Blasting U.S. [Archive] - Page 2

Qikdraw

04-05-2005, 08:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Lower taxes. Republican government. Great weather. I might just do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey you'd be surprised about the weather. I miss Winnipeg winters living in California. I like the sun, but I also enjoy a -20C skate on a bright sunny day. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lower taxes, but I hope you enjoy paying $1000 plus per month for healthcare. They may not even cover you if your overweight or have a prior condition. So you'll be left out in the cold if you get sick. Canada's system is cheaper, and everyone is covered.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jon heard of the Arab Spring? If this war does what Bush wants it to do it may be liberation and hope for millions of Arabs who deserve decent accountable government and the same human rights we enjoy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well YOU may enjoy an accountable government (Adscam) in Canada, but here in the US this administration has avoided responsibility for anything. If we can get an arab country to have an accountable government, well they'll be ahead of us then.

Just out of curiosity, which party do you vote for in Canada? My appologies if thats too personal a question, but I am curious. I highly doubt its the NDPs. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

04-05-2005, 08:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Lower taxes. Republican government. Great weather. I might just do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey you'd be surprised about the weather. I miss Winnipeg winters living in California. I like the sun, but I also enjoy a -20C skate on a bright sunny day. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lower taxes, but I hope you enjoy paying $1000 plus per month for healthcare. They may not even cover you if your overweight or have a prior condition. So you'll be left out in the cold if you get sick. Canada's system is cheaper, and everyone is covered.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jon heard of the Arab Spring? If this war does what Bush wants it to do it may be liberation and hope for millions of Arabs who deserve decent accountable government and the same human rights we enjoy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well YOU may enjoy an accountable government (Adscam) in Canada, but here in the US this administration has avoided responsibility for anything. If we can get an arab country to have an accountable government, well they'll be ahead of us then.

Just out of curiosity, which party do you vote for in Canada? My appologies if thats too personal a question, but I am curious. I highly doubt its the NDPs. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Liberal party of Canada has not been an accountable government and the fleecing of the Canadian taxpayer of millions of dollars that went to Liberal friendly firms and then directly back into the Liberal party shows that absent an effective opposition party you get corruption in a one party state.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/auditorgeneral/report2004.html

I would never vote NDP.

Canadian health care IS cheaper but you get what you pay for. 2 years for a hip replacement? 9 months for heart surgery? Clinton got it in 5 days--here people die waiting for a coronary by-pass.

Qikdraw

04-05-2005, 08:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The Liberal party of Canada has not been an accountable government and the fleecing of the Canadian taxpayer of millions of dollars that went to Liberal friendly firms and then directly back into the Liberal party shows that absent an effective opposition party you get corruption in a one party state. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least it is being talked about, and is in the papers on a fairly regular basis. Here in the US hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to Republican friendly firms, who have done a marvelous job of overcharging. The Pentagon has "lost" a TRILLION dollars, and nothing is being said about it. The Canadian government is being held accountable by the press and the people, here it doesn't really matter it seems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would never vote NDP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guessed that. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Canadian health care IS cheaper but you get what you pay for. 2 years for a hip replacement? 9 months for heart surgery? Clinton got it in 5 days--here people die waiting for a coronary by-pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats exaggerated. Yes there are wait lines, but the key factor is that prevenative medicine makes Canadian medicine cheaper, and everyone is covered. Here in the US the insurance company decides what measures the doctors can do. And if you are not covered, or the insurance companies think they can deny you, you're SOL, and you die.

My wife's father was murdered by an insurance company. They told a doctor that he could not remove the blood clot from his brain, that was a result of a doctors mistake. He died because the insurance company did not want to pay out. A malpractise suit was denied because it is VERY hard to prove it. I'll take a wait line over insurance companies anyday.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

04-06-2005, 04:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Thats exaggerated. Yes there are wait lines, but the key factor is that prevenative medicine makes Canadian medicine cheaper, and everyone is covered. Here in the US the insurance company decides what measures the doctors can do. And if you are not covered, or the insurance companies think they can deny you, you're SOL, and you die.

My wife's father was murdered by an insurance company. They told a doctor that he could not remove the blood clot from his brain, that was a result of a doctors mistake. He died because the insurance company did not want to pay out. A malpractise suit was denied because it is VERY hard to prove it. I'll take a wait line over insurance companies anyday.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duelling stories: friend of mine's father died waiting the 6-8 months typical for a coronary by-pass; people wait up 8 hours in emergency for a doctor and a lot are not going in because of the wait (what person who is sick feels like the ordeal of waiting to see the doctor);

namedun

04-06-2005, 09:30 AM

I agree with Kirk for once, Canadian healthcare's line ups aren't exagerated, there is a rediculous shortage of doctors and nurses in Canada.

I'd also like to bring up something I just saw on television that almost seemed like something out of the 1920's. It's called Move on America, an effort to remove the US from the UN. While I don't like this society, and things could get interesting if you took this isolationistic standpoint to an extreme, if I didn't know any better I'd say becoming more closed off from the rest of the world is a dangerous game for Americans.

hm0504

04-06-2005, 09:45 AM

I think it is worth examining how national health care works in countries besides Canada and the United States. On problem for Canada, is that doctors and nurses can train here cheaply and then move to the U.S. upon graduation for better paying jobs because of the U.S.'s private system. Consequently, one should also consider European examples of national health care.

One of my views on this subject is that as long as the population at large continues to eat junk for food and live unhealthy lifestyles, it doesn't really matter what kind of health care system you have.

hm0504

04-06-2005, 09:54 AM

To answer, my own question, the U.S. is the only OECD country where private health insurance provides the main financing and coverage for most of the population [1]. Based on the state of health care across Europe and North America, I would have to conclude that public health care is generally the most cost efficient and health effective.

[1] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/56/33698043.pdf

Naturist Mark

04-08-2005, 08:50 PM

In an earlier post I wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In particular, I'd like to see some analysis about why the pre 9-11 intelligence about Iraq was so correct (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5170011252/r/1370011252#1370011252) , but that after 9-11 it turned so faulty. How could it be that Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and others knew that Iraq was defanged and harmless before 9-11 but didn't know it afterwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a video link showing Rice and Powell before 9-11 stating what we now know to be the truth about Iraq being contained and unable to threaten the US. Before they changed their stories to lie us into a unnecessary war: video (http://tinyurl.com/6mhb7)

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/1610078133/QUESTION.jpg

-Mark

Trailscout

04-08-2005, 09:17 PM

Iraq was largely disabled as an external threat, but the failure of the Oil for Food program, partly due to UN corruption created an inhumane situation for the Iraqi people, exacerbated by Ouday and Kousay's sadistic abuse of the people unlucky enough to cross their path. There were endless violations of the no-fly zone.

Robert E. Lee recognized the need to take the war to the Yankees. He knew that it would never be enough to push the North back to the Mason Dixon line. Nothing less than total defeat of the Yankees would be necessary to ensure the total security of the the Confederacy. Sherman recognized that same principle and was reviled for his brutality in Georgia, but the more honest among us realize that he was a brilliant tactician.

Naturist Mark

04-08-2005, 09:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Iraq was largely disabled as an external threat, but the failure of the Oil for Food program, partly due to UN corruption created an inhumane situation for the Iraqi people, exacerbated by Ouday and Kousay's sadistic abuse of the people unlucky enough to cross their path. There were endless violations of the no-fly zone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an after the fact revisionist justification - and it is at odds with the official revised reason we went to war "to bring democracy".

Among the reasons we were told before the war were: Iraq was an imminent and gathering threat {lie), Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda terrorists (lie), Saddam had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons (lie), and Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa (lie).

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/9260068133/dissent2.jpg

Read more (http://tinyurl.com/3lrln)
Read more (http://tinyurl.com/4jrnm)

-Mark

Trailscout

04-08-2005, 10:19 PM

Mark, I am not a Republican. I am closer to being a Lieberman Democrat than anything else, so I don't have the need to defend the spin the Bush administration put on things. However, I have always felt that we needed to finish the original Gulf War, that the "No Fly Zone Oil for Food" stalemate could not be maintained indefinitely.

It is also my opinion that we should all have been driving hydrogen fueled cars by 1995 and vastly increased our production of solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources. Market forces have not been sufficient to bring this about, so I am not at all averse to government giving "destiny" a nudge in the right direction. I have always held that position.

KirkOntario

04-09-2005, 06:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

That is an after the fact revisionist justification - and it is at odds with the official revised reason we went to war "to bring democracy".

Among the reasons we were told before the war were: Iraq was an imminent and gathering threat {lie), Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda terrorists (lie), Saddam had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons (lie), and Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa (lie).

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark none of those statement were lies and it does no good to merely repeat the assertion without facts to back it up. Also the only revisionists are those who think WMD was the sole justification for toppling Sadaam. It was not. Sadly you cannot move forward and see the great good that this President and the courageous American troops are bringing to the Arab world. The Iraqis are turning on the insurgents and the Iraqi forces are becoming equipped to deal with them. Americans will be withdrawing anywhere between 12 and 18 months from now, possibly sooner and the world will be a better place (as usual) because of America and a great man named George W. Bush.

hm0504

04-09-2005, 07:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Among the reasons we were told before the war were: Iraq was an imminent and gathering threat {lie), Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda terrorists (lie), Saddam had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons (lie), and Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa (lie). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, don't forget the "drones of death" that could be delivering those WMDs to America's east coast within 45 minutes!

hm0504

04-09-2005, 07:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Americans will be withdrawing anywhere between 12 and 18 months from now, possibly sooner and the world will be a better place (as usual) because of America and a great man named George W. Bush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the key indicator of the success of the Bush plan (whatever that might be) is when the level of American forces begin to be reduced (not continually increasing as they have been so far) and when that reduction happens because Iraq is a stable, democratic state not one (or possibly a mix of):

a) a Middle Eastern Northern Ireland
b) Iranian pawn
c) Iraqi anti-American dictatorship
d) Iraqi pro-American dictatorship

I take it by the fact that the level of American forces has been continually increasing in Iraq that things might not be going to plan.

Trailscout

04-09-2005, 09:07 AM

Syria and Iran remain very tangible threats to peace. Hezbollah is of particular concern to Israel, but I don't see how the US can stay off their hit list as well.

KirkOntario

04-09-2005, 10:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Syria and Iran remain very tangible threats to peace. Hezbollah is of particular concern to Israel, but I don't see how the US can stay off their hit list as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent article on Syria. It might be fairly easy to topple the Syrian dictator. Withdrawal from Lebanon may begin to pave the way. Iran is a bit more of a problem despite the widespread hatred of the mullahs.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050401.shtml

hm0504

04-09-2005, 11:44 AM

Iraqis take to the streets in protest:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/09/iraq.main/index.html

It will be interesting to see the level of counter-protest.

Qikdraw

04-09-2005, 12:25 PM

Aren't there permenent US bases going up in Iraq? Wasn't that set up in the latest 83 billion set aside for the Iraq war? Money for bases.

Kirk, Mark does have proof, and there has been proof of what he says all over international media for over 2 years. Starting from before Bush attacked Iraq.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

04-09-2005, 12:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Aren't there permenent US bases going up in Iraq? Wasn't that set up in the latest 83 billion set aside for the Iraq war? Money for bases.

Kirk, Mark does have proof, and there has been proof of what he says all over international media for over 2 years. Starting from before Bush attacked Iraq.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry he has no proof. U.S. bases may or may not be long term. Depends what Iraqis want. Occupation will end. Strategic bases are a different thing. US has base in Germany and Saudi Arabia but don't occupy or control those countries.

hm0504

04-09-2005, 12:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Aren't there permenent US bases going up in Iraq? Wasn't that set up in the latest 83 billion set aside for the Iraq war? Money for bases.

Kirk, Mark does have proof, and there has been proof of what he says all over international media for over 2 years. Starting from before Bush attacked Iraq.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry he has no proof. U.S. bases may or may not be long term. Depends what Iraqis want. Occupation will end. Strategic bases are a different thing. US has base in Germany and Saudi Arabia but don't occupy or control those countries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually KirkOntario, the United States announced in April 2003, after it invaded Iraq, that it was pulling its bases out of Saudi Arabia (see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
) which has growing anti-U.S. sentiment. The plan was to move the bases to much friendlier and safer Iraq. The U.S. is currently setting up its major, permanent Iraqi bases, if I recall correctly, on British bases abandoned around Iraq's first free elections some fifty years ago (which was also the time of an "Arab spring"). Alas, the short-lived "Arab spring" of half a century ago was quickly followed by, well, half a century of Arab winter. Perhaps it will be different this time.

Qikdraw

04-09-2005, 01:34 PM

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5723

Another little bit on teh protest.

Kirk, there is proof, you just refuse to see it. But where is your proof he is wrong? Or do you not have to provide proof, you just have to say everybody else has no proof?

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

04-09-2005, 04:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5723

Another little bit on teh protest.

Kirk, there is proof, you just refuse to see it. But where is your proof he is wrong? Or do you not have to provide proof, you just have to say everybody else has no proof?

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark accuses the president of lying about WMD when France, Germany, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Russia and the American CIA all believed there were WMD. That's a heck of a wide conspiracy isn't it? His charge is a serious one. The recent report on the CIA shows there was no political pressure. Even if there was, then why would all those countries have the same conclusions and why would the same wrong intelligence be being received under the Clinton administration. Not even a kook's wigged out impression of Dick Cheney as an all powerful evil genius can deal with that factoid.
http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Qikdraw

04-09-2005, 05:46 PM

Kirk

Again I say to you. Move down here and live under Bush's policies. You love Bush so much, move down here.

Your views are completely one sided, with no knowledge of what actually traanspires here in the US. Quit watching Fox news, and reading NewsMax. Read stuff like Asia Times, The Guardian, The Moscow Times and Der Spiegel. You'll get some world views, and not US regurgitated propoganda paid for by the US govenrment.

Qikdraw

MJ_KC

04-09-2005, 06:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Kirk

Again I say to you. Move down here and live under Bush's policies. You love Bush so much, move down here.

Your views are completely one sided, with no knowledge of what actually traanspires here in the US. Quit watching Fox news, and reading NewsMax. Read stuff like Asia Times, The Guardian, The Moscow Times and Der Spiegel. You'll get some world views, and not US regurgitated propoganda paid for by the US govenrment.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I live here with Bush as my President and I think that he is doing just fine.

KirkOntario

04-09-2005, 06:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Kirk

Again I say to you. Move down here and live under Bush's policies. You love Bush so much, move down here.

Your views are completely one sided, with no knowledge of what actually traanspires here in the US. Quit watching Fox news, and reading NewsMax. Read stuff like Asia Times, The Guardian, The Moscow Times and Der Spiegel. You'll get some world views, and not US regurgitated propoganda paid for by the US govenrment.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do like Bush and I remember how Reagan was hated and how wrong the left was about him. I am not the one-side ones. The Bush bashers go on and on and when the facts show they are wrong they move onto something else. That's why they never talk about Afghanistan and are talking less about Iraq.

jon71

04-09-2005, 06:18 PM

As far as the other countries coming to the same conclusion they were simply dumb enough to believe Bush. As his lies are more obvious the "colation" is falling apart. Face facts, there are no Wmd's and no intelligent person ever thought there were. It was politics.

Naturist Mark

04-09-2005, 06:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Mark accuses the president of lying about WMD when France, Germany, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Russia and the American CIA all believed there were WMD. That's a heck of a wide conspiracy isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it IS a conspiracy. The proof is that his administration was denying that there were WMD's before 9-11.

Did you watch this video of Condi Rice and Colin Powell denying that Iraq was any threat before 9-11? Video (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv)

Speaking of Colin Powell, when he first read the text of his speach to the UN providing 'evidence' against Iraq he said "I'm not reading this. This is bulls**t!" But being a good soldier, he did. Colin Powell and 'The Power of Audacity' (http://tinyurl.com/4t8rr)

Here is a lie by lie rundown with plenty of links: Bring 'Em On! (http://tinyurl.com/ilvz)

-Mark

KirkOntario

04-09-2005, 06:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
As far as the other countries coming to the same conclusion they were simply dumb enough to believe Bush. As his lies are more obvious the "colation" is falling apart. Face facts, there are no Wmd's and no intelligent person ever thought there were. It was politics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your CIA said there were. You think Russian and Jordanian intelligence outsources their national security to the USA? You think the French do? These countries ALL believed indepedently that Iraq HAD WMD.

KirkOntario

04-09-2005, 06:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Kirk

Again I say to you. Move down here and live under Bush's policies. You love Bush so much, move down here.
Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to move down to the US: low taxes, no decriminalization of marijuana, no gay marriage, no gun registry that wasted over a billion in tax payer dollars...this is what we have to put up with this in this country a corrupt Liberal government that stole taxpayer dollars and has given Quebec separatists a resurgence in support that may ultimately split this country in two.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050408/GOMERY08/TPNational/TopStories

Naturist Mark

04-09-2005, 06:49 PM

Regarding Iraqi WMD's:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Your CIA said there were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The CIA and DIA (it's Pentagon counterpart) did not say there were WMD's, in fact they repeatedly noted the lack of conclusive evidence for Iraqi WMD's no matter how many times they were told to go back and find the evidence. Until Tenent caved.
Link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm)
Link (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm)
Link (http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=4928)
Link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0415cia.htm)
Link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/)
-Mark

Bob S.

04-09-2005, 09:24 PM

"Among the reasons we were told before the war were: Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda terrorists (lie)"

I will comment on this one. I never heard anyone talk about the conntection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. But he was involved in terrorism. He helped the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

That was Saddam's only link to terrorism that I ever heard anyone talk about.

Bob S.

Naturist Mark

04-10-2005, 05:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Among the reasons we were told before the war were: Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda terrorists (lie)"

I will comment on this one. I never heard anyone talk about the conntection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. But he was involved in terrorism. He helped the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

That was Saddam's only link to terrorism that I ever heard anyone talk about.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dick Cheney in a speech to the Heritage Foundation: "He also had an established relationship to al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases and making conventional bombs."

Donald Rumsfeld said the evidence of Iraq/Al Qaeda collaberation was "bulletproof" and “accurate and not debatable.”

GWB said “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.” and that Saddam is “a man who loves to link up with al Qaeda.” and “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” and “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.”

Colin Powell told the UN there was “sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda.”

Condi Rice said Al Qaeda “clearly has had links to the Iraqis.”

The second half of the following article chonicles the deliberate misleading of the American public about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda (which were actually evaluated as being between 'slim' and 'none'): They Knew ... (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/899/)

-Mark

KirkOntario

04-10-2005, 06:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The second half of the following article chonicles the deliberate misleading of the American public about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda (which were actually evaluated as being between 'slim' and 'none'): They Knew ... (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/899/)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark you know as well as I do that the administration gets its information from the CIA and that information was 'dead wrong' and that was the fault of the intelligence organizatons, the same ones that failed to connect the dots on the 9/11 plot and foil it. There was zero evidence of political pressure to come up with that evidence. And you fail to explain why foreign intelligence agencies had similar faulty conclusions.

hm0504

04-10-2005, 07:36 AM

KirkOntario wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd love to move down to the US: ... no decriminalization of marijuana, no gay marriage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry KirkOntario, you'll have to find another country -- maybe Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia... In the U.S., eleven states have decriminalized marijuana and one has legalized gay marriage.

jon71

04-10-2005, 09:42 AM

Hussien went to great lenghts (successfully) to squelch the terrorists. He was a military dictator and the terrorists are theists who wished to replace him with a religious dictatorship, an ayatollah. That threatened his position as "President for life". There was only terrorism is Iraq AFTER they were "liberated". Yes Hussein was awful but it seems that things are worse now then with him as in position as a weak contained has been.

Qikdraw

04-10-2005, 12:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Mark you know as well as I do that the administration gets its information from the CIA and that information was 'dead wrong' and that was the fault of the intelligence organizatons, the same ones that failed to connect the dots on the 9/11 plot and foil it. There was zero evidence of political pressure to come up with that evidence. And you fail to explain why foreign intelligence agencies had similar faulty conclusions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Office of Special Plans.

Look it up.

Qikdraw

hm0504

04-10-2005, 02:52 PM

Here's hoping...

"Talabani predicts U.S. exit in two years":
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/10/iraq.main/index.html

KirkOntario

04-10-2005, 03:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Hussien went to great lenghts (successfully) to squelch the terrorists. He was a military dictator and the terrorists are theists who wished to replace him with a religious dictatorship, an ayatollah. That threatened his position as "President for life". There was only terrorism is Iraq AFTER they were "liberated". Yes Hussein was awful but it seems that things are worse now then with him as in position as a weak contained has been. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iraq embodied state terrorism, funded terrorists abroad, was involved in terrorist plots and had terrorists training there as well as wanted terrorists who they kept beyond the arm of international law. It would be truly naive to think of Iraq as a non-terrorist state pre-Iraq war. Today with Americans and Iraqi forces the world's terrorists are drawn there to be wiped out by Americans. Kudos to Bush to draw the poison from the wound in Iraq.

jon71

04-10-2005, 05:31 PM

With all due respect KirkOntario that is 100% untrue. There was no connection between pre-war Iraq and terrorism. There was no state sponsoring of terrorism whatsoever. That is just a Bush lie to try and justify a unjust war. That is not naivete just honesty.

KirkOntario

04-10-2005, 06:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
With all due respect KirkOntario that is 100% untrue. There was no connection between pre-war Iraq and terrorism. There was no state sponsoring of terrorism whatsoever. That is just a Bush lie to try and justify a unjust war. That is not naivete just honesty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are suggesting Sadaam was a perfectly good boy in the middle east? Never paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers a reward for killing innocent citizens of Israel? Never harboured terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro? Never was friends with Carlos the Jackal and other terrorists? Never plotted to assasinate President Bush Sr. when he visited Kuwait after the first Gulf War?

hm0504

04-10-2005, 06:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Today with Americans and Iraqi forces the world's terrorists are drawn there (to Iraq) to be wiped out by Americans. Kudos to Bush to draw the poison from the wound in Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt the Iraqis think its a great idea too!

KirkOntario

04-10-2005, 06:26 PM

KirkOntario

04-10-2005, 06:33 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/twining200504080807.asp

Good article on why it was important to act against Iraq.

MJ_KC

04-10-2005, 07:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
As far as the other countries coming to the same conclusion they were simply dumb enough to believe Bush. As his lies are more obvious the "colation" is falling apart. Face facts, there are no Wmd's and no intelligent person ever thought there were. It was politics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your CIA said there were. You think Russian and Jordanian intelligence outsources their national security to the USA? You think the French do? These countries ALL believed indepedently that Iraq HAD WMD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some people are just committed to bashing Bush and no amount of facts will sway them from their bashing. The international intelligence community came to some very bad conclusions and this was used by various world leaders in making their decisions. He seems to want to blame Bush because he personally doesn't know when the information he is being provided isn't totally correct. Give me a break.

KirkOntario

04-10-2005, 07:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
[Some people are just committed to bashing Bush and no amount of facts will sway them from their bashing. The international intelligence community came to some very bad conclusions and this was used by various world leaders in making their decisions. He seems to want to blame Bush because he personally doesn't know when the information he is being provided isn't totally correct. Give me a break. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they want to be deceived.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357

jon71

04-10-2005, 08:13 PM

Hessein was a nasty bastard in his own right but he never supported terrorists because they wanted to replace him with an ayatollah. It was all about job security. He committed crimes but didn't "outsource" so to speak. Not every @$$hole is in cahoots with every other @$$hole.

Trailscout

04-10-2005, 09:15 PM

Jon,

Saddaam Hussein was basically a secular dictator, but on several occasions he tipped the hat toward Islamic radicals just to hedge his bet with that element of the Arab world.

As Kirk suggested, he did indeed "paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers a reward for killing innocent citizens of Israel.. harboured terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro, etc...

That does not make him a co-conspirator, simply an astute politician who threw these killer dogs a bone now and then.

KirkOntario

04-11-2005, 03:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Jon,

Saddaam Hussein was basically a secular dictator, but on several occasions he tipped the hat toward Islamic radicals just to hedge his bet with that element of the Arab world.

As Kirk suggested, he did indeed "paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers a reward for killing innocent citizens of Israel.. harboured terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro, etc...

That does not make him a co-conspirator, simply an astute politician who threw these killer dogs a bone now and then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saddam attempted to assassinate George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait by car bomb when when the Sr. Bush was visiting Kuwait a few years back. If that doesn't qualify as terrorism I don't know what does.

Naturist Mark

04-11-2005, 05:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mark you know as well as I do that the administration gets its information from the CIA and that information was 'dead wrong' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I've shown with previous links, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were very accurate in their information before 9/11, then they gradually turned more and more 'incompetent' as we ran up to the Iraqi invasion.

Why is that? Why were they originally correct, then AFTER a decision was made to invade Iraq their analysis became more and more innacurate, but more supportive of war plans. How can that be? What strange alignment of the stars can account for it? What can explain such a strange pattern of failure?

-Mark

hm0504

04-11-2005, 07:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Today with Americans and Iraqi forces the world's terrorists are drawn there (to Iraq) to be wiped out by Americans. Kudos to Bush to draw the poison from the wound in Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt the Iraqis think its a great idea too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they don't. The weekend protest was anti-american BUT significantly a protest against terrorism and there have been other anti-terrorist protests in Iraq since the January elections. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought I heard the protests were led by Moqtada al-Sadr who, in a past life, also led an small insurgency against the Americans.

What I think Americans and others are missing is that Islamic terrorism is not just the idea of a few bad guys but results from a large, deeply-engrained fundamentalist Islamic worldview. Large percentages of Muslim countries' populations support terrorism against America and the West because they see themselves as having been its victims.

My main feeling about the Iraq question is that it would be easier to deal with one crazed dictator (Saddam) than with hundreds of thousands of insurgents, of which tens of thousands, could be properly classified as potential terrorists.

hm0504

04-11-2005, 07:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
[Some people are just committed to bashing Bush and no amount of facts will sway them from their bashing. The international intelligence community came to some very bad conclusions and this was used by various world leaders in making their decisions. He seems to want to blame Bush because he personally doesn't know when the information he is being provided isn't totally correct. Give me a break. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they want to be deceived.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 2003 article references as sources the Iraqi National Congress (shown to be highly unreliable) and that the base in question was used for testing WMD (also refuted). As you say, some want to be deceived.

Trailscout

04-11-2005, 08:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Saddam attempted to assassinate George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait by car bomb when when the Sr. Bush was visiting Kuwait a few years back. If that doesn't qualify as terrorism I don't know what does.[/QUOTE]

Kirk, I don't doubt that Hussein did those deeds, and I did not deny that he is a terrorist of sorts, but he was not working as an Al Qaida operative, he was doing those things independently.

He probably had intermittent contact with Hamas and PLO, also basically secular terrorist organizations. When it became popular to do so, Hussein had mosques built and he would use Islamic rhetoric on occasion, but the Baathists are a secular movement, almost an extended crime family that took control of Iraq.

I did not mean to say that Hussein should not have been overthrown. His meddling in the middle east and Israel was justification enough. I simply say that the Bush administration decided to trump up the charges with some questionable "facts".

Now that Hussein is deposed, I say "good riddance". Perhaps the best we can hope for is an Iraq that does not become a base for terrorist training, nor invades its neighbors, nor bombs Israel.

hm0504

04-11-2005, 08:16 AM

I think one of the main problems for Iraq is that it is more likely to be invaded by its neighbours (one in particular) in the years to come. This means the U.S. will be forced to keep a substantial force there (mainly air) but will also mean resentment for the U.S. maintaining a base (yeah, don't you just love no-win situations).

SonTestedShelter

04-18-2005, 10:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Croydon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I do not consider Bill Clinton to be a great President.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like many republicans, you just hate to give credit where credit is due. Clinton was damn good president. Economy was VERY strong, everyone had money in their pockets, roof over their head and little extra money to do whatever. P.J., during clinton's days, did you have job and lived comfortably? If so, then you have nothing to complain about. People love to bring up the sex scandal fiasco to bring down Clinton but aside for that scandal, he did good job. Yes, the scandal was wrong and he did wrong by lying and comitting such acts but that alone can not be used to judge the job he dud. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The issue isn't whether or not Clinton was any good or not. Someone said he was the "greatest" president, which I very much take issue with.

KirkOntario

04-21-2005, 06:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SonTestedShelter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Croydon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I do not consider Bill Clinton to be a great President.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like many republicans, you just hate to give credit where credit is due. Clinton was damn good president. Economy was VERY strong, everyone had money in their pockets, roof over their head and little extra money to do whatever. P.J., during clinton's days, did you have job and lived comfortably? If so, then you have nothing to complain about. People love to bring up the sex scandal fiasco to bring down Clinton but aside for that scandal, he did good job. Yes, the scandal was wrong and he did wrong by lying and comitting such acts but that alone can not be used to judge the job he dud. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The issue isn't whether or not Clinton was any good or not. Someone said he was the "greatest" president, which I very much take issue with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting how Clinton gets credited with a prosperous economy when the conditions were set for the in two previous Republican administrations and he had a Republican congress that stopped him from implementing a liberal agenda. Those who argue Clinton was somehow responsible for prosperity always fail to mention a single policy that was Clinton's that created such prosperty. And are you saying that you don't mind your head of state being personally corrupt, and dishonest as long as you have a few extra dollars in your pocket?

hm0504

04-21-2005, 06:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those who argue Clinton was somehow responsible for prosperity always fail to mention a single policy that was Clinton's that created such prosperty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's two -- 1) balancing the budget and 2) sensible tax cuts.

KirkOntario

04-21-2005, 06:45 PM

jon71

04-21-2005, 07:21 PM

The best changes in economic policy came in 1993 and 1994 before Republicans did well in congress. With Reich, Summers, Greenspan and Clinton being the best stewards of the economy we have ever had that was maintained in spite of a worthless congress for several years. Now that tweedle-dee the wonder dummy is in office is anyone surprised that we are hemorrhaging jobs horribly, more and more people are drowning in debt and the national debt is syrocketing. If you think that is due to the "war on terrorism" think again. Most of the spending is domestic discretionary spending and keep in mind Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism too.

KirkOntario

04-21-2005, 07:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The best changes in economic policy came in 1993 and 1994 before Republicans did well in congress. With Reich, Summers, Greenspan and Clinton being the best stewards of the economy we have ever had that was maintained in spite of a worthless congress for several years. Now that tweedle-dee the wonder dummy is in office is anyone surprised that we are hemorrhaging jobs horribly, more and more people are drowning in debt and the national debt is syrocketing. If you think that is due to the "war on terrorism" think again. Most of the spending is domestic discretionary spending and keep in mind Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven't told us what that 1993/1994 policy was.

What are you talking about, the 'wonder dummy'?
Your economy has been growing steadily and creating jobs for the past 18 months.

jon71

04-21-2005, 10:19 PM

There has been no growth in 18 months. Bush remains the first president since Hoover to lose jobs. The smart policies of Clinton include spending restraint, including Al Gore's reinventing government policies which reduced government spending on government to the losest level in decades. In included progressive tax policies. In included smart inversting in infrastructure and education. It included Nafta which increased U.S. exports more than imports and created jobs. It included "mend it don't end it" approach to welfare, establishing job training and taking people off of welfare and into jobs. It included strenghthening the earned income tax credit. All of this created jobs, during peace time and without inflation. Home ownership reached an all time high as did consumer confidence. Unsurprisingly when our current crack-head was appointed president consumer confidence plummeted. That with the reverse-robin hood policies he put in place in 2001 began a recession in the summer of 2001 that is still going.

missouriboy

04-22-2005, 04:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It included Nafta which increased U.S. exports more than imports and created jobs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sheesh! And which policy do you suppose it was, that enabled our companies to move all those good-paying manufacturing jobs to Mexico? For those who know, NAFTA came to be known as "No American Factories Taking Applications."

Created jobs? How does the government count job creation statistics? When one $18/hour job gets lost, and two $7/hour jobs get created, they add it up as "one job created." They don't tell you about the net $.

hm0504

04-22-2005, 06:27 AM

SonTestedShelter

04-22-2005, 07:56 AM

What I find utterly inane in politics is that a democrat will never admit a republican did anything good, nor will a republican concede a democrat achieved anything. I personally believe in smaller government, and thusly I lean right, but both sides have done good things in the past. Perhaps "the wonder dummy" is in office now, but its better then "sir teletubby kerry" who didn't seem to have any plans of his own. I think the dems woulda won last year had they had a good candidate.

Trailscout

04-22-2005, 08:39 AM

Son,

Get your google out and look up US Senator from Georgia Zell Miller.
Then put a little butter on the printout of your last post, have a tall glass of water handy and be prepared to eat your words. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

shãybare

04-22-2005, 09:07 AM

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Senator Miller is certainly not the norm. The parties are still partisan. They still adhere, mostly, to party lines even though in they may actually believe different.

hm0504

04-22-2005, 09:18 AM

A timely topic: "The president's nominee to be America's ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, suffered a major setback yesterday when a Republican senator shocked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by saying that at this point, he would not vote to approve him."

Read on at
http://www.nysun.com/article/12503

KirkOntario

04-23-2005, 04:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
There has been no growth in 18 months. Bush remains the first president since Hoover to lose jobs. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Jon that was just campaign propaganda.There was not net loss ofjobs over Bush's 4 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913196/

KirkOntario

04-23-2005, 04:34 AM

KirkOntario

04-23-2005, 04:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
There has been no growth in 18 months. Bush remains the first president since Hoover to lose jobs. The smart policies of Clinton include spending restraint, including Al Gore's reinventing government policies which reduced government spending on government to the losest level in decades. In included progressive tax policies. In included smart inversting in infrastructure and education. It included Nafta which increased U.S. exports more than imports and created jobs. It included "mend it don't end it" approach to welfare, establishing job training and taking people off of welfare and into jobs. It included strenghthening the earned income tax credit. All of this created jobs, during peace time and without inflation. Home ownership reached an all time high as did consumer confidence. Unsurprisingly when our current crack-head was appointed president consumer confidence plummeted. That with the reverse-robin hood policies he put in place in 2001 began a recession in the summer of 2001 that is still going. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but economists agree the recession did not begin in 2001 but in 2000 before Bush took office.

But how does cutting spending create jobs? So I guess that means you support down-sizing in the private sector? Shall we put you on record as supporting that? Your side consistently argues that gov't should spend it's way out of a recession. Cutting costs means cutting jobs does it not? Even if no jobs are lost how does cutting gov't spending CREATE a single job?

NAFTA is usually opposed by Democrats and supported by Republicans. And NAFTA has hurt the USA and helped Canada and Mexico. This is a Republican policy not a democratic one. Are you saying Clinton succeeded by failing to be a true democrat?

As for welfare to work, how does the policy create jobs? That is probably THE most Republican policy Clinton ever embraced.

Torrignani

04-23-2005, 07:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
There has been no growth in 18 months. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the Washington Post, April 1, 2005:

"The monthly Labor Department jobs report did show the nation's unemployment rate falling to 5.2 percent, a level last seen in January but not consistently enjoyed since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The jobless rate was down from 5.7 percent a year ago."

You should try getting your news from somewhere other than liberal propaganda machines like moveon.org - you might improve your education, even in Tennessee. Incidentally, since you seem to adore the bumbling red-neck occupant of the White House before Bush, you must know that the lowest unemployment under his presidency was 5.4% - decidedly higher than the current unemployment rate under Bush.

I'm not saying Bush is a great president - he's good, but not great. The US economy, compared to the other major industrialized nations, is doing very well. I think Clinton did admirably well with the economy during his time in office, but 9/11 came and things took a major turn for the worse. Give credit where credit is due - the American people, under Bush's policies, have really turned things around and gotten the economy back on track.

As for this thread in general, I agree that there is much America-bashing around the world, which I believe is in large part based in envy. What has America done to harm anyone else? In fact, without America and her money, most countries around the world would be much worse off than they are today. I am very well-traveled, like many of you are, and while there are many beautiful and wonderful places around the world, there is no greater place than the US. I disagree with a lot of policies (especially our apathetic stance on illegal immigration), and I agree that we are too socially conservative, such as when it comes to nudity. Nonetheless, the USA is still the greatest nation on the planet, and I am proud to be an American.

Trailscout

04-23-2005, 07:37 AM

What's wrong with being a bumbling redneck?
It's no worse than being a bumbling New Yorker?

I am no Clinton fan, by the way, I just don't think that having Southern origins is such a negative thing.

Trailscout

04-23-2005, 07:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shaybare:
http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Senator Miller is certainly not the norm. The parties are still partisan. They still adhere, mostly, to party lines even though in they may actually believe different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure you are correct, Shay. There are more yellow dog Democrats in the USA than there are yellow dogs in the world.

Is there a yellow dog Republican? Surely there must be many of them.

Torrignani

04-23-2005, 07:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
What's wrong with being a bumbling redneck?
It's no worse than being a bumbling New Yorker?

I am no Clinton fan, by the way, I just don't think that having Southern origins is such a negative thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trailscout, you are correct. I am originally from Birmingham, Alabama. The validity of the red-neck comment (for which Clinton undoubtedly qualifies) is based on my southern origins - I know a red-neck when I see one. And I also know, Georgia excluded, that education in the south is the worst of any region in the country - hence the education comment.

jon71

04-23-2005, 08:07 AM

No matter how deeply in denial Republicans are the current recession started in the second quarter of 2001. Not in 2000 as some wish to lie and not following 9-11 as others wish to lie, although that did make it worse. Falling consumer confidence and the reverse robin hood tax policies started this recession. Also Bush remains the first president since Hoover to lose jobs, face facts people. Its no coincidence that during Clinton's time in office the stack market boomed, home ownership hit an all time high and real wages grew dramatically. When our current loser-in-chief took over we lost jobs horribly, the stock market is struggling, and everything else went south too.

MJ_KC

04-23-2005, 08:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
Incidentally, since you seem to adore the bumbling red-neck occupant of the White House before Bush, you must know that the lowest unemployment under his presidency was 5.4% - decidedly higher than the current unemployment rate under Bush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You should check your information before making this kind of statement.

According to the Department of Labor Statistics website, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for the civilian workforce was 3.8% in April 2000. This was during Clinton's last year in office.

The unemployement rate stayed around 3.9% until shortly after Bush took office. It had climbed to 4.9% in August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks.

Trailscout

04-23-2005, 08:21 AM

Jon, the economy is like a series of waves crashing on the beach and our presidents are surfer dudes.

A surfer can't take the blame for a rough wave, but he can for failing to surf well on a good one when it comes along.

Before 9/11 we had a big insurance industry problem here in Atlanta. Then came the Dotcom crisis. And a high tech company that provides tech support managed to go bankrupt in the midst of the economic boom and threw a lot of technicians out of work. I also worked for another company that made horrible decisions back in 1999 that cost us jobs (including my job). A few years ago, I worked for a carpet mill that lost jobs to free trade and cheap imports. Clinton and Bush are both Free traders (Free traitors?)

Dispite working for some of the most incompetently managed companies in America and in market sectors that were taking a beating years before the overall economy tanked, I took my experience and job skills, dusted off my resume and found work again. It has not been easy.

hm0504

04-23-2005, 04:25 PM

The Saudi Arabian municipal election results are in...
"Islamists dominate Saudi elections"
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/23/saudi.elections.ap/index.html

KirkOntario

04-23-2005, 04:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
No matter how deeply in denial Republicans are the current recession started in the second quarter of 2001. Not in 2000 as some wish to lie and not following 9-11 as others wish to lie, although that did make it worse. Falling consumer confidence and the reverse robin hood tax policies started this recession. Also Bush remains the first president since Hoover to lose jobs, face facts people. Its no coincidence that during Clinton's time in office the stack market boomed, home ownership hit an all time high and real wages grew dramatically. When our current loser-in-chief took over we lost jobs horribly, the stock market is struggling, and everything else went south too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is a 'stack market'? Jon, recessions are defined by strictly economic criterial not by political partisans. The economy was already in recession when Bush took office. Your assertion about job loss is based on Kerry's campaign half-truths and not on the facts. How would a tax cut -what you call reverse robin hood policies--create job losses? I'm afraid your hatred of Bush obscures your judgment.

hm0504

04-23-2005, 05:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
...I'm afraid your hatred of Bush obscures your judgment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has jon71 declared that he "hates" Bush? Is it not possible to be in strong disagreement with the policies and record of a politician WITHOUT being accused of harbouring a hatred?

KirkOntario

04-23-2005, 05:57 PM

jon71

04-23-2005, 07:47 PM

I hate what Bush has done to America. Clinton left America the greatest nation on Earth and we have been sliding down hill since
Bush came along. Not just economically but the fact that Bush sent more than 1500 good Americans to die so that the last election wouldn't focus on the economy. That was an act of treason. Also when he pulled troops away from the war against terrorism and sent them into Iraq instead Bush aided and abetted Al-queda.

Ren

04-23-2005, 08:25 PM

I'm pretty far left, and for a long time I was inclined to look favorably on Clinton (I'm supposed to loooooove him). But his legacy is not as good as we've been led to believe. Was he great domestically? Sure. But a lot of those companies that people used to get rich off of during the boom were unchecked (partially his fault, partially the fault of the Republican congress that didn't fund SEC), causing part of the downfall that Bush inherited. Bush, however, has done zippo to improe the situation and has undone a lot of the good policies (environmental, diplomatic) that Clinton did have a hand in. But, he was present for Rwanda and East Timor - true terrors that only needed a US diplomatic response (like not supplying weaponry to Indonesians) to help avoid what happened.

Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on at all, but Clinton isn't as sturdy as we'd like to think.

MJ_KC

04-23-2005, 09:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
I hate what Bush has done to America. Clinton left America the greatest nation on Earth and we have been sliding down hill since
Bush came along. Not just economically but the fact that Bush sent more than 1500 good Americans to die so that the last election wouldn't focus on the economy. That was an act of treason. Also when he pulled troops away from the war against terrorism and sent them into Iraq instead Bush aided and abetted Al-queda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your single minded dislike of Bush says a lot about you. Bush is the President and Commander in Chief. Nothing that has been done exceeds his constitional authority in any way.

To accuse him of treason, when he hasn't done anything that is legally wrong, does not make any sense at all.

jon71

04-23-2005, 09:50 PM

Bush sent over 1500 good Americans and countless non Americans to die for politics and your defense is that it wasn't "legally" wrong.
What does that say about you.

Torrignani

04-23-2005, 09:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:

I'm pretty far left, and for a long time I was inclined to look favorably on Clinton (I'm supposed to loooooove him). But his legacy is not as good as we've been led to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an intellectually honest statement, and lends far more credibility to your comments. I consider myself fairly moderate, perhaps a little of right of center, especially on foreign policy and fiscal issues. I don't like Clinton (both of them), but I can admit that he did some good things while in office, namely welfare reform, a wise initial tax increase when he first started his presidency in '93, and possibly NAFTA, though I think the jury's still out on that one.

I like Bush because he leads with a purpose (like it or not), and because he has been very successful in Iraq, no matter how the liberals try to spin it. But there are things I don't like about Bush, especially his immigration policy and his failure to show any sort of spending restraint. I can still admire Bush as a president, and disagree with a lot of his policies and methods.

I hate how the far leftists automatically take an anti-Bush, anti-conservative stance on everything, rather than thinking each issue through on its own. We have had no terror attacks since 9/11, al Quaeda is severely damaged, Afghanistan, formerly a terrorist stronghold, is now a democracy, and Iraq is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Give credit where credit is due, he has done well in these areas. To say that he is treacherous is just laughable, and such extremist assertions are what drove many voters away from Kerry and back to a more reliable Bush.

Torrignani

04-23-2005, 10:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:

Bush sent over 1500 good Americans and countless non Americans to die for politics </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's your basis for this statement? What proof do you have of this? Like most of your cliche remarks, this is nothing but a hollow accusation with no substance to it whatsoever.

I don't even think Clinton bombed Iraq for political purposes, and he ordered those strikes on the day of his impeachment hearings for God's sake! Talk about politically motivated - where's your criticism of his foreign policy? Oh, right, his last name isn't Bush...

jon71

04-23-2005, 10:03 PM

Iraq is not a beacon of democracy. It is the largest source of terrorism in the world and that was because of the invasion. Also what good is it to have a sense of purpose if you are always wrong.

Trailscout

04-23-2005, 10:09 PM

Jon, if you decide that someone is always wrong and always will be, then when he is eventually right, you'll never see it. It will blow right by you.

Torrignani

04-23-2005, 10:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Iraq is not a beacon of democracy. It is the largest source of terrorism in the world and that was because of the invasion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When's the last time a terrorist from Iraq, an Iraqi citizen or someone else, led a terrorist attack on the US or another country? To my knowledge, there have been no attacks by terrorists based in Iraq after the invasion. So once agan, what is your basis for the above comment? You just spew the standard far left rhetoric without any consideration for facts or thoughtfulness...

jon71

04-23-2005, 10:28 PM

torrignani watch the news. They attack and murder Americans almost daily. As far as what I will do if Bush is ever right I guess we just have to wait as see but really what are the odds.

KirkOntario

04-24-2005, 05:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
torrignani watch the news. They attack and murder Americans almost daily. As far as what I will do if Bush is ever right I guess we just have to wait as see but really what are the odds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

attacks against American soliders are diminishing jon, they now mainly target Iraqi security forces and Shia s coming out of mosques and schools in hopes of starting a civil war; just yesterday ordinary Iraqis helped arrest insurgents who shot down a western helicopter--they are fed up with these people, there IS progress in Iraq and fewer American soliders have been dying.

MJ_KC

04-24-2005, 06:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Bush sent over 1500 good Americans and countless non Americans to die for politics and your defense is that it wasn't "legally" wrong.
What does that say about you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It says that I base my opinions less on emotions and more on facts. I do not agree that we went into Iraq purely for political reasons, no matter how many times you may say it.

We should have gone back into Iraq years before we did, but Clinton did not do this. It took a new President to go in and take care of a problem that just wasn't going to go away without direct military action.

KirkOntario

04-24-2005, 07:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Bush sent over 1500 good Americans and countless non Americans to die for politics and your defense is that it wasn't "legally" wrong.
What does that say about you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It says that I base my opinions less on emotions and more on facts. I do not agree that we went into Iraq purely for political reasons, no matter how many times you may say it.

We should have gone back into Iraq years before we did, but Clinton did not do this. It took a new President to go in and take care of a problem that just wasn't going to go away without direct military action. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly MJ, after 9/11 the world could no longer have a state thumbing it's nose at the US, threatening it's neighbours and openly supporting terrorism. The US had causi belli to go to war with Hussein and to use that to deter other states. We would have seen Libya cooperating or Syria withdrawing from Lebanon without it. The USA has also given some hope to the liberation movement in Iran that has been so badly crushed by the mullahs. It is essential that these folks be encouraged by the example of Iraq and other places in the Middle East.

MJ_KC

04-24-2005, 09:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Exactly MJ, after 9/11 the world could no longer have a state thumbing it's nose at the US, threatening it's neighbours and openly supporting terrorism. The US had causi belli to go to war with Hussein and to use that to deter other states. We would have seen Libya cooperating or Syria withdrawing from Lebanon without it. The USA has also given some hope to the liberation movement in Iran that has been so badly crushed by the mullahs. It is essential that these folks be encouraged by the example of Iraq and other places in the Middle East. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As we have seen, even the U.N. was not upholding its responsibilities regarding the resolutions in place regarding Iraq. There was just too much money flowing into the wrong hands and this led to the sanctions not working.

The U.N. has too many members who simply will not stand up for what is right. Sometimes the U.S. has to stand up and do what needs to be done without asking for permission from a bunch of corrupt U.N. officials.

Trailscout

04-24-2005, 10:40 AM

I think the Bush administration shot itself in the foot not because there were not plenty of justification for resuming the Gulf War after it was obvious that sanctions were not working, but they did themselves a terrible disservice by saying that they had proof of WMD, when they were privately not at all sure.

Iraq was well aware that the weapons inspectors would eventually find something, so they apparently arranged a quick shuttle of the WMD to the Bekaa valley in Syrian-occupied Lebanon, where these weapons reportedly remain.

The Bush administration did make several post-war mistakes. Dismantling the Iraqi army was regrettable and may have prevented a rapid rebuilding of Iraqi troop strength, which in turn would have allowed a timely US exit and have averted much of the suicide bombing we suffer.

Iraq is a powder keg of rival factions, a violent place, but the Baathist regime simply wouldn't leave their neighbors and Israel alone. Deposing Sadaam was the lesser of two evils.

Torrignani

04-24-2005, 11:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:

I think the Bush administration shot itself in the foot not because there were not plenty of justification for resuming the Gulf War after it was obvious that sanctions were not working, but they did themselves a terrible disservice by saying that they had proof of WMD, when they were privately not at all sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this - why they pushed the WMD issue I'll never know, as they could have made a convincing case for war without it. To me, Hussein was a murdering tyrant, and fundamentally unsafe to the US and our allies - that's enough to get rid of him in my view. So what about the other murdering tyrants around the world? I think we should get rid of those as well. Kim Jong Il, the mullahs of Iran, Fidel Castro, and the African dictators would be long gone if I were president...

MJ_KC

04-24-2005, 11:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
I think we should get rid of those as well. Kim Jong Il, the mullahs of Iran, Fidel Castro, and the African dictators would be long gone if I were president... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be spreading our military way too thin to take on this many enemies. Without a committed allied force, you have to limit who you go up against.

hm0504

04-24-2005, 11:51 AM

Even if the U.S. could clean up the entire world tomorrow, in 20 years there would still be muck and mire to deal with. In reality, the U.S. has to make judicious, informed choices about which problems it can deal with, and which it cannot or should not.

In one week, it will be two years from when President Bush declared "victory" and "mission accomplished" from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. At the time, the cost of rebuilding Iraq was estimated by the Whitehouse to be $1.8B, not the $200B (and climbing). And, of course, back then the Whitehouse thought it would be inconceivable that more U.S. troops would be needed to occupy post-war Iraq than to invade it.

Rather than invasion, when the U.S. AND a good number of its allies see the need to topple an unfriendly ruler, the aim should be to support U.S.-friendly native forces that have a substantial following in the country in question. Though not without its demerits, the strategy seems to have worked well in Afghanistan (I mean the modern day, not when the U.S. and Europe backed the Taliban).

MJ_KC

04-24-2005, 12:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Even if the U.S. could clean up the entire world tomorrow, in 20 years there would still be muck and mire to deal with. In reality, the U.S. has to make judicious, informed choices about which problems it can deal with, and which it cannot or should not.

In one week, it will be two years from when President Bush declared "victory" and "mission accomplished" from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. At the time, the cost of rebuilding Iraq was estimated by the Whitehouse to be $1.8B, not the $200B (and climbing). And, of course, back then the Whitehouse thought it would be inconceivable that more U.S. troops would be needed to occupy post-war Iraq than to invade it.

Rather than invasion, when the U.S. AND a good number of its allies see the need to topple an unfriendly ruler, the aim should be to support U.S.-friendly native forces that have a substantial following in the country in question. Though not without its demerits, the strategy seems to have worked well in Afghanistan (I mean the modern day, not when the U.S. and Europe backed the Taliban). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What happens a lot of times is that a new tyrant rushes into the power vacuum and you end up not being a whole lot better off than you were before.

Sometimes it is better to deal with a situation that you understand instead of creating a new set of problems that you have to learn about from scratch.

Things rarely turn out the way that you would hope. It usually ends up being a lot more difficult than you would have ever thought possible.

hm0504

04-24-2005, 12:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sometimes it is better to deal with a situation that you understand instead of creating a new set of problems that you have to learn about from scratch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I both agree and disagree. I agree when one can be sure that one adequately understands the societal situation. I disagree that, in the Middle East in particular, that one can create, if you will, a situation one understands. I think the Whitehouse thought it understood the societal situation, and tried to mould that situation into another one it understood, but in reality its understanding of Iraq society was grossly inadequate and wrong.

MJ_KC

04-24-2005, 01:07 PM

The middle east needed a major shake-up and Hussein needed to be gone. The speed with which the government of Iraq was removed probably makes their neighbors think twice about doing something that would get the U.S. involved militarily.

hm0504

04-26-2005, 10:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
The weapons of mass destruction once in Sadaam Hussein's possession are reportedly in Lebananon's Bekaa valley and in a highly unstable condition, guarded by Syrian troops and Hezbollah militia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Is there a reference you can point us to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "final" CIA report says ""no information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility" that weapons were moved out of the country before the invasion, which was one theory about why no unconventional weapons were found" and "it was unlikely that an official transfer of W.M.D. material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, I.S.G. was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited W.M.D.-related materials.".

It would seem to me based on this and other testimony is that, by far, the most obvious scenario is that Iraq
actually did destroy or dispose of all of its WMDs in the mid-1990s.

Ren

04-27-2005, 06:45 PM

It's convenient to say now that Saddam had to be removed, when the current structure of power helped support AND supply him in the 1980s. Oil I can say is that the reasons were never about removing the dictator to protect his people.

Look, there is a diplomatic way to do things that actually works. Not seeing everyone with whom the leadership disagrees as an enemy would be a great step in that direction. No president will be perfect, not ideal, but Bush is just off the deep end when it comes to foreign policy. And if people don't think that these hysteria-induced actions by this group in charge is not engendering deeper hatred and angst that might lash out at us, they're fooling themselves.

Leadership perpetually fails to see a big picture.

Trailscout

04-27-2005, 08:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
It's convenient to say now that Saddam had to be removed, when the current structure of power helped support AND supply him in the 1980s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realizing that previous policy (supporting Sadaam) failed and then acting to reverse it (deposing Sadaam) could be taken as having learned our lesson!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren: Oil I can say is that the reasons were never about removing the dictator to protect his people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the price of oil had gone down after the second Gulf War, I would have to agree. But oil prices doubled. Conclusion: It was not about the oil.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Look, there is a diplomatic way to do things that actually works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes, but not all the time.

KirkOntario

04-28-2005, 04:24 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ahLss68Ap_3Y&refer=us

This would not have happened without your great American President at the helm. The democrats worst fear: that Bush was right!

MJ_KC

04-28-2005, 04:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ahLss68Ap_3Y&refer=us

This would not have happened without your great American President at the helm. The democrats worst fear: that Bush was right! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is a lot easier to leave on your own than to be forceably removed. The Syrians sure did stay well past the need to have them in Lebanon.

missouriboy

04-29-2005, 04:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren: Oil I can say is that the reasons were never about removing the dictator to protect his people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the price of oil had gone down after the second Gulf War, I would have to agree. But oil prices doubled. Conclusion: It was not about the oil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Trail, what you and Ren are saying makes me think this: Ren gave only half the truth when he said "Oil." The other half is "Profits." When you consider that the whole truth is "Oil Profits," you could come to a different conclusion about that doubled price, hey?

But, the price of oil is still not the main thrust of the oil factor. It's about control, and access, and yes the Bush Dynasty is very oil-oriented, and will act to further the interests of Big Oil every time. IMHO.

Trailscout

04-29-2005, 11:08 AM

MoBoy, I am not a Republican. I would rather sit on the fence and heckle those on either side of it!

Bush is looking at the world through oil-stained glasses. I believe it is his bias that causes him to repeatedly act in the favor of the big oil companies, not malice, but the result is the same either way.

But I am not saying that Bush wants oil prices to be high. If oil prices double and most of the oil comes from foreign suppliers rather than Bush's buddies, then how does the current price help American oil companies? Bush has done other things to favor big oil, but raising prices paid to foreign suppliers is not one of them.

The greatest problem we have in energy is that for the past 10 years, we have done nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, nothing to promote alternative fuels, especially renewable energy. That is partly the fault of the Clinton administration, but Bush has had four years to act and he is only acting now because the current situation built a fire under his backside and he had no choice but act.

hm0504

04-29-2005, 11:29 AM

I think Bush went into Iraq, inter alia, thinking that strong American influence over the world's second largest oil reserves would be beneficial to both the American oil producers and consumers.

Because Iraq has not gone the way the Administration was hoping, oil prices are up and supply is as iffy as ever.

The high prices are certainly benefitting the former but if the U.S. ultimately suffers economically because of them, that benefit to the oil companies may not last.

missouriboy

04-30-2005, 02:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bush has done other things to favor big oil, but raising prices paid to foreign suppliers is not one of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True. Too many, uh, shall we say "partisans" think the president sets prices and controls the economy, etc. Of course, he doesn't.

The price of oil is a World Price, set by supply and demand, not any one government. OPEC struggles to control prices by manipulating supply, not with complete success, though. But governments can influence who gets to handle the oil...

Naturist Mark

04-30-2005, 06:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
The price of oil is a World Price, set by supply and demand, not any one government. OPEC struggles to control prices by manipulating supply, not with complete success, though. But governments can influence who gets to handle the oil... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is very true ... but let's keep in mind that one of main reasons for the high price of crude oil is the devaluation (http://tinyurl.com/b732p) of the US dollar. Oil is traded in US dollars - when the value of the dollar falls the value of a barrel of oil falls too, so the only way for oil producers to recoup those losses is to increase the dollar price.

Why has the dollar been devalued? Mainly because of the the stupendous budget deficit - much of that due to precipitous tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with simultaneous funding for the Iraq war by borrowing. Gee, too bad we don't have that surplus anymore.

As Moboy said previously, if we view the goals of the administration (headed by two oil men and a dozen top oil executives) to be "oil profits", this has all been a fantastic success. The big oil companies are seeing record profits, they are literally making so much money they don't know what to do with it: Big Oil's Burden of Too Much Cash (http://www.energybulletin.net/4318.html)

One little known Executive order (http://tinyurl.com/jjnp) signed by the president on May 22, 2003 (at the start of the Iraq war) effectively made all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, US property and handed the Iraqi oil industry over to the oil companies along with absolute legal immunity from any claims or lawsuits that could arise from it. This executive order is still in effect even though the "Iraqi Development Fund" and Iraqi oil ministry is officially back under the control of the new Iraqi government. Under the Bremer orders those contracts and obligations cannot be rescinded by the 'independent' Iraqi government, and the legal immunity of the oil companies remains in effect.

Yep, the Iraq war has been an unqualified success ... for the oil companies.

-Mark

Trailscout

04-30-2005, 06:48 AM

Mark,

I am not disagreeing that Bush and his oil executive cronies have profited from the currency fluctuations, oil market etc.. but all of this could have been accomplished without a war in Iraq. Iraq does not supply that big a part of US domestic consumption. Europeans have far more at stake in Iraqi oil than we do in the US. Conclusion: the war was not about oil.

KirkOntario

04-30-2005, 06:54 AM

There is no evidence Bush has profited from the price of oil being high is there?

hm0504

04-30-2005, 07:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Mark,

I am not disagreeing that Bush and his oil executive cronies have profited from the currency fluctuations, oil market etc.. but all of this could have been accomplished without a war in Iraq. Iraq does not supply that big a part of US domestic consumption. Europeans have far more at stake in Iraqi oil than we do in the US. Conclusion: the war was not about oil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual amount of oil supplied by Iraq to the United States is one relatively minor fact. The oil trade is very much global and the major oil companies are, by definition, global too. I'm not trying to villify oil companies here; in fact, I recall reading an article (maybe posted here) of one oil company executive arguing against the war for what its general impact would be.

What I am saying is because of the global nature of the oil trade, because Iraq has the world's second largest economical oil reserves, and because America is central to that trade, the Iraq war was/is going to be about oil whether the Whitehouse wanted it to be or not.

Trailscout

04-30-2005, 07:13 AM

Kirk,

It seems that anyone connected with the oil industry has made a lot of money recently. That does not automatically mean that they are guilty of criminal misconduct, unless we can prove that they deliberately manipulated the US economy and/or started a war for that purpose.

Mark seems to be a cynical chap with a leftist slant on everything he observes. Time will tell if he is objective or being duped by his biased sources.

Did someone write a sweetheart deal for US oil companies regarding Iraq? Looks like it, but it was no worse than German or French complicity before the war. That doesn't make it right, but all that is beside the point. I know the Iraqi oil looks like a lot to us individuals, but it is chump change compared to the global market.

The oil simply wasn't enough for our government to go to war over... spending billions of dollars, not to mention the negative press it was sure to cause (and did). I think we are both in agreement that it was not about the oil. Mark seems such a yellow dog Democrat, that I don't know if he can be persuaded, but we can at least demonstrate this obvious fact to most reasonable people.

Naturist Mark

04-30-2005, 07:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Iraq does not supply that big a part of US domestic consumption. Europeans have far more at stake in Iraqi oil than we do in the US. Conclusion: the war was not about oil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevent

Iraq does supply a fair amount of US oil, along with Saudi Arabia. But it is true that most of the oil we use comes from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venuzuela. Doesn't much matter - oil is shipped to where it is profitable to sell it. Most Alaskan oil doesn't end up in the US, it goes to Japan, Korea, China etc. But oil is a commodity, so it doesn't matter much where your particular barrel is located as long as it can get to some market somewhere. Today Iraqi oil is almost completely in the hands of US oil companies - doesn't really matter where the oil goes, it matters where the dollars go.

The war was not about oil. It was about dollars - not dollars in the US treasury or the pockets of US citizens - it was about dollars to US oil companies. Take a look at the new Energy Bill (http://tinyurl.com/agzco), it does next to nothing for energy conservation, alternative and renewable energy sources, or better mileage standards - but it does provide additional Billions to oil companies who are enjoying record profits.

Meanwhile, it's been over two years since our troops went into Iraq - so why is there still a shortage of body armor? (http://tinyurl.com/dk4gr)

Must not be a priority.

-Mark

KirkOntario

04-30-2005, 07:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Kirk,

It seems that anyone connected with the oil industry has made a lot of money recently. That does not automatically mean that they are guilty of criminal misconduct, unless we can prove that they deliberately manipulated the US economy and/or started a war for that purpose.

Mark seems to be a cynical chap with a leftist slant on everything he observes. Time will tell if he is objective or being duped by his biased sources.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's amazing the pure fantasies these folks will swallow about your President. And they all contradict eachother. Bush the fratboy on vacation. Bush who is ushering in the end days due to his Chistian zealotry. Bush the oil profiteer (why would you make money if Jesus is on the way?) Bush the imperialist: fits neither the slacker nor the Christian theses. It's very silly.

Naturist Mark

04-30-2005, 09:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:

Mark seems to be a cynical chap with a leftist slant on everything he observes. Time will tell if he is objective or being duped by his biased sources.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sksting on the edges of ad hominem (http://tinyurl.com/97n27) there Scout.

You might want to go to the archives and see what I originally wrote (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/3820090252/r/1440090252#1440090252) about the Iraq war. I supported it. I believed what the administration was saying at the time. Learned my lesson.

-Mark

Trailscout

04-30-2005, 10:06 AM

Well, Mark you had it right the first time:

"It's not about oil, it never has been. We could have got all the oil we ever wanted from Iraq, and at bargain prices, if we had eliminated sanctions. It is about the clear and present danger Saddam's regime represents in terrorist weapons proliferation, and his ongoing crimes against the Iraqi people".

I agree completely with what you said over 2 years ago. Still stands even if you got duped in the meantime.

MJ_KC

04-30-2005, 10:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Well, Mark you had it right the first time:

"It's not about oil, it never has been. We could have got all the oil we ever wanted from Iraq, and at bargain prices, if we had eliminated sanctions. It is about the clear and present danger Saddam's regime represents in terrorist weapons proliferation, and his ongoing crimes against the Iraqi people".

I agree completely with what you said over 2 years ago. Still stands even if you got duped in the meantime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It sure sounds to me like he has been duped. If not, then he is just another one of many leftists who would say or do almost anything to discredit Bush.

Naturist Mark

04-30-2005, 10:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree completely with what you said over 2 years ago. Still stands even if you got duped in the meantime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, we were duped about Iraq's WMD. The official line now is that it was an intelligence failure, but by going back to the public record it becomes clear it was a honesty failure: earlier post (http://tinyurl.com/9rdp6)

-Mark

KirkOntario

04-30-2005, 11:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree completely with what you said over 2 years ago. Still stands even if you got duped in the meantime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, we were duped about Iraq's WMD. The official line now is that it was an intelligence failure, but by going back to the public record it becomes clear it was a honesty failure: earlier post (http://tinyurl.com/9rdp6)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not the official line; it's a finding of fact. There was no deception. It was bad intelligence that went back to the previous administration.

Naturist Mark

04-30-2005, 11:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
It's not the official line; it's a finding of fact. There was no deception. It was bad intelligence that went back to the previous administration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"There was no general intelligence failure; on the contrary, there was a successful effort by the Bush administration to intimidate, subordinate and punish intelligence to fit its political objectives.

When Bush insisted that Saddam was actively and urgently engaged in a nuclear weapons program and had renewed production of chemical weapons, the Defense Intelligence Agency denied the assertions. Bruce Hardcastle, defense intelligence officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Counterterrorism, "told them that the way they were handling evidence was wrong," Patrick Lang, former head of Human Intelligence at CIA, told me. The Bush administration response was not only to remove Hardcastle from his post. "They did away with his job. They wanted just liaison officers who were junior. They didn't want a senior intelligence person who argued with them. Hardcastle said, 'I couldn't deal with these people.' They are such ideologues that they knew what the outcome should be and they thought when they didn't get it from intelligence people they thought they were stupid. They start with an almost pseudo-religious faith. They wanted the intelligence agencies to produce material to show a threat, particularly an imminent threat. Then they worked back to prove their case. It was the opposite of what the process should have been like, that the evidence should prove the case."

When the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) submitted reports that aluminum tubes Saddam possessed were for conventional rocketry, not nuclear weapons (a report corroborated by Department of Energy analysts), that mobile laboratories were not for WMD, that the story about Saddam seeking uranium in Niger was bogus, and that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida (a report backed by the CIA), its analyses were shunted aside. Greg Thielman, chief of INR at the time, told me: "What everyone in the intelligence community knew was that the White House couldn't care less about any kind of information that there were no WMD or that the U.N. inspectors were very effective. Everyone knew the White House was deaf to that input. It was worse than pressure; they didn't care."

When the CIA debunked the tales about Niger uranium and the Saddam-al-Qaida connection, its reports were ultimately ignored and direct pressure was applied. In October 2002, the White House inserted mention of the uranium into a speech Bush was to deliver, but the CIA objected and it was excised. Three months later, it reappeared in his State of the Union address. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed never to have seen the original CIA memo, and Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley apologized that he had simply forgotten about it.

Never before had any senior White House official physically intruded into the CIA's Langley headquarters to argue with midlevel managers and analysts about unfinished work. But twice Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, came to offer their opinions. According to Patrick Lang, "They looked disapproving, questioned the reports and left an impression of what you're supposed to do. They made it clear they didn't like what the analysts wrote. They would look at the analytic piece that was produced and say you haven't looked at the evidence. We find some reports here you didn't take in consideration. The answer would be, those reports aren't valid." The reports in question were from Iraqi exiles such as Ahmed Chalabi. "The analysts would be told that you should look at this again. Finally, people gave up. You learn not to contradict them."

Others also turned up at CIA to browbeat analysts, including Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the house and member of the Defense Policy Board, and Condi Rice, according to Ray McGovern, former CIA chief for the Middle East. "Cheney, he just likes the soup in the CIA cafeteria," McGovern joked.

Meanwhile, senior intelligence officers were kept in the dark about the Office of Special Plans. "I didn't know about its existence," said Thielman. "They were cherry-picking the intelligence and packaging it for Rumsfeld and Cheney to take into the president. That's exactly the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent."

CIA director George Tenet, for his part, opted to become a political advocate for Bush's brief rather than a protector of the intelligence community. On the eve of the congressional debate, in a crammed three-week period, the agency wrote a 90-page National Intelligence Estimate justifying the administration's position on WMD.

According to Thielman, the CIA's decision to support the contention that Saddam was building nuclear weapons was made by someone who had been a personnel manager. Tenet released a version of the NIE scrubbed of its numerous dissents. But, in July 2003, after the war, a declassified version showed 40 caveats -- including 15 uses of the word "probably."

Tenet further ingratiated himself by remaining silent about the OSP. "That's totally unacceptable for a CIA director," said Thielman. "Therefore not only is the president culpable because he's tolerating a rogue operation inside his government, but Tenet should have made it an existential question for his job." " Salon (http://tinyurl.com/eybnv)

-Mark

hm0504

04-30-2005, 11:59 AM

It seems to me that Naturist Mark simply cannot accept that President Bush may be the most pure, noble, innocent, and well-intentioned person since Jesus Christ.

MJ_KC

04-30-2005, 01:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
It seems to me that Naturist Mark simply cannot accept that President Bush may be the most pure, noble, innocent, and well-intentioned person since Jesus Christ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Compared to John Kerry, there is a lot of truth to that.

KirkOntario

04-30-2005, 02:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
[/i]" Salon (http://tinyurl.com/eybnv)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the OPINION piece from left wing Salon magazine. Time to stop reading this drivel mark.

And in today's news, a reason to be glad the dictatorship of Sadaam is gone.

http://pages.zdnet.com/plm/id284.html

NudistGuy47

04-30-2005, 02:26 PM

Not all of us US citizens agree that Bush is like Christ. I am thankful we can express our opinions without reprisal.

PCT

04-30-2005, 02:37 PM

"President Bush may be the most pure, noble, innocent, and well-intentioned person since Jesus Christ."

BWAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh my god dude, you should seriously do standup! You're a laugh riot!!!

Naturist Mark, as always, does his homework and provides factually sound and thoughtful commentary which I enjoy reading. However, on the other side of this "debate" I read a lot of prattle based on conjecture.

I might remind Naturist Mark that you are fighting the strong forces of cognitive dissonance, rendering facts useless. Instead of KirkOntario's suggestion, I might instead suggest we stop reading and responding to the drivel being spewed in this thread.

Naturist Mark

04-30-2005, 03:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Thanks for the OPINION piece from left wing Salon magazine. Time to stop reading this drivel mark.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The article is to be rejected not on the basis of the factual content, but on the basis of the politics of the publication? I assume that means you will not be quoting anything from Fox news, CNN, Time-Warner, the US Government, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the CBC, the BBC, or any other corporate, private, or government news source with an editorial viewpoint or vested interest.

I posted a lengthy excerpt of the Salon article which made numerous statements of fact, and very few statements of opinion. Care to elucidate which statements of fact are invalid and why?

-Mark

MikeJB

04-30-2005, 04:43 PM

What really upsets me is how my dad thinks that the US is the best place in the whole world and that all of these other countries are just crummy misguided places that desperately need our help. I just think thats wrong, I mean while the US is good for all the freedoms and things we have available here it still has alot of problems that other countries simply dont have and the attitudes of the people here are just ones that other countries dont have. I hate it whenever he hears about how Europoeans or other such people say that they think that the people in the US are a bunch of silly westerners, all my dad has to say is that he really doesnt care what Europe thinks about us cuz he figures since they were the cause of two world wars and the death of 6 million jews that somehow the opinions and thoughts of the current people living there have no merit at all. He seems to act like that without us all these other countries would just fall apart. I think if he had it his way that the whole world would be one big USA and we'd all be as guilable and ashamed of ourselves as people are here. I wouldnt want the other parts of the world to lose all their culture and history just because this country thinks its the best and thinks it has to go "save" everybody else. Anyways I just thought id bring that up since alot of people are talking here about how some people blast the US.

Torrignani

04-30-2005, 06:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MikeJB:

What really upsets me is how my dad thinks that the US is the best place in the whole world and that all of these other countries are just crummy misguided places that desperately need our help. I just think thats wrong, I mean while the US is good for all the freedoms and things we have available here it still has alot of problems that other countries simply dont have and the attitudes of the people here are just ones that other countries dont have. I hate it whenever he hears about how Europoeans or other such people say that they think that the people in the US are a bunch of silly westerners, all my dad has to say is that he really doesnt care what Europe thinks about us cuz he figures since they were the cause of two world wars and the death of 6 million jews that somehow the opinions and thoughts of the current people living there have no merit at all. He seems to act like that without us all these other countries would just fall apart. I think if he had it his way that the whole world would be one big USA and we'd all be as guilable and ashamed of ourselves as people are here. I wouldnt want the other parts of the world to lose all their culture and history just because this country thinks its the best and thinks it has to go "save" everybody else. Anyways I just thought id bring that up since alot of people are talking here about how some people blast the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want every country to be like the US, and I want them to retain their own cultural heritage. They have every right to govern the way they see fit (so long as it doesn't include murder and oppression, a la Saddam), and to live the way they choose. It would be very boring if the world were one big USA.

However, I also don't care whatsoever what the rest of the world thinks about the US and our policies. I'm not saying we're always right - we're clearly not. At the same time, as Americans we should act solely in the best interest of America. I don't care if France opposes us, or China, or Russia, or Canada, or anyone else. If they don't like something we're doing, they can try to stop us, but no president should base foreign policy decisions on what other countries want us to do, or on some "global test," as a failed presidential candidate once said. International politics, like life, is not a popularity contest. America should do what is best for America, Germany should do what is best for Germany, Zambia should do what is best for Zambia. If our values and interests collide, then the stronger will prevail. That is, after all, the natural order of things, which is why the last century was called the "American Century," and is why American influence on the world grows by the day...

Michjoe

04-30-2005, 06:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not the official line; it's a finding of fact. There was no deception. It was bad intelligence that went back to the previous administration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time to stop reading this drivel.

Torrignani

04-30-2005, 06:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

"There was no general intelligence failure; on the contrary, there was a successful effort by the Bush administration to intimidate, subordinate and punish intelligence to fit its political objectives.
" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a Bush supporter, and as an enthusiast for the Iraq War, I agree completely with this statement. I have no doubt, and even believed at the time, that there was no substantial proof of WMD, and that the intelligence was either being manipulated or presented in such a way as to support ousting Saddam. The White House really shot itself in the foot by making this argument.

Having said all that, I supported the war and still support the war. Saddam was a tyrant, a dictator, and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. So, I supported his removal and am glad we did so. Do I care that Bush lied, or at least twisted the evidence to bolster a pre-conceived plan? Sort of, but I assume that all politicians and presidents lie - it's just the way of the world. Has any president ever NOT lied, or at least concealed truth? Probably not. Clinton lied more often than not about everything. Reagan lied about the Contras. Nixon....need I say more? Kennedy lied about drugs, affairs, and illness. Franklin Roosevelt lied about a myriad of things as well, including war progress.

So Bush lied - while wrong, that simply makes him a president as far as I'm concerned. And it does not diminish the moral importance of toppling Hussein's regime. It was a just thing to do, and I'm thoroughly satisfied we did it. What's more, it has had a ripple effect throughout the Middle East, such that Lebanon is now Syria-free, Lybia is now WMD free, and the Palestine/Israel situation is slowly improving. Bush, Cheney, and the other neocons "misled" us and we went to war - and how glad I am that they did...

jon71

04-30-2005, 08:37 PM

If Saddam being a s.o.b. was enough reason to go to war why was the White House to cowardly or dishonest to make that argument? They knew the American public did not and does not find that to be a good enough reason. While we are at it if that is enough reason will we now invade Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Pakistan (our ally?) and who know how many other dictatorships around the globe. No since Bush doesn't have another election to scam his way through probably not. One more reason why he is the least popular second termer ever.

Trailscout

04-30-2005, 10:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Thanks for the OPINION piece from left wing Salon magazine. Time to stop reading this drivel mark... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kirk,

You are right on target about that Salon site. Man, it contains unrelenting leftist bias in every last article!

There's no attempt to include moderate or conservative writers or opinion pieces there.

Thanks for calling out this yellow journalism for what it is!

Naturist Mark

05-01-2005, 07:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:

Kirk,

You are right on target about that Salon site. Man, it contains unrelenting leftist bias in every last article!

There's no attempt to include moderate or conservative writers or opinion pieces there.

Thanks for calling out this yellow journalism for what it is! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scout, do you really believe statements of fact are invalid not because of their truth but simply because of the politics of the publisher?

ad hominem adj : appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason); "ad hominem arguments". In other words - attack the source when you can't attack the facts.

I posted a lengthy excerpt of the Salon article which made numerous statements of fact, and very few statements of opinion. Care to elucidate which statements of fact are invalid and why?

-Mark

hm0504

05-01-2005, 08:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
If Saddam being a s.o.b. was enough reason to go to war why was the White House to cowardly or dishonest to make that argument? They knew the American public did not and does not find that to be a good enough reason. While we are at it if that is enough reason will we now invade Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Syria, Pakistan (our ally?) and who know how many other dictatorships around the globe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the problem. And in a sense, it is really only a symptom of the problem.

Dictatorships like Saddam's, and dozens and dozens of others, are to a large degree the result of the fact that large percentages of the population in their respective countries, often for religious or ethnic reasons, do not want real democracy.

Even in Western democracies, it is fast becoming a minority of people who value democracy to the degree that they are willing to get out and vote once every few years.

I have no problem with the U.S. and its allies using military force to overthrow the most dangerous and despotic of the world's tyrants as long as there has been serious and in-depth study of
a) the potential ramifications
b) the history and nature of the country in question
c) how locals will play a primary role in the replacing and replacement of the regime in question

I think the above was done in Afghanistan but not Iraq. I also think it was necessary to invade Afghanistan but not Iraq.

KirkOntario

05-01-2005, 10:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Thanks for the OPINION piece from left wing Salon magazine. Time to stop reading this drivel mark.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The article is to be rejected not on the basis of the factual content, but on the basis of the politics of the publication? I assume that means you will not be quoting anything from Fox news, CNN, Time-Warner, the US Government, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the CBC, the BBC, or any other corporate, private, or government news source with an editorial viewpoint or vested interest.

I posted a lengthy excerpt of the Salon article which made numerous statements of fact, and very few statements of opinion. Care to elucidate which statements of fact are invalid and why?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The word 'opinion' is right in the URL for that article because it is an 'opinion' piece.

ken0254

05-01-2005, 10:41 AM

Torrignani,

"I have no doubt, and even believed at the time, that there was no substantial proof of WMD, and that the intelligence was either being manipulated or presented in such a way as to support ousting Saddam. The White House really shot itself in the foot by making this argument."

After saying what you said in this post, how in the world can you support the Iraq war??? If you take away those reasons for going into Iraq, then what WAS the reason to invade in the first place? No WMD's, no link to Al-Qaida, no threat to the U.S. = NO REASON TO GO INTO IRAQ!!! AAAGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! My head hurts just thinking about it!

ken

l2ltlarry

05-01-2005, 06:53 PM

The lesson I take away from Nixon (who changed the balance of power in the world) is, "A little corruption is the price of good government".

I think Sunshine Laws are wrong-headed. I don't think you can do effective government out in the bright light of day. And all of the prosecutorialism applied to penny-ante "official wrongdoing" does more harm than good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Torrignani:
...and presidents lie - it's just the way of the world. Has any president ever NOT lied, or at least concealed truth? Probably not. Clinton lied more often than not about everything. Reagan lied about the Contras. Nixon....need I say more? Kennedy lied about drugs, affairs, and illness. Franklin Roosevelt lied about a myriad of things as well, including war progress.

So Bush lied - while wrong, that simply makes him a president as far as I'm concerned. And it does not diminish the moral importance of toppling Hussein's regime. It was a just thing to do, and I'm thoroughly satisfied we did it. What's more, it has had a ripple effect throughout the Middle East, such that Lebanon is now Syria-free, Lybia is now WMD free, and the Palestine/Israel situation is slowly improving. Bush, Cheney, and the other neocons "misled" us and we went to war - and how glad I am that they did... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ken0254, as I see it, the overarching purpose of the war in Iraq, all of the early ostensible "reasons" given for it notwithstanding, is to change the face of the Middle East. That's the only thing that's going to eventually change it from a terrorist breeding ground.

As was said in the TV show 'Northern Exposure' of Cicely, Alaska, "Before Roslyn and Cicely came to town, it was a place so vile it had no name. But they changed it to a place where every person matters and the human spirit triumphs". However bad Bush the Second and his "cronies" may be, his action has at least given the possibility that the Middle East might someday become a place where the human spirit can triumph too.

Naturist Mark

05-01-2005, 08:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

The word 'opinion' is right in the URL for that article because it is an 'opinion' piece. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on Kirk. Aren't you capable of any critical analysis? You felt it was worthy of condemnation - but not of any reasonable explanation why? You can do better than that.

I posted the excerpt from the article because it provided strong factual support to the thesis that there was a not a real intelligence failure, rather there was deliberate political interference in intelligence analysis designed to produce a predetermined result. What evidence do you have that the facts presented are not true? All you've done so far is to disparage the publication and the URL, not the facts.

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-02-2005, 04:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

The word 'opinion' is right in the URL for that article because it is an 'opinion' piece. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on Kirk. Aren't you capable of any critical analysis? You felt it was worthy of condemnation - but not of any reasonable explanation why? You can do better than that.

I posted the excerpt from the article because it provided strong factual support to the thesis that there was a not a real intelligence failure, rather there was deliberate political interference in intelligence analysis designed to produce a predetermined result. What evidence do you have that the facts presented are not true? All you've done so far is to disparage the publication and the URL, not the facts.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The article consists of just rehashed old 'facts' that were already taken into account in the final report (but I am sure you will deny that). YOu are going to base your whole argument on what a fired employee wants to say? Can you say 'axe to grind'?

I love the brillian conclusions made by the Bush hating Left that because Cheney visited the CIA he MUSt haven been there to browbeat hardened professioals and shape the evidence. I supposed if he visits the Library of Congress he will accused of meddling in acquisitions by that logic. I didn't give you my full response because Salon is as usual pathetic and I didn't want to hurt your feelings by attacking a favourite publication of yours (BTW you are probably violating copyright with such a long exerpt).

KirkOntario

05-02-2005, 04:25 AM

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2651184?htv=12

Hilarious movie parodying Michael Moore.

Naturist Mark

05-02-2005, 05:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

The article consists of just rehashed old 'facts' that were already taken into account in the final report (but I am sure you will deny that). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you know I'd deny that - you've read my earlier post (http://tinyurl.com/ajrss) in this thread where I provide the evidence that it is not true.

The Silberman-Robb commission was prohibited by its charter from investigating political pressures on intelligence analysis and its uses

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">from the AP (http://tinyurl.com/469hb): The report does not accuse the administration of manipulating the intelligence. The commission noted that it wasn't authorized to investigate how policy-makers used this information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

Naturist Mark

05-02-2005, 03:36 PM

This just in from the (London) Times:
Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html)
Newly leaked documents from the British Government confirm that the decision was made to invade Iraq first, then the evidence was manipulated to justify it to the public.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The political strategy proved to be arguing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed such a threat that military action had to be taken. However, at the July meeting Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.

Straw suggested they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”.

A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-02-2005, 03:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
This just in from the (London) Times:
Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html)
Newly leaked documents from the British Government confirm that the decision was made to invade Iraq first, then the evidence was manipulated to justify it to the public.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The political strategy proved to be arguing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed such a threat that military action had to be taken. However, at the July meeting Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.

Straw suggested they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”.

A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is NOT what the documents say. They said they backed regime change eight month prior. You have made the false conclusion that evidence was manipulated to justify it.

MikeJB

05-02-2005, 03:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I don't want every country to be like the US, and I want them to retain their own cultural heritage. They have every right to govern the way they see fit (so long as it doesn't include murder and oppression, a la Saddam), and to live the way they choose. It would be very boring if the world were one big USA.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the only reason we should interfere with other countries is if they are poor or needy and require our help so they can have food and clothing and such things like that or if they have some sort of tyrannical dictator in charge that is just being oppressive and killing everybody. Otherwise I think we should just leave other countries alone and let them go about their business.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
However, I also don't care whatsoever what the rest of the world thinks about the US and our policies. I'm not saying we're always right - we're clearly not. At the same time, as Americans we should act solely in the best interest of America.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think we should necessarily have to do what other countries tell us to but I think it would be wise if we were to at least hear them out and listen to their advice because we might actually learn from it and become better associated with other countries if we can understand them and how they feel better. Also it might help our country become a better place if we can hear opinions other than just our own.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I don't care if France opposes us, or China, or Russia, or Canada, or anyone else. If they don't like something we're doing, they can try to stop us, but no president should base foreign policy decisions on what other countries want us to do, or on some "global test," as a failed presidential candidate once said. International politics, like life, is not a popularity contest.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that we should at least consider their position and possibly try to come to some sort of agreement or compromise with them so we can better relations with them so that we do not have a world that is so divided because we cant agree on simple things or at least come to some common understanding.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
America should do what is best for America, Germany should do what is best for Germany, Zambia should do what is best for Zambia. If our values and interests collide, then the stronger will prevail.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes though we need to think about other countries because the choices we make can sometimes have bigger implications on them and eventually us than we might think at first. I just dont think its wise for us to be completely closed minded to their views just because they areint the same as ours or conflict with ours.

Naturist Mark

05-02-2005, 04:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
That is NOT what the documents say. They said they backed regime change eight month prior. You have made the false conclusion that evidence was manipulated to justify it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">“If the political context were right, people would support regime change,” said Blair. He added that the key issues were “whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan space to work”.

The political strategy proved to be arguing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed such a threat that military action had to be taken. However, at the July meeting Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jack Straw knew Saddam was toothless, same as the US intelligence community. We know what they later provided as evidence, and we know it was untrue. It's damning confirmation of intelligence manipulation.

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-02-2005, 04:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Jack Straw knew Saddam was toothless, same as the US intelligence community. We know what they later provided as evidence, and we know it was untrue. It's damning confirmation of intelligence manipulation.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where does he say he was 'toothless'? Jack Straw is a much wiser man than to say such a thing. Nor did the US intelligence community say such a thing. Sorry you have ZERO evidence of manipulation of intelligence. You will have to do better than this.

jon71

05-02-2005, 11:07 PM

The evidence that the "intelligence" was manipulated is overwhelming and conclusive. At this point saying otherwise requires a large dose of either dishonesty or stupidity.

KirkOntario

05-03-2005, 04:11 AM

Wrong: the fact Blair made a commitment to US is nto the same as making the actual decision to go to war. True, they were looking for arguments to justify it but they believed these were there. False evidence? None. Manipulation of intelligence gathering agencies. None. To believe otherwise is either naive or ill informed. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Want some good reasons? Try the 1000's of bodies unearthed this week in Iraq: mostly womena and children: Mostly Shia's murdered by Sadaam.

http://pages.zdnet.com/plm/id284.html

hm0504

05-03-2005, 09:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
...
Want some good reasons? Try the 1000's of bodies unearthed this week in Iraq: mostly womena and children: Mostly Shia's murdered by Sadaam.

http://pages.zdnet.com/plm/id284.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, ummm, wouldn't it have been a good idea for the West to have taken Saddam out back in the late 80's before he killed the tens of thousands? Oh right, Saddam was our buddy then.

OK, how about the hundreds of thousands already dead and the 500 more killed each day in the present Darfur genocide[1]. Oh wait, the Sudanese government is currently our friend (and by golly, they've got oil too!), so I guess we need to wait 10 years or so before we let our high-moralizing outrage show.

[1] "Day 113 of the President's Silence":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/opinion/03kristof.html?hp

KirkOntario

05-03-2005, 06:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
...
Want some good reasons? Try the 1000's of bodies unearthed this week in Iraq: mostly womena and children: Mostly Shia's murdered by Sadaam.

http://pages.zdnet.com/plm/id284.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, ummm, wouldn't it have been a good idea for the West to have taken Saddam out back in the late 80's before he killed the tens of thousands? Oh right, Saddam was our buddy then.

OK, how about the hundreds of thousands already dead and the 500 more killed each day in the present Darfur genocide[1]. Oh wait, the Sudanese government is currently our friend (and by golly, they've got oil too!), so I guess we need to wait 10 years or so before we let our high-moralizing outrage show.

[1] "Day 113 of the President's Silence":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/opinion/03kristof.html?hp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how we play the game of blame America for what it does and for what is doesn't do.

Murderers are murderers. Stepping into Iraq and toppling the gov't was good. Not having done it 20 years ago does not make the US bad. Sadaam is a bad man, a killer, a thug. He is responsible for murder not the US.

The USA does not have god-like powers that enable it to right every wrong in the world nor is it responsible to do so. Plus can you muster the political will to invade Darfur? Americans don't want to get involved which perhaps is why Somalia was such a failure.

And where is the precious United Nations? Mired in it's own corruption scandal. Where are the Europeans? They couldn't even deal with Serbia in their own back yard.

Saddam was never a 'buddy'; Americans never had any illusions about him; the West merely did not want Iraq to collapse and be taken over by fundamentalist Iranians thus making Iran a muslim super-state and a threat to entire region.

hm0504

05-04-2005, 06:49 AM

As stated in a post somewhere else, I do think Europe and Canada should unilaterally act in Sudan (kudos to Canadian Prime Minister for visiting Darfur last November).

Nonetheless, the U.S. silence on Darfur is deafening. As the world's sole superpower, if the U.S. does not indicate it supports military action in the region, it is difficult for other powers to act.

Recently on the BBC, the U.S. Marine acting as an observer pleaded for the West to set up a no-fly zone over Darfur -- no ground troops would be required. He (wish I had caught his name) has now retired from the Marines to lobby for that action.

Naturist Mark

05-04-2005, 05:21 PM

Recent article by Ray McGovern, a 27 year veteran CIA analyst: Proof Bush Fixed The Facts (http://tinyurl.com/8lzyx)

KirkOntario

05-04-2005, 07:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
As stated in a post somewhere else, I do think Europe and Canada should unilaterally act in Sudan (kudos to Canadian Prime Minister for visiting Darfur last November).

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We both know Canadian Paul Martin loves those cute foreign junkets where he propounds on what should be done:

As Bobby Kennedy said:

"In an emergency Canada will give you all aid short of help."

Paul Martin's Liberal Party has so depleted our military they took months to get to Haiti; they had to hitch a ride 'cause we have no way to transport our troops.

KirkOntario

05-06-2005, 07:09 PM

First the re-election of the government in Australia, then the glorious re-election of George W. Bush and now Tony Blair. wonderful news. the electorate is not prepared to repudiate leaders with the courage to do the right thing and not apologize for doing it.

Most wonderful!

Naturist Mark

05-06-2005, 07:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
First the re-election of the government in Australia, then the glorious re-election of George W. Bush and now Tony Blair. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to mention Mugabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe) and Lukashenko (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3882843.stm).

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-06-2005, 08:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
First the re-election of the government in Australia, then the glorious re-election of George W. Bush and now Tony Blair. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to mention Mugabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe) and Lukashenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko).

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

are you saying the Australian, British and US elections were rigged? Do Tell!

jon71

05-06-2005, 09:15 PM

Labor won but the war cost Blair support and popularity and quite a few seats. He has otherwise done a good job and could of had a much larger margin of victory if it wasn't for Iraq.

KirkOntario

05-06-2005, 09:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Labor won but the war cost Blair support and popularity and quite a few seats. He has otherwise done a good job and could of had a much larger margin of victory if it wasn't for Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ultimately teh war was not that important. And for once Tony Blair looked like he had principles.

Naturist Mark

05-07-2005, 05:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Ultimately teh war was not that important. And for once Tony Blair looked like he had principles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Labor lost nearly 2/3rds of its majority against weak opposition. The war is seen as the overwhelming reason those 90+ seats were lost.

Most political watchers expect Blair to be replaced by his party within the year with Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

05-07-2005, 06:05 AM

RIP Col. David. H. Hackworth. (http://tinyurl.com/7tfq3)

American soldiers lost a great friend and tireless champion this week.

-Mark

hm0504

05-07-2005, 10:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
RIP Col. David. H. Hackworth. (http://tinyurl.com/7tfq3)

American soldiers lost a great friend and tireless champion this week.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very sad news; Col. Hackworth provided an essential and pivotal voice. God bless his family and those who succeed him.

KirkOntario

05-09-2005, 03:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tony Blair will not go that easily. He loves being in power too much and he's too skilled not to play the game well. A year is a long time in politics and things on the ground in Iraq will be going Tony's way I'd wager.

Naturist Mark

05-15-2005, 11:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
are you saying the Australian, British and US elections were rigged? Do Tell! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no, not the British or Australian elections. But the people who know enough about math to make a living by betting have no doubt about what happened in the US.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Jim Lampley (http://tinyurl.com/ape3k)
The Biggest Story of Our Lives

At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.

People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.

And he most certainly was (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/) , at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.

Many of the participants in this blog have graduate school educations. It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity. We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not.

Karl Rove isn't capable of conceiving and executing such a grandiose crime? Wake up. They did it (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm) . The silence of traditional media on this subject is enough to establish their newfound bankruptcy. The revolution will have to start here. I challenge every other thinker at the Huffington Post: is there any greater imperative than to reverse this crime and reestablish democracy in America? Why the mass silence? Let's go to work with the circumstantial evidence, begin to narrow from the outside in, and find some witnesses who will turn. That's how they cracked Watergate. This is bigger, and I never dreamed I would say that in my baby boomer lifetime.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Authorized (section 4a) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terms.html) repost From The Huffington Post (http://tinyurl.com/9zqg3)

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-15-2005, 06:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Now you get your 'information' from bookies? You are saying because sports bettors were wrong the election was rigged? Thanks for making my day! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ren

05-15-2005, 07:18 PM

Kirk - Did you stop reading 11 words into the article? Read the rest to see the bigger picture.

Naturist Mark

05-15-2005, 07:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Now you get your 'information' from bookies? You are saying because sports bettors were wrong the election was rigged? Thanks for making my day! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kirk, your attempt at ridicule is skating perilously close to ad hominem.

Now, in the interest of civil discourse, did you read the links?

How about reading this one from a group of group of non-bookies with fairly reasonable academic credentials (PDF file): US Count Votes, Study of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies (http://www.uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf)

Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. - Temple University Statistics Department
Kathy Dopp, MS in mathematics - USCountVotes, President
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. - Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University

-Mark

Trailscout

05-15-2005, 09:27 PM

Don't look for objectivity from Ray McGovern. If you check out the publication he associates with, you'll see that it is anti-Bush, anti-American and opposed to national defence.

The statisticians are all wrong. Myopic bean counters all. Past election trends are a poor indicator of election outcome because of Republican reticence to comment for exit polls in these politically polarized PC times. Increased access to Internet, and other technology related social trends have delivered surprising results, which has left the leftists incredulous.

KirkOntario

05-16-2005, 04:08 AM

Sorry Mark but erroneous exit polls do not prove fraud. Exit polls are often wrong, pollsters are often wrong. If you followed the campaign there were serious problems with those polls. If you really believe there was widespread electoral fraud that is very very sad. I am sorry to hear it. It may just be that the Democrats put forth a weak leader with a fuzzy vision that Americans simply did not like. His name? John Kerry as disasterous candidate, a pathetic man.

Again, using the the bookie theory is just plain wrong. The 5pm bookie odds were based on the exit polls that were wrong. See Dewey defeats Truman. See the 2004 Canadian Federal Election.

Exit polls are taken early in the day when the mommies, students and the unemployed vote. The Republicans voted after work for George, on their way home to put food on the table for those people. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bob S.

05-16-2005, 12:54 PM

I agree that oddsters are not a great place to get your stastical information. And these people are wrong a lot. Upsets do happen. Giacomo won the Kentucky Derby at 51-1 odds agaisnt him.

If you believe there was fraud, please convince the FBI to look into it. I don't want anyone to fraudulently get into any elected office.

"The Republicans voted after work for George"

Actually Kirk, I actually voted earlier in the day, at the lunchtime hour. I don't get off work until 6:30.

Bob S.

KirkOntario

05-16-2005, 04:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:

"The Republicans voted after work for George"

Actually Kirk, I actually voted earlier in the day, at the lunchtime hour. I don't get off work until 6:30.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, wuz juzz havin' sum fun!

Here's a good one!

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/354003.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/354003.stm[/URL

Hey, didn't I see Karl Rove in the audience rooting for M.U.? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

]

Naturist Mark

05-16-2005, 04:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry Mark but erroneous exit polls do not prove fraud. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>According the the US government it does - so long as those elections are in Kyrgystan, Georgia, Venuzuela or the Ukraine Senator Lugar (R, Indiana) added that the Ukrainian election was fraudulent because “exit polls showed the guy we wanted to win should have won.” After being asked why he did not support “the guy who was ahead in the exit polls in the U.S. election,” Lugar retorted, “Because our candidate was the one who was behind. What do you take us for, idiots?” Senator Lugar was appointed by President Bush to represent the US on the International election monitor team in the Ukraine. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Exit polls are often wrong, pollsters are often wrong. If you followed the campaign there were serious problems with those polls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It was the OPINION polls that were often wrong. Exit polls are uncannily accurate because most of the uncertainty factor is eliminated - voters know who they voted for just a few minutes ago (even if they don't know if the vote was counted). Even the Florida exit polls in 2000 turned out to be accurate - well within the margin of error. Dick Morris (Republican political consultant and Fox News analyst) stated , Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state. [...] To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here. [...] This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If you really believe there was widespread electoral fraud that is very very sad. I am sorry to hear it. It may just be that the Democrats put forth a weak leader with a fuzzy vision that Americans simply did not like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Half of America did like him - probably more than half. Far more than liked GWB in 2000.

Ukraine Election Observers Cite U.S. Voting Fraud (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00367.htm)
Ohio, Revisited (http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/vote_fraud/index.htm)
Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Don't look for objectivity from Ray McGovern. If you check out the publication he associates with, you'll see that it is anti-Bush, anti-American and opposed to national defence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again 'Scout, you are condemning someone's writings based on your perception of their 'worthiness' and not on the quality of the facts they report. Is there anything in Mr. McGovern's statements that are factually inaccurate?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The statisticians are all wrong. Myopic bean counters all. Past election trends are a poor indicator of election outcome because of Republican reticence to comment for exit polls in these politically polarized PC times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That theory, that Republicans tend to refuse to participate in exit polls, or lie when they do, is the new meme to explain the one sided 'errors' of exit polling. However, this theory has been tested and found lacking. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"># By far the greatest source of error, therefore, was what the report calls Within Precinct Error, or WPE, which is the difference between the exit polls and the offical vote count in a given precinct, after other sources of statistical bias have been taken into account.

# On average, across the 1460 precincts for which exit poll data is available, the WPE was 6.5 percentage points in Kerry's favor. I.e., after correcting for other sources of statistical bias, the exit polls overstated Kerry's numbers by 6.5 percentage points.

# The authors of the report assume, without evidence, that Kerry voters must have had a higher "completion" rate — i.e., were more likely to complete the exit poll questionnaire when asked to do so — and that this accounts for the WPE. Some of their own data casts serious doubt on this assumption, however.

# For example, in precincts where Bush won at least 80% of the vote, the WPE overstated Kerry's numbers by a whopping 10.0 percentage points. In precincts where Kerry won at least 80% of the vote, the WPE actually overstated Bush slightly, by 0.3 percentage points. If the source of WPE was that Bush voters were somehow intimidated from completing the exit poll questionnaire, you would expect the opposite result, since Bush voters would be much more likely to feel intimidated in a strongly pro-Kerry precinct than in a strongly pro-Bush precinct.

# The claim that Kerry voters were more willing than Bush voters to cooperate with the exit polls is also contradicted by the fact that, as the report itself noted, "There was no significant difference between the completion rates and the precinct partisanship." The completion rate was actually slightly higher (56%) in Bush strongholds (precincts 80-plus percent for Bush) than in Kerry strongholds (53%). If Bush voters were reluctant interviewees, in general, you would expect the opposite result. And, again, the slightly lower completion rate in Kerry strongholds cannot be explained by intimidation of Bush voters, since the WPE actually favored Bush slightly in the Kerry strongholds.

# In any case, the report found that "The correlation between the overall completion rate and the...WPE was not significant (0.05)..." In other words, the error cannot be explained by saying that voters in some kinds of precincts were more likely to complete the exit poll questionnaire than voters in other kinds of precincts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Exit Polls, Revisited (http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2005/02/the_exit_polls_1.htm)

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-16-2005, 04:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry Mark but erroneous exit polls do not prove fraud. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>According the the US government it does - so long as those elections are in Kyrgystan, Georgia, Venuzuela or the Ukraine Senator Lugar (R, Indiana) added that the Ukrainian election was fraudulent because “exit polls showed the guy we wanted to win should have won.” After being asked why he did not support “the guy who was ahead in the exit polls in the U.S. election,” Lugar retorted, “Because our candidate was the one who was behind. What do you take us for, idiots?” Senator Lugar was appointed by President Bush to represent the US on the Internation election monitor team in the Ukraine. [QUOTE]

Oh dear, Mark! Gasp. YOu have to have some other evidence of fraud of which there was plenty in the Ukraine. thanks for your post.

Naturist Mark

05-16-2005, 05:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Oh dear, Mark! Gasp. YOu have to have some other evidence of fraud of which there was plenty in the Ukraine. thanks for your post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Catch your breath Kirk. There is PLENTY of other evidence. US Media has been reluctant to air it (except MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/)) but there is a great abundance of evidence.

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm)
Evidence of Fraud and Disenfranchisement in Ohio, 2004 : A Partial List (http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/#110459742492140370)
Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Reading List (http://www.opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm)
ELECTION FRAUD in 2004 (http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109h.htm)
Was Election 2004 a Fraud? (http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm)
ELECTORAL INTEGRITY (http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/electoral-integrity.htm)

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-16-2005, 05:51 PM

So Mark you actually believe that the 2004 U.S. election was rigged. Is that your position? Truly?

Naturist Mark

05-16-2005, 06:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
So Mark you actually believe that the 2004 U.S. election was rigged. Is that your position? Truly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw what happened here in Ohio.

Was it fraudulent nationwide? Possibly - there are a lot of unanswered questions and evidence that support serious suspicion of fraud. Was it fraudulent in Ohio ? - Beyond a doubt.

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-16-2005, 06:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
So Mark you actually believe that the 2004 U.S. election was rigged. Is that your position? Truly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw what happened here in Ohio. It was clearly fraudulent. Was it nationwide? Possibly - there are a lot of unanswered questions and evidence that support serious suspicion of fraud. Was it fraudent in Ohio - beyond a doubt.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. I suppose it gives you a great deal of comfort to believe it. It is very important however to avoid slipping into these comforts even if you do have a passionate hatred for Bush and the Republicans.

Naturist Mark

05-16-2005, 06:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Interesting. I suppose it gives you a great deal of comfort to believe it. It is very important however to avoid slipping into these comforts even if you do have a passionate hatred for Bush and the Republicans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ad Hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

-Mark

hm0504

05-16-2005, 06:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
...even if you (Naturist Mark) do have a passionate hatred for Bush and the Republicans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not recall Naturist Mark ever saying he has "a passionate hatred for Bush and the Republicans". Unless Naturist Mark agrees that he does or you can provide a reference to such a statement by him, I would say that your remark violates the TOS.

KirkOntario

05-16-2005, 07:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
]

I do not recall Naturist Mark ever saying he has "a passionate hatred for Bush and the Republicans". Unless Naturist Mark agrees that he does or you can provide a reference to such a statement by him, I would say that your remark violates the TOS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is very clear that he has demonstrated such feelings. 91 posts about Bush with attendant lack of admiration! There is no violation of the TOS here. Those feelings are fine. He's entitled to feel that way. It's just that such feelings tend to cloud one's judgment and then we see the bookie theories shopped about the internet. . It's the comforting thoughts such as 'Bush lied' or 'Bush stole the election' that are the most interesting to me as they are the problem for people with these views. I like to see what makes wild conspiracy type arguments so appealing. There's a different theory every week. We saw the same stuff on Clinton when he was president from the other side.

Naturist Mark

05-16-2005, 08:02 PM

Kirk, is there a reason you have decided to post your opinions about me rather than respond to the discussion?

Do you understand what the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacy is?

-Mark

KirkOntario

05-16-2005, 08:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Kirk, is there a reason you have decided to post your opinions about me rather than respond to the discussion?

Do you understand what the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacy is?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it's interesting. Happens to me as well in threads as it does with other posters. I am just interested in whether you actually believe the 2004 election was rigged or whether you just like to cloud the issue. Some just seek to de-legitimize the 2004 results and maybe play to an audience of Bush-haters --Boxer did that, so did Teresa Heinz-Kerry, but few really do believe it was rigged. I just wanted to know if you really, really in your heart think the 2004 election was fraud, rigged, gerrymandered. You answered that question pretty much in the affirmative. And I thank you for your candour.

I doubt we will see any historian in 20 or 100 years agreeing with you. Don't see any authoritative support for your position yet.

Torrignani

05-16-2005, 09:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Catch your breath Kirk. There is PLENTY of other evidence. US Media has been reluctant to air it (except MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/)) but there is a great abundance of evidence.

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm)
Evidence of Fraud and Disenfranchisement in Ohio, 2004 : A Partial List (http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/)
Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Reading List (http://www.opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm)
ELECTION FRAUD in 2004 (http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109h.htm)
Was Election 2004 a Fraud? (http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm)
ELECTORAL INTEGRITY (http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/electoral-integrity.htm)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark - I took the time to follow every one of those links, and I read a substantial amount of the information on each site. You said there is "PLENTY" of evidence of voter fraud, but none of those links on any of those sites provided any. What we got were lots of possibiltiies (Bush COULD have done this, touch-screen machines COULD be programmed to help Bush, etc), but no concerete, solid facts. Seriously, give me one documented, actual account of voter fraud. I'll gladly admit you're correct if you can PROVE that.

All the accusations leveled at Bush could just as easily be aimed at Kerry. The statisticial analysis was nothing more than hand-waving: so Kerry didn't rally his Democratic base in Florida - just because a Democratic county was won by Bush doesn't mean there was election fraud.

The most laughable article noted the "lack of voter education," which went on to say that African Americans and other lower income people were disenfranchised because they weren't educated on how to vote properly. Come on now! If you can't figure out how to cast a damn ballot, you really shouldn't be voting in the first place. And if I were a presidential candidate, I wouldn't want those kind of people voting for me anyway. What does that say about your candidate, that he would win a majority of the idiot vote?

I understand you're disappointed about the election; I was disappointed when Clinton won. But instead of turning to far-fetched theories and speculative consolation of Bush cheating, why not either get a message out there that will appeal to the voters, or figure out a way to promote your own agenda, rather than simply bashing Bush. =The Republicans learned from their failures against Clinton and fixed things over the past few years, so that now they have a firm grip on the nation's politics. The liberals and Democratics haven't even yet admitted failures - until they do, the conservatives and Republicans will only increase their domination.

P.J.

05-16-2005, 10:24 PM

"Lack of voter education" IS a big problem.

A result of voter ignorance is ignorant votes.

There were so many ignorant Democrat votes, brought on by Democrat politicians, which was one problem source.

The other problem were the ignorant Republican votes, brought on by the Republican politicians.

Not to be outdone, there were ignorant Independent votes, which might've been the more intelligent than the ignorant Democrat and the ignorant Republican votes.

I wish that there was an intelligence requirement for those who wish to vote, along with waivers available for those who don't make the grade.

Maybe then, the politicians would not be able to depend on blind allegiance along with the ignorance of the voters get elected.

As a conservative, I can still respect the opposition, as long as they present their views intelligently (i.e., refraining from such ignorant slogans as "Anyone but Bush").

As a concerned patriot, I hope that in future elections,the voters will study the issues before casting a vote. Vote with care and if in doubt, refrain from voting on issues in question. Just like your right to vote, you also have a right to refrain from voting.

Trailscout

05-16-2005, 10:25 PM

I worked with a team of people who provided touch screen support and their committment to accuracy, and zero-tolerance for hardware failures was impressive. I saw first-hand how two different counties, one rural, one urban each took great pains to safeguard the vote.

I resent all the slanderous accusations being hurled at election workers.

And changing the subject slightly, I am equally disappointed that moderates in both major parties are being shoved aside by the radical left and radical right.

I sincerely think we would have been better off with Joe Lieberman as our president, maybe Dick Gephart as well. These guys in the middle made a lot more sense than either party's leaders.

KirkOntario

05-17-2005, 04:28 AM

hm0504

05-17-2005, 11:46 AM

KirkOntario, as I recall, you have only criticized Clinton and the Democrats in your posts. Does that make you a Clinton-hater and a Democrat-hater?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
]

I do not recall Naturist Mark ever saying he has "a passionate hatred for Bush and the Republicans". Unless Naturist Mark agrees that he does or you can provide a reference to such a statement by him, I would say that your remark violates the TOS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is very clear that he has demonstrated such feelings. 91 posts about Bush with attendant lack of admiration! There is no violation of the TOS here. Those feelings are fine. He's entitled to feel that way. It's just that such feelings tend to cloud one's judgment and then we see the bookie theories shopped about the internet. . It's the comforting thoughts such as 'Bush lied' or 'Bush stole the election' that are the most interesting to me as they are the problem for people with these views. I like to see what makes wild conspiracy type arguments so appealing. There's a different theory every week. We saw the same stuff on Clinton when he was president from the other side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trailscout

05-17-2005, 12:00 PM

There are some serious issues to be debated. Democrats could gain a lot of ground if they spent more time focusing on energy independence, alternative fuels, border protection, environmental conservation, protecting mission-critical technologies and manufacturing, and retraining America's workforce just to name a few issues.

Instead they have gotten bogged down in personal attacks, promoting the planned economy and European-style centralized bureaucracy agenda, pork barrel programs (as does the GOP).

And neither party has given much hope to nudists. Sen. Leahy of VT being a notable exception.

KirkOntario

05-17-2005, 06:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
KirkOntario, as I recall, you have only criticized Clinton and the Democrats in your posts. Does that make you a Clinton-hater and a Democrat-hater?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton was a bad man. Betrayed friends, dishonored his wife, lied to his country. Sold out his party's beliefs. Yes I rather dislike Clinton very much. Clinton the man I dislike due to his character.

Democrats are so wrong headed, so wrong on so many issues I do not like them either. Again, in this political times I dislike them intensely. I dislike their ideas.

Naturist Mark

05-17-2005, 08:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
Mark - I took the time to follow every one of those links, and I read a substantial amount of the information on each site. You said there is "PLENTY" of evidence of voter fraud, but none of those links on any of those sites provided any. What we got were lots of possibiltiies (Bush COULD have done this, touch-screen machines COULD be programmed to help Bush, etc), but no concerete, solid facts. Seriously, give me one documented, actual account of voter fraud. I'll gladly admit you're correct if you can PROVE that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you see what is happening? When asked for EVIDENCE of election fraud (not voter fraud - in election fraud it is the voters who are defrauded), I provided links with an abundence of evidence. Then the complaint is made that the evidence is not PROOF.

Proof would be nice. Proof requires a determined official examination of the evidence - something which has been shut down every time it has been attempted.

Representative John Conyers, a member of the Judiciary committee, tried to hold official hearings in Congress, which was not permitted by the congressional leadership, he was only able to hold unofficial hearings that were boycotted by his Republican colleagues. He attempted to hold public hearings at the State Capital in Columbus Ohio, and was denied permission to meet on public property. He invited his Republican colleagues to join him in a bipartisan forum to listen to Ohio voter's allegations of election fraud, and they refused. The meetings that did take place were informational, but not official government investigations. Still Conyers and his staff, along with many others did do as thorough an investigation as they could without access to Congressional and official resources. Here is their report (PDF 102 pages): Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf)

-Mark

Torrignani

05-17-2005, 08:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Do you see what is happening? When asked for EVIDENCE of election fraud (not voter fraud - in election fraud it is the voters who are defrauded), I provided links with an abundence of evidence. Then the complaint is made that the evidence is not PROOF.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough point. So where's the evidence? Bush could have cheated. Bush had a motivation to cheat. Bush won some Democratic counties in Florida. Ok, so you call that evidence? You're right, it isn't proof, and it's really not even evidence. Your argument amounts to nothing more than empty, hollow accusations. Show some sort of evidence machines were unfairly manipulated. Sure, it COULD have happened, but the possibility of something happening is not evidence that it did happen.

Once again, I read all the links you provided with an open mind, but it amounted to nothing more than empty rhetoric and wishful thinking. And as for Congressional hearings, even liberal Democrats like Barack Obama and others said the Ohio vote was legit. Conyers is an extremist and always has been. Luckily, cooler heads in the Democratic party prevailed to prevent a hearing that would have done further damage to his already worthless reputation.

Naturist Mark

05-17-2005, 08:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
These suggestions of electoral fraud are a very dangerous game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To remain silent about election fraud is a far more dangerous game and represents the death of democracy.

The demand that people remain silent about grievences and corruption for "the greater good" is an invitation to tyranny.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dissent2.jpg

-Mark

Naturist Mark

05-17-2005, 08:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
Conyers is an extremist and always has been. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You realize that is not a refutation, it is ad hominem - a disparagement of the person rather than his argument.

-Mark

Torrignani

05-17-2005, 08:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
Conyers is an extremist and always has been. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You realize that is not a refutation, it is ad hominem - a disparagement of the person rather than his argument.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant rebuttal to my argument. I think I speak for the entire Clothes Free Forum community when I say you have sufficiently proven that you understand what an ad hominem attack is. Congratulations.

As for Conyers, there is really nothing worthy of an intelligent response in his arguments. You know, it's interesting: the Democratic document on Ohio election irregularities comments again and again on the long lines and general chaotic conditions in the precincts that voted for Kerry. But the Democratics then should have no one to blame but members of their own party: if they were heavily Democratic precincts, they had predominantly Democrats running the polling places. If there was ineffiency, lack of food, "claustrophobic conditions" (I shed a tear reading this one), blame the local Democrats who ran the polling place, not some grandiose Karl rove-inspired conspiracy to defraud Democratic voters.

KirkOntario

05-17-2005, 09:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
These suggestions of electoral fraud are a very dangerous game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To remain silent about election fraud is a far more dangerous game and represents the death of democracy.

The demand that people remain silent about grievences and corruption for "the greater good" is an invitation to tyranny.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/dissent2.jpg

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That fellow in the your picture always looks like he's had about 6 ounces of liquor in short order.

The state of Ohio investigated these complaints. Of course the conspiracy theory is fed by the fact the fellow was Republican so I know your reply. Every fact fits the conspiracy theory one way or another.. That's why they are so compelling. There was nothing out the ordinary on Election Day 2004. Election day is always chaos. You have how many 100,000 vote margin was it to discredit. YOu can't do it.

Frankly one of the thing Americans could learn from Canadians is our paper system, uniform across the country that appears to give a pretty rapid answer on 'who won'. Elections Canada runs it. Never understood why Americans use machines and punchcards and all that.

Naturist Mark

05-18-2005, 05:32 AM

It is very easy to dismiss inconvenient evidence as 'conspiracy theories', that is a very popular tactic these days. How about examining facts? Looking at evidence?

Let's see what the results of official public investitgations of the Ohio election found. Oops, there were none. Let's see what the Justice department found in its criminal investigation of electoral fraud by the Ohio Secretary of State. Ooops, there was none.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">he Democratic document on Ohio election irregularities comments again and again on the long lines and general chaotic conditions in the precincts that voted for Kerry. But the Democratics then should have no one to blame but members of their own party: if they were heavily Democratic precincts, they had predominantly Democrats running the polling places. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you aware that it is not the political parties who run elections in Ohio? It is the Secretary of States office that makes the rules, that establishes and supervises and directs the activities of the county election commissions. Neither party is allowed to "run the polling places", but the Secretary of State's office is run on a very partisan basis.

Extra Points Question: do you know what Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's "other job" was during the 2004 election?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly one of the thing Americans could learn from Canadians is our paper system, uniform across the country that appears to give a pretty rapid answer on 'who won'. Elections Canada runs it. Never understood why Americans use machines and punchcards and all that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Clean elections do not require high technology, just an open and honestly run system.

-Mark

hm0504

05-18-2005, 06:45 AM

Adding to KirkOntario's point, in Canada, people vote by marking an X on a paper ballot which is then read by an electronic ballot reader. The ballots, of course, leave a paper trail that can be audited if the electronic results are in dispute.

Trailscout

05-18-2005, 06:45 AM

When Democrats capture the public imagination with fresh ideas and inspiring leadership, they will win elections, even with a little bit of mischief done against them and precious little has been proven of that.

Herman Cain is on a nationwide book tour, promoting "They Think You're Stupid" and he's offered an appraisal of the performance of both major parties that is fair to both. No one escapes the woodshed!

Trailscout

05-18-2005, 06:47 AM

HM, I like that Canadian ballot. I'm going to cast my vote in Canada next election.

If we can buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, maybe we should let them handle our elections as well.

hm0504

05-18-2005, 08:12 AM

Actually, I think it would be a good idea for all democracies to bring in foreign observers(operating under strict guidelines) to monitor elections and ensure that their processes are both transparent and followed.

hm0504

05-18-2005, 08:37 AM

Anyone watch clips from the Senate hearing into the Oil for Food program when they were interviewing British MP George Galloway (one of the accused). Here's a CNN synopsis...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/18/oil.food/index.html

Naturist Mark

05-18-2005, 03:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
When Democrats capture the public imagination with fresh ideas and inspiring leadership, they will win elections, even with a little bit of mischief </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying that the Democrats should just shut up about election fraud and accept that they have to win by an extra large margin (6 to 10%) in order to take office?

Actually, the Democrats HAVE pretty much shut up. It's the Greens and Libertarians who are really pushing for fair elections.

-Mark

Trailscout

05-18-2005, 05:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
So you are saying that the Democrats should just shut up about election fraud and accept that they have to win by an extra large margin (6 to 10%) in order to take office?

Actually, the Democrats HAVE pretty much shut up. It's the Greens and Libertarians who are really pushing for fair elections.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, they have every right to investigate fraud, but I am saying that they will win more public approval by concentrating their efforts on having a platform that is socially moderate, in keeping with mainstream America's conservatism, but have a platform that offers innovative solutions for energy, environment, immigration, committed to hold lobbyists at arm's length, committed to budget reform and fiscal restraint. Things like that.

But, yes there's no harm in insisting on recounts in controversial precincts.

Torrignani

05-18-2005, 07:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Are you aware that it is not the political parties who run elections in Ohio? It is the Secretary of States office that makes the rules, that establishes and supervises and directs the activities of the county election commissions. Neither party is allowed to "run the polling places", but the Secretary of State's office is run on a very partisan basis.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But the actual individual precincts are run by volunteers or elected officials. In heavily Democratic areas, these will be Democrats. I realize they have no control over machine distribution and things like that, but in terms of the organization of the specific polling place - that is in the hands of the locals. If they are poorly run, blame the Democrats in the local precincts for not being efficient.

Another point - if the election machines were so unfairly distributed (supposedly to force longer waits in Democratic areas), why was nothing mentioned before the election? Why only after the election - when Kerry lost - was all this brought up? The congressional paper even documents that they knew about the machine distribution beforehand - why wait till after the fact to make a fuss?

And as for the supposed lack of investigation - not every claim and accusation is worthy of investigation. What if I claim you killed Elvis because your name is Mark and you're a naturist - should a full-fledged investigation be undertaken simply because I made a claim of wrongdoing? Maybe the Ohio election officials, including Blackwell, did not entertain many of these accusations because there's no evidence at all to support them, thus making them unworthy of investigation. So far there's been no evidence other than theoretical speculation, and the time and fuss of an inquiry is really not warranted...

NudistGuy47

05-18-2005, 07:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Extra Points Question: do you know what Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's "other job" was during the 2004 election? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chairman of the Ohio Committee to Re-Elect GW Bush

Naturist Mark

05-18-2005, 08:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
if the election machines were so unfairly distributed (supposedly to force longer waits in Democratic areas), why was nothing mentioned before the election? Why only after the election - when Kerry lost - was all this brought up? The congressional paper even documents that they knew about the machine distribution beforehand - why wait till after the fact to make a fuss? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did act beforehand. Many precinct and ward captains throughout the state complained about "unusual" and discriminatory voter machine allocations. They even sued in Federal court under HAVA (the Help America Vote Act) in Franklin County Ohio (Columbus) alleging that minority precincts were being intentionally deprived of machines. The election director, Matt Damschroder, misinformed a federal court when he testified the county had no additional voting machines – when in fact he knew that there were an additional 81 voting machines that were being held unused in storage.

Thoughout the State there were consistent patterns of overallocation of voting machines in affluent Republican precincts and underallocation in minority and strongly Democratic precincts. Here's a rundown of what happened in Franklin County: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> An analysis (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112104W.shtml) of the Franklin County Board of Elections’ allocation of machines reveals a consistent pattern of providing fewer machines to the Democratic city of Columbus, with its Democratic mayor and uniformly Democratic city council, despite increased voter registration in the city. The result was an obvious disparity in machine allocations compared to the primarily Republican white affluent suburbs.

Franklin County had traditionally used a formula of one machine per 100 voters, with machine usage allowable up to 125 votes per machine. The County’s rationale is as follows: if it takes each voter five minutes to vote, 12 people an hour, 120 people in ten hours and the remaining three hours taken up moving people in and out of the voting machines.

Once a machine is recording 200 voters per machine, 100% over optimum use, the system completely breaks down. This causes long waits in long lines and potential voters leaving before casting their ballots, due to age, disability, work and family responsibilities.

A preliminary analysis by the Free Press shows six suburban polling places with 100 votes a machine or less, and only one in the city of Columbus meeting or falling under the guideline.

The legendary affluent Republican enclave of Upper Arlington has 34 precincts. No voting machines in this area cast more than 200 votes per machine. Only one, ward 6F, was over 190 votes at 194 on one machine. By contrast, 39 Columbus city polling machines had more than 200 votes per machine and 42 were over 190 votes per machine. This means 17% of Columbus’ machines were operating at 90-100% over optimum capacity while in Upper Arlington the figure was 3%.

In the Democratic stronghold of Columbus 139 of the 472 precincts had at least one and up to five fewer machine than in the 2000 presidential election. Two of Upper Arlington’s 34 precincts lost at least one machine. In the 2004 presidential election, 29% of Columbus’ precincts, despite a massive increase in voter registration and turnout, had fewer machines than in 2000. In Upper Arlington, 6% had fewer machines in 2004 One of those precincts had a 25% decline in voter registration and the other had a 1% increase. Compare that to Columbus ward 1B, where voter registration went up 27%, but two machines were taken away in the 2004 election. Or look at 23B where voter registration went up 22% and they lost two machines since the 2000 election, causing an average of 207 votes to be cast on each of the remaining machines. In the year 2000, only 97 votes were cast per machine in the precinct. Thus, in four years, the ward went from optimum usage to system failure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Mark

Naturist Mark

05-18-2005, 09:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
So far there's been no evidence other than theoretical speculation, and the time and fuss of an inquiry is really not warranted... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are report after report of verifiable facts that remain uninvestigated by officials. I've posted links to reading lists with hundreds of reports in previous posts. You dismiss them as theoretical speculation. Believe me, to the people on the ground here in Ohio, it wasn't theoretical.

-Mark

Torrignani

05-19-2005, 04:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

They did act beforehand. Many precinct and ward captains throughout the state complained about "unusual" and discriminatory voter machine allocations. They even sued in Federal court under HAVA (the Help America Vote Act) in Franklin County Ohio (Columbus) alleging that minority precincts were being intentionally deprived of machines. The election director, Matt Damschroder, misinformed a federal court when he testified the county had no additional voting machines – when in fact he knew that there were an additional 81 voting machines that were being held unused in storage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, so they DID have their day in court, and actually lost. If Damschroder "misinformed" the court, isn't that called perjury (you know, Clinton's expertise)? If there were evidence that he knowingly lied, wouldn't charges be brought against him? Or is the entire justice system involved in the plot to cover up this election fraud scheme in Ohio?

From the Democrat paper: "They used a formula not based on the number of registerd voters, but on past turnout in each precinct and the number of so-called active voters..." This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Using past turnout as a way to allocate machines is an entirely logical system.

Also from the paper: "...voters were required to wait in the rain." Awwwwwww. Poor little voters had to wait in the rain. Yep, this is the horrible election fraud that gave Bush the win in Ohio. Interestingly, the source for the information cited in the paper is "e-mails on file with the House Judiciary Committee." So a few people rattle off whiny e-mails and the Democrats take it as Gospel. I guess these are the same people who reported US soldiers flushing pages of the Quoran down the toilet...

Naturist Mark

05-19-2005, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Torrignani:
Oh, so they DID have their day in court, and actually lost. If Damschroder "misinformed" the court, isn't that called perjury (you know, Clinton's expertise)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed, and since it was in Federal Court it is up to the US Justice department to investigate and prosecute said perjury. Despite numerous complaints to Ashcroft (and now Gonzales), Justice has refused to even investigate.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
From the Democrat paper: "They used a formula not based on the number of registerd voters, but on past turnout in each precinct and the number of so-called active voters..." This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Using past turnout as a way to allocate machines is an entirely logical system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And what a spectacular failure it was, just as numerous election officials had predicted. They pointed out that voter registrations were way up and that this brand new allocation system was bound to produce just the chaos it did indeed produce. Again the result was obvious and predicted and happended just as expected. So yes, a reasonable system if the desired result was exactly what happened.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Also from the paper: "...voters were required to wait in the rain." Awwwwwww. Poor little voters had to wait in the rain. Yep, this is the horrible election fraud that gave Bush the win in Ohio. Interestingly, the source for the information cited in the paper is "e-mails on file with the House Judiciary Committee." So a few people rattle off whiny e-mails and the Democrats take it as Gospel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Now you are belittling the "poor little voters", very unworthy. There were thousands waiting for hours to vote, not a few. Even though the broadcast media did a very poor job of covering the election problems, it DID cover that. Everyone in Ohio knew about it, many of us saw it first hand. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess these are the same people who reported US soldiers flushing pages of the Quoran down the toilet... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Non sequitur. Are you suggesting some connection between election fraud in Ohio and prisoner abuse at Guantanamo? Or are you suggesting that the news media (and citizens) should shut up about both because even talking about illegal or immoral activities by those in authority can lead to unintended consequences? Are you saying "Be a good citizen and shut up"?

-Mark

missouriboy

05-19-2005, 06:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also from the paper: "...voters were required to wait in the rain." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, and no matter who wins or loses an election, the winners obviously conspired to make it rain only on those who voted for the losers... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

When a report contains such a nonsensical line like that, it makes you wonder what other points in that report are also nonsense.

hm0504

05-19-2005, 06:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
KirkOntario, as I recall, you have only criticized Clinton and the Democrats in your posts. Does that make you a Clinton-hater and a Democrat-hater?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton was a bad man. Betrayed friends, dishonored his wife, lied to his country. Sold out his party's beliefs. Yes I rather dislike Clinton very much. Clinton the man I dislike due to his character.

Democrats are so wrong headed, so wrong on so many issues I do not like them either. Again, in this political times I dislike them intensely. I dislike their ideas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so you call yourself a "disliker" while you call Naturist Mark, and others, "haters". I suggest you pick one word
(preferably "dislikers") for both you and your opponents on this forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As Jesus said:
Treat others as you would like them to treat you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naturist Mark

05-19-2005, 03:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also from the paper: "...voters were required to wait in the rain." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, and no matter who wins or loses an election, the winners obviously conspired to make it rain only on those who voted for the losers... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

When a report contains such a nonsensical line like that, it makes you wonder what other points in that report are also nonsense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone in their right mind argued that the rain was an anti-voter conspiracy. The reason many people did wait in the rain was because of the very long lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting machines in precincts with very high numbers of registrations - a problem that was well known well ahead of time, but not acted upon.

You should be applauding as heros those people who had the dedication (and ability) to wait for hours in the rain to exercise their responsibility to vote. And you should hound those who willingly allowed such a disgracefull state of affairs that it was necessary for so many to wait so long in order to exercise their franchise.

-Mark

missouriboy

05-20-2005, 05:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think anyone in their right mind argued that the rain was an anti-voter conspiracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, I'm sure you're right about that. But what about the guys in their left mind? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously, though, my comment was about whoever made the report... if they were grasping at straws to strengthen their point, that shows bias.

Torrignani

05-21-2005, 08:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Indeed, and since it was in Federal Court it is up to the US Justice department to investigate and prosecute said perjury. Despite numerous complaints to Ashcroft (and now Gonzales), Justice has refused to even investigate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to comment here since I don't know all the facts, but maybe there isn't any evidence of perjury, and maybe Damschroder didn't know about the machines. Making an incorrect statement and lying are two different things. It is very cynical of you to automatically assume the latter. Reminds me of Republicans during the Clinton years...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And what a spectacular failure it was, just as numerous election officials had predicted. They pointed out that voter registrations were way up and that this brand new allocation system was bound to produce just the chaos it did indeed produce. Again the result was obvious and predicted and happended just as expected. So yes, a reasonable system if the desired result was exactly what happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was a mistake, but that doesn't mean the reasoning was wrong. Basing machine allocation on past turnout is perfectly logical. Using the most recent election turnout is probably the best method - we can look back and criticize after the election, but it is very hard to find any sort of election fraud when they used a very valid method of distributing the machines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Non sequitur. Are you suggesting some connection between election fraud in Ohio and prisoner abuse at Guantanamo? Or are you suggesting that the news media (and citizens) should shut up about both because even talking about illegal or immoral activities by those in authority can lead to unintended consequences? Are you saying "Be a good citizen and shut up"?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm saying the Democrats, who rely on random e-mails for their paper, get factual information as well as Isakoff did for his story on the prisoner abuse (or lack thereof). Frankly, a Congressional paper loses significant credibility when it cites "e-mails" (without even naming the authors) as a source.

The point to all of this (attempting to crawl out from under the minutia), is that there is no evidence of election fraud. Were mistakes made? Perhaps. But there is no evidence of any conspiracy to sway the election for Bush. So some people had to wait in longer lines than others (they still had the opportunity to vote, did they not?). So some people had to stand out in the rain. I'll even give you misappropriation of machines based on past turnout. None of that is evidence of fraud. Once again, Democrats and liberals should think of new ways to appeal to voters, rather clinging to these vestiges of hope that they were somehow wronged in the election. Bush won, Kerry lost, and there is no evidence that it was an unfair election. Seriously, Mark, doesn't "progressive" imply forward-looking, rather than past-dwelling?

hm0504

06-05-2005, 03:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I agree. Annexing Canada would make a lot more sense.

Besides if you believe the live footage from the anti-Syrian protests in Beirut (estimated crowds 1/4 of total population of Lebanon), democracy is their cup of tea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CNN: "Syria's staunchest allies Hezbollah and Amal headed for a clean sweep in south Lebanon's polls on Sunday in the first general election since Syrian troops quit their smaller neighbor...", more at
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/05/lebanon.election.reut/index.html

Naturist Mark

06-13-2005, 06:40 PM

Fuel for "conspiracy theorists":

Page 1 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report1.gif)
page 2 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report2.gif)
page 3 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report3.gif)
page 4 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report4.gif)

1} Is it real?
2) Is it another fraud planted by Rove designed to blow up in Dan Rather's or the librrl mejah's face?

-Mark

KirkOntario

06-13-2005, 07:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Fuel for "conspiracy theorists":

Page 1 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report1.gif)
page 2 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report2.gif)
page 3 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report3.gif)
page 4 (http://radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/report4.gif)

1} Is it real?
2) Is it another fraud planted by Rove designed to blow up in Dan Rather's or the librrl mejah's face?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Another fraud" ?? -Rove didn't need to plant anything; gullible Bush-haters like Rather can find their own fraudulent material

Naturist Mark

06-13-2005, 07:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
"Another fraud" ?? -Rove didn't need to plant anything; gullible Bush-haters like Rather can find their own fraudulent material </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or be "Roved" into retracting truthful news.
http://www.glcq.com/
http://tinyurl.com/7w83z

-Mark

KirkOntario

06-14-2005, 04:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
"Another fraud" ?? -Rove didn't need to plant anything; gullible Bush-haters like Rather can find their own fraudulent material </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or be "Roved" into retracting truthful news.
http://www.glcq.com/
http://tinyurl.com/7w83z

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are referring to the Newsweek story that resulted in riots and deaths that was an untrue assertion that American soldiers flushed the Koran down the toilet that was false news and shoddy and untruthful reporting.

Naturist Mark

06-14-2005, 05:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
If you are referring to the Newsweek story that resulted in riots and deaths that was an untrue assertion that American soldiers flushed the Koran down the toilet that was false news and shoddy and untruthful reporting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, shoddy journalism. Their source was mistaken on the "flushed" part. According to the FBI report released last week Korans were thrown on the floor, kicked and stepped on and urinated on. But not "flushed". How very very irresponsible of Newsweek.

The point of the administration attack against Newsweek was that it shouldn't have even published TRUE reports of abuse. All for the greater good you understand.

-Mark

hm0504

06-14-2005, 06:48 AM

Remember too, Newsweek had the story fact-checked before publication by the Pentagon who gave it the OK. So KirkOntario is also implying the Pentagon did shoddy work on it too.

usuallylurk

06-14-2005, 06:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

The point of the administration attack against Newsweek was that it shouldn't have even published TRUE reports of abuse. All for the greater good you understand.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

</sarcasm>

Yes. Free speech is dangerous. In another thread on here, an AANR insider asked "how can AANR be improved?" and after a few comments, asked that the moderator remove some posts.

Dangerous. Just dangerous. Why, I remember when I was in high school and some kids spoke out against the Vietnam war and the school administration shut it down because it could affect attitudes....

</sarcasm off>

KirkOntario

06-14-2005, 06:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Remember too, Newsweek had the story fact-checked before publication by the Pentagon who gave it the OK. So KirkOntario is also implying the Pentagon did shoddy work on it too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is incorrect. The Pentagon does not fact check. They told the Pentagon a couple of days in advance, the Pentagon could not deny it as they have thousands of documents. Then they ran the story.

mark fails to distinguish against intentional acts and unintentional. it was inmates not guards who flushed the Koran, there were one of two incidents of accidental happenings involving the Koran that did occur.. there's a huge difference, it was a shoddy story that lied in claiming it had multiple sources when there was one incorrect one.

hm0504

06-14-2005, 06:57 PM

If the Pentagon could not verify that a certain part of the story was true, it should have notified Newsweek. My expectation is that the Pentagon knew the general gist of the story was true, which it was, and did not think the issue of whether the Koran was flushed down a toilet or not was not paramount. I imagine the riots would have happened anyway. This is not about one line in a newstory but the overall issues associated with Guantanamo Bay in general.

KirkOntario

06-14-2005, 07:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
If the Pentagon could not verify that a certain part of the story was true, it should have notified Newsweek. My expectation is that the Pentagon knew the general gist of the story was true, which it was, and did not think the issue of whether the Koran was flushed down a toilet or not was not paramount. I imagine the riots would have happened anyway. This is not about one line in a newstory but the overall issues associated with Guantanamo Bay in general. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It took them WEEKS to go though thousands of docs; they have no such obligation. You can't blame the Pentagon here. Good try though.

No it was a very serious allegations that led to riots and deaths. Newsweek knew that these were explosive allegations. Shoddy and irresponsible not to get more than one source and to get the correct information. They did not.

NudeAl

06-14-2005, 07:17 PM

Believe it or not the guys at the Pentagon have other things to do other than running all over the place to ascertain the truth of every news story in our society that gets published. Perhaps we should hire a private PR firm in order to get the benefit of a professional spin doctor? But alas we are but simple servicemen and women.

Naturist Mark

06-14-2005, 10:15 PM

And the point is ... Newsweek ran a story that was correct in most every detail. The White House blasted Newseek for shoddy journalism. Newsweek retracted the story.

An FBI report confirmed most of the details of the story.

The White House apologized for improperly criticizing Newsweek. Ummm no ... that last one never happened.

-Mark

jon71

06-14-2005, 11:39 PM

In different ways this has happened and been reported several times. Why this one became sensational and not others is a mystery. The white house just wants to shift attention away from their constant failures. Nothing new there either.

KirkOntario

06-15-2005, 03:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
And the point is ... Newsweek ran a story that was correct in most every detail. The White House blasted Newseek for shoddy journalism. Newsweek retracted the story.

An FBI report confirmed most of the details of the story.

The White House apologized for improperly criticizing Newsweek. Ummm no ... that last one never happened.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every detail except the most important one: what was intended. No American flushed the Koran, that would be heinous.

c'mon Mark, you can't defend bad journalism that leads to riots, and puts Americans abroad at risk. What sort of support for US troops is that? Surely not.

Naturist Mark

06-15-2005, 04:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Every detail except the most important one: what was intended. No American flushed the Koran, that would be heinous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What was confirmed is considered just as heinous, just go to Peshawar and ask anyone.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">c'mon Mark, you can't defend bad journalism that leads to riots, and puts Americans abroad at risk. What sort of support for US troops is that? Surely not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you are parrotting the administration. Under this doctrine we dare not report any misdeeds. No more truth in journalism. Self censorship and kowtowing to the administration is already rampant in the US media for this and other reasons.

Wouldn't it be better if out government didn't allow shameful conduct and policies?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond, or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure."
--Francis Bacon </div></BLOCKQUOTE> A mixture of lie doth add rot to the body and pestilence is sure to abound.

-Mark

KirkOntario

06-15-2005, 04:27 AM

Sorry Mark you are defending bad journalism again. Same as in the Bush CBS memos. Doesn't matter if they are fakes, 'we believe it's true.' Here you are saying you don't care what the actual facts are or what was intended, as a article of faith you believe the US is mistreating prisoners and are abusing their religion. No one has a right to call journalists on sensationalist and disregard for the facts. Are you not the least bit concerned they claimed to have multiple sources when they didn't? You think it is okay for journalists to lie to bolster their story and give it more crediblity?

NudeTopher

06-15-2005, 04:39 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Doesn't matter if they are fakes, 'we believe it's true.' Here you are saying you don't care what the actual facts are ...QUOTE]

Kirk, you are being a bit hypocritical here. You said the exact opposite in the chatroom. During an exchange with Unwired about gay people , you said that you didn't care what the facts, studies, and currently accepted beliefs illustrated---you believed differently based on "your feelings". When I saw that in the chat room history I saved that exchange. Would you like either Unwired or myself to post it? Funny-when it's something you don't care for the fact don't matter; when it's something that you care for the facts are absolute!

Naturist Mark

06-15-2005, 05:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry Mark you are defending bad journalism again. Same as in the Bush CBS memos. Doesn't matter if they are fakes, 'we believe it's true.' Here you are saying you don't care what the actual facts are or what was intended, as a article of faith you believe the US is mistreating prisoners and are abusing their religion. No one has a right to call journalists on sensationalist and disregard for the facts. Are you not the least bit concerned they claimed to have multiple sources when they didn't? You think it is okay for journalists to lie to bolster their story and give it more crediblity? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny you should mention the CBS memos. They may or may not have been forgeries, but the information they contained have been repeatedly shown to be true by US government documents (http://www.glcq.com/) - an inconvenient fact that the media has hardly covered. The Newsweek story has been confirmed in every detail except the 'flushing' by multiple sources now - including official US government sources. There are sources for the flushing story too - but not the solid ones initially claimed by Newsweek's inside informant. Sure both organizations should have caught every problem with the reliability of sources, but the facts remain that both the CBS and Newsweek stories have been confirmed in nearly every detail.

You and the administration are arguing against publishing even the truth if it creates difficulties. Even your signature quote follows that line A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

06-15-2005, 05:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
"Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond, or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure."
--Francis Bacon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So a mixture of lie doth ever add pleasure ... like "Fixing the facts around the policy" as described in the Downing Street Memo?

Real Media clip about how the "intelligence and facts" about Iraq were fixed around the administration decision to gin up a justification for war: Hijacking Catastrophe (http://play.rbn.com/?url=mediaed/mediaed/demand/smokinggun.rm&proto=rtsp)

-Mark

NudeTopher

06-15-2005, 06:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
"Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond, or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure."
--Francis Bacon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So a mixture of lie doth ever add pleasure ... -Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Others have suggested that this poster is a troll. Mark, doesn't this statement (admission) fit and confirm that analysis?

David77

06-15-2005, 07:18 AM

I tend not to believe that a Koran was flushed down a toilet, because, for one thing, a book can not be flushed down any toilet that I have ever seen, as a toilet passage-way is too small and tight for a book to pass through.
An old-fashioned non-flush privy toilet could contain a book in it's dump, but the article indicated that it was a flush toilet, as it stated that it was flushed down the toilet. Impossible! Preposterous! Absurd!

I have seen Korans at libraries and bookstores and I even bought a Koran in paperback years ago, as I am interested in all world religions, but I have never seen a very small edition of the Koran. The Koran is a book containing many pages.

I suspect the informant was misrepresenting (lying) to the reporter.

hm0504

06-15-2005, 07:47 AM

I agree with David77 that it would be technically hard to flush down a Koran down an average toilet. Apparently, the detainee who first made the allegation has now withdrawn it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050526/us_nm/security_guantanamo_koran_dc_6

Though that detail of the news story may be incorrect, the Pentagon has confirmed "that soldiers and interrogators kicked the Muslim holy book, got copies wet, stood on a Koran during an interrogation and inadvertently sprayed urine on another copy" (see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2005060301654.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301654.html)). It would seem to me that any of these actual mishandlings would have provoked the same reaction as the false "being flushed down a toilet" one.

I have no doubt that the Pentagon recognizes that such incidents, as well as those at Abu Graib, are seen as attacks on Islam by Muslims. And that these attacks make the military and political aims of the United States that much harder to achieve.

The problem is that in a large war like that going on, a certain amount of bad stuff is going to happen. And, on the other side of the equation is the fact that you have 1.3 Billion Muslims, of whom, a significant percentage is going to react very badly when this sort of stuff happens due to the nature of modern Islamism. This is, unfortunately, one of the major nuances of the current strategy on the war on terror. My gut feeling is that the Whitehouse (note I'm NOT say the Pentagon), profoundly failed to consider the gravity of Muslim sensitivites in its Iraq strategy. By assuming Iraq would be a piece of cake, the critical resources needed to fully secure Afghanistan were redirected while at the same time fueling Muslim anger at the U.S.

Qikdraw

06-15-2005, 03:27 PM

This is from a October 21, 2003 blog froma girl called Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/). (bolded parts are my emphasis)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Demonstrations in Baghdad...
Thousands were demonstrating today- I think near the Ministry of Oil (though someone said it was somewhere else). There were even women demonstarting because a female has been detained for refusing to have her bag checked by the troops... The troops began firing into the air and fighting suddenly broke out between the mob and some troops... we still don't know what's happening.

- posted by river @ 3:05 PM

Civilization...
I heard some more details about the demonstration today… The whole situation was outrageous and people are still talking about it.

Ever since the occupation, employees of the Ministry of Oil are being searched by troops- and lately, dogs. The employees have been fed up… the ministry itself is a virtual fortress now with concrete, barbed wire and troops. The employees stand around for hours at a time, waiting to be checked and let inside. Iraqis have gotten accustomed to the 'security checks'. The checks are worse on the females than they are on the males because we have to watch our handbags rummaged through and sometimes personal items pulled out and examined while dozens of people stand by, watching.

Today, one of the women who work at the ministry, Amal, objected when the troops brought forward a dog to sniff her bag. She was carrying a Quran inside of it and to even handle a Quran, a Muslim has to be 'clean' or under 'widhu'. 'Widhu' is the process of cleansing oneself for prayer or to read from the Quran. We simply wash the face, neck, arms up to the elbows and feet with clean water and say a few brief 'prayers'. Muslims carry around small Qurans for protection and we've been doing it more often since the war- it gives many people a sense of security. It doesn't not mean the person is a 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist'.

As soon as Amal protested about letting the dog sniff her bag because of the Quran inside, the soldier grabbed the Quran, threw it out of the bag and proceeded to check it. The lady was horrified and the dozens of employees who were waiting to be checked moved forward in a rage at having the Quran thrown to the ground. Amal was put in hand-cuffs and taken away and the raging mob was greeted with the butts of rifles.

The Iraqi Police arrived to try to intervene, and found the mob had increased in number because it had turned from a security check into a demonstration. One of the stations showed police officers tearing off their "IP" badge- a black arm badge to identify them as Iraqi Police and shouting at the camera, "We don't want the badge- we signed up to help the people, not see our Quran thrown to the ground…"

Some journalists say that journalists' cameras were confiscated by the troops…

This is horrible. It made my blood boil just hearing about it- I can't imagine what the people who were witnessing it felt. You do not touch the Quran. Why is it so hard to understand that some things are sacred to people?!

How would the troops feel if Iraqis began flinging around Holy Bibles or Torahs and burning crosses?! They would be horrified and angry because you do not touch a person's faith…

But that's where the difference is: the majority of Iraqis have a deep respect for other cultures and religions… and that's what civilization is. It's not mobile phones, computers, skyscrapers and McDonalds; It's having enough security in your own faith and culture to allow people the sanctity of theirs… </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The facts are that the US troops have been abusing the Quran for awhile now. This is not a new thing. What this administration needs to do is make sure that the troops on the ground are aware of the stregnth of muslims belief with regards to the Quran. A little respect will go a long way.

What the US has documented at Guantanimo and other places that have had the Quran kicked, urinated on, etc... are deliberate acts to provoke the detainees. Its a form of torture. Its despicable, and should not be allowed, nor tolerated.

Qikdraw

hm0504

06-15-2005, 04:05 PM

I think the problem is that there is a matter/anti-matter clash between necessary, critical security requirements and the religious/cultural beliefs of Iraqi citizens. Maybe others are more creative than I am but I do not think there is any way around this.

In Canada or the United States, the government could require such strict security measures. I tend to think of the issues wrt airport machines that present a picture of the passenger's body. Frankly, I think my right not to be blown up overrides someone else's right to body privacy.

America wants to secure Iraq but to do so requires measures that antagonize the core religious/cultural beliefs of many there ... thus destabilizing the country even more. Problem is America must impose American values on Iraq while at the same time not imposing American values because it does not want to be seen as an occupier. As I said, seems like an intractable situation.

NudeAl

06-15-2005, 05:02 PM

This recent debate about what did or did not happen to the Koran highlights the differences in our cultures. One isn't necessarily better than the other but unfortunately we don't interact well. One is rooted in the teachings of religious principles developed hundreds and even thousands of years ago and one is, well for lack of a better term more modern and I dare say secular in nature. We need to be sensitive to the indigenous culture to be sure. But, we need to be able to protect ourselves and our young men and women from attacks. When it comes right down to it I would prefer that some ones sensibilities were hurt as opposed to someone telling some parent that there son or daughter was killed due to a suicide bomber. Precautions must be taken. I assume that the workers at the facilities were familiar with the drill i.e. they would be searched and they would continue to have this happen as long as the U.S. was responsible for the security of the facility. I doubt anyone here, if they were placed in this situation, would object to their persons being searched. As to the Koran being thrown on the ground I doubt this is true. It more likely fell on the ground.

As to the situation in our various prisons where the prisoners of the current war are being held. I have no problem with us trying to maintain the rules of the Geneva convention, even though we aren't obligated to since the other side is not a signatory, but don't fool yourself. The enemy will continue to chop off the heads of it's prisoners, both military and civilians. So until we start chopping heads off their prisoners I think we are taking the high road. I personally would be in favor of more aggressive treatment of these prisoners, if it could be shown that it would pay off in Intel. Case in point the military recently, in the last year or so, began court martial proceedings against a commander who during an interrogation of a prisoner placed his sidearm against the side of the head of a prisoner who was captured under suspicious circumstances. This prisoner was then motivated enough to tell of an impending attack against these troops, subsequently the attack was then thwarted. Once higher HQ was informed of this commanders actions he was relieved of command and read his rights and had to go through court martial proceedings. He was formally reprimanded and forced into early retirement. But I can tell you if he was my C. O. I would feel very grateful indeed.

My point is that the media is a business and they, more often than not, report the stories they think will generate revenue. This means the more sensational the story the more likely it will be reported. Remember the old series Dragnet? Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. I wish, more like never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. I don't mind them only reporting bad news. I mean, I understand they are in the news business and they need to make money. But, when they start telling lies to make money and put my life or any other servicemen's lives at risk in the process I take offense. I know, I know, I'm just being selfish and petty wanting to live to see tomorrow. Sigh,

KirkOntario

06-16-2005, 04:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
My point is that the media is a business and they, more often than not, report the stories they think will generate revenue. This means the more sensational the story the more likely it will be reported. Remember the old series Dragnet? Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. I wish, more like never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. I don't mind them only reporting bad news. I mean, I understand they are in the news business and they need to make money. But, when they start telling lies to make money and put my life or any other servicemen's lives at risk in the process I take offense. I know, I know, I'm just being selfish and petty wanting to live to see tomorrow. Sigh, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KirkOntario

06-16-2005, 05:03 PM

Now here's a 'blast' for the US from a 'loyal' democrat. One of your US senators compared America to Hitler's Germany, Stalin gulags and Pol Pot for fiddling with the airconditioning at Gitmo'. Here's the face of the left these days: anti-America, they compare it to an evil regime, anti-war, and no matter who the enemy is or how humane Americans are they the US is like an evil regime. What conclusions can you draw from Senator's Durbin statements? That the US should be defeated?

http://www.kotv.com/main/home/storiesNL.asp?whichpage=1&id=85069 (http://www.kotv.com/main/home/storiesNL.asp?whichpage=1&id=85069)

We can thank Newsweek for getting to this Durbin comment. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Naturist Mark

06-16-2005, 06:32 PM

What Sen. Durbin said (http://www.sj-r.com/extras/release/Gitmofloorstatement061405.htm):

The administration also established a new interrogation policy that allows cruel and inhuman interrogation techniques.

Remember what Secretary of State Colin Powell said? It is not a matter of following the law because we said we would, it is a matter of how our troops will be treated in the future. That is something often overlooked here. If we want standards of civilized conduct to be applied to Americans captured in a warlike situation, we have to extend the same manner and type of treatment to those whom we detain, our prisoners.

Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive interrogation tactics against prisoners in Guantanamo. The Red Cross concluded that the use of those methods was "a form of torture."

The United States, which each year issues a human rights report, holding the world accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the same outrageous conduct when it comes to these prisoners.

Numerous FBI agents who observed interrogations at Guantanamo Bay complained to their supervisors. In one e-mail that has been made public, an FBI agent complained that interrogators were using “torture techniques.”

That phrase did not come from a reporter or politician. It came from an FBI agent describing what Americans were doing to these prisoners.

With no input from Congress, the administration set aside our treaty obligations and secretly created new rules for detention and interrogation. They claim the courts have no right to review these rules. But under our Constitution, it is Congress's job to make the laws, and the court's job to judge whether they are constitutional.

This administration wants all the power: legislator, executive, and judge. Our founding father were warned us about the dangers of the Executive Branch violating the separation of powers during wartime. James Madison wrote: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Other Presidents have overreached during times of war, claiming legislative powers, but the courts have reined them back in. During the Korean war, President Truman, faced with a steel strike, issued an Executive order to seize and operate the Nation's steel mills. The Supreme Court found that the seizure was an unconstitutional infringement on the Congress’s lawmaking power. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said: “The Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make the laws which the President is to execute ... The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good times and bad.”

To win the war on terrorism, we must remain true to the principles upon which our country was founded. This Administration’s detention and interrogation policies are placing our troops at risk and making it harder to combat terrorism.

Former Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida, a man I call a good friend and a man I served with in the House of Representatives, is a unique individual. He is one of the most cheerful people you would ever want to meet. You would never know, when you meet him, he was an Air Force pilot taken prisoner of war in Vietnam and spent 6 1/2 years in a Vietnamese prison. Here is what he said about this issue in a letter that he sent to me. Pete Peterson wrote:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> From my 6 1/2 years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like. To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival....This is one reason the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us....We need absolute clarity that America will continue to set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime. [/list]

Abusive detention and interrogation policies make it much more difficult to win the support of people around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world. The war on terrorism is not a popularity contest, but anti-American sentiment breeds sympathy for anti-American terrorist organizations and makes it far easier for them to recruit young terrorists.

Polls show that Muslims have positive attitudes toward the American people and our values. However, overall, favorable ratings toward the United States and its Government are very low. This is driven largely by the negative attitudes toward the policies of this administration.

Muslims respect our values, but we must convince them that our actions reflect these values. That’s why the 9/11 Commission recommended: “We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors.”

What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin Powell's advice and respected our treaty obligations. How would things have been different?

We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate them aggressively. Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war. We would be able to do everything we need to do to keep our country safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in the international community in the process.

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor. [/list]

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course.

Sen. Durbin has been clear in stating that he blaims the administration for changing the policies about treatment of prisoners and the decision to forego following the Geneva Conventions, that those decisions were not made by the military, and would NOT have been made by the military leadership. Those decisions have done little except increase the danger our troops face.

-Mark