I sent this to everyone I knew when Bush was running for office in 2000.
the map I belive is from 1957 or so.
does anyone know of a more recent map?
Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
War of Ideas, Part 6
This what I believe was the original part 5... and I agree with M. Friedman's observations herein.
January 25, 2004
War of Ideas, Part 6
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
DAVOS, Switzerland
For the past few weeks I've tried to lay out the tactics we in the West can adopt to strengthen the moderates in the Arab-Muslim world to fight the war of ideas against the forces of intolerance within their civilization — which is where the real war on terrorism will either be won or lost. But if there is one thing I've learned in examining this issue it's this: ideas don't just spread on their own. Ideas spread in a context. So often, since 9/11, people have remarked to me: "Wow, Islam, that's a really angry religion." I disagree. I do agree, though, that there are a lot of young Muslims who are angry, because they live in some of the most repressive societies, with the fewest opportunities for women and youth, and with some of the highest unemployment. Bad contexts create an environment where humiliation — and the anger, bad ideas and violence that flow from it — are rife. In short, it is impossible for us to talk about winning the war of ideas in the Arab-Muslim world without talking about the most basic thing that gives people dignity and hope: A job.
"For a long time now, I've felt that what we're really facing is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash of generations," argued David Rothkopf, a former acting U.S. under secretary of commerce. "You have an aging developed world, particularly Europe, that is trying to protect its jobs, and you have a young, job-seeking, job-needing emerging world, particularly the Muslim world, that will go anywhere and do anything to either seize the job opportunities or express their frustration with not having opportunities."
Just read the numbers and weep: of the 90 million Arab youth today (between the ages of 15 and 24), 14 million are unemployed, many of them among the 15 to 20 million Muslims now living in Europe. "There's not enough jobs and not enough hope," Jordan's King Abdullah told the Davos economic forum. According to the 2003 Arab Human Development Report, between 1980 and 1999 the nine leading Arab economies registered 370 patents (in the U.S.) for new inventions. Patents are a good measure of a society's education quality, entrepreneurship, rule of law and innovation. During that same 20-year period, South Korea alone registered 16,328 patents for inventions. You don't run into a lot of South Koreans who want to be martyrs.
I was at Google's headquarters in Silicon Valley a few days ago, and they have this really amazing electronic global map that shows, with lights, how many people are using Google to search for knowledge. The region stretching from Morocco to the border of India had almost no lights. I attended a breakfast at Davos on the outsourcing of high-tech jobs from the U.S. and Europe to the developing world. There were Indian and Mexican businessmen there, and much talk about China. But not a word was spoken about outsourcing jobs to the Arab world. The context — infrastructure, productivity, education — just isn't there yet.
So what to do? A lot of help can and should come from Europe. Although America is often the target, Europe has been the real factory of Arab-Muslim rage. Europe has done an extremely poor job of integrating and employing its growing Muslim minorities, many of which have a deep feeling of alienation. And Europe has done a very poor job of investing in North Africa and the Middle East — its natural backyard.
America is far from perfect in this regard, but by forging the Nafta free trade agreement with Mexico, the U.S. helped create a political and economic context there that not only spurred jobs and the modernization of Mexico, but created the environment for its democratization. Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo remarked to me: "I don't think I would have been successful in political reform without the decent economic growth we had [spurred by Nafta] from 1996 to 2000. Those five years, we had average growth of 5 percent." It was in that optimistic environment that Mexico had its first democratic transition from the ruling party to the opposition.
So if you take anything away from this series, I hope it's this: The war of ideas among Arabs and Muslims can only be fought and won by their own forces of moderation, and those forces can only emerge from a growing middle class with a sense of dignity and hope for the future. Young people who grow up in a context of real economic opportunity, basic rule of law and the right to speak and write what they please don't usually want to blow up the world. They want to be part of it.
January 25, 2004
War of Ideas, Part 6
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
DAVOS, Switzerland
For the past few weeks I've tried to lay out the tactics we in the West can adopt to strengthen the moderates in the Arab-Muslim world to fight the war of ideas against the forces of intolerance within their civilization — which is where the real war on terrorism will either be won or lost. But if there is one thing I've learned in examining this issue it's this: ideas don't just spread on their own. Ideas spread in a context. So often, since 9/11, people have remarked to me: "Wow, Islam, that's a really angry religion." I disagree. I do agree, though, that there are a lot of young Muslims who are angry, because they live in some of the most repressive societies, with the fewest opportunities for women and youth, and with some of the highest unemployment. Bad contexts create an environment where humiliation — and the anger, bad ideas and violence that flow from it — are rife. In short, it is impossible for us to talk about winning the war of ideas in the Arab-Muslim world without talking about the most basic thing that gives people dignity and hope: A job.
"For a long time now, I've felt that what we're really facing is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash of generations," argued David Rothkopf, a former acting U.S. under secretary of commerce. "You have an aging developed world, particularly Europe, that is trying to protect its jobs, and you have a young, job-seeking, job-needing emerging world, particularly the Muslim world, that will go anywhere and do anything to either seize the job opportunities or express their frustration with not having opportunities."
Just read the numbers and weep: of the 90 million Arab youth today (between the ages of 15 and 24), 14 million are unemployed, many of them among the 15 to 20 million Muslims now living in Europe. "There's not enough jobs and not enough hope," Jordan's King Abdullah told the Davos economic forum. According to the 2003 Arab Human Development Report, between 1980 and 1999 the nine leading Arab economies registered 370 patents (in the U.S.) for new inventions. Patents are a good measure of a society's education quality, entrepreneurship, rule of law and innovation. During that same 20-year period, South Korea alone registered 16,328 patents for inventions. You don't run into a lot of South Koreans who want to be martyrs.
I was at Google's headquarters in Silicon Valley a few days ago, and they have this really amazing electronic global map that shows, with lights, how many people are using Google to search for knowledge. The region stretching from Morocco to the border of India had almost no lights. I attended a breakfast at Davos on the outsourcing of high-tech jobs from the U.S. and Europe to the developing world. There were Indian and Mexican businessmen there, and much talk about China. But not a word was spoken about outsourcing jobs to the Arab world. The context — infrastructure, productivity, education — just isn't there yet.
So what to do? A lot of help can and should come from Europe. Although America is often the target, Europe has been the real factory of Arab-Muslim rage. Europe has done an extremely poor job of integrating and employing its growing Muslim minorities, many of which have a deep feeling of alienation. And Europe has done a very poor job of investing in North Africa and the Middle East — its natural backyard.
America is far from perfect in this regard, but by forging the Nafta free trade agreement with Mexico, the U.S. helped create a political and economic context there that not only spurred jobs and the modernization of Mexico, but created the environment for its democratization. Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo remarked to me: "I don't think I would have been successful in political reform without the decent economic growth we had [spurred by Nafta] from 1996 to 2000. Those five years, we had average growth of 5 percent." It was in that optimistic environment that Mexico had its first democratic transition from the ruling party to the opposition.
So if you take anything away from this series, I hope it's this: The war of ideas among Arabs and Muslims can only be fought and won by their own forces of moderation, and those forces can only emerge from a growing middle class with a sense of dignity and hope for the future. Young people who grow up in a context of real economic opportunity, basic rule of law and the right to speak and write what they please don't usually want to blow up the world. They want to be part of it.
I've found that some of the better reading about the situation in Iraq comes from the mouths of the Iraqi's themselves.
A very good place to start is this site http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ which is a blog page - something I personally don't always find interesting - where several Iraqi persons from various backgrounds spill out their truths in a prett uncensored way. You'll be nodding your head one way or the other by much of what these folks have to say.
Have a look.
A very good place to start is this site http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ which is a blog page - something I personally don't always find interesting - where several Iraqi persons from various backgrounds spill out their truths in a prett uncensored way. You'll be nodding your head one way or the other by much of what these folks have to say.
Have a look.
Desert dogs drink deep.
Now I am starting to remember what it was about this THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN that disturbed me the more I read his writings.
his ideas of trying to convince Iraqies that domocracy is good for them, really is kind of moot, giving the way the british and americans went in and are occuping thier land.
I really dont think his ideas will work at this point.
I have to agree with badger
his ideas of trying to convince Iraqies that domocracy is good for them, really is kind of moot, giving the way the british and americans went in and are occuping thier land.
I really dont think his ideas will work at this point.
I have to agree with badger
Badger wrote:I've found that some of the better reading about the situation in Iraq comes from the mouths of the Iraqi's themselves.
-
aforceforgood
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:49 pm
match yourself with a candidate
anybody want to match themselfs to which candidate?
here it goes.
http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main
Gee, hope I'm not to late with this one.
here it goes.
http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main
Gee, hope I'm not to late with this one.
Just wanted you to know I did'nt forget about this one, just forgot where it was.Badger wrote:Saying it doesn't make it so.but almost every senerio you've just pointed out in this post the CIA had something to do with it and other "good ol boys" americans financed them and supplied them with equiptment at one time or another. In essence, Americans, for the most part created them.
Try killing two birds with one stone the next time by providing cites please. That way you don't have to jump in with no ammo when you take exception to a post and then beg off with the '...dont' have time to post a reasoned, focused counter point' for issues which you take exception with.
Short of making up facts, it's intellectual sloth of the worst kind.
Now that I've found it, I think the best response is no resopnse since we are speaking of getting proof of CIA functions.
It is not in my best interest. I know it sounds weak but hey if I were to get documented proof of CIA functions wouldn't it make for great trouble for me? and if I were to post it here that would be just as much fun. If I had CIA documents then the CIA would'nt be the CIA. plus with all the so called investigations getting ready to go on now....looks like I wont need to prove or cite much of anything after all.
ha.
Oh and later on this year you should hear plenty about Skull and Bones.
even though...........
Badger, you always make me smile. You and I have a lot in common.
I like the fact that there are a decent array of opinions amongst the Iraqi bloggers. None of them, as far as I know, were sad to see Saddam go, and none of them are happy with the current "resistance". None of them are thrilled about having erratic power and security, either.
But how they feel about Bush, Bremer, the Governing Council, CPA, et al and where they think Iraq should go from here varies quite a bit. One thing that you will get from each of them is a much clearer human context for all of the political wrangling going on here in the states re Iraq.
Salam Pax
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Riverbend
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Zeyad
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
These three tend to have the most articulate english. They are also the most established (Salam's started before the war). There are about two to three dozen others, many of which can be found via the links sections of the above pages, particularly from Zeyad as he updates his links most often.
Although I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone, I have noticed that conservatives tend to like Zeyad best, and Riverbend least.
I like the fact that there are a decent array of opinions amongst the Iraqi bloggers. None of them, as far as I know, were sad to see Saddam go, and none of them are happy with the current "resistance". None of them are thrilled about having erratic power and security, either.
But how they feel about Bush, Bremer, the Governing Council, CPA, et al and where they think Iraq should go from here varies quite a bit. One thing that you will get from each of them is a much clearer human context for all of the political wrangling going on here in the states re Iraq.
Salam Pax
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Riverbend
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Zeyad
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
These three tend to have the most articulate english. They are also the most established (Salam's started before the war). There are about two to three dozen others, many of which can be found via the links sections of the above pages, particularly from Zeyad as he updates his links most often.
Although I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone, I have noticed that conservatives tend to like Zeyad best, and Riverbend least.
[A man] would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22
please scroll pass this post.
only trying to spread a little truth.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysi ... 7truth.htm
no more cia stuff from me.
only trying to spread a little truth.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysi ... 7truth.htm
no more cia stuff from me.
even though...........
Since Joel hasn't jumped to post this, I thought I'd continue bringing you the thoughts of Columnist Friedman...
A Rude Awakening
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 5, 2004
Attention Republicans: You may think the results of the Democratic primaries indicate that Americans aren't interested in foreign policy. All they care about are domestic issues, like health care and taxes, and that's what the president should focus on. Maybe. But be careful. You could wake up in November and find that while Mr. Bush focused on the home front, his foreign policy created the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" and the "Islamic Republic of Palestine." Imagine defending those on the campaign trail? Have I got your attention? As they say in the phone commercial, "Can you hear me now?"
I hope we can avoid this worst-case scenario. But it's a real possibility, given the Bush team's failure so far to create a political process that can forge, empower and legitimize a moderate center in Iraq or in Palestine — a center that can counter the rising power of Hamas and Hezbollah among Palestinians and that of the Shiite and Sunni clergy in Iraq.
Let's start with the Palestinians. Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, dropped a bombshell this week when he said he was laying plans to withdraw most Israeli settlements in Gaza and to move others in the West Bank. It's not surprising that this potential breakthrough move came from Mr. Sharon, since he has the two other main players in the Arab-Israeli drama under house arrest.
That is, Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year — all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing.
Since Mr. Sharon is the only moving object, and because he has suddenly found himself under pressure to move — both to change the subject from the corruption scandal closing in on him and his family and to satisfy an Israeli electorate fed up with the bloody status quo — we may have a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. This is apparently part of a broader Sharon plan to unilaterally create an interim Palestinian state in about 50 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, and leave Israel with the rest.
While Mr. Sharon's decision is in the right direction, it's not all so simple. Why? Because in the past two years, Mr. Sharon has crushed Mr. Arafat's corrupt Palestinian Authority, but failed to lift a finger to empower more responsible Palestinians — like Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan. This has created a power vacuum in Gaza and the West Bank, filled by Hamas, the Islamist militant group. And last week, Mr. Sharon turned over 400 Palestinian prisoners to the Islamist Lebanese militia Hezbollah in a prisoner swap, something he was never ready to do with moderate Palestinian leaders.
The message he sent is: use violence, as Hamas and Hezbollah do, and you get results from Israel. Adopt moderation, and you get nothing. If Mr. Sharon just pulls out of Gaza and half of the West Bank soon, he and the Bush team that's in his pocket will reap what he's sown: a Hamas takeover in these areas or civil war.
Martin Indyk, a top Middle East adviser for President Bill Clinton, says the Bush team had better be ready with some ideas of its own when Mr. Sharon shows up at the White House to present his plans. Mr. Indyk argues that the U.S. and its NATO allies need to fill the vacuum being created by Mr. Sharon's move with their own "trusteeship" plan for building a decent, moderate political center in Gaza and the West Bank.
"When America or Israel names its enemies without strengthening its friends, it only ends up crowning its enemies as the popular leaders of their people," remarked the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen.
In Afghanistan, post-Taliban, the Bush team has started to build a moderate alternative in Hamid Karzai. In Palestine, though, it never really tried to do that, so could end up with Hamas calling the shots. In Iraq, the Bush team is trying hard to build a moderate center. But given its early missteps, its crazy decision to disband the Iraqi Army, its lack of a workable plan for a political transition and its July 1 deadline for turning over sovereignty in Baghdad to Iraqis — success is by no means assured. So we could end up there, too, with ayatollahs calling the shots or civil war.
Can you hear me now?
A Rude Awakening
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 5, 2004
Attention Republicans: You may think the results of the Democratic primaries indicate that Americans aren't interested in foreign policy. All they care about are domestic issues, like health care and taxes, and that's what the president should focus on. Maybe. But be careful. You could wake up in November and find that while Mr. Bush focused on the home front, his foreign policy created the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" and the "Islamic Republic of Palestine." Imagine defending those on the campaign trail? Have I got your attention? As they say in the phone commercial, "Can you hear me now?"
I hope we can avoid this worst-case scenario. But it's a real possibility, given the Bush team's failure so far to create a political process that can forge, empower and legitimize a moderate center in Iraq or in Palestine — a center that can counter the rising power of Hamas and Hezbollah among Palestinians and that of the Shiite and Sunni clergy in Iraq.
Let's start with the Palestinians. Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, dropped a bombshell this week when he said he was laying plans to withdraw most Israeli settlements in Gaza and to move others in the West Bank. It's not surprising that this potential breakthrough move came from Mr. Sharon, since he has the two other main players in the Arab-Israeli drama under house arrest.
That is, Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year — all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing.
Since Mr. Sharon is the only moving object, and because he has suddenly found himself under pressure to move — both to change the subject from the corruption scandal closing in on him and his family and to satisfy an Israeli electorate fed up with the bloody status quo — we may have a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. This is apparently part of a broader Sharon plan to unilaterally create an interim Palestinian state in about 50 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, and leave Israel with the rest.
While Mr. Sharon's decision is in the right direction, it's not all so simple. Why? Because in the past two years, Mr. Sharon has crushed Mr. Arafat's corrupt Palestinian Authority, but failed to lift a finger to empower more responsible Palestinians — like Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan. This has created a power vacuum in Gaza and the West Bank, filled by Hamas, the Islamist militant group. And last week, Mr. Sharon turned over 400 Palestinian prisoners to the Islamist Lebanese militia Hezbollah in a prisoner swap, something he was never ready to do with moderate Palestinian leaders.
The message he sent is: use violence, as Hamas and Hezbollah do, and you get results from Israel. Adopt moderation, and you get nothing. If Mr. Sharon just pulls out of Gaza and half of the West Bank soon, he and the Bush team that's in his pocket will reap what he's sown: a Hamas takeover in these areas or civil war.
Martin Indyk, a top Middle East adviser for President Bill Clinton, says the Bush team had better be ready with some ideas of its own when Mr. Sharon shows up at the White House to present his plans. Mr. Indyk argues that the U.S. and its NATO allies need to fill the vacuum being created by Mr. Sharon's move with their own "trusteeship" plan for building a decent, moderate political center in Gaza and the West Bank.
"When America or Israel names its enemies without strengthening its friends, it only ends up crowning its enemies as the popular leaders of their people," remarked the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen.
In Afghanistan, post-Taliban, the Bush team has started to build a moderate alternative in Hamid Karzai. In Palestine, though, it never really tried to do that, so could end up with Hamas calling the shots. In Iraq, the Bush team is trying hard to build a moderate center. But given its early missteps, its crazy decision to disband the Iraqi Army, its lack of a workable plan for a political transition and its July 1 deadline for turning over sovereignty in Baghdad to Iraqis — success is by no means assured. So we could end up there, too, with ayatollahs calling the shots or civil war.
Can you hear me now?
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes
stuart wrote:this may sound whack but here goes...
so, if an overwhelming majority of people in iraq want something, say an islamic republic for example, and they get it, isn't that sort of democracy? The will of the people and all?
are the xians pissed because there is no 'the christian republic of...'?
see Stuart sees what's going on.
even though...........
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
GW Bush has been protected long enough!
An interesting development on Shrub's military record;
A colonel in the national guard came out and has decleared that officials in the records department have been telling personel to shred records that could be embarrising to Bush.
Now will the people believe me when I tell them that CIA or FBI agents were possibly involved in the Florida election scam. Many people forget that his dad was the head of the CIA in the Regan era. Dad may have been involved in the Contra- Iran Affair? Funny (not) that Regan has a very bad case of Alzheimer.
Time to Order an Alabama Slammer for Bushes AWOL!
We need the Democrats right to bring up GW's Harkin Oil insider trading now while Martha Stewards is going through court. This was a total cover-up and someone in the IRS knows about that too.
A II Z
A colonel in the national guard came out and has decleared that officials in the records department have been telling personel to shred records that could be embarrising to Bush.
Now will the people believe me when I tell them that CIA or FBI agents were possibly involved in the Florida election scam. Many people forget that his dad was the head of the CIA in the Regan era. Dad may have been involved in the Contra- Iran Affair? Funny (not) that Regan has a very bad case of Alzheimer.
Time to Order an Alabama Slammer for Bushes AWOL!
We need the Democrats right to bring up GW's Harkin Oil insider trading now while Martha Stewards is going through court. This was a total cover-up and someone in the IRS knows about that too.
A II Z
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
DE FACTO wrote:This post you posted has some obvious holes. I dont have time now to make all of my points for every line you've written (because there is a point for every line you've written.) but almost every senerio you've just pointed out in this post the CIA had something to do with it and other "good ol boys" americans financed them and supplied them with equiptment at one time or another. In essence, Americans, for the most part created them.joel the ornery wrote: I have been studying terrorism since 1979, and if you count history class... a few years before then... so this "terrorism thing" is nothing new.
Actually, I am surprised how long it took for terrorism to come home to the USA. Of course, terrorism was here long before George W. Bush...
"Our recent history reflects growing threats from a variety of groups and individuals. For example, religious extremists committed the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993; Khobar Towers in 1996; the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in October, 2000. More structured terrorist organizations were responsible for numerous other terrorist attacks. Hizballah, for example, killed more Americans prior to 9/11 than any other terrorist group, including al-Qaeda, with their 1983 truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the 1984 bombing of the U.S. Embassy Annex in Beirut, and the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847. Also, right-wing terrorist groups espousing principles of racial supremacy and anti-government rhetoric have become a serious menace, as tragically evidenced by the April, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Excerpted Testimony By
Robert S. Mueller, Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation
October 17, 2002
http://www.polanalysis.net/TerroristAtt ... 2002.shtml
So it isn't new, just new to some of you. Oh yeah, the president at the time of the escalation of terrorist attacks was William "Let me sleep with your daughter" Clinton.
Have a nice day.
joel the ornery being all too obvious.
I have to continue this another time. Hope someone has the guts to pick up on what I'm talking about.
Badger wrote:Saying it doesn't make it so.but almost every senerio you've just pointed out in this post the CIA had something to do with it and other "good ol boys" americans financed them and supplied them with equiptment at one time or another. In essence, Americans, for the most part created them.
Try killing two birds with one stone the next time by providing cites please. That way you don't have to jump in with no ammo when you take exception to a post and then beg off with the '...dont' have time to post a reasoned, focused counter point' for issues which you take exception with.
Short of making up facts, it's intellectual sloth of the worst kind.
Bob wrote:AZ/DF -- you guy(s) take Abbie Hoffman out of your Rolodex(es) yet?
It took me forever to find this post let alone this thread.Badger wrote:<snort>
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... c&start=90
So now, still feel the same way about the CIA? Do you still need cites?
these posts were originally Posted starting: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:56 pm
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
The C.I.A. and Iraq
Published: June 15, 2004 N.Y.Times
t is no secret anymore in Washington that the Senate Intelligence Committee has produced a 400-page indictment of the Central Intelligence Agency's bungling on Iraq and of the hype and wishful thinking that underpinned President Bush's decision to go to war. Yet the administration continues to withhold the committee's critique from the public while the agency's own censors vet it slowly, excruciatingly slowly, for classified material they deem too risky for disclosure.
A two-week task has grown to four weeks-plus, and it may drag on further, leaving the Senate panel's leadership threatening the rare step of seeking a vote to release the report before the C.I.A. and ultimately the White House have signed off on it. "They don't want it out," concluded Senator John Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat. The agency denies this, claiming there are various errors to corrrect and significant sections to delete or rewrite.
But the intelligence panel's chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, is correct in stressing that there has been time enough to review the report and that the public's right to know is now paramount.
The delay compounds public mistrust of the administration's interest in such disclosures; last week, the State Department was caught in an erroneous claim that the war on terror was producing a decline in the number of incidents and victims.
The Senate report, based on more than 200 interviews with intelligence analysts, gets at the heart of the question of how the president's drumbeat for war came to be based on a claimed threat of cataclysmic weapons in Iraq that turned out to be hollow. It is time for the painful truth to emerge
Published: June 15, 2004 N.Y.Times
t is no secret anymore in Washington that the Senate Intelligence Committee has produced a 400-page indictment of the Central Intelligence Agency's bungling on Iraq and of the hype and wishful thinking that underpinned President Bush's decision to go to war. Yet the administration continues to withhold the committee's critique from the public while the agency's own censors vet it slowly, excruciatingly slowly, for classified material they deem too risky for disclosure.
A two-week task has grown to four weeks-plus, and it may drag on further, leaving the Senate panel's leadership threatening the rare step of seeking a vote to release the report before the C.I.A. and ultimately the White House have signed off on it. "They don't want it out," concluded Senator John Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the panel's ranking Democrat. The agency denies this, claiming there are various errors to corrrect and significant sections to delete or rewrite.
But the intelligence panel's chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, is correct in stressing that there has been time enough to review the report and that the public's right to know is now paramount.
The delay compounds public mistrust of the administration's interest in such disclosures; last week, the State Department was caught in an erroneous claim that the war on terror was producing a decline in the number of incidents and victims.
The Senate report, based on more than 200 interviews with intelligence analysts, gets at the heart of the question of how the president's drumbeat for war came to be based on a claimed threat of cataclysmic weapons in Iraq that turned out to be hollow. It is time for the painful truth to emerge
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
An Interview with Richard M. Nixon
June 16, 2004
The View From Purgatory
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Q: Did it warm your heart out there in Purgatory, President Nixon, to see the friendly banter at the White House unveiling of the Clinton portraits?
RN: Same as at my funeral; everybody was forced to be gracious. Nobody would say what everybody thought: that Hillary's portrait is fine but Bill's is awful. Now ask me about Karzai.
Q: President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan spoke to a joint session of Congress yesterday——
RN: It was a joint meeting, you know — joint sessions are only to hear the U.S. president. But wasn't Karzai terrific? He was grateful for America's liberation of his country, and you don't hear a lot of that these days. He asked NATO to put its troops where its mouth is, which it won't. That's why we need a new Mansfield Amendment — to threaten the French and Germans with an American pullout from Europe.
Q: But hasn't Bush begun to do that already?
RN: Not fast enough. You saw the results of the European Parliament elections? Schröder is finished. Chirac has had it. Next year they'll be begging Bush for support. And that's when we should crack 'em hard to bolster our friends in Afghanistan. This Karzai fellow should make a deal with his warlords to get some breathing room this fall for his election. Then he can attack his real problem, which is not so much the Taliban terrorists as it is the damned poppies. We have to help him eradicate the huge opium trade before that place becomes a criminal state. Only then can we have a Muslim model for democracy in Iraq.
Q: Do you think the handover of sovereignty in Baghdad this month will make a big difference?
RN: It'll get the Iraqis into their own war, ready or not. If the Shiite majority has the guts to use our help in putting down Saddam's killers, they deserve their freedom. But it's time for them to stop whining about us and start fighting the bombers.
Q: But what of our prison abuse——
RN: Look, when the Iraqis in the street get sore, not at us but at the bombers not only blowing up their oil wells but killing their wives and children, any terrorist suspects the new government rounds up will wish the Americans were back in charge. That prison story and the C.I.A. recriminations will drag on and on in the media here because it helps the doves make a necessary war look bad.
Q: Now you're into politics, how do you see the campaign dynamic?
RN: Let me say this about that: Bush went into a slump because of war casualties, and as we come out of the war, Bush comes out of his slump. Now he has to stop responding to Kerry's demands — all that U.N. kissy-face — and start talking about exciting plans for the economic boom in his second term.
Q: And what should Kerry be doing as his Boston convention approaches?
RN: First, stop the daily grousing, which turns people off after a while. Stay the hell away from job creation, which has backfired on him. Claim credit for straightening Bush out on Iraq and move on to the great dream. Pick one powerful domestic issue — old folks' health or college education, whatever — hit it hard and make it his own. Kerry's been all over the lot so far.
Q: Where will the campaign be four months from now?
RN: That's Oct. 16, with jobs and the market rising, casualties contained, at least one terrorist attack in the U.S. Debates are over, with Kerry winning on points and Bush on personality. First, half of the swing vote, larger than expected, moves toward the incumbent, which puts Bush a couple of points ahead.
Q: That energizes the Democrats——
RN: Not all of them. The prospect of a Bush win would help Democrats in Congressional races because people who prefer Bush may not trust him, and will split their tickets. And the Hillary crowd, having done their bit for Kerry, won't cry at his potential defeat because it would open the way to the Clinton restoration in 2008.
Q: (Gasp!) That's absolutely Machiavellian.
RN: Thank you. And with Coach Joe Gibbs back, keep your eye on those Redskins.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
The View From Purgatory
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Q: Did it warm your heart out there in Purgatory, President Nixon, to see the friendly banter at the White House unveiling of the Clinton portraits?
RN: Same as at my funeral; everybody was forced to be gracious. Nobody would say what everybody thought: that Hillary's portrait is fine but Bill's is awful. Now ask me about Karzai.
Q: President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan spoke to a joint session of Congress yesterday——
RN: It was a joint meeting, you know — joint sessions are only to hear the U.S. president. But wasn't Karzai terrific? He was grateful for America's liberation of his country, and you don't hear a lot of that these days. He asked NATO to put its troops where its mouth is, which it won't. That's why we need a new Mansfield Amendment — to threaten the French and Germans with an American pullout from Europe.
Q: But hasn't Bush begun to do that already?
RN: Not fast enough. You saw the results of the European Parliament elections? Schröder is finished. Chirac has had it. Next year they'll be begging Bush for support. And that's when we should crack 'em hard to bolster our friends in Afghanistan. This Karzai fellow should make a deal with his warlords to get some breathing room this fall for his election. Then he can attack his real problem, which is not so much the Taliban terrorists as it is the damned poppies. We have to help him eradicate the huge opium trade before that place becomes a criminal state. Only then can we have a Muslim model for democracy in Iraq.
Q: Do you think the handover of sovereignty in Baghdad this month will make a big difference?
RN: It'll get the Iraqis into their own war, ready or not. If the Shiite majority has the guts to use our help in putting down Saddam's killers, they deserve their freedom. But it's time for them to stop whining about us and start fighting the bombers.
Q: But what of our prison abuse——
RN: Look, when the Iraqis in the street get sore, not at us but at the bombers not only blowing up their oil wells but killing their wives and children, any terrorist suspects the new government rounds up will wish the Americans were back in charge. That prison story and the C.I.A. recriminations will drag on and on in the media here because it helps the doves make a necessary war look bad.
Q: Now you're into politics, how do you see the campaign dynamic?
RN: Let me say this about that: Bush went into a slump because of war casualties, and as we come out of the war, Bush comes out of his slump. Now he has to stop responding to Kerry's demands — all that U.N. kissy-face — and start talking about exciting plans for the economic boom in his second term.
Q: And what should Kerry be doing as his Boston convention approaches?
RN: First, stop the daily grousing, which turns people off after a while. Stay the hell away from job creation, which has backfired on him. Claim credit for straightening Bush out on Iraq and move on to the great dream. Pick one powerful domestic issue — old folks' health or college education, whatever — hit it hard and make it his own. Kerry's been all over the lot so far.
Q: Where will the campaign be four months from now?
RN: That's Oct. 16, with jobs and the market rising, casualties contained, at least one terrorist attack in the U.S. Debates are over, with Kerry winning on points and Bush on personality. First, half of the swing vote, larger than expected, moves toward the incumbent, which puts Bush a couple of points ahead.
Q: That energizes the Democrats——
RN: Not all of them. The prospect of a Bush win would help Democrats in Congressional races because people who prefer Bush may not trust him, and will split their tickets. And the Hillary crowd, having done their bit for Kerry, won't cry at his potential defeat because it would open the way to the Clinton restoration in 2008.
Q: (Gasp!) That's absolutely Machiavellian.
RN: Thank you. And with Coach Joe Gibbs back, keep your eye on those Redskins.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
Guest
bring back the guillotine
burn the bush grink back the gullotine lets cut all of their heads off and eat popcorn
