Saddam and 9/11 - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-19-2005, 02:44 AM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox



If there is evidence of a crime committed by President Bush, he will be impeached too.

do you really believe this?


the GOP controlled house would investigate or impeach Bush or Cheney?



Was the Clinton impeachment necessary?

there was a consensus in the house to censure Clinton and move on.

but, DeLay in particular, would not have it,
he used his considerable power and influence to get the impeachment


but,hey, perhaps W will get a blow job and
we can impeach him too.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 02:54 AM   #47
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:57 AM
This thread has turned from funny to fucking hilarious.

Thanks for the laugh.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-19-2005, 03:01 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:57 AM
Iraq and Hussein were initially blamed for both the first WTC attack and the OKC bombing. 1993 and 1995 respectively.

Was this because of the Clinton administration or the first Bush administration?

Or is it just a symptom of a culture that had only been attacked by middle easterners in terrorist attacks, blaming public middle eastern enemy #1?

Hussein was public enemy #1, not because of the actions of HW Bush or Clinton, but because there wasn't anyone else to take his place.

If any other terrorist organization (other than Al Quaeda) in the world attacked America tomorrow, the opinion polls taken the next day will likely show that Americans blame Bin Laden AT least 78% of those polled, probably higher.

It's up to the authorities to differentiate between those who perpetrated the attacks and those who didn't. In this particular case, the adminstration didn't care if there was no direct link, therefore they didn't care to clear things up and consequently never did even to this day. They might pay lip service to it after the fact, but just read what they said prior to March '03.

In short, Americans were misled by their own pre-conceived notions prior to all of these events in blaming Hussein, just in the case of the most recent attack, those notions were endorsed by the administration if only because they were so vague as to not lose the political capital they had at the time.

They knew they'd need it, especially after figuring out how flimsy some of the evidence was. We were essentially misled because we weren't told the whole truth, not because of lies. It's a very clever method, pretty common it seems in politics.

When those methods alter thousands of lives, it becomes a huge issue. When those methods play on emotions of a bereaved and fearful people, that is a morally questionable thing to say the least. Especially when these authorities sell themselves as restoring honor and integrity to the White House on the first hour of the first day of their tenure.

I don't think there is ANY question about the admin playing into the publics pre conceived notions, anyone objectively watching American news for the lasst 4 years wouldn't have any other opinion.


Had America attacked and overthrew Hussein after the '93 WTC attack, and did the same things, made the same claims, same actions, same flimsy information and vague correlation, we'd have the same problems.

Only the partisan roles would be switched. There are those of us who would be against it in both cases. The problem becomes, in all of this silly back and forth bantering, there are legitimate questions and problems that just get overlooked time and time again, because they are seen as "Bush-bashing" or if the scenario in the prior paragraph "Clinton-bashing". How about just wanting some fucking honesty and answers? Too much to ask these days.

How any reasonably intelligent individual, be it conservative, right-winger, Bushie, whatever they would call themselves, any reasonably intelligent individual who doesn't have a multitude
of problems with this administrations policies is just blinded and caught up in the game or not that intelligent in the first place.

Has nothing to do with being anything other than not objectively looking for truth. I'm interested in facts, hard truth and I in fact could change my mind presented with facts and truth. I am not "assigned" to one side of this argument. In fact, I thought removing Hussein was a good idea after listening to all of the pre-war hype.

(Here comes the overblown analogy for effect....)
Maybe it still was a good idea, but it's also a good idea to end poverty. You shouldn't do that by nuking the ghettos.

Only point is, you can be justified and still be wrong. And you can be wrong about something and still be misled about that same thing. This is a nuanced world that doesn't like nuanced thought.
Much easier when you've got somebody to pin your hate on.
Much easier to beleive the person you hate is guilty at first impression. There needs to be an authority that seeks the truth. Is that too much to ask?
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 03:09 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:57 AM
I don't mean to sound pretentious, I figure most of us want to know the truth. You just can't be selective about it, that's all I am saying.

I hope we can all be open to the truth objectively, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. I include myself as well, I do my best to be as objective as possible, it often leaves me sitting on the fence at times. Honestly, I'd rather be on a fence than play the partisan game, as it is.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 03:26 AM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:57 AM


"We didn't lie,
we're just stupid"
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 05:11 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:57 AM
U2DMfan

Wonderful post.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 07:38 AM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


The mainstream media never picked up on it. The chickenhawks who pressed for this war never relied on this argument. Neither did their supporters in interviews on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Interesting, two of the books I am thinking of are written by part of the "mainstream media" and the authors appear in print almost daily.

But, hey, enjoy yourself. I do not have the time to go through CNN and MSNBC transcripst to prove you wrong, but I would almost bet my paycheck you are.

I will slink back out. Have fun. Clearly I do not know what I am talking about.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 07:40 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



do you really believe this?


the GOP controlled house would investigate or impeach Bush or Cheney?

I absolutely believe this. Especially if they are losing ground politically in the next round of elections. FOr their political survival, you bet.

But there has to be a crime.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 07:42 AM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I hate to sound glib, but so?
Congressional report After 9/11
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.htm

Article fropm May 2002
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1007

CNN Story Sept 18, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv...nes/index.html

Washington Post September 23, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0543-2001Sep22

Village Voice September 26, 2001
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0139/francia.phpl

Washington Post May 19, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Washington Post December 13, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/front.htm

Condi Rice, Press Conference Transcript in which she details information not passed on by the Clinton Administration May 16, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020516-13.html

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson, March 2003 in his book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

David N. Bossie, "Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11" http://www.amazon.com/gp/

Time Magazine August 2002
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

Washington Post 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar23.html

Washington Post July 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul20.html

The fact is BOTH Administrations F'd up. The reality is Clinton had a larger amount of time to do something about it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 12:35 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The fact is BOTH Administrations F'd up. The reality is Clinton had a larger amount of time to do something about it.
I don't like how the "blame game" always gets shifted to Clinton. By all accounts, Bush et al. were off in la-la land and trying to figure out how to build their missile shield when 9/11 took them by surprise. And the GOP is supposed to be the "military" party.

You can, in fact, blame more than just the last two administrations. You can blame Bush, Sr. for doing such a shitty job with Gulf War I, then keeping a permanent troop presence in Saudi Arabia, inflaming the ire of Al Qaeda in the first place. You can blame Reagan for supporting a lot of these now-terrorists during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. You can blame the leadership of the 1950s for overthrowing elected leftist governments in favor of loyal dictatorships too. All the "moderates" just ended up dead.

The whole adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," during the Cold War really just came back to bite us in the ass. After all, Saddam was our best friend when we hated Iran in the early 1980s.



I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld would love to see this image destroyed.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 12:43 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
You can, in fact, blame more than just the last two administrations. You can blame Bush, Sr. for doing such a shitty job with Gulf War I, then keeping a permanent troop presence in Saudi Arabia, inflaming the ire of Al Qaeda in the first place.
Politics makes for an interesting blame game. GHWB took heat for not going far enough in taking out Saddam. Now GWB has taken too long.

Too bad we can't fight these conflicts with all the armchair generals we have in this country.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 12:47 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:57 PM
"Blowback is a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Because the public was unaware of the operation, the consequences transpire as a surprise, apparently random and without cause. In context, it can also mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations. The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the shrapnel that often flies back when shooting an automatic firearm.

In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Conservative advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.

Given prior CIA support of the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan and purportedly also of Osama bin Laden, it could be argued that the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack is the most prominent contemporary example of blowback, since some contend that this U.S. support actually helped build Bin Laden as a geopolitical force. See Manchurian blowback.

See also deniability, Reagan Doctrine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowbac...ntelligence%29
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 01:17 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:57 AM
I'm sure there will always be a difference in perspective between those who grew up in the era of communism and those who are growing up in the era of terrorism.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 01:26 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Too bad we can't fight these conflicts with all the armchair generals we have in this country.
Oh but we do. How many in the Bush Administration have actually fought in a conflict? Blowing off your National Guard service and getting five draft deferrals don't count.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-19-2005, 01:27 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I'm sure there will always be a difference in perspective between those who grew up in the era of communism and those who are growing up in the era of terrorism.
It makes me wonder how many of our "allies" will become our enemies in the era of "post-terrorism."

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com