Bush biking toward nowhere?

[Bill Sornson]

Pat wrote:
>>> Tom's not right. He can disagree with her point of view, but this
>>> smearing of her character that the far right wing is wrong.
>>
>> /Most/ people who criticize Ms. Sheehan do it with great restraint.
>> Pointing out that she tells two different stories about one event
>> AND is now garnering support from DAVID DUKE for God's sake due to
>> her anti-Israel stance is hardly "smearing her character". (Wonder
>> how DD and MM will get along at the rallies?!? LOL)
>
> I don't agree with what you said about "great restraint". I am not
> hearing that in the Dallas market. And, so what if she is getting
> support from David Duke? It's not like she asked him to support her!
> That IS smearing someone. If David Duke said, "Hey, I agree with Bill
> Sorenson". could we then say that you are "garnering support" and
> are "in bed" with David Duke, etc. when you had no part in his
> opinion in the first place?

If David Duke agreed with me because of an anti-Semitic stance I took, I'd
deserve to be painted with a pretty harsh brush.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:56:07 -0700,
> <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, there WERE WMDs - no one (who's ever read anything on the
>> subject) would disagree with that. We just don't know what happened
>> to them.
>
> Santa Claus smuggled them back to the North Pole.

Since you like fanciful stories, this one's from the History News Network:

The infamous gas attack took place in mid-March 1988 in the Kurdish town of
Halabja, the crossroads of an ongoing battle waged between a joint
Kurdish-Iranian force and the Iraqi army. Caught in the middle were innocent
civilians, including women and children.
From Power's account:

"It was different from the other bombs," one witness remembered. "There
was a huge sound, a huge flame and it had very destructive ability. If you
touched one part of your body that had been burned, your hand burned also.
It caused things to catch fire." The planes flew low enough for the
petrified Kurds to take note of the markings, which were those of the Iraqi
air force. Many families tumbled into primitive air-raid shelters they had
built outside their homes. When the gasses seeped through the cracks, they
poured out into the streets in a panic. There they found friends and family
frozen in time like a modern version of Pompeii: slumped a few yards behind
a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a loved one or
shielding a child from the poisoned air, or calmly collapsed behind a car
steering wheel.

Halabja was the "most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against
the Kurds," killing 5,000 civilians. But as Power notes, it was just one of
some forty chemical assaults staged by Iraq against the Kurdish people.

****

Did Saddam dress up like Santa?

 

[mark]

"di" wrote
> Clinton didn't have time to think about what was going on in the Middle
> East, he was to busy playing around in the Whitehouse, the government and
> office was nothing but an amusement park for him.
>
>> Rich

How much time has George Bush spent thinking? For the leader of a large
country he seems to have an awful lot of time to go mountain biking back
home in Texas.
--
mark

 

[[email protected]]

Jobst, just when I think you have posted some of the dumbest statements
I've ever read, you keep posting even dumber stuff. Look, pal, we paid
our nickle to hear you tell us how to build wheels, not talk world
politics. You've definitely been hanging out in that left-wing Bay
Area too long. You should travel around and talk to some normal people
sometime. It's so damaned obvious that you've been brainwashed by all
those other left-wing hens you've been hearing cackle in the chicken
house.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"mark" wrote: How much time has George Bush spent thinking? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
People usually engage only in those activities they are good at.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Bill Sornson" wrote: If David Duke agreed with me because of an
anti-Semitic stance I took, I'd deserve to be painted with a pretty harsh
brush.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is misleading, and you should know it. The so-called anti-semitic
statement that Ms. Sheehan made was not anti-semitic. It was predictable
that a smear champaign against her would well up, as it has against many
others who oppose the Bush war policies.

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Uhl writes:

>> The ploy of court-martialling soldiers for the torture abuses is
>> ludicrous. Soldiers do not set policy and decide how prisoners are
>> handled, it is prison management all the way up the line. Can you
>> explain how this could occur out of knowledge of all levels of
>> management, to be discovered by the press?

> ISTR that it _was_ discovered by the military and that what the
> press discovered was the military investigation.

> As for holding the CinC responsible for the behaviour of the least
> of his soldiers, do you feel that Clinton should have resigned or
> been impeached for the mistaken firing of a cruise missile into the
> Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? As far as I can tell the military is
> taking its obligations very seriously and the bad apples _are_ being
> weeded out.

As you say, "mistaken firing". The torture was not mistaken nor a
singular occurrence and both GWB and Rumsfeld so much as announced
that it would occur at the outset of the "War on terror" in references
to we won't treat these people lightly. I believed them. The
occurrences were systematic and made as secret as could be in the
various detention centers. The US shipped prisoners out to third
countries to avoid doing the dirty work at home.

.... accidental actions...

Aren't you embarrassed to defend such vile and inhuman tactics.

Jobst Brandt

 

[di]

"mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> "di" wrote
>> Clinton didn't have time to think about what was going on in the Middle
>> East, he was to busy playing around in the Whitehouse, the government and
>> office was nothing but an amusement park for him.
>>
>>> Rich
>
> How much time has George Bush spent thinking? For the leader of a large
> country he seems to have an awful lot of time to go mountain biking back
> home in Texas.
> --
> mark

And he is on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week whenever required, even
when in Texas. Can you say the same about your job?

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Uhl writes:

>> It's not about democracy, it's not about oil -- it's a crusade
>> vs. jihad thing.

> You're right, but we didn't start it. The Islamists started this
> war; we don't have any choice about that. But we're going to finish
> it.

You're wrong about the choice, as you see the rest of our allies
explained, and that we are going to finish it is even more doubtful.
Rambo is dead!

That depends on your definition of start. Do you believe the hatred
of US foreign policy (our national interests, as it is called) in the
middle east began with 911? The US has been running roughshod over
the entire area with Israel the main visible thorn in the side. Our
presence in Saudi Arabia is one reason Osama Bin laden was able to
recruit his agents.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding <[email protected]> writes:

>> Stephen Harding writes:

>> That's a good parallel. Until you see physical evidence, they are
>> only vague numbers. If you don't believe that you should consider
>> why the administration chose to suppress such pictures. Mr.Spin
>> Doctor Paul Wolfowitz knows full well what the ramifications are.

> Were they "spinning" the news during WWII? The public generally
> only saw dead enemies.

HEY!!! Get off this others did it so it must be OK. Besides, that is
not what occurred in WWII. Life Magazine, Time and the mainstream
newspapers showed lots of deaths and cemetery scenes. They were good
propaganda for the war effort anyway because they were caused by
imperialist powers, Japanese and Nazis. I guess you weren't there.

> Was it a bad thing that the media was more "government friendly"
> than it is today?

> Would the public have been better served if there was a media
> body count operation that "celebrated" each thousand deaths
> during the war?

> Would the Press have been more "responsible" showing the only
> commander-in-chief many Americans could remember, being lifted from
> his wheelchair to a podium to talk, or being carried to his car?

> Would the war effort have been any worse off showing Japanese or
> German soldiers as "just ordinary guys"? Not really fiends or
> animals after all?

You aren't good at asking leading questions. Give it up. These is no
defense for the current manipulation of the press. We have to listen
to BBC news to get even a faint picture of what we otherwise don't
hear. The European press is something quite different beyond that.

>>> Cynicism seems to become you. And BTW, you won't find too many
>>> Ford F-100's on the road these days. More likely F-150s.

>> I see you are well versed in gas-guzzlers. How's your Expedition
>> coming along?

> Dodge Ram 1500 (half ton) with 4WD, 318 (5.2L) V-8, thank you very
> much. It does have a manual transmission for that extra mpg though.

I already guessed you were a "trucker" and no girleyman, as our
governor calls them. Arnoldt!

>>> It was also predicted the first Gulf War would have something on
>>> the order of 10,000 killed. That the Iraq War would have 100's of
>>> thousands killed with towns being fought over as per Stalingrad;
>>> that refugee camps would be overflowing with disease ridden
>>> persons starving to death.

>> Huh? What has this got to do with reality? Are you saying, we
>> should be joyous about the thousands killed in this war because
>> there could have been even more? This argument seems to resurface,
>> that everything is OK because other wars were worse or that Idi
>> Amin was a bigger crook, pick your dictator.

> Reality is that foreign (or domestic) information isn't always correct.
> Not a purposeful thing. Just screw ups. It happens and there's
> nothing necessarily Machievelian about it.

OH! I'm sorry, the whole Iraq war is a "screw up", probably not the US.

> Everything isn't OK in this war. I'm at a loss to explain how a
> war was so well [brilliantly really] planned, only to forget about the
> peace side of things. Even *I* knew the peace side of the challenge
> was going to be the more difficult. Why there wasn't a Marshall Plan
> all fired up and ready to go at the end of the "war" phase I don't
> know.

Just look at who was in charge and who planned it. As Rumsfeld said,
when we march triumphally into Baghdad they will welcome us as
liberators. In fact the US forces are their opressors as it is
generally seen today. Why else is everybody over there inrterested in
how soon the US will leave?

> A royal foul up that has made the entire endeavor far more difficult
> than it needed to be.

> I thank heaven that there were those UNLIKE you who didn't see all
> was lost during the Revolution, Civil War or even WWII. We'd all be
> doing the morning "Heil ******" and goose stepping to work in the
> morning.

Oops or as it was Alley Oop and the time machine. Get out of the
civil war excuses!

>>> The Ardennes was a "quiet sector" of the WWII European front. The Nazis
>>> were finished. Possibly "home by Christmas"...until the Battle of
>>> the Bulge.

>> Don't you feel silly even mentioning that?

> What's the matter? Reality intruding on you again?

Next you'll bring up the Punic wars or older.

> Not possible for intelligence foul ups to occur without malicious
> intent?

> Ahh right! We all know that Ike *wanted* the war to go on so he
> could maintain his Commander ETO position, so he deliberately
> mis-read or ignored those small numbers of intelligence reports that
> said all was *not* quiet on the front.

>>> And on and on it goes. But given our current political climate
>>> where the Lefties try to make political hay from any mis-step or
>>> error, an intelligence failure becomes a plot by evil types to
>>> spread death and destruction (and of course increase profits).
>>> All coming from persons one would think would have the smarts to
>>> be able to be a bit less dogmatic in their thinking. But alas,
>>> such are not the times in which we live.

>> I think you have the dogmatism backward. Just the term "liberal"
>> is in stark contrast to that, and it is liberal thinking against
>> which you rile. I think you need to review what the term means. A
>> liberal thinker can see more than one side of an issue. That seems
>> to be out of the question with religious beliefs and that is the
>> kind of government the US is opposed to in Iraq while furthering
>> the same in the USA. My god is more valid than yours.

> You're confusing *political* "liberal" with *intellectual* liberal.
> Political liberals, such as yourself IMHO, can be just as dogmatic
> in their thinking as any Klu Klux Klanner out of backwoods Alabama
> (using a very negative stereotype here, but it's illustration only).

The two are the same except in the eyes of the conservative religious
right.

> An intellectual liberal is what we *all* *should* be, whether Democrat
> or Republican. But it's hard to make decisions based solely on best
> evidence. It's even more difficult to occasionally challenge one's
> beliefs; test them to see if they still are valid, or need update.

I don't think you'll find such people among people with your
politics.

> That's what a "liberal" ought to be doing, but instead, we have dogma
> masquerading as liberal thinking.

>>> I doubt there is any such thing in the minds of the political Left
>>> pacifist.

>> Think of some other loaded epithets. How about traitors and
>> unpatriotic.

> Your words not mine. I do believe there are some "fifth columnist"
> types in this country, largely on the Left, that would happily place
> flowers in the gun barrels of Nazis marching in victory down Park
> Avenue if it would score them political points against Bush [Clinton].

OH? You are living in the past. Lets get to the present. Your
scenarios reek of prejudice.

> The Left are the ones that largely make up these assertions, that
> one is a traitor if disagreeing with Bush. Just like stolen elections
> or AWOL military service have been made up.

You shouldn't lump those together and there is more truth to the
service failure than is easily proven. The contrary was not
established in the least. The election is on the record.

> The Right will do it too. It's just that the Left has been largely
> out of governing the country for a while, so the targets tend to be
> Republican, while they wonder why the country becomes more and more
> conservative.

Oh there's that "cosi fan tutte" defense again. Your slip is showing!

>>> I rue the day US policies depend on the UN, or "a majority" of
>>> nations in the world, at least half of which are totalitarian in
>>> one form or another.

>> If the US were to participate in the UN and pay dues, the UN could be
>> a far more stable and valuable organization. Instead we hack at it,
>> invoke it in the worst moments and chastise it for not performing
>> magic.

> I think US dues have been paid up. We pay 1/4 (I think) of UN costs.
> The fact of the matter is, the UN is NOT a democratic organization.
> Never has been and given its form, never will be.

> It's also terribly corrupt (as recent oil for food program deficiencies
> had made clear) and largely unwilling to change without some sort of
> economic threat.

Or a US envoy willing to raise a stink if appointed.

> No country is going to give up its sovereignty to allow the UN to
> decide it's policies. Not the US, not France, not Fiji Islands!
> Nor should it.

I guess you are telling me that there should be no United Nations and
that diplomacy is the worst form of war.

>>> Get off the oil stuff will ya? Geez. Talk about one track minds!

>> Oil is where it's at and as the end of oil approaches, the world gets
>> less friendly. We aren't helping.

> Oil is important. Run away from anyone who says it isn't. They'd be
> dangerous to the health of the nation.
....
I think your truck is stuck in the sands of the middle east.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Uhl wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > It's not about democracy, it's not about oil -- it's a crusade
> > vs. jihad thing.
>
> You're right, but we didn't start it. The Islamists started this war;
> we don't have any choice about that. But we're going to finish it.

By invading the wrong country?

The ones that started it are all from Saudi Arabia.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>
> WMDs which he was known to possess. No one (except political Lefties)
> doubts he had them.

....

>
> I don't think liberals have largely been in favor of any war post
> Korea have they? ...

....
>
> The more radical Left has attempted to undermine every war effort since
> the good old days of Vietnam.

....
>
> Iraq must really get you guys excited! With a little luck, there will
> be rioting in the streets and hundreds of thousands choking the DC mall.
> The 60's return!!! You must be thrilled with the possibilities!

....
>
> "Moral rules"? There's something we don't hear so much from liberals
> these days.

....


Nice going, Stephen. If someone disagrees with this "war," they must
be liberal, leftist, radical, and probably Communist, correct?

Except those labels don't fit me. I have some liberal friends. They
think of me as a conservative. Yet I think this unprovoked invasion
and conquest (don't glorify it by calling it a "war") is a huge
mistake.

And I'm not alone. Last I heard, roughly 60% of Americans thought it
was a mistake. Surely even you don't think 60% of Americans are
liberal, leftist, radical, and probably Communist.

You're grasping at straws, trying to berate your opposition with false
labels. Why? Because you've run out of facts.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> And I'm not alone. Last I heard, roughly 60% of Americans thought it
> was a mistake.

Wait wait wait. Just because a poll says "only" 40% think the war is going
well or "approve" of the way GWB is "handling" it, that's NOT THE SAME as
saying 60% think it was a mistake. (At least you didn't say 60% think Bush
lied, which is the Howard Dean line of reasoning.)

I've also heard 60% think the US should withdraw now. Bovine manure.

 

[Rich]

di wrote:

> Clinton didn't have time to think about what was going on in the Middle
> East, he was to busy playing around in the Whitehouse, the government and
> office was nothing but an amusement park for him.

Clinton actually knew more about the middle east than possibly any
president before him, and certainly any president after him.

You need to be a very intelligent person to go from a poor child raised
by a single mom to the President of the U.S.

Rich

 

[Rich]

John Red-Horse wrote:

> In a followup summary Ms Snow listed a number of things about propaganda
> in our current society that really gave me room for pause. After having
> read this summary, which I'm including in full below, I now get the
> creeps when I watch, or read, almost any news from most US-based outlets.
>
> We are in the process of being assimilated, and we are buying in with
> both fists...

Unfortunate, but true.

The BBC is the only news that seems to be just that. CBS, NBC, ABC, and
Fox all appear to be sensationalizing everything for higher ratings,
and are all biased.

Rich

 

[di]

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> di wrote:
>
>> Clinton didn't have time to think about what was going on in the Middle
>> East, he was to busy playing around in the Whitehouse, the government and
>> office was nothing but an amusement park for him.
>
> Clinton actually knew more about the middle east than possibly any
> president before him, and certainly any president after him.
>
> You need to be a very intelligent person to go from a poor child raised by
> a single mom to the President of the U.S.
>
> Rich

one of the worse cases of brainwashing I've ever seen

 

[di]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:08:37 -0600, <[email protected]>,
..
>
> No, she believes it.


He

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Uhl <[email protected]> writes:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> It's not about democracy, it's not about oil -- it's a crusade
>> vs. jihad thing.
>
> You're right, but we didn't start it.

I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, installing
Reza Shah Pahlavi as America's Quisling of Iran must have
demonstrated to all of the Near/Middle East the lengths
to which the USA will go to keep their finger in the oil pie.
I doubt American kibitzing & meddling in other countries & at
other times in the region helps matters, either.

The USA has shown itself to be "friends" with the peoples
of Near/Middle Eastern countries only when it's to the USA's
advantage, or when things can be manipulated to the USA's
advantage (like the Shah Pahlavi regime); otherwise they (the
USA) drops 'em like hot potatoes. Some kind of true-blue,
faithful "friendship".

Now, I'm not into America-bashing. I've noted how when
there have been natural disasters and suchlike around the
world, the USA is often the first there with aid & alleviation,
and often without much expression of appreciation from the
recipients. The USA has done a lot of humanitarian good in the
world, which I think is most commendable, and I wish the USA
free reign to continue to do so.

But in the eyes of much of the Near/Middle East, I think they
see the USA is a manipulative, gold-digging coquette who will
cajole whatever they can get out of ya, and then when they've
squeezed ya dry, they're off with the next country who has
something to offer.

Anyhow, I think the whole current Iraq thing was originally
just to get Saddam, in keeping with an agreement made during
Gulf War I, to get Israel to stand down when they were being
SCUDed. But now that you're there and Saddam has been
deposed -- might as well hang around and see how to get your
money's worth from the venture. I guess oil money is acceptable.

Good luck with babysitting your new colony for a long time.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Ron Wallenfang]

What do you suppose is the safest country in the mid-east to bike across?
Anyone have any personal experience? From media perusals on other topics,
I'd guess one of the emirates or Kuwait - maybe Turkey among the larger
nations. I doubt the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter/Ford/Nixon etc have
done much to affect the answer one way or the other.

 

[Ron Wallenfang]

On second thought, Bush 41 probably did make Kuwait safer.


"Ron Wallenfang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What do you suppose is the safest country in the mid-east to bike across?
> Anyone have any personal experience? From media perusals on other topics,
> I'd guess one of the emirates or Kuwait - maybe Turkey among the larger
> nations. I doubt the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter/Ford/Nixon etc have
> done much to affect the answer one way or the other.
>