> Kepler (fke...@att.net) wrote...
>>>
>>> I wouldn't put anything past them,
>>
>> I would. There are limits to their depravity I am
>> sure. For instance, they wouldn't stoop so low as
>> to do anything to interrupt the vital trickle-down
>> flow.
>>
>
>Keeping it going is not out of league with their derpavity...in fact I
>would venture to say it is part of it.

Hey, didn't I just say that? :)

Daryl

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 11:49:03 PM1/14/04
to
In article <100blrg...@corp.supernews.com> Lazarhat
(lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...

>
>"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote in message
>news:ljkNb.450$Ll2...@nntp-post.primus.ca...
>> In article <100bjap...@corp.supernews.com> Lazarhat
>> (lazarhat@burnt_crusty_bitsyahoo.com) wrote...
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >So where's our Mu'a'dib?
>> >>
>> >> Hate to tell you but you're the empire...you don't
>> >> get one.
>> >>
>> >'You're'? Dude, I'm (geographically and perhaps ideologically)
>practically a
>> >Canadian! I'm just waiting for you canukistanis to issue me the
>utilikilt...
>>
>> Utilikilts are made in Seattle. Well, that's practically
>> Canuck too, so hell, yer in boy!
>>
>
>LOL!
>
>Wooohooo, eh?

hee hee, perfect, you're already losing that Merkian
accent. I mean, "yeehaw, eh?" just doesn't work...

Messer Xin

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 10:58:35 AM1/15/04
to
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:49:03 -0500, Daryl wrote
(in message <3ZoNb.943$Yx4...@nntp-post.primus.ca>):

Ayup . . . eh?

---Messer Xin

--

"Cretans always lie." Epimenides the Cretan

Wilson

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 5:32:19 PM1/15/04
to

"Daryl" <n...@address.yet> wrote ...


It says quite a bit about the depth of desperation on the part of the
political Left.


buddhashortfatguy

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 5:58:29 PM1/15/04
to
"Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:R6udndJOf6S...@speakeasy.net...
> Or love him...works either way.

True. Either is a mistake. I am not fond of Bush, his gaffes remind me too
much of Dan Quayle, but I neither love nor hate him. I *DO* however agree
with *some* (not all) of his policies. He's a little too cosey with big
business for my tastes, but that's 80% of Republicans & 40% of Democrats.

If Dean wouldn't pander to the 'Hate Bush' crowd so much and would tone down
the rhetoric about Iraq, I'd have fewer reservations about the guy.

This is what I find unappealing in Dean as the leading Dem candidate - I
find his position on Iraq to be dishonest. It could've been Gore that took
us into Iraq three years from now, because eventually the problem would have
to be dealt with, Saudi Arabia, the NFZs, the Kurds, the UN Sanctions, the
simmering relationship with terrorists. If Saddam didn't mind harboring Abu
Nidal and a purported terrorist training camp, indemnifying Palestinian
suicide bombers then what would be his qualms about collaborating with Al
Qaeda? With the functional seige of the UN Sanctions and the ineffectual and
functionally non-existent armistice (as evidenced by the continued
enforcement of the NFZs) would have all snowballed eventually into armed
conflict. It was a "pay me now, pay me later" proposition and Bush bet on
sooner than later.

This namby-pamby nonsense about not invading a country that isn't an
imminent threat... what kind of imminent threat did the social justice crowd
want to wait for? We never had a proper peace treaty with Iraq, it was an
armistice and Saddam broke the top three major provisions of that armistice
at the end of the Gulf War in Kuwait. The UN was willing to let the USA
suffer the consequences of serving as the UN's menial proxy. What kind of
deal was that? The situation was very predictably going to go from bad to
worse, just like North Korea (North Korea may seem even more of an imminent
threat, but we don't have South Koreans ready to kill us b/c our troops are
on their holy land).

As for the wasted lives, the casualties from the conquest of Iraq and
continued occupation: What kind of casualty rate did the anti-Bush crowd
think the Kurds and Swamp Arabs would've seen had we negotiated a final
peace with Saddam and left Saddam to do as he pleased with the Kurds & Swamp
Arabs? Hello?

To be a conscientious pacifist is one thing, but the loudest of the
Peace&Justice crowd are not actually pacifists, they insist there *were*
criteria that justified invading Iraq, it's just that Bush met none of those
criteria. But the criteria were set based on the WMD premise only (Bush's
"legal" premise), which was clearly only one of manifold rationale
(Christopher Hitchens nailed this one particularly well). This means the
"Peace&Justice" crowd was willing to say "Fuck the Kurds and Swamp Arabs"
for the sake of indulging in ostensible pacifism and exacting political
vengence upon Bush for taking the 2000 Election. That stinks and it really
means they are instead a bunch of hypocrites, willing to leave innocents to
fend for themselves against the Baathist wolves in Tikrit & Bagdhad.

It's not only wishful thinking, it's self-serving and irresponsible to look
at the two evils and refuse to choose one. It's taken me a long time to make
up my mind, not being a hawkish type and having been an Iran-Contra era
activist. I believe Bush ultimately took the only rational choice, war,
death, destruction, enmity, risks and all. Regime change had been the
objective all along and Bush decided we had to finally take responsbility
for what Clinton had defaulted upon and the rest of the world was unwilling
to confront honestly.

And just how long were the Dems going to wait for the entire scene to turn
to shit? Libya was ready to start building nukes for X's sake, with Musarref
giving them the plans! Who was going to be next? Iraq? Sudan? As far as I
can tell conquering Iraq and the war against terror are not incompatible,
they are part of a larger plan that has yet to be fully played out.

In the interim, we have a war to fight - a war in Iraq and a broader war
against terrror. Dean seeks to divide our willingness and ability to defend
ourselves only for his politcal gain. This is turning off lots of people,
party loyal Democrats and swing-voters alike, many see this as being
deliberately misleading and dishonest on Dean's part.

My prediction? The Democrats will lose the election if they nominate Dean to
run against Bush. It's too bad, because I'd like to see some of the
Democrats domestic policies enacted. It'd be a good lesson for the left wing
to watch their guy in the White House have to confront the global problems
of terror and proliferation and end up with the same Catch-22's that Bush
encountered (I see no functional difference between the Dem's & Repub's WRT
Israel).

/lee


Sanford Manley

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 6:04:54 PM1/15/04
to
buddhashortfatguy spake thusly:

> "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in
> message news:R6udndJOf6S...@speakeasy.net...
>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
>>>> buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>>>> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>>>>> with the 9/11 investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know
>>>>> better!
>>>>
>>>> As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven
>>>> innocent.
>>>
>>> So you're saying your politics are such that accusation
>>> and innuendo rule?
>>>
>>> Might as well say you hate Bush.
>>
>> Or love him...works either way.
>
> True. Either is a mistake. I am not fond of Bush, his
> gaffes remind me too much of Dan Quayle, but I neither
> love nor hate him. I *DO* however agree with *some* (not
> all) of his policies. He's a little too cozy with big
> his political gain. This is turning off lots of people,

> party loyal Democrats and swing-voters alike, many see
> this as being deliberately misleading and dishonest on
> Dean's part.
>
> My prediction? The Democrats will lose the election if
> they nominate Dean to run against Bush. It's too bad,
> because I'd like to see some of the Democrats domestic
> policies enacted. It'd be a good lesson for the left wing
> to watch their guy in the White House have to confront
> the global problems of terror and proliferation and end
> up with the same Catch-22's that Bush encountered (I see
> no functional difference between the Dem's & Repub's WRT
> Israel).
>
> /lee

Thank-you. Some times I feel like the Lone Ranger.

--
Sanford M. Manley
"I can tell you all I know, the where to go, the what to do.
You can try to run, but you can't run from what's inside
of you." - Steely Dan
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/

Daryl

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 6:15:51 PM1/15/04
to
In article <0001HW.BC2C14D6...@news.east.earthlink.net>
Messer Xin (x...@woc.com.org) wrote...

Ah, a truly international "citizen of the world"
expression, particularly common in places with
gene birdbaths.

Anatta_anicca_dukkha

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 6:34:40 PM1/15/04
to
buddhashortfatguy wrote:
> "Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:gIhNb.66271$8H.106612@attbi_s03...
>
>>buddhashortfatguy wrote:
>>
>>>"Anatta_anicca_dukkha" <no...@all.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bush's failure to be fully forthcoming
>>>>with the 9/11 investigation.
>>>
>>>That's not evidence, that's inference. And you know better!
>>
>>As I said, in politics you are guilty until proven innocent.
>
>
> So you're saying your politics are such that accusation and innuendo rule?
>
> Might as well say you hate Bush.


Sorry if I left that out.

>
> /lee

Daryl

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 6:31:13 PM1/15/04
to
In article <TxENb.43875$6y6.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Wilson
(puddinhe...@att.not) wrote...

Hmm, why desperation not suspicion?

Lazarhat

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 6:47:08 PM1/15/04