# War use for campaigning



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

Question to those who are more Historically versed:

In election history has the criticism surrounding Bush about using the Irag/Agh war/911 stuff happened before?  I would think that it was a valid demonstration of his abilities or the lack of them.  People are using that part of his time in office to create discredit, why should they argue that he can't use it to create credibility?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 11, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I would think that it was a valid demonstration of his abilities or the lack of them. People are using that part of his time in office to create discredit, why should they argue that he can't use it to create credibility?


I am surprised he is using the images. Although, it could show that he has the courage of his convictions, which is what I think they are trying to show, I think it also could have a negative impact.

As Sandy Berger told Condalesa Rice that their administration would spend more time focusing on terrorism in general, and Osama Bin Laden in particular 10 months before September 11, I find it odd that the Bush administration wants to draw these events to our attention. In the first 9 months of the Bush presidency, his administration did very little to address terrorism. Word is, that Bill Clinton asked his National Security People to assemble a plan to engage Bin Laden in Afghanistan late in his second term. When the plan was finalized, it wasn't launched, because he would be handing an incoming adminstration a war.

I hope the Bush Re-election committees continue to push these events. I think they require closer inspection, very close inspection.

Bush, Cheney, Clinton & Gore have all agreed to speak to the 911 investigation committee. I am looking forward to the results.

Mike


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 11, 2004)

Personally, I feel using such a tragedy for personal gain is sickening.  And I would be just as upset if it were Kerry doing it.


----------



## Ender (Mar 11, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> Personally, I feel using such a tragedy for personal gain is sickening.  And I would be just as upset if it were Kerry doing it.



What about Kerry using his "Viet Nam war veteran" status?...does that sicken you too?

War or threatening war has mixed reactions and consequences. Some argue that Kennedy escaladed the missile crisis in Cuba to cover up the bumbling of the Bay of Pigs incident. Others say that by not taking action in Iran during the hostage crisis was what did Carter in. Or that Nixon, by not ending the war sooner got poor public opinion, while Johnson who intesified the war got no reaction.Then we have GW Sr. who got alot of credit for the liberation of Kuwait, but that didn't really translate into any gains in his re-election campaign. So sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.*shrug


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 11, 2004)

1. the vietnam war is not a national tragedy.  some would argue that it was a rather boneheaded military strategy, but not a tragedy.

2.  9-11 is still so fresh in people's minds and hearts that using it for political gain can bring nothing but hurt.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 11, 2004)

I think they should "show it every day", to quote Darrell Warrely <sp>.

I think people have forgotten all too quickly actually. Esp. the Dem's who couldn't wait to hop on the anti-war bandwagon.


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think they should "show it every day", to quote Darrell Warrely <sp>.
> 
> I think people have forgotten all too quickly actually. Esp. the Dem's who couldn't wait to hop on the anti-war bandwagon.



there is a distinct difference between viewing the footage as a reminder, and using the footage for political gain.  I don't feel people should prosper from an event such as this.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 11, 2004)

Bush's use of a national tragedy in a political advertisment is a travesty. Even his supporters feel it is dispicable. I don't have a problem with him using the war if he thinks it will help, espcially considering he created that war entirely. I don't have problem with Kerry using his military history because it's truthful. I didn't much like Bush Sr., but one thing I really respected about him was his military action in WWII. 

I see Ender's point about military history or actions not always having an effect on an election, but this ad was not about a military action, it was about exploiting a national tragedy. It really cemented my anti-Bush status.


----------



## Rick Wade (Mar 11, 2004)

If we remember past President we remember them for what they did or didn't do. President Carter got a bone job Hostages in Iran his administration planned the rescue however it happened on Reagans Time.  Nixon Impeachment.  Bush War on Terrorism.  I think Bush should be aloud to use it but maybe he shouldn't use the images of the Towers there were allot of lives lost that day.  Now before The Military personnel get going I am in the Military and have been to both Dessert Storm and Iraqi Freedom and I will say that That is our job we chose it and If you don't like it get out.  We are getting more recognition now than we ever have in history.  I guess my best advise would be President Bush be careful what you choose when showing the War on Terrorism it hits close to home.

Thanks

Rick


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

I wasn't originally meaning the 911 images in the advertising as much as the mention/criticism of his war policies in relation to Afg and Irag.  It is all related though.  I think associating the emotional tragedy with the Pres. is a possible reaction, but I don't think it is a logical one.  If the POTUS uses the images in campaigns to demonstrate his competency (I didn't say I agreed or disagreed), then I think it is valid.  Personally, I get upset when I see those images too, but I remember that the cause of the tragedy was a handful of terrorists who hijacked jets.  I don't want to 'shoot the messanger' just because Bush is awakening those emotions through his campaigin.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think they should "show it every day", to quote Darrell Warrely <sp>.
> 
> I think people have forgotten all too quickly actually. Esp. the Dem's who couldn't wait to hop on the anti-war bandwagon.


Which 'Anti-War' bandwagon is that? 
The Axis of Evil, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons, Imminent Threat to America, Smoking Gun in the form of a Mushroom Cloud, there's a clear Iraqi-Al Qaeda allience Band-wagon?

The 1 Billion Dollar a Week, Halliburton No-Bid Contract, CIA Covert Agent Exposing. Arab Democracy, Mission Accomplished Band-wagon?

Please. - Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 11, 2004)

"If we remember past President we remember them for what they did or didn't do."

Thanks for bringing back the historical aspect to the thread


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Which 'Anti-War' bandwagon is that?
> The Axis of Evil, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons, Imminent Threat to America, Smoking Gun in the form of a Mushroom Cloud, there's a clear Iraqi-Al Qaeda allience Band-wagon?
> 
> The 1 Billion Dollar a Week, Halliburton No-Bid Contract, CIA Covert Agent Exposing. Arab Democracy, Mission Accomplished Band-wagon?
> ...




Yup. Especially them. Those not in touch with reality. Those are just the type who forget.

The reason a Democrat can't put an ad on TV with 9/11 footage is because they are not for defense spending. An tragedy like that is just a Fact-of-Life sort of thing to them. Maybe it could have been avoided if we all hugged a radical Muslim more often. Pu-lease. The President's approval ratings were the nearly the highest in our nation's history all due to how he handled 9/11. Why wouldn't he mention that day?


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 12, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> there is a distinct difference between viewing the footage as a reminder, and using the footage for political gain.  I don't feel people should prosper from an event such as this.



Then I suppose you don't think Kerry should mention how he voted on the issue either?

So it is your doctrine that all such occurrences are to be stricken from political debate and campaigning?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 12, 2004)

I realize that it's comforting to turn one's brain off and emulate that Michael Savage character, living in a world where everybody who disagrees with you Hates America and Is Filled With Psychotic Rage, where Democrats Are Un-American and Hate the Military, where Liberals Are Supporters of Al-Quaida and Probably Communist Lesbianism Too, where Teachers Are Brainwashing Our Children to Smoke Crack and Spit on the Flag, where Everybody Who Isn't A Protestant Will Be Tortured in Everlasting Hellfire, but this is ********.

I could go on about the military-industrial complex, but hell, y'all know about the military-industrial complex. 

As a teacher, I just wish some of you folks were better-educated, or even better, willing to go out and actually read the stuff you keep complaining about. (It continues to fascinate me that I know far, far more about the right-wing and conservative world of ideas than the right-wingers and conservatives on this forum know about my little intellectual world--because believe me, y'all haven't a frickin' clue.) I wish you'd at least try to get a grip on what's actually happening, on our collective history, and on who's sticking it to you--because it sure ain't me, babe. Or anybody like me. Or even John Kerry, not my first choice for Prez by any means. 

I guess it's too painful to look at reality. Oh well. I often feel the same way.

As you get pissed and write back angrily, a note: the way some of you guys talk about your fellow countrymen and women, about differing ideas, about civil rights, is scary on a level I haven't seen in thirty years or more. Congratulations for repudiating most of the country's best ideals.

It's a democracy, kids. We have a Bill of Rights. None of this means that only YOUR ideas are allowed. Get used to it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I realize that it's comforting to turn one's brain off and emulate that Michael Savage character, living in a world where everybody who disagrees with you Hates America and Is Filled With Psychotic Rage, where Democrats Are Un-American and Hate the Military, where Liberals Are Supporters of Al-Quaida and Probably Communist Lesbianism Too, where Teachers Are Brainwashing Our Children to Smoke Crack and Spit on the Flag, where Everybody Who Isn't A Protestant Will Be Tortured in Everlasting Hellfire, but this is ********.
> 
> I could go on about the military-industrial complex, but hell, y'all know about the military-industrial complex.
> 
> ...


Two legs good, four legs better! :asian: 
Sean


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 13, 2004)

I lived through this nonsense in the sixties and early seventies. It chaffes my shorts that we're going through it again.


----------



## Ender (Mar 13, 2004)

Al-Qaida offically endorses the Senator from France, John Kerry.....hehehe


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 13, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Then I suppose you don't think Kerry should mention how he voted on the issue either?
> So it is your doctrine that all such occurrences are to be stricken from political debate and campaigning?


I'm confused about the noun in your first sentence, 'Issue'. To which 'issue' are you referring? Nightingale made a comment about how the images from September 11 might be used (_there is a distinct difference between viewing the footage as a reminder, and using the footage for political gain._). I don't recall any vote on how images from September 11th might be used. (Nightingale, I hope you don't mind my commenting here on your behalf).

As to whether their should be debate about this subject, I certainly think there should be. It will be wonderful now that the Bush adminstration has allowed the 9-11 investigation commission a bit more time to complete their work, especially after they chose not to release information to the investigation committee. In fact, after considerable outside pressure, only two members of the committee were able to view information from the White House, and they had to summarize those documents for the rest of the committee. (Sunshine is the best disinfectant).

Hopefully, President Bush and Vice President Cheney will spend sufficient time with this commission so that we might be able to have a proper debate on the subject. Here, again, you no doubt know, that until very recently, they had refused to sit down and talk to the commission at all. When they did capitulate to a meeting, President Bush originally was only going to offer one hour's worth of participation. (As you no doubt know, the Secretary of the National Security Administration, C. Rice, has declined further participation).

Oh, yeah, and the investigation into how the U.S. intelligence services assembed, interpretted and dispersed information prior to September 11, and the Iraq invasion won't be published until early 2005. If I'm not mistaken, that is long past the appropriate time for political debate, isn't it?

Mike


----------



## Ender (Mar 13, 2004)

In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." 

French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right ... in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed." 

Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again ..." 

Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, "... _t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. "



I don't think Bush or Clinton lied or misled the country about Iraq. I think they both had access to the same information. I also think Clinton could have led us into the same war, but his credibility was at an all time low and it was not politically expedient to start a war when he wanted his "legacy" to be a peaceful one. That was why he was pushing so hard with the Palestinians and the Israelis to come to some sort of agreement._


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 13, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> I also think Clinton could have led us into the same war,


*But, he didn't.*


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm confused about the noun in your first sentence, 'Issue'. To which 'issue' are you referring? Nightingale made a comment about how the images from September 11 might be used (_there is a distinct difference between viewing the footage as a reminder, and using the footage for political gain._). I don't recall any vote on how images from September 11th might be used. (Nightingale, I hope you don't mind my commenting here on your behalf).



The issue of whether or not to go to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

I'm wondering if it is taboo to bring up your past record on war in a Presidential election and how using that record for political gain it a shame as opposed to the candidate's stances on other issues.

I think he has a right to defend his actions in office and remind us of what they meant to him. They were a direct response or related to 9/11. Seems good enough a reason to me to put scenes in a campaign message.

You see, I think endorsers and the opposition BOTH know that the President's ratings were VERY high in how he handled 9/11. Now one side wants to be able to strip him of that, and they do so by challenging his taste in ads.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *But, he didn't.*



Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 13, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.


But let's not forget that it was Bill Clinton's military that Rumsfeld used to do such a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And just to be clear, when I say 'Bill Clinton's military', I mean the military organization and weaponry that Bill Clinton put into place during the eight years of his presidency.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But let's not forget that it was Bill Clinton's military that Rumsfeld used to do such a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> And just to be clear, when I say 'Bill Clinton's military', I mean the military organization and weaponry that Bill Clinton put into place during the eight years of his presidency.



Or what was left of it. Clinton wouldn't use what he had. Case in point, Somalia. I shudder to think of what he would have sent into Iraq.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 13, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Or what was left of it. Clinton wouldn't use what he had. Case in point, Somalia. I shudder to think of what he would have sent into Iraq.


The US Military was involved in Somalia because of President G.H.W. Bush (not Clinton). Clinton inherited Somalia.

Let's take a look at what Ambassador Robert Oakley has to say about Clinton and the Military.



			
				Ambassador Robert Oakley said:
			
		

> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/interviews/oakley.html
> 
> Somalia got caught up in the basic problems of the poor relationship between our people in uniform and the new Clinton administration. There was sort of a feeling--*without having really seen what President Clinton and his administration was going to do in practice*--that they were going to slash the defense budget, that they didn't care about the people in uniform, that the military was going to be pushed back into a place of secondary importance and perhaps dishonor, as it had been after Vietnam. And there was a very strong feeling of resentment on the part of people in uniform.


But then, Somalia had just as many Weapons of Mass Destruction when GHWBush invaded as GWBush has found in Iraq.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 14, 2004)

Gee whillikers, I see that y'all ignored my post. Well, I would too, were I in your shoes.

Hate to get all technical, but we aren't at war.

Love the fact that--and yet people laugh at Freud!--that the basic arguments against Clinton reveal so much of what Neil Hertz identified as, "male hysteria under political pressure."

So which way you want it? Clinton (reads like, "clitoris," in your analysis, don't it?) didn't know jack and was a scaredy cat, or  Clinton understood what was up and couldn't get support, what with the scummy likes of Tom DeLay (oh, SIGMUND?) being so busy to stick it to him?

Maybe Hussein needed to go. Gee...why was it...I forget...that he didn't get thrown out during the FIRST Gulf War? Oh yes..I forgot...a Democratic President refused to let the war be prosecuted to itrs conclusion...oh...wait a minnit...something else...

Don't you guys even get embarassed about these distortions of reality?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 14, 2004)

Last summer I went to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and was literally sick.  Sick with the act and sick with the knowledge that the holocaust mentality that created the act still exists.  It exists in the people who refuse to accept the reality of our leaderships machinations and lies.  It exists in the denouncement of dissent by people who have switch their brains into a holy worship rapture mode for their "ideal".  The holocaust mentality exists in the hate and the fear and the Pax Americana policies of the right.  When you read history you have the ability to fly over years at the speed of your fingers.  In real life, you live it and the only thing that can give you warning is the details.  Today, the details tell us that we might possible have a choice in 2004.  Vote for Bush and the New World Order of American Fascism or vote for Kerry and maybe we will have a future of freedom.  

Kerry is not my first choice, but he is ABB big time.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 14, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> I don't think Bush or Clinton lied or misled the country about Iraq. I think they both had access to the same information. I also think Clinton could have led us into the same war, but his credibility was at an all time low and it was not politically expedient to start a war when he wanted his "legacy" to be a peaceful one. That was why he was pushing so hard with the Palestinians and the Israelis to come to some sort of agreement.



Clinton did not lead us to war because he listened to his advisors.  He listened to people who said that there might be problems with the data.  President Clinton did not take us to war with Iraq because he did not have billions of dollars of oil at stake in his personal fortunes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Don't you guys even get embarassed about these distortions of reality?



These distortions of reality are essential in the creation of a fascist state and an imperium.  Its sick how many people are sucked in despite knowledge of history.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.



This is an interesting statement of bravado coming from someone who isn't putting his life on the line.  I wonder if he would think differently if the first military objectives protected were the oil feilds.  "Save the people of Iraq, but before you save anyone save the OIL!"


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The US Military was involved in Somalia because of President G.H.W. Bush (not Clinton). Clinton inherited Somalia.
> 
> Let's take a look at what Ambassador Robert Oakley has to say about Clinton and the Military.
> 
> ...



"Inherited" or not, he still botched it up.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 14, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is an interesting statement of bravado coming from someone who isn't putting his life on the line.  I wonder if he would think differently if the first military objectives protected were the oil feilds.  "Save the people of Iraq, but before you save anyone save the OIL!"



I fail to see the brovado, and oh no, not the oil theory again.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> "Inherited" or not, he still botched it up.


Did you read the comments of the Ambassador?

I'll paraphrase ... the military acted in a way unbecoming. They made judgements about the incoming commander-in-chief, and took actions based on those assumptions. It was the actions of the military against Clinton, that affected Somalia.

If there were errors on the part of the Clinton Adminstration concerning Somalia, they were based on properly preparing the American Public for the possibility of casualties, at least that is what the Republican appointed Ambassador points out in his discussion.

Meanwhile, back in Winchendon, people remain blind to facts of experts, relying strictly on the propaganda of Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity.

Oh, yeah .. and 4 more US Soldiers died today in Iraq, searching for the Yellowcake Uranium from Niger. Who botched this up?


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Did you read the comments of the Ambassador?
> 
> I'll paraphrase ... the military acted in a way unbecoming. They made judgements about the incoming commander-in-chief, and took actions based on those assumptions. It was the actions of the military against Clinton, that affected Somalia.
> 
> ...




No, it would be the error of relying on the UN. An error the current President did not make before taking action to defend this country. The country where residents of Winchendon do not rely on propaganda and thankfully do not include yourself.

What a clown.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> No, it would be the error of relying on the UN. An error the current President did not make before taking action to defend this country. The country where residents of Winchendon do not rely on propaganda and thankfully do not include yourself.
> 
> What a clown.


OK.. I got it. I'm a clown.

The President is responsible fully for having 550+ United States soldiers dying in Iraq to defend the United States from .... from .... what was the President defending us from again?

Oh, that's right it was ... *Weapons of Mass Destruction*, wasn't it? That's right the Presidents man in Baghdad, David Kay reported that Saddam Hussein's regime *had no significant chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs or stockpiles* still in place.

But at least we don't have to blame this on relying on the United Nations. And isn't it wonderful that it is only costing you and I (American Taxpayers) one billion dollars a week. What a bargian.

Yea! US!


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK.. I got it. I'm a clown.
> 
> The President is responsible fully for having 550+ United States soldiers dying in Iraq to defend the United States from .... from .... what was the President defending us from again?
> 
> ...



Well alright...look..we've both been in on the same war discussions before and I'd rather not do it again because I believe our support of war obviously comes from different beliefs/conditions/whathave you. The tit for tat over past/pesent politians realllly doesn't excite me because in general, it's going to take someone pretty darn special to get this country out of the hole it's heading for and I haven't seen him/her yet.

My only question back on around page 1 of this thread is should use of all tragic events be stricken from the campaign.

Someone posted this topic and oviously disagrees with the President's ads. So I'm curious to know if that type of subject is not supposed to come up during an election year. We know the press has been all over it 'till now. I'm wondering why the President cannot use any footage in his ads.

Apparently no-body else really cares as they've only jumped in on the topic of Clinton, Iraq and now Somalia.

I'm genuinely curious to know if people really find the ad tasteless. Or if it's just the latest try at a jab from the political opposition.

Oh, by the way, tastes vary and it's aiming your ads at those tastes that helps wins people over in that demographic area. There's never going to be one that Everyone likes. Me, I have no issue with it. Other than that there's really nothing more to say.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well alright...look..we've both been in on the same war discussions before and I'd rather not do it again because I believe our support of war obviously comes from different beliefs/conditions/whathave you. The tit for tat over past/pesent politians realllly doesn't excite me because in general, it's going to take someone pretty darn special to get this country out of the hole it's heading for and I haven't seen him/her yet.
> 
> My only question back on around page 1 of this thread is should use of all tragic events be stricken from the campaign.
> 
> ...


Fair enough ... 

I too have no problem with the use of the images for 4 seconds in the presidents re-election advertisements. 

However, some people who were touched far more deeply than I on September 11th *are* upset about the use of the images. It is interesting that the administration is spinning these people as 'some Democrats'.

Harold Sheitberger - President of the International Association of Fire Fighters said "The fact is, Bush's actions have resulted in fire stations closing in communities around the country. Two-thirds of America's fire departments remain under-staffed because Bush is failing to enforce a new law that was passed with bipartisan support...to put more fire fighters in our communities"

Monica Gabrielle, a 9/11 widow said "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people. It's unconscionable."

Bob McIlvaine, a 9/11 parent said "My son was murdered on September 11th. To argue that using footage of the wreckage of the towers to further someone's political career is 'tasteful' really needs to be rejected outright, and I condemn it." ​There are enough people out there who are upset about the use of these images, and I think the Re-election committee heard these comments, and changed tactics quick. What I find aggrevating is the way the Right-Wing Radio ascribes all of those who find it objectionable as 'Democrats', 'Unpatriotic', and or somehow indifferent to the tragic event.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 14, 2004)

...liked the info about the fire fighters, because what it brings out is that the Prez and his cronies--and I do mean cronies--couldn't give a damn about working people, except as an exchangeable image. 

And by all means, let's bash the UN. Because after all, it's FAR better to bomb than to talk. And it's INFINITELY more adult to demand more and more violence--especially from a safe distance--than it is to face the reality of politics and even UN screwups/corruption, and to accept the time that peace takes, and the stumbles, and the compromises. 

NOOOO! georgie wants way NOW! MY world!!

Hell, if we'd let the UN have its way, things might've been settled without a war. And that would be dead against all the moral and practical principles of martial arts....hey, wait a minnit....


----------



## Ender (Mar 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *But, he didn't.*



Which is precisely the point. Clinton ran a "risk-adverse" administration. He never took action when he should have. 3 times helicopters were loaded and readied, field plans were made, the location of Osama Bin Laden was known, and yet Clinton did nothing. Because of his inaction 9/11 happened. This is why I think it is appropriate that the footage is used, to remind people that things things don't get taken care of, consequences happen.


----------



## Ender (Mar 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK.. I got it. I'm a clown.
> 
> The President is responsible fully for having 550+ United States soldiers dying in Iraq to defend the United States from .... from .... what was the President defending us from again?
> 
> ...



"Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Saddam Hussein posed "a gathering, serious threat to the world." Hussein's scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought. "

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." 

"it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly." -David Kay

Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive  it was to enforce already-violated resolutions.   -Davd Kay


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

Alrighty then... does anyone have a HISTORICAL reference that they could compare or contrast to the present campaigning by the POTUS, or is this going to be a BASH BUSH/ATTACK THE DEMOCRATS WWE style smack down for all eternity?

My two cents on the tangent as of now,

I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified.  Why?  Because 

1.  Afg. and Al-Q was the nest of terrorist training/operation that BANKED the 9/11 attack - as well as all the other Trade Center attacks that went unstopped by past adminstrations (one unsuccessful one involving Improvised explosives from Extinguishers that a NYC cop stopped before it started, and the second was the manure bomb in the parking ramp...).

2.  SHussein had 10 years of jerking around inspectors, the UN and the US that he got away with, the operation was based on intelligence information which, like police work, is a best guess science and GOD FORBID that someone take a stand, be successful, but not have all the ducks line up after all the data comes in.  Hind sight 20/20.  Operations are planned/executed on best guess data.

3.  SHussein, during the first Gulf War, burned the oil fields posing a serious ecological as well as economical threat to the oil market.  Prior to that, he practiced ethnic cleansing and human experimentation inhumanities on the Kurds (who are not choir boys, but no one is).  Say what you want about the barrells that come out of the Mid East, but Mid East oil is like the NY stock exchange, it drives the market... look at the post 9/11 markets.  Imagine what the post Mid East oil market would be, again, if the oil fields were not secured and protected.  

4. Save the locals and win political/press/humanitarian support, save the oil - in conjunction with that - and you protect the quality of life and market recovery for the region... Besides which the market rates on crude oil will also impact any petroleum based products like synthetic rubbers and other products that I don't even know about, but have a huge impact on my life, and yours in terms of medical, safety and other areas.

All this criticism and arm chairing is interesting/entertaining, but unless we are all active voters or running for an office to make a difference, it is nothing more than Pub-politics that pisH people off.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

Here's an analogy that might explain where I am coming from:

We are all critical and upset at how a stand up guy, not squeaky clean, but stand up who comes to the aid of a rape victim suddenly has to defend his action against a known criminal when he stabs him with a knife, breaks his arm and maybe gets a concussion in the struggle.  Yes, we might say that the response was excessive, if we want to focus on the guy, but are we forgetting the original bad guy?

SHussein is one evil MF, who was threatening the market safety, ecology and humanity of his region and the world with his actions.  He took advantage of a sliding power structure, killed/stole and swindled his way to a position of power.  Is the world better off with him out of power?  Are there/will there be others who could be just as evil, yes.  Do we tolerate them or take them to task?


----------



## sma_book (Mar 15, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Which is precisely the point. Clinton ran a "risk-adverse" administration. He never took action when he should have. 3 times helicopters were loaded and readied, field plans were made, the location of Osama Bin Laden was known, and yet Clinton did nothing. Because of his inaction 9/11 happened. This is why I think it is appropriate that the footage is used, to remind people that things things don't get taken care of, consequences happen.



Please source this assertion. I am unfamiliar with the '3 times' you refer too, and I do think I am pretty well read on the subject. I would like to educate myself, if there are gaps in my knowledge.

Barton Gellmen, a contributor to the Washington Post reported "by any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him. .... first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

When Clinton launched the missle strikes at Afghanistan after the embassy bombings, Newt Gingrich said, "The president did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorist".

Those are some of the sources I am using. I have also read that as the Clinton term was winding down, and in response to the Al Qaeda bombing of the USS Cole, Clinton asked Richard Clarke, his appointed antiterrorism coordinator to develop a plan to destroy Al Qaeda. Clarke assembled this plan, and delivered it to NSC Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000. This was approximately one month before GW Bush was to take office. Rather than start a war, and hand it off to Bush. Sandy Berger met with Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley to review and discuss the plan. And That is what went nowhere.

So, help me find the battle plans you speak of. *3 times* you say, we had the helicopter loaded, and we knew where the target was. I look forward to finding out more about this. - Mike


----------



## sma_book (Mar 15, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> "Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Saddam Hussein posed "a gathering, serious threat to the world." Hussein's scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought. "
> 
> Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."
> 
> ...



Here again, I would love the source. Just a couple of comments. 

Regardless of Gov. Dean's statement. I do believe there was question as to whether Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States.  If we dismiss as outright silly, the proposition that Hussein had unmanned drone aircraft that were capable of flying from Iraq, over Europe or Africa, across the Atlantic Ocean to deliever chemical weapons to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then the ability of his missles reaching the Continental US is also ridiculous. 

Could Iraq have posed a danger to Isreal (our ally), maybe. But I think that Isreal's armed forces far outwiegh anything Hussein could have assembled, especially in light of 11 years of sanctions, and a constant patrol of Northern and Southern no-fly zones (not that he had any aircraft that could fly by 2002).

As for David Kay's statements .... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript .... This is from his statement to Senate Armed Services committee on January 28, 2004. After he had stepped down from heading the Iraqi Survey Group.

"I do believe we have to understand why reality turned out to be different than expectations and estimates."


Here's another ...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094415/


----------



## OULobo (Mar 15, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Al-Qaida offically endorses the Senator from France, John Kerry.....hehehe



As opposed to a hawk from TX who hid there during his possible time at war. 



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.



The military does what they are told, not what they want to. 



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Or what was left of it. Clinton wouldn't use what he had. Case in point, Somalia. I shudder to think of what he would have sent into Iraq.



Right, that would've been great, another war in a country where half the people don't want us there and the other half won't help. 



The issue that is killing Bush right now is that he gambled it all on WMD and he lost. He knows he can't justify the war on grounds of a dictator in power or human rights violations, because the same thing is going on in Korea and other locals and he hasn't done squat except try to ignore the problem. If Bush is such a brave president who has no problem going to war, why doesn't he start marching for that most coveted parallel, because it's not a sure thing and he knows he'll lose too many US citizen to get re-elected; Oh yeah and Kim didn't try to have Daddy offed.


----------



## sma_book (Mar 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified.



What I find interesting is that you are linking the invasion of Iraq with the attacks in Afghanistan. Because Iraq and Afghanistan have *nothing* to do with each other.

Afghanistan, as a nation has suffered horribly through wars for the last 25 years. Because of the destruction caused by these wars, a power vacuum was created that allowed 'The Taliban' to take control of the country. 'The Taliban' did bring order to the community, but they were mostly thugs with guns; much like the way the mafia brings order to the community.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban, got together and worked out a mutual beneficial arrangement. Some have gone so far as to say that the Taliban was just a front company for Al Qaeda (I suppose that is irrelevant now). Al Qaeda orchestrated the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, and 9/11. And quite possibly, this could only have been done with the assistance of the Taliban.

As such, the United States launched a campaign to destroy the functioning government of the Taliban, and eliminate the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. This effort was relatively successful. Up to this point, you will find me a huge supporter of the operations of the Bush Adminstration.

Next, we installed Harmed Karzai has the new leader of Afghanistan. And then, the United States *Walked Away*.

Now, where does Iraq come into all this ... hmmm.. Oh, yeah. It doesn't.

Afghanistan - Fundamental Religious State. Sponsoring Terrorism.
Iraq - Secular State (not - religious). Authoritarian rule - no Terrorism.

The only terrorist organization in Iraq prior to last years invasion was 'Jemaah Islamiya'. And they were not part of Hussein's regime. The existed in the Northern Parts of Iraq (Kurdish controlled areas) and oddly, were protected from Hussein's regime by the Nothern No Fly Zone of the United States and Great Britian. Imagine that. 

Also, Hind-Sight may be 20/20, but so are horse blinders. There was plenty of evidence before the invasion of Iraq, but many won't review it. And many choose to stay blind to it.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 15, 2004)

By the way ... the three posts by 'sma_book' are actually by 'michaeledward'. I was reviewing the web page from my wife's computer ... Ooops!.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 15, 2004)

sma_book said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is that you are linking the invasion of Iraq with the attacks in Afghanistan. Because Iraq and Afghanistan have *nothing* to do with each other.
> 
> Next, we installed Harmed Karzai has the new leader of Afghanistan. And then, the United States *Walked Away*.



I think they have everything to do with each other. They both represent a threat to the U.S.A.

I also do not think we have walked away since we've had troops/special ops on the ground since 9/12. The news today even says we are very close to Osama, due to our continued work in Afghanistan.

I DON'T think the U.S. military needs to stay in these countries to help police, build schools, mosques, or anything not to do with killing the enemy and securing the nation. Once we're sure there's no WMD's left or militants crossing the boarders, it's time to leave.

If you really wanted to be cold about it, we could have left the day we found Sadam.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 15, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think they have everything to do with each other. They both represent a threat to the U.S.A.


Respectfully, Iraq has been shown to not have been a threat. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were no delivery systems for Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were no links to terrorist organizations. 

Recently, the arguement has turned to Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people (in 1988). He killed many of his own citizens. He was a brutal dictator. But these actions do not threaten the interests of the United States.




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I also do not think we have walked away since we've had troops/special ops on the ground since 9/12. The news today even says we are very close to Osama, due to our continued work in Afghanistan.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm
"The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in the latest budget."



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I DON'T think the U.S. military needs to stay in these countries to help police, build schools, mosques, or anything not to do with killing the enemy and securing the nation. Once we're sure there's no WMD's left or militants crossing the boarders, it's time to leave.


The president apparently felt different than you. From the same article.

"President Bush has even suggested a Marshall plan for the country.... But in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country."


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

Now, where does Iraq come into all this ... hmmm.. Oh, yeah. It doesn't.

The only link that I was making between the two campaigns was that they both happened during the Bush administration and they both are/have come under criticism.

Please don't confuse your inferrences with my implications 


The shock talk show " Oh, yeah.  It doesn't" type of language could be misconstrude as either juvenile, or an attempt at auditioning/copying the talk radio/political commentor stylings of Rush and Reilly... hard to take anything you say seriously with this kind of tone - even if you are making valid points.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Now, where does Iraq come into all this ... hmmm.. Oh, yeah. It doesn't.
> 
> The only link that I was making between the two campaigns was that they both happened during the Bush administration and they both are/have come under criticism.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.

However, I would like to point out that in your first post, you used the singular tense 'military operation', thus linking what you have referred to in this post as 'two campaigns.' 

And others in this thread have combined these two military actions, even when some have pointed out how different they are. Of course, all of the confusion over these implications are not difficult to understand, as the Administration has worked very hard to combine Afghanistan and Iraq in the minds of the citizenry. 

Kinda nice that this brings us back to the topic of the Administration using images (and ideas, in this case) to make their case for re-election. With the skill of a magician, the administration has mis-directed us into linking these two military campaigns as part of the 'War-On-Terrorism'.

Also, speaking only for myself, I offer no critisicm toward the Afghanistan operation, save two; A) as previously posted, I feel we abandond the people of Afghanistan after deposing the Taliban & Al Qaeda B) like Bill Maher, I think that fighting this war in proxy (through the Northern Allience) was wrong. It certainly was worth putting out troops on the ground. 

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

"However, I would like to point out that in your first post, you used the singular tense 'military operation', thus linking what you have referred to in this post as 'two campaigns.' 

And others in this thread have combined these two military actions, even when some have pointed out how different they are"

Again, reading into my posts as opposed to seeking clarification as well as lumping my comments in with others....

As far as the comment about the 'enemy' statement:

Argue here all you want, but unless you are a voted/hired policy maker/enforcer this is still just pounding sand.  Vote, seek an office, do what ever but being snide with each other, and nit picking grammarical/semantic intentions just point to a desire to keep an argument going and not addressing the point of my thread... looking for historical comparisons.  Lay down the verbal swords and maybe, within your own sphere of control, you won't look as petty as you are making your chosen 'enemy' politician appear within their sphere of control.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> "However, I would like to point out that in your first post, you used the singular tense 'military operation', thus linking what you have referred to in this post as 'two campaigns.'
> 
> And others in this thread have combined these two military actions, even when some have pointed out how different they are"





			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, reading into my posts as opposed to seeking clarification as well as lumping my comments in with others....


Come on now, let's review you said

			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified.


There would be no reason to seek 'clarification' to that statement. It really is pretty clear about what you were saying. In fact, you went on to enumerate 4 reasons why you thought the 'military operation' was justified. When I commented on this, you clarified what you meant. Which I can absolutely understand. Your clarification looked like this:

			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The only link that I was making between the two campaigns was that they both happened during the Bush administration and they both are/have come under criticism.


To which, I responded 'Fair Enough'. I am acknowledging two things with this; first, your clarification; second, that perhaps I should not have used sarcasm.


Also, as far as 'lumping your comments in with others' .. well, these message boards do allow for multiple people participating in coversations. So it is quite possible to take two seperate peoples statements, and link them; for instance:




			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I have served and still see the military operation in Irag/Afg as justified.


and



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think they have everything to do with each other. They both represent a threat to the U.S.A.


These two thought appear to be very similar, and coming from the same point of view. When discussing an issue (the connectedness of Iraq & Afghanistan) it is not a far reach to treat both of the comments as from the same ideology, if indeed, not the same person.





			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as the comment about the 'enemy' statement:


I never made a comment about an 'enemy'. You aren't 'lumping my comments in with others', are you?





			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Argue here all you want, but unless you are a voted/hired policy maker/enforcer this is still just pounding sand. Vote, seek an office, do what ever but being snide with each other, and nit picking grammarical/semantic intentions just point to a desire to keep an argument going and not addressing the point of my thread... looking for historical comparisons. Lay down the verbal swords and maybe, within your own sphere of control, you won't look as petty as you are making your chosen 'enemy' politician appear within their sphere of control.


Well, I do vote. And the thoughts on these discussion boards are not just 'pounding sand'. Hopefully, as opinions are shared and argued and pis$ed over, they are also working into our thought patterns. They will be brought into the voting booth. 


I also do not think that pointing out inconsistancies is 'nit picking grammarical/semantic intentions'. Some may not be pleased when it is pointed out that the Invasion of Iraq has failed to result in its stated goals. But it is not 'nit picking' to state that Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism; therefore it is disingenuous to arge that it is part of the 'War-on-Terror'.

If I wanted to 'nit-pick', I would point out the word you are looking for is 'grammatical'.

Look, if I screw up, I'll do my best to admit it. In fact, if you look back, when loki called me to task for my sarcasm ... I believe my statement was '*Fair enough*', by which, I meant that loki is correct, my language was quite a bit hyperbolic.

And while you feel the point of your comments was to bring up historical comparison, but there was quite a bit in your post that can be viewed as not part of that question. Those other parts of your post, as to why the military was justified in using force in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, was what I saw and responded to.

Cheers - Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 15, 2004)

the '/' symbol is for and/or so: (oops didn't cap the firs letter )

The military operation in Afg And/Or the military operation in Iraq would be the way I was intending it to be read.  That better for clarity?  Also, my list of reasons were specific to each operation.  If it was about Afg, it started with Afg, if it was about SHussein/Iraq it was specifically referenced to that.  I used one list to make it faster to give reasons for two separate operations.  The only link was organizational for the sake of speed, not politically linked.  Though, operationally I would think that because of closeness, there are some logistical support operations that do support both arenas.

So much for not nit picking.... grammatical is the correct usage. Oh well.  I speedballed the typing, did you understand the contextual meaning?

The 'enemy' comment was intended for the author of it, that is why I separated my comment with space and started it with a reference to it... I was not saying you were the author of it.  Are you using a questioning format to be snide again, attempting to reverse my statement back on me about lumping?  If so, it negates your Fair Enough comment pretty handily.

When children speak with the same tone and word choice as you are using here, they are reprimanded for being disrespectful.  When politicians in a debate/discussion format use this type of language they are not well recieved because they 'lack composure' as part of their image.... It would be easier to listen/read your topical discussion if it wasn't so.... well I have already said it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 15, 2004)

sma_book said:
			
		

> Here again, I would love the source. Just a couple of comments.
> 
> Regardless of Gov. Dean's statement. I do believe there was question as to whether Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States.  If we dismiss as outright silly, the proposition that Hussein had unmanned drone aircraft that were capable of flying from Iraq, over Europe or Africa, across the Atlantic Ocean to deliever chemical weapons to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then the ability of his missles reaching the Continental US is also ridiculous.
> 
> ...



It's probably Hannity or Limbaugh.  Now there is a Source!


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> the '/' symbol is for and/or so: (oops didn't cap the firs letter )
> The military operation in Afg And/Or the military operation in Iraq would be the way I was intending it to be read.


Yes. I understood what you meant the first time you explained your intended meaning.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> So much for not nit picking.... grammatical is the correct usage. Oh well. I speedballed the typing, did you understand the contextual meaning?


Yes. I understood the contextual meaning. Please see:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Irony



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The 'enemy' comment was intended for the author of it, that is why I separated my comment with space and started it with a reference to it... I was not saying you were the author of it. Are you using a questioning format to be snide again, attempting to reverse my statement back on me about lumping? If so, it negates your Fair Enough comment pretty handily.


As I mentioned in my post, it is clear that discussion boards have many participants and responses, obviously overlap at times. Again, see:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Irony



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> When children speak with the same tone and word choice as you are using here, they are reprimanded for being disrespectful. When politicians in a debate/discussion format use this type of language they are not well recieved because they 'lack composure' as part of their image.... It would be easier to listen/read your topical discussion if it wasn't so.... well I have already said it.


While it is difficult express emotions through a message board, I do not believe it is impossible. Yes, some of my comments earlier in this thread were snide and perhaps childish. I believe I have apologized for those comments before, if not, I do so now. Some other comments earlier in this thread are ironic. And others still are meant to be funny, or at least, introduce a bit of levity.

We can get to the point where we are all pis$ed at each other. Or, we can recognize that we disagree on subjects and move past those disagreements. For example, MisterMike and I, don't agree on much. Through our discussions on this board, I think I can respect him for the courage of his convictions. I don't 'Not Like Him' because of his beliefs ... even if it seems that way in this thread. (In fact, I really liked the comment he made about leaving Iraq as soon as we captured Hussein).

I hope you have a good evening. - Mike


----------



## Ender (Mar 15, 2004)

The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist.


Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials, including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA director, Clinton's counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist.
> 
> Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials, including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA director, Clinton's counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.


Thank you for posting your source. 

Very quickly, it seems that Mr. Miniter's work appears mostly in newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. NewsCorp, of course,  also owns 'The Fair and Balanced Fox News Channel' (not to be confused with Fox Entertainment, which is also owned by NewsCorp).

I will read a bit further about and from Mr. Miniter, but at the moment, it doesn't look like he sees two sides to the coin (like many employed by NewsCorp).

Also, I don't think we need a point by point discussion of your 16 assertions, but I would like to point out one thing related to point 16, the USS Cole.

The Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000. Clinton did order Clarke, the chief of counterterrorism in his adminstration to develop a plan to attack the Al Qaeda network. Clarke worked on this plan, and delivered it to National Security Advisor Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000. One month later, January 20, 2001 was the Bush Administrations Inauguration. Beginning a large scale counter-terrorism operation, and then handing to your successor might be seen in a bad light. It is widely acknowledged that Sandy Berger delivered the Clarke plan to Condoleezza Rice in a series of meetings during the transition period. 

So, while the statement may be true that no 'retalitory strike' was launched, it is disingenuous, a much larger scale retalitory operation was planned, but due to timing, it was not executed by either the Clinton Administration (1 month left) or the Bush administration (8 months prior to 9/11).

Thanks - Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

"We can get to the point where we are all pis$ed at each other. Or, we can recognize that we disagree on subjects and move past those disagreements. For example, MisterMike and I, don't agree on much. Through our discussions on this board, I think I can respect him for the courage of his convictions. I don't 'Not Like Him' because of his beliefs ... even if it seems that way in this thread. (In fact, I really liked the comment he made about leaving Iraq as soon as we captured Hussein)."

I am not pished at you or anyone here, only disgusted with the tone and language of some of these posts, including your previous ones - and thank you for taking charge of that.  I find it interesting that when the subject of politics and religion come up, people have a hard time separating themselves from the topic - which leads to very personal and sometimes hostile reactions.  It is natural though because the topic of politics and relig. are really individual values that are being expressed and it is very intimate (in an emotional sense).

I would say that the respect you speak of comes through in the tone and approach that we use with each other.  The weakness of the written forum is that attempts at levity are not as clear sometimes.  Ultimately, though you, as the messenger, are responsible for the message portion of the communication process because they leave emotional as well as informational impressions on the reciever.  If the emotional impression is in any way percieved as threatening, the information will be either ignored or viewed very negatively.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

"Beginning a large scale counter-terrorism operation, and then handing to your successor might be seen in a bad light. It is widely acknowledged that Sandy Berger delivered the Clarke plan to Condoleezza Rice in a series of meetings during the transition period."

And what would that matter if it was the right thing to do, as well as the fact that Clinton was leaving office - what would he care what it looked like?  

We don't know what the real motivations are/were nor do we, as a public, generally take the press statement explanations that are given to us at face value.  We also don't have all the data that they did/do when they make such decisions.

Here, at least, it seems that politicians aren't viewed as public servants, making far less in salary than their private industry equals, but evil manipulators who only are interested in power and priviledge.  There is a point where the citizen's right to scrutinize and openly question turns into smearing and bias.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And what would that matter if it was the right thing to do, as well as the fact that Clinton was leaving office - what would he care what it looked like?


But if the operation would require continued support from the succeeding administration, wouldn't it be prudent to get their buy-in. I am not laying blame here, but if the operations require time and money, and you have neither, doesn't it make sense to inform and seek collaboration from the next in line?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> We don't know what the real motivations are/were nor do we, as a public, generally take the press statement explanations that are given to us at face value. We also don't have all the data that they did/do when they make such decisions.


My fishing buddie used the 'We don't know what they know' arguement before we launched the invasion of Iraq. So far, it seems that we had available more information than the Adminstration had. They just chose to view the 'intelligence' in a way that has been shown to be invalid.

There is a difference between a 'press statement' and a 'press report'. The Administration releases 'press statements'. Journalists do reports, in which they (hopefully) test the validity of statements. There was a nice piece on the radio this morning about how news departments are cutting back on the 'Journalism' piece - less investigation and validation.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Here, at least, it seems that politicians aren't viewed as public servants, making far less in salary than their private industry equals, but evil manipulators who only are interested in power and priviledge. There is a point where the citizen's right to scrutinize and openly question turns into smearing and bias.


Certainly, I view most politicians as valuable public servants. The current administration does not seem interested in serving all of the public equally. By examining what the say, and comparing it to what they do, it does seem that they are more interested in serving the super-rich and multi-national corporations than providing services for my family and me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> the '/' symbol is for and/or so: (oops didn't cap the firs letter )



/ also stands for division.  Iraq/Afganistan = more oil per dollar spent.  Inversely Afganistan/Iraq = Less money for a real war on terrorism.

Of course it could all equate to a pile of feces if you insert that darn chaotic  fudge factor!  

How is that for tongue in cheek! 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Certainly, I view most politicians as valuable public servants. The current administration does not seem interested in serving all of the public equally. By examining what the say, and comparing it to what they do, it does seem that they are more interested in serving the super-rich and multi-national corporations than providing services for my family and me.



Oh brother, where art thou...

I think the political office itself is a valuable public service.  The people who fill them have to fit high expectations.  It is entirely right to denounce someone for not fitting those expectations.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am not pished at you or anyone here, only disgusted with the tone and language of some of these posts, including your previous ones - and thank you for taking charge of that. I find it interesting that when the subject of politics and religion come up, people have a hard time separating themselves from the topic - which leads to very personal and sometimes hostile reactions. It is natural though because the topic of politics and relig. are really individual values that are being expressed and it is very intimate (in an emotional sense).



So what is the appropriate way to conduct yourself when discussing religion or politics?  Do we always have to be hashing out some compromise or trying to solve disputes?  Isn't it okay to just throw out your opinions and let them get sliced and diced in order to learn where they are deficiant?  Hey, its okay to get angry when discussing topics like this.  In fact, its pretty natural.  There is nothing immature about it unless you don't know when to stop.  On internet forums this can get really out of hand because there is no direct consequence, so its important to be the person who can take the step back and let it go.  In all situations...it depends on the context.  I would say that it is a mistake to assume the tone of someone's language on the net reflects the tone they use in all situations.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

I would say that it is a mistake to assume the tone of someone's language on the net reflects the tone they use in all situations.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> And I would think that it would be a mistake to assume that the language we use here should be any different than if the people were phyically in the same room with us.  Consider the power of the LORD OF THE FLIES as an example of how a seemingly consequence free environment can reveal an individuals true character.  Integrity isn't doing the right thing when people are watching, it is what you do when no one can see you...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And I would think that it would be a mistake to assume that the language we use here should be any different than if the people were phyically in the same room with us.  Consider the power of the LORD OF THE FLIES as an example of how a seemingly consequence free environment can reveal an individuals true character.  Integrity isn't doing the right thing when people are watching, it is what you do when no one can see you...



It still depends on context.  With a group of friends, joking around, someone may disparage another person and laugh and that is fine in that context.  In serious discussions, this is different.  Not all political discussions are so serious and not all the discussions on this forum are that serious.  Some of them are.  I didn't mean to offend you with my rhetoric.  Its hard to see the ironic smile on this side of the computer screen, sometimes.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> > I would say that it is a mistake to assume the tone of someone's language on the net reflects the tone they use in all situations.
> 
> 
> And I would think that it would be a mistake to assume that the language we use here should be any different than if the people were phyically in the same room with us. Consider the power of the LORD OF THE FLIES as an example of how a seemingly consequence free environment can reveal an individuals true character. Integrity isn't doing the right thing when people are watching, it is what you do when no one can see you...


So you might consider being judged or judging others by the company they keep as well? Not just their actions, but also the actions of their friends and associates? As in the Lord of the Flies, the children were guilty since they allowed the death to occur by not stepping forward to stop it. So, if you associate with someone, should you be judged by their actions as well? 

Just Curious, form the philosphical point of view of this discussion / arguement.
:asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 17, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> So you might consider being judged or judging others by the company they keep as well? Not just their actions, but also the actions of their friends and associates? As in the Lord of the Flies, the children were guilty since they allowed the death to occur by not stepping forward to stop it. So, if you associate with someone, should you be judged by their actions as well?
> 
> Just Curious, form the philosphical point of view of this discussion / arguement.
> :asian:



You could take that interpretation if you wanted. Love to see the essay on that view

I am not talking about guilt or innocence for the sake of this point, only how each character behaved differently, according to the author's view, when the restraints of society were no longer there to moderate their behavior. 

I was using it as an example of how, individually, a persons character is revealed when there is the perception of no consequences.  The individual nature of each character came through.  Some were natural followers, some were natural leaders.  

Of the leaders in the story, one is depicted as manipulative and vindictive (Post WWII, Hitler/antisemetics/racism....take your pick) when he, as the former choir leader, is 'consequence free' and can get away with fear tactics, deception, bullying and ultimately murder.  He sees the lack of consequences as an excuse to throw off decency, integrity and humanity.

The other is depicted as compassionate, rational, and demonstarted integrity by leading by example or motivating followers to accomplish tasks with logic and clear, honest communication and goals of being rescued (Plug in the moral leader of your choosing:  Ghandi, Martin Luther King, JFK take your pick again).  In the same consequence free environment, he still maintained the spirit of respect and cooperation that his society was hoping to teach.

After the death of the Piggy character and the rescuers get to the island, the characters are forced to reflect on their individual behaviors relative to the society that they are reintroduced to symbollically by the adults' present on the island at the end.  

Guilt/innocence of the groups could be discussed, but I think the more significant message/theme is that it that we carry moral/ethical codes inside us and choose how far to stray from them in response to the contextual freedom/restrictions in any situation.  In the story, those who saw a consequence free context as license to act and do what ever they wanted spiralled downhill until they lost all respect for humanity and committed murder.  Of course as a piece of drama it goes to dramatic extremes.

That said, on these 'consequence free' internet forums, I have noticed a tendency to exercise the equivelent of 'beer muscle' talk.  You are alone looking at a screen and it is easy to throw stuff out that wouldn't be appropriate in person.  Threats, jabs, curses....  If it isn't appropriate in person, it shouldn't be appropriate here.  Especially when we are not all casual or familiar friends here.  We are friendly and cordial, but I don't really know any of you here personally let alone your values or anything else well enough to assume that my tone/word choice will be fine.  I can not assume that you all will understand or find my jokes tolerable.  I think, on this thread, the only people I have actually had direct contact with are you, Rich, and TGACE.  Based on our last meeting and conversation, I would hope that we have established a healthy repoir.  But, it takes a lot longer to get a feel on fellow posters purely on the posts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That said, on these 'consequence free' internet forums, I have noticed a tendency to exercise the equivelent of 'beer muscle' talk.  You are alone looking at a screen and it is easy to throw stuff out that wouldn't be appropriate in person.  Threats, jabs, curses....  If it isn't appropriate in person, it shouldn't be appropriate here.  Especially when we are not all casual or familiar friends here.  We are friendly and cordial, but I don't really know any of you here personally let alone your values or anything else well enough to assume that my tone/word choice will be fine.  I can not assume that you all will understand or find my jokes tolerable.  I think, on this thread, the only people I have actually had direct contact with are you, Rich, and TGACE.  Based on our last meeting and conversation, I would hope that we have established a healthy repoir.  But, it takes a lot longer to get a feel on fellow posters purely on the posts.



First of all, I seem to remember some rather volitile posts on your part.  I bring this up, not as an attack, but as an observation/statement, that sometimes people get hot in conversation and start spouting some not so nice things.  

Secondly, everyone has different tolerances for irreverence.  You are right we don't really know each other, but that doesn't mean we need to walk on pins and needles.  We just need to be sensitive to the fact that we may upset someone.  Then we need to mature enough to apologize.

Therefore, if my "George Bush is the Enemy/Morgoth/Sauron" comment offended anyone, I apologize.  Perhaps we can discuss whether his current actions are "American" or not in a different thread.  

Thanks for the civil discussion and the reminder to be be a little more sensitive.

Upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 19, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> First of all, I seem to remember some rather volitile posts on your part.  I bring this up, not as an attack, but as an observation/statement, that sometimes people get hot in conversation and start spouting some not so nice things.
> 
> Secondly, everyone has different tolerances for irreverence.  You are right we don't really know each other, but that doesn't mean we need to walk on pins and needles.  We just need to be sensitive to the fact that we may upset someone.  Then we need to mature enough to apologize.
> 
> ...



Generally, when I am making a point about an observation I am doing so with me included in that observation.  I know I have been reactive, hostile and immoderate on this and other forums.  Upon reflection, some off it was flat out wrong and some of it I would stand behind.  My own behavior, along with others, could be used as a cautionary tale if it helps illustrate my point.  The things I thought were wrong, I resolved/reconsiled as best I could with the parties involved - just as I would have if it was in person.  The things I consider appropriate, I leave it up to either 'agree to disagree' and a willingness to stand for my convictions and face the criticism that comes with that at times - just as I would in person.  But, I make that decision based on my personal values.  

People who have known me on and off forums for a long time will attest to my imperfections , but, hopefully, also to my demonstration of a basic belief that is isn't the mistakes a person makes, but how they act during the aftermath that is a testamony to character.  Since that is a small population of this forum, I have to accept responsibility for how I present myself in this limited forum based only on this limited forum.  I am not responsible, though, if people choose to form opinions without seeking further explanation/communication.  That is why I have my email contact on the profile.  If you don't understand or agree or want to clear the air in a less 'public' way, write me.

No, pins and needles isn't my point either, but sensitivity is a good word.

And, the last long post about 'beer muscle' talk was in general - not specifically pointed at you or this thread specifically.  I could say that my mental direction and thoughts that were partly inspired by this thread were evident, but it was not intended as a not so sublte 'below the radar' personal jab/criticism directed at you.  I am sorry if it read that way.  When I was writing that post, it was intended for Rich Parsons as a response to his interp. of L of the Flies.


----------

