The Path to 9/11 - docudrama or propaganda? - Page 10 - 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 09-14-2006, 12:24 PM   #136
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński

He served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981


That is about all that needs to be said.
What is your point?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:28 PM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


What is your point?
That he is obviously biased and was on watch while the jihadist took over Iran.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:28 PM   #138
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:12 AM
It seems they actually got a peace treaty in the Middle East and that is not the outcome he wants.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 12:56 PM   #139
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


That he is obviously biased and was on watch while the jihadist took over Iran.
I'm still not sure where this fits in the context of the discussion, maybe I missed something.

But he was quite hawkish for a Dem and criticized them quite a bit for being so dovish. Yeah he's made some mistakes but show me a Security Advisor who hasn't.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 01:34 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I'm still not sure where this fits in the context of the discussion, maybe I missed something.

The reason I posted information about him was in reply to scarlet's post. I thought it was important to note that the interview was from someone from a Democrat Adminsitration, therefore biased.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 01:40 PM   #141
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


The reason I posted information about him was in reply to scarlet's post. I thought it was important to note that the interview was from someone from a Democrat Adminsitration, therefore biased.
But I guess it escaped your mind that he was very critical of both sides, especailly Clinton. And it may have also escaped your mind that he served under Reagan, who he also criticized his black and white approach to foreign policy.

So to say he has bias is pretty short sighted.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 01:42 PM   #142
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


The reason I posted information about him was in reply to scarlet's post. I thought it was important to note that the interview was from someone from a Democrat Adminsitration, therefore biased.
Why is being a Democrat automatically biased? I was for the Afghan war & so were many other. It's this jihad of Islam and the terrorism hype that seeks to undermine our democracy that he's disagreeing with.

Read the bill Bush sent to cover torture, secret trials, unilateral executive (not unitarian) privliges. It basically gives Bush and any future President the authority to do as he/she sees best. It castrates Congress and the Supreme Court. Stalin would be proud.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 02:33 PM   #143
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
Read the bill Bush sent to cover torture, secret trials, unilateral executive (not unitarian) privliges. It basically gives Bush and any future President the authority to do as he/she sees best. It castrates Congress and the Supreme Court. Stalin would be proud.


__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 04:45 PM   #144
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:12 AM
The Senat Armed Service Committee just voted down Bush's bill.

Senator Warner, McCain, & Graham, & Collins voted with the 11 Dems. They have paased to the floor thier own bill about Tribunals without the redefinition of Geneva 3, nor immunity for past war crimes.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 05:16 PM   #145
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
The Senat Armed Service Committee just voted down Bush's bill.

Senator Warner, McCain, & Graham, & Collins voted with the 11 Dems. They have paased to the floor thier own bill about Tribunals without the redefinition of Geneva 3, nor immunity for past war crimes.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 05:27 PM   #146
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:12 AM
This was the first time in his presidency that Bush went to Capital Hill to plead for a bill. Methinks he's afraid of war crimes himself.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 05:43 PM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
The Senat Armed Service Committee just voted down Bush's bill.

Senator Warner, McCain, & Graham, & Collins voted with the 11 Dems. They have paased to the floor thier own bill about Tribunals without the redefinition of Geneva 3, nor immunity for past war crimes.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/.../bush_congress
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 05:43 PM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:12 AM
ETA: thanks to ^ (sorry, we posted at the same time!)



[q]Bush lobbies Congress on terror suspects
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, parting company with President Bush, came out against harsh interrogations of terror suspects even as the president lobbied personally for it on Capitol Hill Thursday.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush told reporters back at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers."

White House spokesman Tony Snow, asked if Powell was confused about the White House's goals, said "Yes." Later, Snow said he probably shouldn't have used the word "confused."

"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists too," he said.

The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came Thursday in a letter that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of three rebellious senators taking on the White House. Powell said Congress must not pass Bush's proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

The campaign-season development accompanied Bush's visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His plan would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 06:19 PM   #149
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Sen. Graham: White House Held Military Lawyers In 5 Hour Meeting and ‘Tried To Force Them To Sign A Prepared Statement’

This morning, President Bush was questioned about Gen. Colin Powell’s letter criticizing White House legislation that would authorize torture. Bush tried to downplay Powell’s letter by pointing to another letter signed by the military’s top uniformed lawyers saying they supported Bush’s plan:

BUSH: There’s all kinds of letters coming out — and today, by the way, active duty personnel in the Pentagon, the JAG, supported the concept that I have just outlined to you.

But during today’s White House press conference, a reporter cited comments by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — a former JAG and an opponent of the Bush’s detainee policies — claiming that the White House had placed extreme pressure on the military lawyers to sign a statement, and that the lawyers had refused to sign the initial statement crafted for them by the White House:

REPORTER: Sen. Graham is telling reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House had them in a meeting for five hours last night and tried to force them to sign a prepared statement and he said reading this JAG letter they ended up writing leaves total ambiguity on interpretation, this is Sen. Lindsey Graham. What’s your response to that?

Snow acknowledged “they were asked to write a letter” but said, “if you start going into who asked whom to write letters, I don’t know.”
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-14-2006, 10:35 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
If you think we can talk our way out of the Islamo-fascist threat - you are sadly mistaken. If you think we will eliminate the threat by leaving the Middle East or abandoning Israel - you are also naive and misinformed.

The only way to remove this particular threat is to destroy it.
If we assume such a clash is possible the key aggressors must surely be the US, Britain and Israel. They have already managed to land Shia and Sunni Muslims on the same side of the fence, no mean feat!

Significant control of the Middle East was sacrificed and Iran's position was strengthened not inconsiderably by our having to place European troops in a region where they can turn up the heat whenever they want.

So America plays a pivotal role in strengthening an opponent, they then hand them a few additional aces for negotiating with European diplomats, and then they call for Europe to rally around their cause in countering that opponent.

Utter insanity, only the unholy gaggle of interventionist Trotskyites, 'reformed' Marxists and cowardly bed-wetting chickenhawk armchair warriors that call themselves 'neo-cons' could dream up this shit.

Cheers,

Financeguy

(A TRUE conservative)
__________________

__________________
financeguy 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 07:12 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