I want to pick a fight

[WilliamPitt]

(bear with me, mods)

I want to pick a fight with a defender of this occupation and war. I want them to explain to me how these quotes:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons." - George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17 2003

...dovetail with this quote...

"We had a good discussion, the foreign minister and I and the president and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - Colin Powell, February 24 2001

I want to mash that into some Bush-sucking fool's face, make them choke on it...or better yet, make them explain it.

I want to pick a fight with some Bush-sucking fool and try to make them explain away the Office of Special Plans:

================

The Spies Who Pushed for War
By Julian Borger
The Guardian

Thursday 17 July 2003

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071803F.shtml

(snip)

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney. The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.

(snip)

The president's most trusted adviser, Mr Cheney, was at the shadow network's sharp end. He made several trips to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, to demand a more "forward-leaning" interpretation of the threat posed by Saddam. When he was not there to make his influence felt, his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was. Such hands-on involvement in the processing of intelligence data was unprecedented for a vice-president in recent times, and it put pressure on CIA officials to come up with the appropriate results. Another frequent visitor was Newt Gingrich, the former Republican party leader who resurfaced after September 11 as a Pentagon "consultant" and a member of its unpaid defence advisory board, with influence far beyond his official title.

(snip)

Democratic congressman David Obey, who is investigating the OSP, said: "That office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the national security council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees."

...more...

==================

I want to pick a fight with some Bush-sucking fool and try to make them explain away Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski:

==================

War Critics Zero In on Pentagon Office
By Jim Lobe
Inter Press Service News Agency

Tuesday 05 August 2003

http://truthout.org/docs_03/080803B.shtml

On most days, the Pentagon's 'Early Bird', a daily compilation of news articles on defence-related issues mostly from the U.S. and British press, does not shy from reprinting hard-hitting stories and columns critical of the Defence Department's top leadership. But few could help notice last week that the 'Bird' omitted an opinion piece distributed by the Knight-Ridder news agency by a senior Pentagon Middle East specialist, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith until her retirement in April.

"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD). Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her tenure in Feith's office, and particularly those of an ad hoc group known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), constituted "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress".

Kwiatkowski's charges, which tend to confirm reports and impressions offered to the press by retired officers from other intelligence agencies and their still-active but anonymous former colleagues, are likely to make her a prime witness when Congress reconvenes in September for hearings on the manipulation of intelligence to justify war against Iraq. According to Kwiatkowski, the same operation that allegedly cooked the intelligence also was responsible for the administration's failure to anticipate the problems that now dog the U.S. occupation in Iraq, or, in her more colourful words, that have placed 150,000 U.S. troops in "the world's nastiest rat's nest, without a nation-building plan, without significant international support and without an exit plan".

...more...

====================

I want to pick a fight with some Bush-sucking fool and try to make them explain away:

Army Sgt. Michael Paul Barrera, 26, of Von Ormy, Texas; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas; killed Oct. 28 when his tank was hit with an improvised explosive device in Baqubah, Iraq.

Army Spc. Isaac Campoy, 21, of Douglas, Ariz.; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas; killed when his tank was hit with an improvised explosive device on Oct. 28 in Baqubah, Iraq.

Army Sgt. Aubrey D. Bell, 33, of Tuskegee, Ala.; assigned to the 214th Military Police Company, Alabama National Guard; killed in action on Oct. 27 at Al Bayra Police Station in Baghdad, when his unit came under small arms fire and an improvised explosive device detonated.

Army Pvt. Jonathan I. Falaniko, 20, of Pago Pago, American Samoa; assigned to A Company, 70th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division, Fort Riley, Kan.; killed near the Khadra Police Station Oct. 27 when a vehicle containing an improvised explosive device detonated in downtown Baghdad.

Army Pfc. Steven Acosta, 19, of Calexico, Calif.; assigned to C Company, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; died Oct. 26 from a non-hostile gunshot wound in Baqubah, Iraq.

Army Pfc. Rachel K. Bosveld, 19, of Waupun, Wis.; assigned to the 527th Military Police Company, V Corps, Giesen, Germany; killed Oct. 26 during a mortar attack on the Abu Ghraib Police Station in Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

Army Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring, 40, of Fayetteville, N.C.; assigned to Army Central Command Headquarters (Forward), Fort McPherson, Ga.; killed Oct. 26 during a rocket-propelled grenade attack on the Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad.

Army Pvt. Joseph R. Guerrera, 20, of Dunn, N.C.; assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.; killed on patrol Oct. 26 when his vehicle was hit with an improvised explosive device in Baghdad.

Army Staff Sgt. Jamie L. Huggins, 26, of Hume, Mo.; assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.; killed while on patrol Oct. 26 when his vehicle was hit with an improvised explosive device in Baghdad.

Army Spc. Artimus D. Brassfield, 22, of Flint, Mich.; assigned to B Company, 1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; killed Oct. 24 in an enemy mortar attack in Samaria, Iraq.

Army Sgt. Michael S. Hancock, 29, of Yreka, Calif.; assigned to 1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Campbell, Ky.; killed Oct. 24 when he was shot while on guard duty in Mosul, Iraq.

Army Spc. Jose L. Mora, 26, of Bell Gardens, Calif.; assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.; killed Oct. 24 in an enemy mortar attack in Samaria, Iraq.

Army Capt. John R. Teal, 31, of Mechanicsville, Va.; assigned to 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; killed Oct. 23 when an improvised explosive device exploded by his convoy in Baqubah, Iraq.

Army Spc. John P. Johnson, 24, of Houston, Texas; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany; died Oct. 22 of non-combat-related injuries in Baghdad.

Army Pvt. Jason M. Ward, 25, of Tulsa, Okla.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 70th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Fort Riley, Kan.; died Oct. 22 of non-combat related injuries in Baghdad.

Army Pfc. Paul J. Bueche, 19, of Daphne, Ala.; assigned to the 131st Aviation Regiment, Army National Guard, Birmingham, Ala.; killed Oct. 21 when a tire he was changing on a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter exploded in Balad, Iraq.

Army Staff Sgt. Paul J. Johnson, 29, of Calumet, Mich.; assigned to 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.; killed Oct. 20 while on mounted patrol when the vehicle in which he was riding hit an improvised explosive device and then came under small-arms fire by enemy forces in Fallujah, Iraq.

Army 1st Lt. David R. Bernstein, 24, of Phoenixville, Pa.; assigned to 1st Battalion (Airborne), 508th Infantry Battalion, 173rd Infantry Brigade, Camp Ederle, Italy; killed in action Oct. 18 when enemy forces, using rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire, ambushed his patrol in Taza, Iraq.

Army Pfc. John D. Hart, 20, of Bedford, Mass.; assigned to 1st Battalion (Airborne), 508th Infantry Battalion, 173rd Infantry Brigade, Camp Ederle, Italy; killed in action Oct. 18 when enemy forces, using rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire, ambushed his patrol in Taza, Iraq.

Army Spc. Michael L. Williams, 46, of Buffalo, N.Y.; assigned to the 105th Military Police Company, Army National Guard, based in New York; killed in action Oct. 17 when his vehicle ran over an improvised explosive device near Baghdad.

Staff Sgt. Joseph P. Bellavia, 28, of Wakefield, Mass.; assigned to the 716th Military Police Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), based in Fort Campbell, Ky.; killed while attempting to negotiate with armed men who were congregating on a road near a mosque after curfew on Oct. 16 in Karbala, Iraq. Also killed in the attack were Lt. Col. Kim S. Orlando, the commanding officer of the 716th, and Cpl. Sean R. Grilley. Seven other U.S. soldiers were wounded.

Cpl. Sean R. Grilley, 24, of San Bernardino, Calif.; assigned to the 716th Military Police Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), based in Fort Campbell, Ky.; killed while attempting to negotiate with armed men who were congregating on a road near a mosque after curfew on Oct. 16 in Karbala, Iraq. Also killed in the attack were Lt. Col. Kim S. Orlando, the commanding officer of the 716th, and Staff Sgt. Joseph P. Bellavia. Seven other U.S. soldiers were wounded.

Army Lt. Col. Kim S. Orlando, 43, of Tennessee; commanding officer of the 716th Military Police Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), based in Fort Campbell, Ky.; killed while attempting to negotiate with armed men who were congregating on a road near a mosque after curfew on Oct. 16 in Karbala, Iraq.

Also killed in the attack were Staff Sgt. Joseph P. Bellavia and Cpl. Sean R. Grilley. Seven other U.S. soldiers were wounded.

Army Pfc. Jose Casanova, 23, of El Monte, Calif.; assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, based in Fort Bragg, N.C.; died Oct. 13 in Baghdad when an Iraqi dump truck swerved and rolled over on top of his Humvee.

Army Pvt. Benjamin L. Freeman, 19, of Valdosta, Ga.; assigned to K Troop, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, based in Fort Carson, Colo.; drowned Oct. 13 near Asad, Iraq. Soldiers from his unit had been searching for Freeman when they discovered him floating on the surface of the water near Haditha dam.

Army Spc. Douglas J. Weismantle, 28, of Pittsburgh; assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne, Fort Bragg, N.C.; died Oct. 13 in Baghdad when an Iraqi dump truck swerved and rolled over on top of his Humvee.

Army Spc. Donald L. Wheeler, 22 of Concord, Mich.; assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; killed Oct. 13 when his unit came under attack from a rocket-propelled grenade while searching for an improvised explosive device in Tikrit, Iraq.

Army Pfc. Stephen E. Wyatt, 19, of Kilgore, Texas; assigned to C Battery, 1st Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Sill, Okla.; killed while riding in a convoy that was hit by an improvised explosive device and small-arms fire Oct. 13 in Balad, Iraq.

Army Spc. James E. Powell, 26, of Radcliff, Ky.; assigned to B Company, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Texas; killed Oct. 12 when his M2/A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle struck an enemy anti-tank mine in Baji, Iraq.

Army Spc. Joseph C. Norquist, 26, of San Antonio, Texas; assigned to the 588th Engineer Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas; killed Oct. 9 in Baqubah, Iraq, when his convoy was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire.

Army Pvt. Sean A. Silva, 23, of Roseville, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Polk, La.; killed Oct. 9 in Baghdad when his patrolling unit was ambushed by individuals using small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Army Staff Sgt. Christopher W. Swisher, 26, of Lincoln, Neb.; assigned to 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Polk, La.; killed Oct. 9 in Baghdad when his patrolling unit was ambushed by individuals using small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Army Spc. Spencer T. Karol, 20, of Woodruff, Ariz.; assigned to the 165th Military Intelligence, V Corps, Darmstadt, Germany; killed while on a mission to observe enemy activity when a command-detonated device exploded, overturning his vehicle, on Oct. 6 in Ramadi, Iraq.

Army Pfc. Kerry D. Scott, 21, of Mount Vernon, Wash.; assigned to 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.; killed Oct. 6 in Iskandariyah, Iraq, when his convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device.

Army 2nd Lt. Richard Torres, 25, of Clarksville, Tenn.; assigned to 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.; killed while on combat patrol, when his convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device; on Oct. 6 in Baghdad.

Army Spc. James H. Pirtle, 27, of La Mesa, N.M.; assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas; killed when an RPG struck his Bradley Fighting Vehicle on Oct. 4 in Assadah, Iraq.

Army Pfc. Charles M. Sims, 18, of Miami, Fla., assigned to the 549th Military Police Company, Fort Stewart, Ga.; drowned on Oct. 3 in Baghdad.

Army Command Sgt. Maj. James D. Blankenbecler, 40, of Alexandria, Va.; assigned to 1st Battalion, 44th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas; killed while riding in a convoy that was hit by an improvised explosive device and rocket-propelled grenades on Oct. 1 in Samarra, Iraq.

Army Pfc. Analaura Esparza Gutierrez, 21, of Houston, Texas; assigned to A Company, 4th Forward Support Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas; killed while riding in a convoy that was hit by an improvised explosive device and rocket propelled grenades on Oct. 1 in Tikrit.

Army Spc. Simeon Hunte, 23, of Essex, N.J.; assigned to 1st Battalion, 13th Armored Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Riley, Kan.; killed while was on patrol when an Iraqi citizen approached and shot him, on Oct. 1 in Al Khadra, Iraq.

THAT'S JUST OCTOBER.

I want to pick a fight, oh dear God do I want to pick a fight. I want to hear some Bush-sucking fool stammer through some rationale about September 11 and enemies who hate our freedom. I will boat that person like a marlin, gut them, and hang them on my wall.

Bring it on, fools. My job is making you weep, breaking you, defeating you, ending you. I am the heavyweight champion in my weight class. I am undefeated. I will waste you. Lay you low. I will finish you.

Come on. Pick a fight with me.

[Zomby Woof]

1. Floats like a butterfly

Stings like a bee. :-)

*puts money down in favor of Pitt delivering a KO to the wingnut in the 1st round*

[BlueHeron]

2. Don't think you'll find that person here. Maybe over in Freeperville?

:shrug:

[stevedeshazer]

3. ...

:thumbsup:

[MGKrebs]

4. Good luck.

I know you, of all people, can handle it.

You can try these guys if you really want to go "hunting" for trouble:

http://forums.somd.com/

However, I am reluctant to offer them the opportunity of the honor of your participation. They do not desrve it. (Well, except for the 2 or 3 libs there.)

Any plans to come to Atlanta? Or have you been here and I missed it?

[fla nocount]

5. Sorry Will. I like to fight, but you leave me defenseless.

Why don't you challenge me again and shut your yap?

[WilliamPitt]

6. Fair enough

:)

[AngryYoungMan]

7. Beside the point

In my experience arguing with pro-Iraqi-war neocons, these arguments fail. They fail because neocons hold the following (barbaric) beliefs:

1. IT IS OKAY TO LIE ABOUT THE ROOT CAUSES OF THE WAR. This goes all the way back to Aristotle and the Allegory of the Cave, by way of Leo Strauss and his U. of Chicago denizens. It is understood that the goal of taking over the Iraqi oilfields and "destabilizing the region" cannot be sold to the American public at face value, and that the subterfuge of the 9/11 connection is justifiable in the name of this greater good. We (the public) don't know what's good for the nation, in this formulation, and must be fooled.

2. THE BODY BAGS DON'T MATTER. I have heard this argument a lot too. It's callous and unfit for public consumption, but "people die in wars" and to neocons this war is every bit as necessary as WWII, if not more so.

3. THE DURATION OF THE CONFLICT DOESN'T MATTER. This is the "Vietnam" argument redux. Pulling out is an unacceptable option; look how badly it screwed us up in our Southeast Asia conflict. There is no such thing as a "quagmire" because there is no forseable situation that warrants pulling out. The rest is just politics.

All three of these positions are core neocon beliefs and, when I argue with conservatives, I have to go right to these three premises and attack them directly. All discussion of Bush's hypocracy or the death toll is, to the neocons, irrelevant and useless. Argue this way and you will not lay a glove on them.

Remember, Will, that these people do not think the way that we do. They do not have our liberal faith in the electorate. They are the children of Barry Goldwater. Believe it. If they were allowed to speak their minds, they would say, "fuck the death toll; it's worth it. Trust us."

[WilliamPitt]

9. Well, after that stage was passed

I would make them justify their arguments by describing what would be gained via their rationale. Point by point, I would end them. They would not be convinced. But they would be defeated.

[AngryYoungMan]

11. Fair enough, but...

...you would have to set aside your (admittedly very well done) fusillade above and enter into an entirely different kind of discussion. And it's a difficult argument to win, because the neocon side contains some very crafty circular logic.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Afganistan 1978

and "actions have consequences" usually does the trick.

===

The Other American Dream
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://truthout.com/docs_02/09.01A.wrp.am.drm.htm

(snip)

The bloody history of Afghanistan represents a clear example of the kind of geopolitical gamesmanship that characterizes the plans these people have for America. Afghanistan in 1978 was ruled by a Communist puppet regime called the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). To foster a destabilization of that regime, so as to counter the growing Soviet influence in that strategically vital region, America began arming and training Afghan mujeheddin warriors, with Pakistan's assistance, in an effort to undermine the PDPA.

This effort, however, had more in mind than the overthrow of the PDPA. Elie Krakowski, in a study written for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in April of 2000, described Afghanistan's importance as going far beyond the dictates of the Cold War:

"(Afghanistan) owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become an important potential opening to the sea for the landlocked new states of Central Asia. The presence of large oil and gas deposits in that area has attracted countries and multinational corporations. Because Afghanistan is a major strategic pivot, what happens there affects the world."

This places American aid to the mujeheddin in 1978 in a broader perspective. Our actions were not simply about attacking communism. In attempting to destabilize the PDPA, we were hoping to tempt the wrath of the Soviet Union. It worked: The USSR invaded and eventually destroyed its ability to extend influence into the region against the unyielding rock of Afghanistan, eliminating a strategic enemy and opening the region to broadening American hegemony.

Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor for President Carter during this period, bluntly confirmed this in 1998. "We did not push the Russians into invading," said Brzezinski, "but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. The secret operation was an excellent idea. The effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap."

Brzezinski's brag is revelatory, for it describes the lengths to which the proponents of this other American Dream will go to achieve this goal. Afghanistan was utterly destroyed by the Soviet invasion in 1979, by the ten-year war fought by Afghan warriors to remove them, and by the ravaging civil war that descended in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. In that span was born the Taliban, trained to fight, and to propound their deadly interpretation of Islam, in Pakistani religious schools funded and supported by the American CIA.

Brzezinski's "Afghan trap" gave birth, as well, to Osama bin Laden, whose reputation as a heroic anti-Soviet mujeheddin warrior made him a demigod within Afghanistan. None of this - the Soviet invasion, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, the wretchedness of life in Afghanistan - would have come into existence without the forces behind the other American Dream playing out geopolitical strategies designed to augment American control in the world.

This other American Dream was codified by Brzezinski in 1998, who authored in 1998 a study for the Council on Foreign Relations entitled, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives." The study describes in detail the importance of Afghanistan and the entire Central Asian region, which is described in its entirety as "Eurasia." According to the study, America must gain military and economic control of the region to stave off competition from China, Russia and Europe. The guts of the study are quoted below:

"But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals including gold...It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America...A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions.

"To put it in terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

Profoundly disquieting are the conclusions reached by Brzezinski regarding the means by which the American populace could be directed into supporting the actions required to achieve control in that region. "As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

The danger is clear. This geopolitical strategy of dominion in Central Asia, begun in 1978 with the "Afghan trap," put in motion a series of events that ultimately led to the creation of the Taliban, the empowerment of Osama bin Laden, and the attacks of September 11th. The plans described to Richard Perle's Defense Policy Board that target not only Iraq, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia and indeed the entire Middle East, were born from the same strategic imperatives.

This is the other American Dream. Already, the blowback from its dictates have dealt a terrible blow to the true dream we wish to live by. We live in fear now of mega-terrorism that was spawned by our actions in Central Asia and the Middle East, and by our desire for economic control of those regions and their resources. Because of the terrorism we have already endured, many of our essential liberties have been taken away in the blasphemous guise of protecting freedom. Because of the terrorism we have already endured, the fundamental right of life was taken from thousands of our citizens. The three pillars of our society have been shattered.

[AngryYoungMan]

21. But remember....

I never said that the neocon position was sound. I'm simply saying that your goal of "picking a fight" is confounded by their obstinate insistence on certain sophistic principles.

Don't get me wrong; it's a powerful point and I agree completely. The lineage you trace here is irrefutable (and by the way I like your writing, too). But comparing Iraq 2003 to Afghanistan 1978 is a bit like comparing Watergate to Iran/Contra. The "lessons learned" (i.e. damage done) the first time around clears the way for the second pass. In other words, BECAUSE of the chain of events you detail, BECAUSE of the profound changes involved, BY DEFINITION the bad outcomes are not repeatable. Like I said, crafty circular logic.

Remember that I'm not arguing this way myself; I personally think it's a stupid, shallow argument they're making, and I agree with your position 100%. I'm just saying that this is what our enemy's thinking looks like.

[Zomby Woof]

24. one quibble

The neocons and other Bush-sucking fools (stealing from Will) are not the children of Goldwater. He was not a neocon. Rather, he was an old guard conservative, which are very rare these days. The neocons come from a different root, namely fascism, and no matter how hawkish Cold Warrior Goldwater was, he would spin is his grave at what has been done in the name of "conservatism" - especially the invasion of Iraq, as well as the erosion of abortion rights (which he supported), gay rights (ditto), and the rampant cronyism of this regime.

Though I don't truck much with most Goldwater-brand conservatism, it was carved out of principle - not greed, expedience, or craven ambition, which are hallmarks of the neocons, among even uglier traits we all have seen too well.

[AngryYoungMan]

28. The neocons wouldn't agree...

...they see themselves as fundamentally principled.

Not that you're wrong; just that they wouldn't agree.

My Goldwater point is simply about jettisoning the need for public acceptance. Goldwater invented the idea that conservatives can "just be right" even if the entire American public disagrees. It just means that they have to be faked out. It's a license to lie.

Sorry if I was glib or unclear...

[Zomby Woof]

52. you weren't unclear at all

But I appreciate you expounding a bit further, so that I better understand why you used that metaphor.

I think it comes down to you using Goldwater (being a potent symbol of archconservatism even now) as a model for the moral justification of views which may be at odds with the public, and the public be damned if they don't agree with the professed morals and views on what is "right" from those "above".

The neocons definitely use a moral-heavy vernacular and it is a prism through which they expound much of their world view, I agree. But I am not sure they actually believe their own tripe, or are just using it to hold sway in avoidance of real debate. It is quite likely they do think their shit smells like roses (I see that in Bush for certain), so we can agree for the most part there.

Goldwater thrived on conservatives being the minority opposition and deriving a sense of moral superiority from tenaciously fighting for their views against what they saw as a hostile majority, which often included the mass of the public. I think we parted in opinion where I saw the concrete, not metaphorical, differences between Goldwater and the modern neocons.

In other words, I fully see where you are coming from in the metaphorical/philosophical realm, and I was coming at you in the literal/concrete realm.

So let's say they are his children, but he would disown them post haste. :-)

[roguevalley]

99. You are playing to the choir with me. I hate arguing with these kind of

people because they don't see reality in the same
way that we do. They are a perversion of the quote
by RFK that speculated on seeing things that are
not and asking why not.

They aren't moved by truth and logic. Reason is
beyond their grasp. They are cemented into their
world view and nothing short of them losing every
thing that matters to them will budge them. My
uncle would find a way to rationale the death of
his children over there as just. Of course, they
would never pass the physical but that is neither
here nor there.

Who ticked you off? Kick them hard.

[maggrwaggr]

30. an excellent point, BUT the point is that the public is not hearing

anything but the neocon propaganda.

We need our own network, we need people like Will Pitt on television telling it like it is.

We need people questioning things like this torture tape, and the "fat Osama" tape.

We need people to hold up a mirror to this spewing of lies and show it for what it is.

That's the bottom line.

Where's so-called "liberal Hollywood" in all this? Where are the Rob Reiners, the Barbra Streisands, why aren't they ponying up their millions to actually do something about this?

[JNelson6563]

100. Here's something to get them angry

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

From a fellow wing-nut of theirs. ;-)

Last 4 paragraphs:

A smoking gun found now wouldn't even undo the lies. It wouldn't negate the fact that the president had no such evidence before the war when he claimed Saddam and Osama were thick as thieves, contradicting the intelligence community's threat assessment. He simply turned around and told the public a whopper.

Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on.

It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those troops and other resources – including intelligence assets, Arabic translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars – from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever.

That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it – and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush.


Julie

[starroute]

112. I think the root issue is both deeper and simpler

The world situation we are living in today began in the 1940's. World War II -- and particularly the atomic bomb -- made it obvious to everyone that the human race had no future in a world of warring nations. Somehow or other, the planet had to be brought from a condition of recurring (and ever more destructive) wars to one of permanent peace. The only question was how that could be accomplished.

That "how" is the real joker. Nobody these days doubts the goal of a peaceful world. The only real disputes involve the means -- and the shape of the outcome. And here I see a range of defining questions.

1) Can the world be brought together peacefully through multilateral processes (treaties, free trade, the United Nations, etc.) or can it be unified only by one powerful nation establishing hegemony and forcing all other countries to submit and disarm?

2) Can the fate of the world be trusted to democratic processes, with free peoples cooperating gladly with other free peoples, or must it be directed by a detached elite, acting through secretive procedures to manipulate the emotions of the childlike and short-sighted masses?

3) Is the bounty of the world ample enough to provide equally for everyone, or is any new world order inevitably going to involve haves and have-nots, with certain nations or classes living permanently in comfort off the toil of the many?

4) Can the shift to a global system be made in a let-bygones-be-bygones fashion that will insure the safety of the small fraction of the earth's population which has oppressed and exploited the rest of the world during the last several centuries, or would the members of that European-derived minority be best advised to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain their dominance and avoid what would otherwise be an inevitable wave of retribution?

Putting together the first element of each of those points gets you to a sort of Star Trek future, where everybody plays nice together and can't imagine things being any different.

Taking the second elements of the first two points produces what might be called an open conservative position, where the US will have to impose free trade and democracy on the rest of the world for its own good, but where things can still be all sunshine and good feelings afterwards. That's where the neocons in general seem to position themselves, and it can be very hard to argue with them on behalf of liberal idealism in the face of what they see as their own hard-nosed realism.

But the real issue between the left and the right isn't over points #1 and #2 -- it's over points #3 and #4. I'd say the left in general believes that you can't use coercive and secretive methods to arrive at a free and open society, and that the inevitable result of current conservative methods will be a world that is oppressive, exploitative, and down-to-the-bones racist. What's more, I'd say that much of the left believes that at least part of the right knows this and is perfectly content to have things turn out that way.

This is why things can get so tinfoil around here. It comes out of a sense that the real motives are hidden and the real issues aren't being talked about.

It's also why the Israeli-Palestinian issue gets so contentious. For the left, that issue has nothing to do with the Jews (except by historical accident) and nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It's all about whether a small and nominally democratic society can impose its will on a larger and much poorer region through its massive store of atomic weapons and its well-oiled system of covert operations -- and whether the outcome of that process will be peace and prosperity for everyone concerned, or merely an economically-faltering apartheid state. If Israel is the shape of our own future, and Israel's relationship with the Palestinians the model for our relationship with the rest of the world, we have good reason to be terrified by what we see.

[Eloriel]

8. Well, for my taste

the "I want to pick a fight" phrase is fine, but all the other pugilistic, barroom rhetoric is a turn-off and worse, a massive distraction. Yuck. And the "Bush-sucking fool" shit would be way too much used just once.

Otherwise, it could be a good piece.

Eloriel

[WilliamPitt]

10. Good piece?

You think I'm using this anywhere as an article tonight? This is my standard ammo, carved out simply for this post. I spoke these facts over 30,000 miles and 20 states and several countries since July. I engaged freep after freep after freep in Texas and Arizona and Colorado and North Carolina and New Hampshire and Orange fucking County. These are my arrows, and they always find the meat. Now, they're yours.

I'm sorry if you were offended. Send this on to Howard. He can make use of it.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

63. "Have another drink"

The personal attack is the last refuge of the punk who has nothing else to offer. Congratulations. Yay Dean! His supporters make me love the candidate! Not.

[maggrwaggr]

75. Hey I don't think Will could type so accurately ....

if he was, you know, having another drink. :)

But if he is, hell, I'll have one of what he's having.

[Tatiana]

84. I'm on my 4th drink.

And I'm typing just fine ;)

[VolcanoJen]

92. I'll have what Will's having.

Cheers!

[WilliamPitt]

93. Cheers!

:)

[RetroLounge]

105. Hey Will, nice post and thanks for the ammo...

I will print it out and keep it with me and drill it into my head to be pulled out and tossed at any Freep who dares listen.

Thanks for the 30,000 miles and 20 States. Next time, I hope you drop into Milwaukee, I'll buy ya a beer or two (we used to make a lot of beer here...)

(but really, please drop the Dean Bash, you might insult the rest of us Dean supporters who did NOT piss you off.)

[frank frankly]

12. I, too, would enjoy such a fight

and I'm a lousy fighter!

[Selwynn]

13. Not in the face! Not in the face! :D

[Tatiana]

14. Great!

Even after a calming glass of wine, I can feel my rage building.

-Did contact my senator Dick Durbin, and he promises to look into the matter of the OSP.

[RandomKoolzip]

15. Oh man, rope a dope! There IS no defense on the right.

I bet the kind of fights you'll get are ad hominem attacks like "You just hate America" or "Yew libbruls just cain't stand that Dubya is so popluar, can yah?" Completely sidestepping the point.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

19. ^^DING DING DING WILL HERE YOU GO DING DING DING^^

Didn't take long for someone to blame Clinton, did it?

[grannylib]

20. *lol* you obviously can't read most of what you wrote, close2center...

Look at the differences in the quotes. In most cases, the Democrats were talking about the capacity to DEVELOP weapons, the programs they may have had in place to try to do so.
The Shrubbies were claiming absolute fact..they EXIST (not in development) and Rummy even claimed to know RIGHT WHERE THEY WERE...
So hmmmm.....why the hell have we not found them yet??
Nice try, but no cigar

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

29. See post #23

[BurtWorm]

36. Wow! Brilliant! The "meaning of 'is' is" defense!

One rarely used at DU!

[Tatiana]

42. I just have to ask....

I hope they let you stick around for a while, so you can answer my question...

What is the fixation you guys have with Clinton(s)? Cause, like, my theory is that y'all are:

a) threatened by Bill's/Hillary's superior intelligence
b) secretly attracted to one (or both) of them
c) jealous of the popularity they enjoy

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton!!!! (i.e. Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!!!!) Why can't you let go?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. Guess it does depend on that doesn't it?

Main Entry: be
Pronunciation: 'bE
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): past first & third singular was /'w&z, 'wäz/; second singular were /'w&r/; plural were past subjunctive were past part been /'bin, chiefly British 'bEn/; present part be·ing /'bE(-i)/; present first singular am /&m, 'am/; second singular are /'är, &r/; third singular is /'iz, &z/; plural are present subjunctive be
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bEon; akin to Old High German bim am, Latin fui I have been, futurus about to be, fieri to become, be done, Greek phynai to be born, be by nature, phyein to produce
Date: before 12th century
intransitive senses
1 a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : SYMBOLIZE <God is love> <January is the first month> <let x be 10> b : to have identity with <the first person I met was my brother> c : to constitute the same class as d : to have a specified qualification or characterization <the leaves are green> e : to belong to the class of <the fish is a trout> -- used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2 a : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality : LIVE <I think, therefore I am> <once upon a time there was a knight> b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position <the book is on the table> c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted -- used only in infinitive form <let him be> d : to take place : OCCUR <the concert was last night> e : to come or go <has already been and gone> <has never been to the circus> f archaic : BELONG, BEFALL
verbal auxiliary
1 -- used with the past participle of transitive verbs as a passive-voice auxiliary <the money was found> <the house is being built>
2 -- used as the auxiliary of the present participle in progressive tenses expressing continuous action <he is reading> <I have been sleeping>
3 -- used with the past participle of some intransitive verbs as an auxiliary forming archaic perfect tenses <Christ is risen from the dead -- 1 Cor 15:20 (Douay Version)>
4 -- used with the infinitive with to to express futurity, arrangement in advance, or obligation <I am to interview him today> <she was to become famous>

[bluestateguy]

22. Game on!

Sock it to 'em Will!!!!

on edit:
William Jefferson Clinton is no longer president. I know that that bothers you--it bothers me too--but you must learn to stop talking about him. President Clinton is gone, and unfortunately, is not coming back. George W. Bush is the president now, and I think it's better for us to focus our discussion on him now. As last fall elections proved, this is now George W. Bush's government (God help us), and there is no Tom Daschle, Bill Clinton or Dick Gephardt in positions of power to blame anymore. George W. Bush's government. George W. Bush's responsibility, and next November he will stand before the voters and face their judgement.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

77. All right fine

I'll conceed your point, if you answer this question:

At what point does George W. Bush assume ownership of the problems he now presides over? When does the blaming of Bill Clinton become outdated and come to an end? If there is another 9/11 style attack will Bill Clinton still be blamed, 3 years after having left office? I thought Mr. Bush was all about responsibility and accountability.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Well, as long as you're here

I'd say those Democrats were wrong too, as evidenced by the fact that nothing but nothing has been found to support the claims. The disinformation provided by the Iraqi national Congress and Ahmad Chalabi goes back to 1997 and before, and was effective. I don't defend these assholes; they didn't do their homework like I did.

I would also say that none of the above pushed an invasion of Iraq that has killed 349 American soldiers, wounded thousands more, and destabilized the world. Most of those captioned above, actually, advocated for weapons inspections and the involvement of the international community.

I would point to the web page on the White House's own website, entitled "Disarm Saddam Hussein" which claims that Iraq has:

26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people

38,000 liters of botulinum toxin

500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents

Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

Several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.

An advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html

Lies. The Niger uranium claims, and the aluminium tubes claim, are laughable that they still reside on the White House's own website.

I have boated you, gutted you, and hung you on my wall. Punk.

[BurtWorm]

32. I think grannylib got to him first.

A distinct difference between the Clinton era declarations and the Bush ones, as grannylib pointed out, is that the former were about "risk" and "development" and "programs." As you pointed out, that is not at all what the Bushists were claiming. A recent article at opendemocracy.net underscores this point. The Bushists pursued a Straussian "noble lie"--deceitful means to an ideal end, duping the sheep into following along because the sheep can only be duped. They don't see the perfection of the PNAC ideal:


http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1542.jsp


Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq
Danny Postel


What was initially an anti-war argument is now a matter of public record. It is widely recognised that the Bush administration was not honest about the reasons it gave for invading Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was ?murky? and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren?t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush?s war on Iraq (2003.)

By contrast, Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flow directly from the doctrines of the political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973). His disciples include Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives who have driven much of the political agenda of the Bush administration.

If Shadia Drury is right, then American policy-makers exercise deception with greater coherence than their British allies in Tony Blair?s 10 Downing Street. In the UK, a public inquiry is currently underway into the death of the biological weapons expert David Kelly. A central theme is also whether the government deceived the public, as a BBC reporter suggested.

[WilliamPitt]

35. True dat

grannylib is my elder and better.

[grannylib]

108. *lol* Hey now...

Elder is a relative term - I'm only 44, so not all THAT elderly hee hee!
And better?? Nah...just happened to be here to post at just the right time!

Happy Halloween All!

[Tatiana]

34. Amazing that $hit is still up there!

But, but, but... the President said G-d told him to strike Iraq!!!!!

Schweet rebuttal by the way...

[WilliamPitt]

37. It was a good rebuttal

No rhetoric...the words themselves. I have a lot of respect for 2 close2 the center for framing it that way. I dusted him anyway, tho...

[BurtWorm]

43. 2close2thecenter: 2 dead in 2 posts 2 respond

May he freep in peace.

[Tatiana]

49. SUCKS! :( Bring him back!

[Holly]

44. Been looking for this answer

Never could come up with the right argument to use when they throw the Dem quotes at me. It's so easy...they were wrong, but they didn't invade Iraq etc. That's the answer.

[sistersofmercy]

45. Here Will check out this web page!

BTW INC had a web page they took down, had the slithering Chalabi's speeches on-line, for the life of me I can't understand why those speeches spewing Saddam's threat would be a liability.:shrug:
Here's what I want you to check out if I screw up the URL just let me know. http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
I didn't read this thoroughly didn't have the time.

[Egnever]

51. hmmmm

They were wrong?

You say you did your homework so I asume you know the answers to my next questions.

Did or did not the inspectors find evidence of a nuclear program before they were pulled out of Iraq?

What was clinton bombing when he sent the missles over there if it wasnt WMD?

Now dont be confused I Never thought Saddam had wmd of any significant amounts after say 97, 98

But I am curious

What were they wrong about and how were they wrong?

/puts on flame retardant suit.

[fla nocount]

26. Lookee here. One that can read and write....and quote.

"There is no difference between the parties."
Ralph Nader(Ambulance chaser, Green)

This is obviously a possible convert. Please be nice to 2close2the center. Anyone who can think is valuable no matter how deluded. S/he can remember one day to the next, how rare.

[camero]

27. All of your quotes suggest

Keeping the sanctions in place, not invading the country. Almost daily bombing of known Iraqi facilities kept Saddam from developing his weapons programs.

The statements made during the Bush Cabal were simply a way to not be accused of being un-patriotic. No evidence of any weapons has surfaced since the invasion. So, how do you explain that, huh?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grannylib]

18. Well done! Applause, applause!

When you find one of the Bush-sucking fools, let me know -
I am usually your stereotypical, liberal pacifist, tolerant and understanding...
But I CANNOT tolerate what is happening to our country, and I CANNOT understand how so many people can be so willfully blind and stupid...
WAKE UP AMERICA!

[WilliamPitt]

31. 2 close2 the center NEEDS TO SEE POST #23

[sistersofmercy]

33. OK Will I'll pick a fight with you...

First of all Bush* isn't sayin' diddly squat, he has as usual devised his sentences in order to pass the buck. Yes you have Ari (no longer in the picture), Cheney (soon to be retired, it'll be understandable given his age and heart condition) and Gen. Tommy Franks (Wanna Indian wrestle that he retires soon?)
But hey I agree with the evil little simpleton* about one thing. During Tuesday's press conference he said Iraq requires more intelligence, well, can't dispute that in a manner of speaking. Heck, I'd take any intelligence at all.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Another Bill C.]

39. Great points

but my experience is that their eyes will glaze over, they'll pick up their little "made in China" flags and march off toward the siren.

[WilliamPitt]

40. LOL

Can't argue with an American flag made in China...

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

47. You say Gore would have made a bad wartime President.

Do you think Bush is a good one?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maggrwaggr]

60. so ... if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, why'd we attack him?

If you can answer me that, you've won the 87 billlion dollar question.

Your "wartime president" has let the American people down in two major ways.

a. He let 9/11 happen. He should have been fired on 9/12.

b. He took the war to the wrong country. We weren't attacked by Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

We now have our military completely tied down in a country where it shouldn't be in the first place.

Our treasury is being drained by this blunder.

The rest of the world will not help us. They are the ships cruising past and we are the drowning men waving for help.

You call this good wartime leadership?

Where'd you get your brain?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

61. Excuse me, but were you not paying attention?

Why did you reference Sept 11, when Will's post was about the war in Iraq?
September 11 was not the work of Iraq!
Besides, President Gore woudn't have ignored his own report on terror.
President Gore wouldn't have ignored the Hard-Rudman report.
President Gore wouldn't have ignored the constant and repeated warnings coming from the CIA and the FBI for the preceeding six months before September 11.
Sheesh!

[camero]

65. 9/11 would have never happened with Gore at the helm

It was the arrogance of the Bush Cabal (also a lack of any meetings on terrorism, even though there were warnings as early as 1999 of plots against our shores).

Bush had the info to do something about them and he did nothing until he absolutely had to.

FYI, plots against LAX were discovered near 2000 and broken up. By Clinton.

[maggrwaggr]

66. that's speculation. We have hard proof that Bush is a failure

the facts are that Bush didn't protect the country in the first place.

He never even read the report.

He invaded the wrong country.

He never found the perpetrators of 9/11. He is covering up what he knew about 9/11.

He has not found Saddam Hussein.

He declared the war over before it was over ...

The list just goes on and on and on .....

The man's a fool. I wish he was a good president, I actually do, after 9/11 I really wanted the guy to do a good job, but it turns out he's an even bigger fool than I ever suspected.

I'd like to see your reasons why you think Bush is a "good" wartime president. Where's the evidence for this assertion?

[camero]

74. Um, hello, are you answering me? Or kmars?

I specifically said that if Gore was president, 9/11 would never have happened because he would have acted on the intelligence that was out there BEFORE 9/11.

[maggrwaggr]

78. I was answering you

and not meaning any disrespect, I just feel that saying "Gore wouldn't have let 9/11 happen" is not a good argument because we don't KNOW that for a fact.

We do know that Bush failed to prevent 9/11. That is most certainly a fact.

[camero]

90. Your're right it is a fact. Bush let it happen.

The democratic administration of Clinton/Gore had already exposed and defeated 2 known plots to attack American shores around the millenium. It is speculation, but I saw no reason to believe that Gore would have deviated from Clinton era policy on terrorism.

I was not in the least saying that Bush was a good wartime president. I was saying he was also a sorry peacetime president.

[Scairp]

103. There's no way to know that for sure

The attacks were so well planned. But one thing we do know for sure is that Gore would have handled the aftermath a damn sight better than Shrub has.

[Tatiana]

70. Okay... I'll play.

"Once the gloves come off, as the did on September 11, 2001 you can no longer play nice and fair."

(Disregarding the fact that I believe Bush willfully ignored intelligence warning of impending attacks before Sept. 11th) What does September 11th have to do with Bush's war in Iraq? Bush himself admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks upon our nation. Forget nice and fair for the moment. Let's talk about something you can probably relate to. Don't you care about WINNING? Bush isn't winning anything. He's a perennial loser. To date we have

NO OSAMA
NO SADDAM
NO WMDs
NO IRAQI OIL

We aren't safer than we were before September 11th. In fact, we're less safe because now we've pissed off everyone else in the world except for Great Britain and Australia. More attacks are a given, thanks to Bush's policy of pre-emption. By next year, we won't even have enough troops to rotate in to relief the poor soldiers we already have in that quagmire.

Would you be in favor of reinstituting the draft, then?

[maggrwaggr]

72. could you list exactly HOW Bush is a good wartime president?

seriously, I'd like to see an actual list of the facts to back up your assertion.

The first would be .... what?

The second would be .... what?

I honestly can think of absolutely nothing he's done right since he's been president. Starting with the failure of 9/11 itself.

Since then he's done everything wrong. If you can refute this by offering up anything other than "well at least he's not Gore" I'd really like to see it.

[maggrwaggr]

55. "make no mistake" you say. Strange, where have I heard that ......?

That's a favorite Bushism.

Your religious wingnuts are running the country, pal. They hate America because they hate Democracy. Their greatest fear is rule "by the people for the people".

They would love nothing more than to see America terminated and themselves in power forever.

And they're working on it

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maggrwaggr]

64. everyone I've seen on DU who has used that phrase

in support of the war has turned out to be a freeper.

If the shoe fits ....

Another good one is "homicide bomber". Do you use that?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

57. My reply

First of all, thank you for your service.

"It's plain as the nose on everyone's face that Saddam has long sought the ultimate terror weapons, whther they be chemical, biological or nuclear. He had plans for a huge artillery cannon which Britain seized that last pieces of the barrel. France gave Saddam a reator capable of producing weapons grade plutonium which Israel blew up. Saddam allowed the running of several terrorist camps within his nations borders, most notably, Salman Pak."

No one disputes that Hussein was a bastard. But after the Gulf War, seven years of effective weapons inspections, Operation Desert Fox, twelve years of ruinous sanctions, the fact that his weaponry had a shelf life of five years, the no-fly zones, and the UNMOVIC inspections, Saddam Hussein was basically the Mayor of Baghdad. He was contained. He was no threat, certainly not a threat worthy of the rhetoric I posted.

Salman Pak was a training station for Saddam's own troops to use AGAINST terrorists. The fundy extremists hated Hussein because he was secular. He needed to have his people trained in counter-terrorism tactics, because Iraq had a national airline, and because of the neighborhood he lived in. Hence, Salman Pak and the mockup airplane and the mockup bus and the mockup neighborhoods.

"To your list of the October dead. That was their own choice just as it was my choice to enter the Armed Forces. There is no longer a draft and these people made the choice to not only put themselves in harms way but also to allow themselves to be used should the government feel the need to do so. Sounds cold and calous, perhaps, but that does not make it any less true."

You know as well as I do that when you swear the oath of service, and when you put on the uniform, you are making a promise. The promise returned is that your life will not be spent on bullshit and politics and profiteering. Volunteering does not obviate that promise. In fact, it cements it.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

73. Reply

"Effective Weapons Searches? You mean after the inspectors were forced out of Iraq and gun point? And just how effective were they? So far we have found UCAV's, missiles and warheads in Saddams possession after he was removed from power. Are we supposed to feel safe just because he had no bio-contagions to put in there?"

The weapons inspectors were removed by Richard Butler after he was caught inserting spies into the UNSCOM teams. Desert Fox was particularly effective because these guys had been inserted into the teams in defiance of UN rules. Saddam didn't "throw the inspectors out." Thedy were removed voluntarily by the UN chief inspector after he got busted for fucking UN rules.

"Saddam traded oil, in some cases illegally, for drugs, which his oldest osn sold on the black market to help his father resupply his army. Saddam was the "Mayor" and yet during the "Oil for Food" program almost 50,000 people a year died due to malnutrition and lack of medical care yet there was enough cash in the central bank of IRaq for Saddam to fell with almost a billion dollars."

No one questions that Saddam was a bastard. There are a lot of bastards out there. If America adopts an "Invade The Bastards" foreign policy, we're fucked blue and true, and you know it. Iraq was a soft, weak target.

"Salman Pak was a terrosit training camp plain and simple. I've been there sonny jim and I know exactly what I saw. manuals on how to create and place car bombs for maximu devistation. Also, let's not forget the nice promise of 25,000 cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."

I have heard different from others who have been there.

'My oath made no promise that my life will not be spent on "bullshit". And a promise intended is not a promise. That's alittle thing we call contractual law in this country.'

My father served in Vietnam, voluntarily. We have a different view.

[Aidoneus]

97. on that French-supplied reactor

on the contrary, OSIRAK (destroyed by Israeli aggression) would never have been able to produce weapons:--such is the trait of light-water reactors. That is why Clinton's people convinced the DPRK to seal up their graphite-moderated nuclear reactor in the 90s, in exchange for 2 light-water reactors (which were then never built in a blatent display of duplicity).

On the part of the mods, it is most unsavory to have Will call out these people only for the moderators to "disappear" their views when they are expressed as requested. This seems like an interesting exchange, though only half of it remains visible.

[sistersofmercy]

76. Ah the little terrorist camp was in Northern Kurdish controlled Iraq.

The biggest terror group in Iraq used to be part of the INC it's called SCIRI funde by Iran. They blowing up buildings and assasinating ppl long before this criminal war started.

[Aidoneus]

98. Ansar's "terror camp" was a bloody film studio

one of the more embarassing of all the ridiculous lies invented for this crusade.. :eyes:

On the side, why do you refer to SAIRI as a "terror group"?

[sistersofmercy]

109. Here you go you might find this web page useful. Also you can go to

Amnesty International and read Iraq annual reports which have details about terrorist activities occuring in Northern Iraq for the last few years.
This is a web page of Iraqi opposition groups SCIRI is about a quarter of the way down. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqiopposition.html

Another link that had something on it
http://www.rferl.org/iraq-report/2002/06/19-160600.html

[Aidoneus]

113. I know who they are

quite familiar, actually. I was curious why you referred to them as a "terror group".

[sistersofmercy]

111. Here's a link to AI be advised the page goes down every so often

just save the URL and go back later.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

56. WOW!

Ummm.... I don't get it???? Who said Will was a Dem G-d?

[lynndew2]

68. His Posts say it all. N/T

[WilliamPitt]

67. I'm too tired

from speaking these exact facts in New Hampshire and Philly and Delaware and Arizona and Colordao and Orange County and Montana and Austin and Houston and Greensboro and Chapel Hill and Boone and Asheville and the Hague and Berlin and London and Oxford and Paris and New York and Seattle and San Diego and San Francisco to go to another web forum and erase every comer the way I did over 34,000 miles over the last four months. Sorry. I'm in my house, and my slippers are off. You have a problem with that?

[lynndew2]

79. Sweet Dreams Will

Hope you have more sweet dreams!!! Lynn

[WilliamPitt]

83. I'll dream of making you look silly

[bluestateguy]

82. Well

Will, you just brought a few of the Freeper lurkers out of the woodwork, and they were promptly banned. Kind of like calling on the exterminator to spray a deadly toxin that will attract the bugs.

[WilliamPitt]

MWWWAAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAHHHHHH

:)

[maggrwaggr]

87. "Flypaper" Pitt

Bring 'em on!

[WilliamPitt]

88. We live to serve

Apologies to the mods.

:)

Not really.

[fla nocount]

85. Sleep, sleep sweet baby James

Your thread is being selectively edited regardless, all the meat stripped from the bone. I'm going to bed too, G'nite.

[maggrwaggr]

86. Will wrote a book, got it published, has a website, went on tour ...

and I'm sure i'm leaving a whole lot out.

how have you taken your fight to the streets today???

Will's a man of action, unlike most of us here at DU (myself included). I wish I knew how to do more. I wish I knew WHAT to do.

[Tatiana]

89. There is something you can do!

As a registered voter, you can apply to become a Democratic challenger and help make sure our votes aren't thrown out.

[maggrwaggr]

91. ??? Not sure what you're talking about

but I'm interested. As a California resident, I'm having a difficult time with the validity of our last election.

[Tatiana]

95. A little description...

Political party monitors are the agents of the political parties and candidates participating in the election. As such, in most systems they are given the authority to not only monitor the electoral process, but to intervene if they believe the legal requirements are not being respected. They can also be an integral part of the administrative process, by validating ballots and tally sheets through their signature, and by participating in polling administration and the count. Although this is a voluntary role in most systems, and voting or the count is not held up if a political party monitor is not present.

<snip>

To protect the integrity of the process and the interests of their party and candidates, monitors usually:


check the voter registration lists to make sure they are accurate; that the voter exists, is not registered multiple times, and that no ineligible persons have registered. The monitor can also verify that their party's supporters have been able to register without interference or other problems;


ask questions immediately as soon as something irregular or suspicious occurs during registration, polling or the count. If an acceptable answer is not received from the election authorities, a formal, written complaint can be made. This is done through the official complaint process, using the proper forms and attaching all supporting documentation required. A copy of the complaint can also be sent to their political party or candidate, to domestic and international observation groups, and the media;


sign the polling records and tally sheets to verify the accuracy of the information on the reports. If there is a discrepancy between the official report and what the monitors have observed, the monitors are usually able to note their disagreement on the official form. Monitors should get a copy of any sheets that they have signed;

more...

http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/ei/eif01d.htm

[Starfire_Sangraal]

96. This is a very big real world, mister.

William Pitt`s "enemy territory" would be amazingly confined to the increasingly collapsing neo-con`s black hole in virtual space.

Beyond that, wherever else in this world, William Pitts has the gonads to stake his claims, he`ll be in friendly jurisdiction. On his favour and against Bush`s junta, he just has the whole rest of the universe.

[Tatiana]

80. Dammit!

They took our freeper friends away :(

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Hehe

Nice flypaper Will ;-)

[onebigbadwulf]

94. Here Pitt

I've been having trouble fighting the fundie nuts on www.somegoodstuff.com and convincing them how the war was a lie. It's an uphill battle that you might want to join.

[Scairp]

101. Jesus Pitt

Write a phucking book why don't you? Oh, never mind....

[loudnclear]

104. Five words: Post it at FreeRepublic

and send it to FOX News.

[Scairp]

116. Sorry?

I must be dense cause I don't get your meaning. I was making a feeble attempt at a joke. His long post, he writes books? Get it? Guess not.:eyes:

[0rganism]

102. three words: Run For Office

You'll get your fight then.

In spades.

No question about it.

Random internet forumers, especially freeps on a hostile DU, are small fry, probably victims of some sort of freepville hazing ritual for newbs. You catch 'em, you throw 'em back into the tombstone pond. Some of the fisticuffs you had going at the nominally neutral capitolgrilling.com were quite funny, but once again the ego thoroughly outweighed the consequence of your opposition.

Debating internet forumers for you is like a boxer working over a punching bag in the gym. Even the freepjobs you met in person on your tour were flunkies tossed into the ring for your pounding pleasure. Yeah, it's good practice, but at some point you have to get into the heavyweight action. Time to take on the big time, see if you can win in a league where the judges are paid to score the fight against you.

Congratulations. You've graduated from weenieville with flying colors. Now go forth into the real world of policy, fundraising, and babykissing where you can make a difference. Go kick some meaningful ass.

[ScreamingMeemie]

106. Now is the time for all good men/women....

I think it is time to bring that phrase back out and dust it off.

[Loonman]

107. Neo-cons bring out the caveman in me

Hulk smash!

[JanMichael]

110. I've done it. What I discovered is that staying OT is important.

Never, NEVER, let them slip into warm fuzzy mode.

Hammer them with the facts until they become enraged at their own stupidity and hypocrisy.

It's fun...

[Flying_Pig]

114. Over in I/P you'll find a bunch of Bush-suckers.

They back Sharon, and PNAC (both, best Bush "sucking buddies"), and the Iraq invasion, and are clamoring for more in Syria and Iran. Why these people are still allowed on DU is beyond me. They're too chicken-shit to venture beyond the protection of I/P forum rules though, so you'll rarely find them in GD, or anywhere else.

Anyway, check out Mark Morford's latest (I just posted snips and a link in GD). You'll love it. He's on the same wave-length.

Go Will!!! All 6'2" 190lbs of me is ready to back you up dude!

[Scott Lee]

115. Pick one over at hillary.org

There's my challenge to you, William. You will do more good ripping that place a new one than you will here showered in agreements.

I hung out on hillary.org for a long time, as it was created by a (so called) liberal democrat named Esme Taylor. She is a wonderful lady but she somehow allowed her whole forum to be shanghaied by some of the sickest rightwing extremists you've ever read. She even allows a few of them to edit (read that "censor opposition" to their demented views) her forum. For some odd reason, she lacks the desire or the will to wrest control back from them.

You would get the fight you so wish over there, and probably do more good in the long run. They are insanely anti-DU there, just your presence would be worth watching as they implode.