Discussion:
Are these the acts of a patriot, a conservative?
(too old to reply)
Strabo
2006-03-24 09:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Some high points of the Bush presidency.

1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.

2. Bush forces expenditures greater than all previous
presidential administrations combined.

3. Bush refuses to control US borders.

4. Bush refuses to round up and deport illegal aliens.

5. Bush forces legislation that circumvents the Bill of Rights.

6. Bush wants Arabs (Dubai) to run US ports on the east coast.

7. Bush wants the Chinese to run the west coast ports.

Are these the acts of a patriot?

How about his oath of office?

"Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that
you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office
on which you are about to enter: So help you God?"

Now who do you suppose he really works for?



U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. to Scan Nukes

Mar 23, 8:32 PM (ET)

By TED BRIDIS and JOHN SOLOMON

(AP) This undated photograph provided by the U.S. National

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the aftermath of the Dubai ports dispute,
the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to
help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the
Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere.

The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with
Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign
company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S.
radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs
agents present.

Freeport in the Bahamas is 65 miles from the U.S. coast, where
cargo would be likely to be inspected again. The contract is
currently being finalized.

The administration is negotiating a second no-bid contract for a
Philippine company to install radiation detectors in its home
country, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
At dozens of other overseas ports, foreign governments are
primarily responsible for scanning cargo.

(AP) Graphic looks at a modified straddle carrier that monitors
cargo containers at ports for nuclear...
Full Image
While President Bush recently reassured Congress that foreigners
would not manage security at U.S. ports, the Hutchison deal in
the Bahamas illustrates how the administration is relying on
foreign companies at overseas ports to safeguard cargo headed to
the United States.

Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest ports operator and among
the industry's most-respected companies. It was an early adopter
of U.S. anti-terror measures. But its billionaire chairman, Li
Ka-Shing, also has substantial business ties to China's
government that have raised U.S. concerns over the years.

"Li Ka-Shing is pretty close to a lot of senior leaders of the
Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party," said Larry
M. Wortzel, head of a U.S. government commission that studies
China security and economic issues. But Wortzel said Hutchison
operates independently from Beijing, and he described Li as "a
very legitimate international businessman."

"One can conceive legitimate security concerns and would hope
either the Homeland Security Department or the intelligence
services of the United States work very hard to satisfy those
concerns," Wortzel said.

Three years ago, the Bush administration effectively blocked a
Hutchison subsidiary from buying part of a bankrupt U.S.
telecommunications company, Global Crossing Ltd. (GLBC), on
national security grounds.

(AP) This undated photograph provided by the U.S. National
Nuclear Security Administration shows a...
Full Image
And a U.S. military intelligence report, once marked "secret,"
cited Hutchison in 1999 as a potential risk for smuggling arms
and other prohibited materials into the United States from the
Bahamas.

Hutchison's port operations in the Bahamas and Panama "could
provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or
prohibited items from the West to the PRC (People's Republic of
China), or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited
items into the Americas," the now-declassified assessment said.

The CIA currently has no security concerns about Hutchison's port
operations, and the administration believes the pending deal with
the foreign company would be safe, officials said.

Supervised by Bahamian customs officials, Hutchison employees
will drive the towering, truck-like radiation scanner that moves
slowly over large cargo containers and scans them for radiation
that might be emitted by plutonium or a radiological weapon.

Any positive reading would set off alarms monitored
simultaneously by Bahamian customs inspectors at Freeport and by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials working at an
anti-terrorism center 800 miles away in northern Virginia. Any
alarm would prompt a closer inspection of the cargo, and there
are multiple layers of security to prevent tampering, officials
said.

"The equipment operates itself," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman
for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency
negotiating the contract. "It's not going to be someone standing
at the controls pressing buttons and flipping switches."

A lawmaker who helped lead the opposition to the Dubai ports deal
isn't so confident. Neither are some security experts. They
question whether the U.S. should pay a foreign company with ties
to China to keep radioactive material out of the United States.

"Giving a no-bid contract to a foreign company to carry out the
most sensitive security screening for radioactive materials at
ports abroad raises many questions," said Sen. Charles Schumer,
D-N.Y.

A low-paid employee with access to the screening equipment could
frustrate international security by studying how the equipment
works and which materials set off its alarms, warned a retired
U.S. Customs investigator who specialized in smuggling cases.

"Money buys a lot of things," Robert Sheridan said. "The fact
that foreign workers would have access to how the United States
screens various containers for nuclear material and how this
technology scrutinizes the containers - all those things allow
someone with a nefarious intention to thwart the screening."

The Hutchison deal in the Bahamas was flagged in a report in
October by ATS Worldwide Services, a Florida firm that identifies
potential risks for private-sector and government clients.
Company officials said they shared the report with some officials
in Congress, the military and law enforcement.

Other experts discounted concerns. They cited Hutchison's
reputation as a leading ports company and said the United States
inevitably must rely for some security on large commercial
operators in the global maritime industry.

"We must not allow an unwarranted fear of foreign ownership or
involvement in offshore operations to impair our ability to
protect against nuclear weapons being smuggled into this
country," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., a member of the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "We must
work with these foreign companies."

A former Coast Guard commander, Stephen Flynn, said foreign
companies sometimes prove more trustworthy - and susceptible to
U.S. influence - than governments.

"It's a very fragile system," Flynn said. Foreign companies
"recognize the U.S. has the capacity and willingness to
exercise a kill switch if something goes wrong."

A spokesman for Hutchison's ports subsidiary, Anthony Tam, said
the company "is a strong supporter in port security initiatives."

"In the case of the Bahamas, our local personnel are working
alongside with U.S. customs officials to identify and inspect
U.S.-bound containers that could be carrying radioactive
materials," Tam said.

However, there are no U.S. customs agents checking any cargo
containers at the Hutchison port in Freeport. Under the contract,
no U.S. officials would be stationed permanently in the Bahamas
with the radiation scanner.

The administration is finalizing the contract amid a national
debate over maritime security sparked by the furor over
now-abandoned plans by Dubai-owned DP World to take over
significant operations at major U.S. ports.

Hutchison operates the sprawling Freeport Container Port on Grand
Bahama Island. Its subsidiary, Hutchison Port Holdings, has
operations in more than 20 countries but none in the United
States.

Contract documents, obtained by The Associated Press, indicate
Hutchison will be paid roughly $6 million. The contract is for
one year with options for three years.

The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration
is negotiating the Bahamas contract under a $121 million security
program it calls the "second line of defense." Wilkes, the NNSA
spokesman, said the Bahamian government dictated that the U.S.
give the contract to Hutchison.

"It's their country, their port. The driver of the mobile carrier
is the contractor selected by their government. We had no say or
no choice," he said. "We are fortunate to have allies who are
signing these agreements with us."

Some security experts said that is a weak explanation in the
Bahamas, with its close reliance on the United States. The
administration could insist that the Bahamas permit U.S. Customs
agents to operate at the port, said Albert Santoli, an expert on
national security issues in Asia and the Pacific.

"Why would they not accept that?" said Santoli, a former national
security aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "There is an
interest in the Bahamas and every other country in the region to
make sure the U.S. stays safe and strong. That's how this should
be negotiated."

Flynn, the former Coast Guard commander, agreed the Bahamas would
readily accept such a proposal but said the U.S. is short of
trained customs agents to send overseas.

Contract documents obtained by the AP show at least one other
foreign company is involved in the U.S. radiation-detection
program.

A separate, no-bid $4 million contract the Bush administration is
negotiating would pay a Manila-based company, International
Container Terminal Services Inc., to install radiation detectors
at the Philippines' largest port.

The U.S. says the Manila company is not being paid to operate the
radiation monitors once they are installed. But two International
Container executives and a senior official at the government's
Philippine Nuclear Research Institute said the company will run
the detectors on behalf of the institute and the country's
customs bureau. U.S. officials said they will investigate further
how the Filipinos plan to use the equipment.

---

Associated Press writers Bill Foreman in Hong Kong and Jim Gomez
in Manila contributed to this story.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Richard Lewis
2006-03-24 11:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
Bush didn't "start" the war.
Post by Strabo
2. Bush forces expenditures greater than all previous
presidential administrations combined.
Are you saying Bush's budgets have been more than all previous pres'
budgets combined? What shit for brains told you that?
Post by Strabo
3. Bush refuses to control US borders.
What part? In what way? How are they "out of control?"
Post by Strabo
4. Bush refuses to round up and deport illegal aliens.
So? Let's see *you* do it. Want a list of the first million
addresses?
Post by Strabo
5. Bush forces legislation that circumvents the Bill of Rights.
And your point is? So does the firearms act of 1933-34-36-38-yada
yada yada, the speed limit, all drug laws, voting laws, public schools
etc etc etc ad nauseum. Go whine about those a bit.
Post by Strabo
6. Bush wants Arabs (Dubai) to run US ports on the east coast.
Bullshit! Bush wants Dubai to have the same chances at it that any
other turd worlder has in this good old US of A. He didn't suggest
Dubai any more than he suggested *your* ilk.
Post by Strabo
7. Bush wants the Chinese to run the west coast ports.
Again....
Post by Strabo
Are these the acts of a patriot?
Define it.
Post by Strabo
How about his oath of office?
What about it?
Post by Strabo
Now who do you suppose he really works for?
He works for me. He's doing a far better job at it than your sorry
ass, too.
Post by Strabo
U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. to Scan Nukes
So? I'd much rather that other turd world shithole scan for nukes
THERE than us have to HERE.

Now FUCK OFF, you god-damned troll!

ral
Ken
2006-03-24 17:41:11 UTC
Permalink
If Bush didnt start the war then maybe you can tell us who did?

k
Post by Richard Lewis
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
Bush didn't "start" the war.
Post by Strabo
2. Bush forces expenditures greater than all previous
presidential administrations combined.
Are you saying Bush's budgets have been more than all previous pres'
budgets combined? What shit for brains told you that?
Post by Strabo
3. Bush refuses to control US borders.
What part? In what way? How are they "out of control?"
Post by Strabo
4. Bush refuses to round up and deport illegal aliens.
So? Let's see *you* do it. Want a list of the first million
addresses?
Post by Strabo
5. Bush forces legislation that circumvents the Bill of Rights.
And your point is? So does the firearms act of 1933-34-36-38-yada
yada yada, the speed limit, all drug laws, voting laws, public schools
etc etc etc ad nauseum. Go whine about those a bit.
Post by Strabo
6. Bush wants Arabs (Dubai) to run US ports on the east coast.
Bullshit! Bush wants Dubai to have the same chances at it that any
other turd worlder has in this good old US of A. He didn't suggest
Dubai any more than he suggested *your* ilk.
Post by Strabo
7. Bush wants the Chinese to run the west coast ports.
Again....
Post by Strabo
Are these the acts of a patriot?
Define it.
Post by Strabo
How about his oath of office?
What about it?
Post by Strabo
Now who do you suppose he really works for?
He works for me. He's doing a far better job at it than your sorry
ass, too.
Post by Strabo
U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. to Scan Nukes
So? I'd much rather that other turd world shithole scan for nukes
THERE than us have to HERE.
Now FUCK OFF, you god-damned troll!
ral
b***@yahoo.com
2006-03-24 18:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken
If Bush didnt start the war then maybe you can tell us who did?
k
The christian hating muslims that flew airplanes into our buildings and
made them fall down.

You have been reported to the Office of Homeland Security for violating
paragraph C article 42 subsection X revision #FU of the Patriot Act:
Questioning Authority
Offbreed
2006-03-25 16:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken
If Bush didnt start the war then maybe you can tell us who did?
Saddam Hussein, when he invaded Kuwait.
R.Dean
2006-03-24 18:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
2. Bush forces expenditures greater than all previous
presidential administrations combined.
3. Bush refuses to control US borders.
4. Bush refuses to round up and deport illegal aliens.
5. Bush forces legislation that circumvents the Bill of Rights.
6. Bush wants Arabs (Dubai) to run US ports on the east coast.
7. Bush wants the Chinese to run the west coast ports.
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
Post by Strabo
Are these the acts of a patriot?
How about his oath of office?
"Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that
you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office
on which you are about to enter: So help you God?"
Now who do you suppose he really works for?
U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. to Scan Nukes
Mar 23, 8:32 PM (ET)
By TED BRIDIS and JOHN SOLOMON
(AP) This undated photograph provided by the U.S. National
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the aftermath of the Dubai ports dispute,
the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to
help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the
Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere.
The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with
Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign
company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S.
radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs
agents present.
Freeport in the Bahamas is 65 miles from the U.S. coast, where
cargo would be likely to be inspected again. The contract is
currently being finalized.
The administration is negotiating a second no-bid contract for a
Philippine company to install radiation detectors in its home
country, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
At dozens of other overseas ports, foreign governments are
primarily responsible for scanning cargo.
(AP) Graphic looks at a modified straddle carrier that monitors
cargo containers at ports for nuclear...
Full Image
While President Bush recently reassured Congress that foreigners
would not manage security at U.S. ports, the Hutchison deal in
the Bahamas illustrates how the administration is relying on
foreign companies at overseas ports to safeguard cargo headed to
the United States.
Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest ports operator and among
the industry's most-respected companies. It was an early adopter
of U.S. anti-terror measures. But its billionaire chairman, Li
Ka-Shing, also has substantial business ties to China's
government that have raised U.S. concerns over the years.
"Li Ka-Shing is pretty close to a lot of senior leaders of the
Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party," said Larry
M. Wortzel, head of a U.S. government commission that studies
China security and economic issues. But Wortzel said Hutchison
operates independently from Beijing, and he described Li as "a
very legitimate international businessman."
"One can conceive legitimate security concerns and would hope
either the Homeland Security Department or the intelligence
services of the United States work very hard to satisfy those
concerns," Wortzel said.
Three years ago, the Bush administration effectively blocked a
Hutchison subsidiary from buying part of a bankrupt U.S.
telecommunications company, Global Crossing Ltd. (GLBC), on
national security grounds.
(AP) This undated photograph provided by the U.S. National
Nuclear Security Administration shows a...
Full Image
And a U.S. military intelligence report, once marked "secret,"
cited Hutchison in 1999 as a potential risk for smuggling arms
and other prohibited materials into the United States from the
Bahamas.
Hutchison's port operations in the Bahamas and Panama "could
provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or
prohibited items from the West to the PRC (People's Republic of
China), or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited
items into the Americas," the now-declassified assessment said.
The CIA currently has no security concerns about Hutchison's port
operations, and the administration believes the pending deal with
the foreign company would be safe, officials said.
Supervised by Bahamian customs officials, Hutchison employees
will drive the towering, truck-like radiation scanner that moves
slowly over large cargo containers and scans them for radiation
that might be emitted by plutonium or a radiological weapon.
Any positive reading would set off alarms monitored
simultaneously by Bahamian customs inspectors at Freeport and by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials working at an
anti-terrorism center 800 miles away in northern Virginia. Any
alarm would prompt a closer inspection of the cargo, and there
are multiple layers of security to prevent tampering, officials
said.
"The equipment operates itself," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman
for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency
negotiating the contract. "It's not going to be someone standing
at the controls pressing buttons and flipping switches."
A lawmaker who helped lead the opposition to the Dubai ports deal
isn't so confident. Neither are some security experts. They
question whether the U.S. should pay a foreign company with ties
to China to keep radioactive material out of the United States.
"Giving a no-bid contract to a foreign company to carry out the
most sensitive security screening for radioactive materials at
ports abroad raises many questions," said Sen. Charles Schumer,
D-N.Y.
A low-paid employee with access to the screening equipment could
frustrate international security by studying how the equipment
works and which materials set off its alarms, warned a retired
U.S. Customs investigator who specialized in smuggling cases.
"Money buys a lot of things," Robert Sheridan said. "The fact
that foreign workers would have access to how the United States
screens various containers for nuclear material and how this
technology scrutinizes the containers - all those things allow
someone with a nefarious intention to thwart the screening."
The Hutchison deal in the Bahamas was flagged in a report in
October by ATS Worldwide Services, a Florida firm that identifies
potential risks for private-sector and government clients.
Company officials said they shared the report with some officials
in Congress, the military and law enforcement.
Other experts discounted concerns. They cited Hutchison's
reputation as a leading ports company and said the United States
inevitably must rely for some security on large commercial
operators in the global maritime industry.
"We must not allow an unwarranted fear of foreign ownership or
involvement in offshore operations to impair our ability to
protect against nuclear weapons being smuggled into this
country," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., a member of the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "We must
work with these foreign companies."
A former Coast Guard commander, Stephen Flynn, said foreign
companies sometimes prove more trustworthy - and susceptible to
U.S. influence - than governments.
"It's a very fragile system," Flynn said. Foreign companies
"recognize the U.S. has the capacity and willingness to
exercise a kill switch if something goes wrong."
A spokesman for Hutchison's ports subsidiary, Anthony Tam, said
the company "is a strong supporter in port security initiatives."
"In the case of the Bahamas, our local personnel are working
alongside with U.S. customs officials to identify and inspect
U.S.-bound containers that could be carrying radioactive
materials," Tam said.
However, there are no U.S. customs agents checking any cargo
containers at the Hutchison port in Freeport. Under the contract,
no U.S. officials would be stationed permanently in the Bahamas
with the radiation scanner.
The administration is finalizing the contract amid a national
debate over maritime security sparked by the furor over
now-abandoned plans by Dubai-owned DP World to take over
significant operations at major U.S. ports.
Hutchison operates the sprawling Freeport Container Port on Grand
Bahama Island. Its subsidiary, Hutchison Port Holdings, has
operations in more than 20 countries but none in the United
States.
Contract documents, obtained by The Associated Press, indicate
Hutchison will be paid roughly $6 million. The contract is for
one year with options for three years.
The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration
is negotiating the Bahamas contract under a $121 million security
program it calls the "second line of defense." Wilkes, the NNSA
spokesman, said the Bahamian government dictated that the U.S.
give the contract to Hutchison.
"It's their country, their port. The driver of the mobile carrier
is the contractor selected by their government. We had no say or
no choice," he said. "We are fortunate to have allies who are
signing these agreements with us."
Some security experts said that is a weak explanation in the
Bahamas, with its close reliance on the United States. The
administration could insist that the Bahamas permit U.S. Customs
agents to operate at the port, said Albert Santoli, an expert on
national security issues in Asia and the Pacific.
"Why would they not accept that?" said Santoli, a former national
security aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "There is an
interest in the Bahamas and every other country in the region to
make sure the U.S. stays safe and strong. That's how this should
be negotiated."
Flynn, the former Coast Guard commander, agreed the Bahamas would
readily accept such a proposal but said the U.S. is short of
trained customs agents to send overseas.
Contract documents obtained by the AP show at least one other
foreign company is involved in the U.S. radiation-detection
program.
A separate, no-bid $4 million contract the Bush administration is
negotiating would pay a Manila-based company, International
Container Terminal Services Inc., to install radiation detectors
at the Philippines' largest port.
The U.S. says the Manila company is not being paid to operate the
radiation monitors once they are installed. But two International
Container executives and a senior official at the government's
Philippine Nuclear Research Institute said the company will run
the detectors on behalf of the institute and the country's
customs bureau. U.S. officials said they will investigate further
how the Filipinos plan to use the equipment.
---
Associated Press writers Bill Foreman in Hong Kong and Jim Gomez
in Manila contributed to this story.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David Goldberg
2006-03-25 16:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.Dean
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
2. Bush forces expenditures greater than all previous
presidential administrations combined.
3. Bush refuses to control US borders.
4. Bush refuses to round up and deport illegal aliens.
5. Bush forces legislation that circumvents the Bill of Rights.
6. Bush wants Arabs (Dubai) to run US ports on the east coast.
7. Bush wants the Chinese to run the west coast ports.
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
I believe that all of the terminals in Los Angeles/Long Beach are run by
foreign corporations. Usually China, Hong Kong, etc.

--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want
to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
~President George W. Bush
Gunner
2006-03-25 18:29:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:46:22 -0800, David Goldberg
Post by David Goldberg
Post by R.Dean
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
2. Bush forces expenditures greater than all previous
presidential administrations combined.
3. Bush refuses to control US borders.
4. Bush refuses to round up and deport illegal aliens.
5. Bush forces legislation that circumvents the Bill of Rights.
6. Bush wants Arabs (Dubai) to run US ports on the east coast.
7. Bush wants the Chinese to run the west coast ports.
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
I believe that all of the terminals in Los Angeles/Long Beach are run by
foreign corporations. Usually China, Hong Kong, etc.
There are already several ports run by Dubi

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
2006-03-27 06:28:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:22:18 -0500, R.Dean wrote:
-----------snip------------
Post by R.Dean
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
-----------snip------------

How does Clinton mitigate the crimes of Bush?

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2006-03-27 15:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
-----------snip------------
Post by R.Dean
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
-----------snip------------
How does Clinton mitigate the crimes of Bush?
Don't you "get it"? They are telling us that Bush is just as bad as
Clinton, so if you attack Bush, you must be a hypocrite, so that makes
everything that Bush does A-OK.

This is the closest thing that Bush supporters can get to a coherent
argument. Rush coaches them on it every day.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
David Goldberg
2006-03-27 17:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
-----------snip------------
Post by R.Dean
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
-----------snip------------
How does Clinton mitigate the crimes of Bush?
Don't you "get it"? They are telling us that Bush is just as bad as
Clinton, so if you attack Bush, you must be a hypocrite, so that makes
everything that Bush does A-OK.
This is the closest thing that Bush supporters can get to a coherent
argument. Rush coaches them on it every day.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
I fully support the Iraq war and the sale of ports to foreign
corporations. My position is consistent.

I'm just wondering why Democrats did not protest either of these things
when Clinton was doing them, but now that Bush is in office they're
suddenly outraged.

It seems to me that Democrats don't really care about issues, they're just
anti-Bush.

--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we
want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit
again."
~President George W. Bush
Gunner
2006-03-27 19:33:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:52:14 -0800, David Goldberg
Post by David Goldberg
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
-----------snip------------
Post by R.Dean
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
-----------snip------------
How does Clinton mitigate the crimes of Bush?
Don't you "get it"? They are telling us that Bush is just as bad as
Clinton, so if you attack Bush, you must be a hypocrite, so that makes
everything that Bush does A-OK.
This is the closest thing that Bush supporters can get to a coherent
argument. Rush coaches them on it every day.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
I fully support the Iraq war and the sale of ports to foreign
corporations. My position is consistent.
I'm just wondering why Democrats did not protest either of these things
when Clinton was doing them, but now that Bush is in office they're
suddenly outraged.
It seems to me that Democrats don't really care about issues, they're just
anti-Bush.
Indeed. Its easily verified that Dubi already controls several ports
in the US..has since Clinton was in the White House, and of course the
infamous COSCO port deal with Red China came directly out of the
Clinton Whitehouse.

I didnt notice any furor on the Dems part over those factoids.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2006-03-27 19:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldberg
It seems to me that Democrats don't really care about issues, they're just
anti-Bush.
So accordingly, every position they take is wrong, and every criticism of
Bush is misguided?
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
Gunner
2006-03-27 22:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by David Goldberg
It seems to me that Democrats don't really care about issues, they're just
anti-Bush.
So accordingly, every position they take is wrong, and every criticism of
Bush is misguided?
The majority, yes. Some small amounts are valid. However they tend to
be the same issues the Dems usually are guilty of as well.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Strabo
2006-03-27 23:56:50 UTC
Permalink
In Re: Are these the acts of a patriot, a conservative? on Mon,
Post by David Goldberg
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Curly Surmudgeon
-----------snip------------
Post by R.Dean
Remember it was Clinton who permitted the Chinese to uy the
west coast port.
-----------snip------------
How does Clinton mitigate the crimes of Bush?
Don't you "get it"? They are telling us that Bush is just as bad as
Clinton, so if you attack Bush, you must be a hypocrite, so that makes
everything that Bush does A-OK.
This is the closest thing that Bush supporters can get to a coherent
argument. Rush coaches them on it every day.
--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow
I fully support the Iraq war and the sale of ports to foreign
corporations. My position is consistent.
I'm just wondering why Democrats did not protest either of these things
when Clinton was doing them, but now that Bush is in office they're
suddenly outraged.
It seems to me that Democrats don't really care about issues, they're just
anti-Bush.
Most Americans were not aware that foreign interests controlled
American ports of entry.

Most Americans were not aware of the millions of illegal aliens
crossing our borders.

Most Americans were not aware that out-sourcing meant that
American corporations were selling our manufacturing and
production domestic capacity to foreign interests.

Most Americans were not aware that inflation was devaluing their
property.

Most Americans assumed that common sense prevailed in American
boardrooms and government.

Most Americans are still in a state of shock.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David Goldberg
2006-03-25 16:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
What war did Bush start?

--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know
about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
~President George W. Bush
dan
2006-03-25 19:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldberg
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
What war did Bush start?
--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know
about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
~President George W. Bush
While I do not think the administration-sucking MSM is all that good, if
you had paid the tiniest attention to activities outside your bubble you
might have noticed our current military excursion, whatever you may
think about its rightness. You might also have noticed that the people
in this country are not exactly unified in their belief of its rightness.

Or maybe not.

Dan
David Goldberg
2006-03-25 21:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by dan
Post by David Goldberg
Post by Strabo
Some high points of the Bush presidency.
1. Bush starts a divisive war that he says will not end in the
forseeable future.
What war did Bush start?
--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know
about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
~President George W. Bush
While I do not think the administration-sucking MSM is all that good, if
you had paid the tiniest attention to activities outside your bubble you
might have noticed our current military excursion, whatever you may
think about its rightness. You might also have noticed that the people
in this country are not exactly unified in their belief of its rightness.
Or maybe not.
Dan
I'll repeat the question: What war did Bush start?

--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about
it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
~President George W. Bush
shipmodeler1
2006-03-26 16:58:48 UTC
Permalink
The war he started as the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was annoying but no
threat to us, and his spies were telling him so. He chose to ignore
them. They were also telling him there was no connection between Iraq
and Al Qaeda. He chose to ignore that, too.
Gunner
2006-03-26 20:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by shipmodeler1
The war he started as the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was annoying but no
threat to us, and his spies were telling him so. He chose to ignore
them. They were also telling him there was no connection between Iraq
and Al Qaeda. He chose to ignore that, too.
Your biased and exceptionally ignorant opinion is noted.

And disregarded.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
David Goldberg
2006-03-27 17:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by shipmodeler1
The war he started as the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was annoying but no
threat to us, and his spies were telling him so. He chose to ignore
them. They were also telling him there was no connection between Iraq
and Al Qaeda. He chose to ignore that, too.
We were already at war with Iraq when Bush took office in 2000. The only
thing that changed were the tactics.

--
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we
want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit
again."
~President George W. Bush
BC
2006-03-27 20:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Goldberg
We were already at war with Iraq when Bush took office in 2000. The only
thing that changed were the tactics.
I think Gunner's misguided reply to the other post actually
works rather well here:

"Your biased and exceptionally ignorant opinion is noted.

And disregarded."

-BC
Gunner
2006-03-27 22:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by BC
Post by David Goldberg
We were already at war with Iraq when Bush took office in 2000. The only
thing that changed were the tactics.
I think Gunner's misguided reply to the other post actually
"Your biased and exceptionally ignorant opinion is noted.
And disregarded."
-BC
Actually..we WERE at war with Iraq during the Clinton
Administration..so the gents statement was valid..while
yours..well..buffoonery at its best.

One would suppose you really dont need the cites, do you?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
BC
2006-03-27 23:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Actually..we WERE at war with Iraq during the Clinton
Administration..so the gents statement was valid..while
yours..well..buffoonery at its best.
Okaaaayy....so the new spin is that we were already in
an undeclared war, so kicking out the UN inspectors and
launching a massive military attack on March 20th, 2003
under the operational names of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Operation Telic, and Operation Falconer were all just,
umm, basically enhancements really for strictly enforcing
the "No-Fly Zones" put in effect by the US after the 1st
Gulf War, but which were not authorised by the UN and
are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council
resolution.

Hmmm....I see....that....tin foil hats haven't gone out of
style in certain parts of the country.

-BC
Gunner
2006-03-28 06:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Actually..we WERE at war with Iraq during the Clinton
Administration..so the gents statement was valid..while
yours..well..buffoonery at its best.
Okaaaayy....so the new spin is that we were already in
an undeclared war, so kicking out the UN inspectors and
launching a massive military attack on March 20th, 2003
under the operational names of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Operation Telic, and Operation Falconer were all just,
umm, basically enhancements really for strictly enforcing
the "No-Fly Zones" put in effect by the US after the 1st
Gulf War, but which were not authorised by the UN and
are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council
resolution.
Hmmm....I see....that....tin foil hats haven't gone out of
style in certain parts of the country.
-BC
"After" the Gulf War? It was only in abayance. Cease Fire treaty..no
formal ending of the war. And the No Fly Zones were established to
prevent Saddam from using air assests to assist in his genocide
against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. We shot down a number of his air
craft..he painted our birds with targeting radar..we would respond
with a HARM and some Rockeyes and so forth.

Doesnt sound much like Peace to me. Perhaps though...in the pysch
ward you apparently inhabit..that sort of behavior is considered
peaceful.

Then of course..there were Monica Missiles and the odd airstrike Bubba
Clinton would toss into the mix now and then.

Seems your foil hat got lost somewhere.....pity

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
BC
2006-03-28 13:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Actually..we WERE at war with Iraq during the Clinton
Administration..so the gents statement was valid..while
yours..well..buffoonery at its best.
Okaaaayy....so the new spin is that we were already in
an undeclared war, so kicking out the UN inspectors and
launching a massive military attack on March 20th, 2003
under the operational names of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Operation Telic, and Operation Falconer were all just,
umm, basically enhancements really for strictly enforcing
the "No-Fly Zones" put in effect by the US after the 1st
Gulf War, but which were not authorised by the UN and
are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council
resolution.
Hmmm....I see....that....tin foil hats haven't gone out of
style in certain parts of the country.
"After" the Gulf War? It was only in abayance. Cease Fire treaty..no
formal ending of the war.
If so, then why did Bush Jr. had to "redeclare" war?:
http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/keydocs/bush2003.htm


And actually the 1st Gulf War wasn't even an officially
declared war.

I found out where all this harebrained nonsense is coming
from: http://tinyurl.com/m7ewt

To quote:
"Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch
an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in
part because they say that permission remains in force from
the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage
war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration
officials."

The text of that "resoution" is here:
http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/gulfwar.htm

So by that dumbass reasoning, you're claiming that the 1991
resolution passed by Congress -- which was *not* a formal
declaration of war -- was actually an openended loophole
that allowed any subsequent President to attack Iraq based
whatever rationale, real or imagined, that suits him? Ok,
that's just one of many reasons why Bush Jr. is going to go
down as one of the worst piece-of-sh*t Presidents we've had
or ever will have (with luck.)
Post by Gunner
And the No Fly Zones were established to
prevent Saddam from using air assests to assist in his genocide
against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. We shot down a number of his air
craft..he painted our birds with targeting radar..we would respond
with a HARM and some Rockeyes and so forth.
I fully agree that sort of slapdown was fully justified on
humanitarian reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort

And people, especially Republicans, have forgotten how hard
Clinton use to come down on any of Hussein's trangressions:
http://tinyurl.com/88to7
http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2004/0204war.asp
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
Post by Gunner
Doesnt sound much like Peace to me.
Yeah, well, you know full well that the the United States
has intervened militarily, covertly or openly in many a
country over the last few decades, sometimes for good
reason, like stopping (if belatedly) things like Hussein's
attacks on the Kurds and the genocide in Bosnia, sometimes
for bad (most of the Latin American stuff, helping Hussein
in the 80's), and sometimes just to cause trouble for a
rival (helping a young bin Laden and friends against the
Russians in Afghanistan, also in the 80's), but this doesn't
mean we are justified legally or morally to do whatever we
damn well please because we're the biggest bully. Our
foreign "policy" especially under Republican administrations,
is to use any excuse, real or imagined, to bomb & shoot, and
then let the next President and Congress deal with the
consequences.
Post by Gunner
Perhaps though...in the pysch
ward you apparently inhabit..that sort of behavior is considered
peaceful.
I just have to quote you again in proper context:
Perhaps though...in the pysch ward you apparently inhabit..
that sort of behavior is considered peaceful.
Post by Gunner
Then of course..there were Monica Missiles and the odd airstrike Bubba
Clinton would toss into the mix now and then.
Oh you mean the containment policy of Clinton of Hussein
that he consistently maintained throughout his Presidency?
That same policy that pissed off a bunch of right-wing retards
who wanted instead for Clinton to charge into Iraq and take
out Hussein:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
(Please note whose names appear at the bottom of each.)
Post by Gunner
Seems your foil hat got lost somewhere.....pity
Well, it was only fun for all of about 10 minutes for me and
my friends when we were about 4 yrs old.

-BC
Gunner
2006-03-28 16:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Actually..we WERE at war with Iraq during the Clinton
Administration..so the gents statement was valid..while
yours..well..buffoonery at its best.
Okaaaayy....so the new spin is that we were already in
an undeclared war, so kicking out the UN inspectors and
launching a massive military attack on March 20th, 2003
under the operational names of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Operation Telic, and Operation Falconer were all just,
umm, basically enhancements really for strictly enforcing
the "No-Fly Zones" put in effect by the US after the 1st
Gulf War, but which were not authorised by the UN and
are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council
resolution.
Hmmm....I see....that....tin foil hats haven't gone out of
style in certain parts of the country.
"After" the Gulf War? It was only in abayance. Cease Fire treaty..no
formal ending of the war.
http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/keydocs/bush2003.htm
Because Saddam broke his promise for 12 yrs and it finally caught up
with him?
Post by BC
And actually the 1st Gulf War wasn't even an officially
declared war.
yes and? Please post any citations where it needed to be.
Post by BC
I found out where all this harebrained nonsense is coming
from: http://tinyurl.com/m7ewt
"Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch
an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in
part because they say that permission remains in force from
the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage
war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration
officials."
Indeed. But on the other hand..he did seek and GET approval from
Congress to resume the job his father put on hold in a humanitarian
gesture.

And Congress..both sides of the asle..agreed. Live with it.
Post by BC
http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/gulfwar.htm
So by that dumbass reasoning, you're claiming that the 1991
resolution passed by Congress -- which was *not* a formal
declaration of war -- was actually an openended loophole
that allowed any subsequent President to attack Iraq based
whatever rationale, real or imagined, that suits him? Ok,
that's just one of many reasons why Bush Jr. is going to go
down as one of the worst piece-of-sh*t Presidents we've had
or ever will have (with luck.)
Why is that? Because Saddam would not live up to his end of the Cease
Fire for 12 yrs?
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
And the No Fly Zones were established to
prevent Saddam from using air assests to assist in his genocide
against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. We shot down a number of his air
craft..he painted our birds with targeting radar..we would respond
with a HARM and some Rockeyes and so forth.
I fully agree that sort of slapdown was fully justified on
Good boy...now you are learning.
Post by BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
And people, especially Republicans, have forgotten how hard
http://tinyurl.com/88to7
http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2004/0204war.asp
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
Gosh...so attacking Saddam is a good thing after all?

Thank you. Lets see..Regime Change..that was a Clinton desire, wasnt
it?

Well...we got Regime change. And in fact..your handlers at the DNC all
were in favor of the war. In fact..they voted for it.


So take your meds..and quitcher bitching. It only makes you look like
a buffoon

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
BC
2006-03-29 05:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Actually..we WERE at war with Iraq during the Clinton
Administration..so the gents statement was valid..while
yours..well..buffoonery at its best.
Okaaaayy....so the new spin is that we were already in
an undeclared war, so kicking out the UN inspectors and
launching a massive military attack on March 20th, 2003
under the operational names of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Operation Telic, and Operation Falconer were all just,
umm, basically enhancements really for strictly enforcing
the "No-Fly Zones" put in effect by the US after the 1st
Gulf War, but which were not authorised by the UN and
are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council
resolution.
Hmmm....I see....that....tin foil hats haven't gone out of
style in certain parts of the country.
"After" the Gulf War? It was only in abayance. Cease Fire treaty..no
formal ending of the war.
http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/keydocs/bush2003.htm
Because Saddam broke his promise for 12 yrs and it finally caught up
with him?
Promise to whom? The US or the UN? Most rightwingers are quick
to say that Hussein violated UN sanctions and that was enough
to take him out regardless of the WMD and ties-to-al Qaeda bits,
but that then implies that it should have been a UN decision
and not just the US. And what was the UN's take on the invasion?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

But this has little to do with what Bush told the country why,
9/11, we needed, terrorists, that we, 9/11, had to, terrorists,
invade Iraq, 9/11, and take out, terrorists, Hussein. Al-Qaeda,
bin Laden, Hussein, terrorists, 9/11, Hussein....
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
And actually the 1st Gulf War wasn't even an officially
declared war.
yes and? Please post any citations where it needed to be.
Just pointing out how the word "war" gets bandied about even
though what we're doing in Iraq is technically not a war.
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
I found out where all this harebrained nonsense is coming
from: http://tinyurl.com/m7ewt
"Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch
an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in
part because they say that permission remains in force from
the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage
war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration
officials."
Indeed. But on the other hand..he did seek and GET approval from
Congress to resume the job his father put on hold in a humanitarian
gesture.
And Congress..both sides of the asle..agreed. Live with it.
Gee, 9/11, I wonder why, terrorism, they, 9/11, went along,
9/11, with that, terrorism, Hussein -- perhaps because, 9/11,
Hussein, they didn't, al-Qaeda, realize, 9/11, that the
evidence, terrorism, that Bush, 9/11, Hussein, and his people,
terrorism, misled and, 9/11, outright lied, terrorism, about
why, Hussein, 9/11, Hussein needed, al-Qaeda, to be removed,
bin Laden?
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/gulfwar.htm
So by that dumbass reasoning, you're claiming that the 1991
resolution passed by Congress -- which was *not* a formal
declaration of war -- was actually an openended loophole
that allowed any subsequent President to attack Iraq based
whatever rationale, real or imagined, that suits him? Ok,
that's just one of many reasons why Bush Jr. is going to go
down as one of the worst piece-of-sh*t Presidents we've had
or ever will have (with luck.)
Why is that? Because Saddam would not live up to his end of the Cease
Fire for 12 yrs?
Well, if we going to start talking about countries not holding
up their end:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DUB112B.html
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Post by BC
And the No Fly Zones were established to
prevent Saddam from using air assests to assist in his genocide
against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. We shot down a number of his air
craft..he painted our birds with targeting radar..we would respond
with a HARM and some Rockeyes and so forth.
I fully agree that sort of slapdown was fully justified on
Good boy...now you are learning.
And this has to do with invading a country based on lies and
deception, how?
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
And people, especially Republicans, have forgotten how hard
http://tinyurl.com/88to7
http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2004/0204war.asp
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
Gosh...so attacking Saddam is a good thing after all?
There is a tiny bit of a difference between how Clinton dealt
with Iraq and how Bush did so: Clinton punished Hussein
whenever Hussein misbehaved; Bush charged into Iraq using
9/11 as an excuse along with a pile of BS lies when Hussein
wasn't really doing anything. It's one thing to get your butt
kicked by the police when they catch you trying to mug an old
lady, but it's another thing altogether to have the police
burst in with guns blazing semi-discriminately while you're
just drinking beer and watching porn.
Post by BC
Thank you. Lets see..Regime Change..that was a Clinton desire, wasnt
it?
Clinton wasn't shy about his opinion of Hussein, but you're
really not suppose to invade a country to remove a guy just
because you don't like him and he doesn't like you. It wasn't
that long before Clinton's term when Hussein was buddies with
Reagan and Rumsfeld despite Hussein being just as bad as he
ever was:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82
Post by BC
Well...we got Regime change. And in fact..your handlers at the DNC all
were in favor of the war. In fact..they voted for it.
My "handlers"? Tsk, tsk -- you cast aspersions blindly. I would
normally have little to do with Democrats, but friggin dumbf*ck
Bush and that lying-ass rogues gallery that makes up the
Republican leadership had forced me to take sides.

And as far as them being in "favor of the war" -- there is that
little, 9/11, issue of Bush, terrorism, and his people, Hussein,
lying to both, 9/11, the public, Hussein, terrorism, and Congress,
9/11, and playing on, 9/11, everyone's fears, terrorists:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd
http://tinyurl.com/gz693
http://tinyurl.com/89xeu
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006

Of course, thanks to people like the good clueless hicks of
Kansas for electing the likes of Pat Roberts, getting to the
bottom of of how much Bush lied and misled has been a lot
harder than it should be: http://tinyurl.com/eocyd
Post by BC
So take your meds..and quitcher bitching. It only makes you look like
a buffoon
Well I took a Tums (a burger with bacon & blue cheese and onion
rings instead of fries. Yummy, but...)

But I don't think I'll be quitchin' my bitchin' anytime soon
as long as we have that sorry-ass, lying-ass incompetent as
President, and as long as the corporate media keeps to its
timid, rock the boat gently ways.

-BC
Gunner
2006-03-29 07:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by BC
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Post by BC
style in certain parts of the country.
"After" the Gulf War? It was only in abayance. Cease Fire treaty..no
formal ending of the war.
http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/keydocs/bush2003.htm
Because Saddam broke his promise for 12 yrs and it finally caught up
with him?
Promise to whom? The US or the UN? Most rightwingers are quick
to say that Hussein violated UN sanctions and that was enough
to take him out regardless of the WMD and ties-to-al Qaeda bits,
but that then implies that it should have been a UN decision
and not just the US. And what was the UN's take on the invasion?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

http://www.tacitus.org/story/2005/6/28/21504/2272


Point, set and match.

Now go lick your wounds

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
2006-03-29 10:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by BC
Post by BC
Post by Gunner
Post by BC
style in certain parts of the country.
"After" the Gulf War? It was only in abayance. Cease Fire treaty..no
formal ending of the war.
http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/keydocs/bush2003.htm
Because Saddam broke his promise for 12 yrs and it finally caught up
with him?
Promise to whom? The US or the UN? Most rightwingers are quick
to say that Hussein violated UN sanctions and that was enough
to take him out regardless of the WMD and ties-to-al Qaeda bits,
but that then implies that it should have been a UN decision
and not just the US. And what was the UN's take on the invasion?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
http://www.tacitus.org/story/2005/6/28/21504/2272
Point, set and match.
Now go lick your wounds
Gunner
Snipping 137 lines of BC's posting then throwing in two url's doesn't
negate his referenced points. I, for one, am not going to read entire
urls looking for something that _might_ contradict the previously made
points and wait for those urls to resolve. If you have a response post it
here.

Your smart-ass remarks, and entire posting, is ignored.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it time to dust off the guillotine yet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BC
2006-03-29 19:13:23 UTC
Permalink
What do we have here....
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

United Nations Resolution 687 from 1991. A more readable summary
of this and other resolutions can be found here:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

Declares effective a formal cease-fire (upon Iraqi acceptance),
establishes the UN Special Commission on weapons (Unscom),
extends sanctions and, in paragraphs 21 and 22, provides
ambiguous conditions for lifting or easing them. Described as
a "Christmas tree", because "so much was hung on it". The
fourth preambulary clause, on "the need to be assured of Iraq's
peaceful intentions", has been referred to as the "Saddam
Hussein clause" as it has been used to link the continuation of
sanctions with the survival of the present Iraqi regime.

The text of the debates on this resolution in the Security
Council is available here:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/sc910403.pdf

Presumably you brought this up because of the "Saddam Hussein
clause" and not because of the ceasefire bit with Kuwait.
Sorry that clause doesn't fly very far because "peaceful
intentions" doesn't even apply to the USA thanks to our ongoing,
and usually not very peaceful, covert ops activites and our
tendency to bomb when convenient.

What else ya got....
http://www.tacitus.org/story/2005/6/28/21504/2272

Ah, an article from a right wing site feigning intellectualism
via wordy pieces by people using noms de plume like Tacitus and
Kierkegaard. Oooo...scare me some wet pants. In this case, the
character of Tacitus is played by a true buffoon commenting
italically on the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" passed by Congress on
Oct. 2nd, 2002. But the would-be insightful comments are bits
like "Announcing the Name-Calling War, punctuated with a few
cruise missles at empty buildings." and "Rock Solid."

The non-sophomorically annoted version of that resolution can
be found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

The pertinent bit here is:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be
necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise
of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the
President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other
peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the
national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement
of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with
the United States and other countries continuing to take the
necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons
who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001.


But gee whiz, if you take this literally: since Hussein never
posed a threat to the US, and since Bush made no effort
whatsoever at "further diplomatic or other peaceful means" to
make Hussein <fill in blank>, the entire war has turned out to
be, well, utterly bogus; and futhermore Bush actually violated
the terms of the resolution by completely ignoring that "further
diplomatic" bit and going straight to war. Not only was it Bush
who kicked out the UN inspectors, but the Downing Street memos
actually has Bush on record discussing how to deliberately
provoke Hussein with trickery: http://tinyurl.com/gdc29

Pertinent excerpt:

- Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the
failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of
"flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover
over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam
fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

- Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be
extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about
Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a
"small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

- Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution
would be an "insurance policy", providing "international
cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with
the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by
burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal
divisions within Iraq.

- Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely
that there would be internecine warfare between the different
religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according
to the book.

Point, set and match indeed, eh?

Damn -- impeaching Bush's sorry ass is going to be so much
fun....

-BC

Strabo
2006-03-28 00:06:42 UTC
Permalink
In Re: Are these the acts of a patriot, a conservative? on Mon,
Post by David Goldberg
Post by shipmodeler1
The war he started as the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was annoying but no
threat to us, and his spies were telling him so. He chose to ignore
them. They were also telling him there was no connection between Iraq
and Al Qaeda. He chose to ignore that, too.
We were already at war with Iraq when Bush took office in 2000. The only
thing that changed were the tactics.
Quite so.

A change of tactics and paperwork.

The US began the process of destroying and dehumanizing
Iraq in 1991 as part of a larger plan.

The recent stage was devised in 1996 and implemented in
in 2001 and 2003.


http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

see also...
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat2.htm

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli
Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper
emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers,
including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr.,
Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav
Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series
of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has
dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and
shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist
institutions-which include pursuing supranational over national
sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the
slogan, "New Middle East"-undermine the legitimacy of the nation
and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous
government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the
evidence of eroding national critical mass- including a palpable
sense of national exhaustion-and forfeited strategic initiative.
The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by
Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular
policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its
capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so
intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in
normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas.
While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the
opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process
and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation,
one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation
the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism,
the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure
the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel
can:

* Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain,
destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats.
This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace"
to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

* Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians,
including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense
into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s
exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

* Forge a new basis for relations with the United
States-stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation
on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the
West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to
terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech
marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new
government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is
the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the
strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security
is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous
government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"-
which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic,
political, diplomatic, and military retreat - the new government
can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach,
which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace
for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the
balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle
East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that
is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of
our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile
states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between
the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate
it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our
claim to the land -to which we have clung for hope for 2000
years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power,
no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only
the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially
in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid
basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the
pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human
rights - burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to
live free in their own land - informs the concept of peace and
reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition.
Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to
pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It
can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements;
and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach,
and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel
seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by
engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of
aggression in Lebanon, including by:

* striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting
infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

* paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent
that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from
Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

* striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should
that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria
proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the
nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It
violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the
United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the
Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election,
installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a
"Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese
sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds
of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its
own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in
Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local
Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes.
Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and
financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the
Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror
what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa
Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not
production points, of the "supernote" - counterfeit US currency
so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require
cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s
good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a
regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its
neighbors, criminally involved with international drug
traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly
terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural
and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace"
and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of
mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on
the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We
must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never
doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with
Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling
back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its
own right - as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by
suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has
triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded
by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom,
including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it
and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if
only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove
Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses:
Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new
regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank.
And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one
side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the
center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula.
For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of
the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial
integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the
Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel
has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to
redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the
first official state visit, even before a visit to the United
States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein
by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect
his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging - through
influence in the U.S. business community - investment in Jordan
to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on
Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese
opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest
supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s
and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal
alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and
are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon
problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of
southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia
leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to
control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help
Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran,
and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia
venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of
which - and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows - is
King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself
and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to
secure its streets may require hot pursuit into
Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which
Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already
signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance,
including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s
operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States
can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study
periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of
compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and
judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to
the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients
of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and
injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary
obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill
its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO
does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with
these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the
future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for
this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base
of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO
problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to
consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance
human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with
Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may
also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have
problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also
want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in
Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome
domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli
public could not digest, and to lure Arabs - through money,
forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons - to
negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money
to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and
very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United
States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new
vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance,
maturity and mutuality - not one focused narrowly on territorial
disputes. Israel’s new strategy - based on a shared philosophy of
peace through strength - reflects continuity with Western values
by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S.
troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan
Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will
grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant
lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his
forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to
cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and
loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform.
[Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate
arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter
supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in
another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by,
in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its
economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and
selling-off public lands and enterprises - moves which will
electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of
key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the
House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S.
to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security.
Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely
with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove
the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can
pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile
defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival,
but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the
United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care
very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be
helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to
Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and
constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate
the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to
the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations
during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants
to test certain propositions that require a benign American
reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will
transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their
perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity.
This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving
true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel.
The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East
toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a
clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and
allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of
preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to
absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment
in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back
to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea,
which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist
foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its
"exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the
Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or
victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is
on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy
internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli
conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition
leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its
moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important - if not
the most important--element in the history of the Middle East."
Israel - proud, wealthy, solid, and strong - would be the basis
of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward
2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic
and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...