POLITICS
It's everywhere, into everything. Office politics, local politics, political views at home, national politics, foreign politics; it permeates what you see, what you hear, how you live. It's the crap of life--both fertilizer and stench. It's an unpleasant fact of life.
War is politics, and the failure of diplomacy. But, if diplomacy is appeasement (rather than compromise) it will fail and there will eventually be war. We needed a viable ledge between the failure of diplomacy and war. The UN was designed to provide that ledge; it failed, too. The UN is also polluted with politics.
Not only polluted with politics, it appears the UN is in a QUAGMIRE, stuck in its own graft and corruption. Requesting transparency from the US, the United Nation will not reveal accounts, transactions, activities, and will investigate itself.
We are stuck with politics. Well, how about truth in politics. You lie during a campaign, your point score goes down. Could we find an independent, unbiased, (unable to be bribed) group of people who could keep score? HA, it's unlikely.
All we can do is try to find the lies, try to find the truth, try to battle the propaganda with the truth, and hope for the best.
Politics, for me, is the choice for the "lesser of two evils."
by Max
Saturday, April 03, 2004
PRO-AMERICAN
I feel lucky to enjoy the fruits of so many generations of Americans who fought to provide and to continue an idea, which even Benjamin Franklin was not convinced would last.
Our domestic policies do not always please me. Our previous foreign policies did not always please me. But. . .the idea and ideals of America please me. We must do better each day, each month, each year. We help to steer the huge boat and have to struggle to keep that boat moving forward, not backward. It's not easy; it is . . .worth it.
We will wobble, we will twist and turn on our path, we will work hard to make progress. . .we will try to be the best that we can be. It will not be easy; but, we will only lose when we cease to try.
I feel lucky to enjoy the fruits of so many generations of Americans who fought to provide and to continue an idea, which even Benjamin Franklin was not convinced would last.
Our domestic policies do not always please me. Our previous foreign policies did not always please me. But. . .the idea and ideals of America please me. We must do better each day, each month, each year. We help to steer the huge boat and have to struggle to keep that boat moving forward, not backward. It's not easy; it is . . .worth it.
We will wobble, we will twist and turn on our path, we will work hard to make progress. . .we will try to be the best that we can be. It will not be easy; but, we will only lose when we cease to try.
THOUGHT BIAS:
I am biased, and believe most people are, too. I'm PRO-AMERICAN, and do believe that much of the time our intentions are more good than bad.
There are people who would attempt to proof that ALL intentions the US ever had are BAD. Few people are ALL BAD. Few countries are ALL BAD. The world is not ALL BAD. OUR INTENTIONS WERE NOT ALL BAD and ARE NOT ALL BAD.
I am biased, and believe most people are, too. I'm PRO-AMERICAN, and do believe that much of the time our intentions are more good than bad.
There are people who would attempt to proof that ALL intentions the US ever had are BAD. Few people are ALL BAD. Few countries are ALL BAD. The world is not ALL BAD. OUR INTENTIONS WERE NOT ALL BAD and ARE NOT ALL BAD.
NEWSPAPERS: (comment post on CMAR)
Closing down newspapers advocating or inciting violence, against the Coalition and/or the Council, is a routine practice under the circumstances. This was not done early and for good reason. There was an opportunity for the newspaper to do better, to be less violent, to be more truthful. There was also time for the newspaper to put the rope around its neck and hang itself. It was not closed down permanently, but temporarily.
How many papers (of the 200) were closed down permanently?
Closing down newspapers advocating or inciting violence, against the Coalition and/or the Council, is a routine practice under the circumstances. This was not done early and for good reason. There was an opportunity for the newspaper to do better, to be less violent, to be more truthful. There was also time for the newspaper to put the rope around its neck and hang itself. It was not closed down permanently, but temporarily.
How many papers (of the 200) were closed down permanently?
RIVERBEND (CMAR comment post)
Canaria,
Riverbend’s blog is not an ordinary diary, thoughts to oneself—it is a propaganda vehicle, thousands read it, soon they may believe it as total truth. There is not contradictory comment, (or any alternative provided) there is constant drip, drip; and, it is that way for a reason. It looks very purposeful. The choices are Riverbend’s and what we say about it (and where we say) it is our choice.
There is a note of steady persuasion throughout; a phrase of anti-coalition peppered in; and the whole song is sung in Ba’athist Lefty. The song includes a chorus of poor me, life was better. You sing that song often enough, to people who wish to know what is happening there, and they will begin to like the tune—and repeat the tune. The left sings a similar song, some people don’t inspect the words, they just like the melody
Canaria,
Riverbend’s blog is not an ordinary diary, thoughts to oneself—it is a propaganda vehicle, thousands read it, soon they may believe it as total truth. There is not contradictory comment, (or any alternative provided) there is constant drip, drip; and, it is that way for a reason. It looks very purposeful. The choices are Riverbend’s and what we say about it (and where we say) it is our choice.
There is a note of steady persuasion throughout; a phrase of anti-coalition peppered in; and the whole song is sung in Ba’athist Lefty. The song includes a chorus of poor me, life was better. You sing that song often enough, to people who wish to know what is happening there, and they will begin to like the tune—and repeat the tune. The left sings a similar song, some people don’t inspect the words, they just like the melody
Friday, April 02, 2004
ANOTHER MOAB (verbal):
washingtonpost.com
ML: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
In the same Washington Post Article is this:
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
**I don’t believe that the Washington Post or any other media outlet CAN PROVE this. There are several reasons for the belief. Saying that an administration *authorized* the sale requires documentary proof. It’s hard to get proof for something like this—so, it appears to be speculation with a bias. Records were sealed.
First, the article says “authorized the sale of”. . .”items”. . .”both military and civilian applications” (which are called “dual use”); then, it says in another paragraph . . . “effectively turned a blind eye to the export of ‘dual use’ items.”
“Authorized” sounds a lot like Ronnie and H.W. saying, “Hey Joe! Ship those canisters of mustard gas over to Iraq.” (Highly unlikely that ever happened.) No politician wants that “HOT POTATO!” So, I doubt any chemical warfare items were shipped to Iraq by US.
“Blind eye”; do they mean purposely didn’t notice; or, knew and didn’t care? Well, if you can prove that all administrations know everything, and the right hand ALWAYS knows what the left hand is doing, it isn’t very likely. Some administrations are better than others, some know more than others. Turning a “blind eye” is a biased statement, leading you to a conclusion the journalist and reporter would have great difficulty proving.
“Dual Use” is a red-herring—a useful tool for many sides. Items on this imaginary list could be extensive—almost anything you can imagine. It could include everything except milk, bread, and eggs—even eggs could contain bio-material.
NEXT IS:
WP-- "In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons"
THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH IS:
In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.
**WP didn’t include the whole sentence, let alone the whole paragraph. The only quote in the paragraph was “cautioned.” Did the quotes mean that was the only word they quoted from Rumsfeld? It seems so; the rest of the paragraph is the author(s) opinion of the circumstances.
We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible.
If you remember the climate of the times, few thought Saddam was going to be the “Iraqi Idol”, many thought about “guilt by association.” Few liked Saddam, and the public was not happy. There were frequent statements about the “balance of power” in the ME. The theory seemed to be: if one side has a pea-shooter, give the other side a pea-shooter to make it more even. They can beat on each other, and will eventually quit.
You see the world outrage at trying to change anything in the ME. It was as bad, or worse, then. Half the world yells “don’t touch it” you’ll make it worse; the other half yells, “do something!” Iraq’s losing the war would have shaped the ME in a much worse direction. Yes, “status-quo” was frequently used, it became a sentence. Anyone could yell “status quo” and most would know exactly what was meant.
washingtonpost.com
ML: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
In the same Washington Post Article is this:
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
**I don’t believe that the Washington Post or any other media outlet CAN PROVE this. There are several reasons for the belief. Saying that an administration *authorized* the sale requires documentary proof. It’s hard to get proof for something like this—so, it appears to be speculation with a bias. Records were sealed.
First, the article says “authorized the sale of”. . .”items”. . .”both military and civilian applications” (which are called “dual use”); then, it says in another paragraph . . . “effectively turned a blind eye to the export of ‘dual use’ items.”
“Authorized” sounds a lot like Ronnie and H.W. saying, “Hey Joe! Ship those canisters of mustard gas over to Iraq.” (Highly unlikely that ever happened.) No politician wants that “HOT POTATO!” So, I doubt any chemical warfare items were shipped to Iraq by US.
“Blind eye”; do they mean purposely didn’t notice; or, knew and didn’t care? Well, if you can prove that all administrations know everything, and the right hand ALWAYS knows what the left hand is doing, it isn’t very likely. Some administrations are better than others, some know more than others. Turning a “blind eye” is a biased statement, leading you to a conclusion the journalist and reporter would have great difficulty proving.
“Dual Use” is a red-herring—a useful tool for many sides. Items on this imaginary list could be extensive—almost anything you can imagine. It could include everything except milk, bread, and eggs—even eggs could contain bio-material.
NEXT IS:
WP-- "In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons"
THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH IS:
In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.
**WP didn’t include the whole sentence, let alone the whole paragraph. The only quote in the paragraph was “cautioned.” Did the quotes mean that was the only word they quoted from Rumsfeld? It seems so; the rest of the paragraph is the author(s) opinion of the circumstances.
We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible.
If you remember the climate of the times, few thought Saddam was going to be the “Iraqi Idol”, many thought about “guilt by association.” Few liked Saddam, and the public was not happy. There were frequent statements about the “balance of power” in the ME. The theory seemed to be: if one side has a pea-shooter, give the other side a pea-shooter to make it more even. They can beat on each other, and will eventually quit.
You see the world outrage at trying to change anything in the ME. It was as bad, or worse, then. Half the world yells “don’t touch it” you’ll make it worse; the other half yells, “do something!” Iraq’s losing the war would have shaped the ME in a much worse direction. Yes, “status-quo” was frequently used, it became a sentence. Anyone could yell “status quo” and most would know exactly what was meant.
MOTHER OF ALL (VERBAL) BATTLES CONTINUES AT AM:
Al Muajaha post (exchange between Max and ML (Media Lies)
“Media Lies”. . .Yes, I agree. But, the question of the moment is, does *Media Lies* tell the truth.
ML says: “Max has a view of the world where the worlds only superpower is a benevolent peace loving state, this is at odds with the darker reality of the situation.”
**ML, while you are “suicide-bombing” through my brain, in order to blow apart my thoughts, you might try harder to get it right. Unless you are Jan, in disguise, I doubt you have read every word I’ve written, know who I am, live where I live, and (in your enthusiasm to jump into my brain and start bombing) you stepped into the middle of a Max/Jan argument (holding a target sign) attempting to hit from behind. Okay, it’s your right. It might be like jumping into a huge vat of ABC (Already Been Chewed) bubble gum, but no one will stop you. Just a “heads up.”
**You may only be interested in telling me what my view is; but, here it is. The U.S. is the world’s only superpower. We got it by default. We feel the responsibility and have the means and resources to attempt to make some parts of the world a better place. Sometimes, we are benevolent; sometimes, we are peace-loving; and sometimes, we engage in a battle against the darker reality that the world can be a very nasty place. The world wants us to abide by every last law and resolution and comment and view; while the enemy does heinous acts, kills innocents gleefully, is unhampered by convention, law, morals or humanity. We can be cold, and calculatedly, clearly determined; and, there is a sleeping wrath of justice which was awakened on 9/11. The terrorists chose to take the step that awoke the Giant. They wanted to be noticed; they are now noticed, and ON NOTICE.
ML says: “Max believes this beacuse the reality of the situation is uncomfortable for him- The reality that his comfort, and fantastically high standard of living is dependent on the suffering of the third world/ global south, and his countries determination to make sure that the south do not get a fair price for their goods.”
**Well, ML, you are talking about reality. The reality is that WE ARE AT WAR, and WILL BE AT WAR FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. That’s really UNCOMFORTABLE. You might excuse me from discussing the “price of tea in China” during a war. But, if you really wanted current reality: the fair price of the goods in Iraq is going up; the fair wage for people in Iraq is going up.
ML: “Max- all of us in the first world are dependent on the exploitation of the third world. The UK empire destroyed cultures and stole resouces- we Transported the slave labour that made America great.”
ML: “The cheap food that you buy in the supermarket is cheap beacuse the producers do not get a fair wage. The cheap clothes you buy are cheap because the people who made them exist in conditions of semi slavery in tax free export processing zones”.
**This sounds like JAN MUD. He’s always busy trying to divert the issue to something else, too. You seem to be saying that the US must cure all the ills of the world before doing anything to cure the ills of the world—while you say it’s none of our business.
ML: “The cheap fuel you put in your car is cheap because The US is prepared to invade another state (whose dictator it trained and armed with chemical weapons) and take the Oil by force”
**The average price of gas was around $2.45 a gallon. And for this privilege, we only paid billions and didn’t get any oil—or, our gas prices would be really cheap. Where’s your proof that we “trained and armed with chemical weapons?” Documented facts, not left-sin wizardry.
ML: “These are uncomfortable facts, I do not like the fact that my wealth is dependent on screwing someone else, but I accept it as a fact.”
**Then donate it to the Iraqis, donate it to the poor workers. Keep a family off the street, hire a worker at good wages. You accept “screwing someone else” too easily
Al Muajaha post (exchange between Max and ML (Media Lies)
“Media Lies”. . .Yes, I agree. But, the question of the moment is, does *Media Lies* tell the truth.
ML says: “Max has a view of the world where the worlds only superpower is a benevolent peace loving state, this is at odds with the darker reality of the situation.”
**ML, while you are “suicide-bombing” through my brain, in order to blow apart my thoughts, you might try harder to get it right. Unless you are Jan, in disguise, I doubt you have read every word I’ve written, know who I am, live where I live, and (in your enthusiasm to jump into my brain and start bombing) you stepped into the middle of a Max/Jan argument (holding a target sign) attempting to hit from behind. Okay, it’s your right. It might be like jumping into a huge vat of ABC (Already Been Chewed) bubble gum, but no one will stop you. Just a “heads up.”
**You may only be interested in telling me what my view is; but, here it is. The U.S. is the world’s only superpower. We got it by default. We feel the responsibility and have the means and resources to attempt to make some parts of the world a better place. Sometimes, we are benevolent; sometimes, we are peace-loving; and sometimes, we engage in a battle against the darker reality that the world can be a very nasty place. The world wants us to abide by every last law and resolution and comment and view; while the enemy does heinous acts, kills innocents gleefully, is unhampered by convention, law, morals or humanity. We can be cold, and calculatedly, clearly determined; and, there is a sleeping wrath of justice which was awakened on 9/11. The terrorists chose to take the step that awoke the Giant. They wanted to be noticed; they are now noticed, and ON NOTICE.
ML says: “Max believes this beacuse the reality of the situation is uncomfortable for him- The reality that his comfort, and fantastically high standard of living is dependent on the suffering of the third world/ global south, and his countries determination to make sure that the south do not get a fair price for their goods.”
**Well, ML, you are talking about reality. The reality is that WE ARE AT WAR, and WILL BE AT WAR FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. That’s really UNCOMFORTABLE. You might excuse me from discussing the “price of tea in China” during a war. But, if you really wanted current reality: the fair price of the goods in Iraq is going up; the fair wage for people in Iraq is going up.
ML: “Max- all of us in the first world are dependent on the exploitation of the third world. The UK empire destroyed cultures and stole resouces- we Transported the slave labour that made America great.”
ML: “The cheap food that you buy in the supermarket is cheap beacuse the producers do not get a fair wage. The cheap clothes you buy are cheap because the people who made them exist in conditions of semi slavery in tax free export processing zones”.
**This sounds like JAN MUD. He’s always busy trying to divert the issue to something else, too. You seem to be saying that the US must cure all the ills of the world before doing anything to cure the ills of the world—while you say it’s none of our business.
ML: “The cheap fuel you put in your car is cheap because The US is prepared to invade another state (whose dictator it trained and armed with chemical weapons) and take the Oil by force”
**The average price of gas was around $2.45 a gallon. And for this privilege, we only paid billions and didn’t get any oil—or, our gas prices would be really cheap. Where’s your proof that we “trained and armed with chemical weapons?” Documented facts, not left-sin wizardry.
ML: “These are uncomfortable facts, I do not like the fact that my wealth is dependent on screwing someone else, but I accept it as a fact.”
**Then donate it to the Iraqis, donate it to the poor workers. Keep a family off the street, hire a worker at good wages. You accept “screwing someone else” too easily
Thursday, April 01, 2004
COMPASSION THROUGH A STRAW--single focus compassion
(response to poster whose only focus is on innocent Iraqis killed by the Coalition)
Your compassion is for the innocent Iraqis killed by Coalition forces. You say so.
No compassion for the U.N. workers (trying to help) killed in the headquarters bombing? No compassion for the two Americans shot dead for helping people? No thought of the innocent victims of the suicide bombings in Baghdad (and throughout Iraq)? No compassion for the IP who hope to control the criminals and hope to obtain & maintain the peace. No compassion for the Anfel victims, promised amnesty, taken is buses to the “peace” under the ground? No compassion for those whose tongues were cut out; those who were shredded (FEET FIRST, so they would live longer, die more slowly); those who were killed and buried—with hands tied behind their backs and bullet in their heads—by the thousands. No compassion concerning these MASS GRAVES of individual victims when the body count is close to 400,000 and may grow closer ONE MILLION people before the count is finished. No compassion for those who would have and could have continued to give their lives for a palace, or a bribe, or an Uday PLEASURE? No compassion for the brave humanitarian workers who risk their lives to help Iraqis even under this danger? Apparently, you are (compassion-deficient) compassion limited..
The poster WROTE “. . .makes me want to get blind forever.”
Well, be happy. It looks like you already have your wish.
(response to poster whose only focus is on innocent Iraqis killed by the Coalition)
Your compassion is for the innocent Iraqis killed by Coalition forces. You say so.
No compassion for the U.N. workers (trying to help) killed in the headquarters bombing? No compassion for the two Americans shot dead for helping people? No thought of the innocent victims of the suicide bombings in Baghdad (and throughout Iraq)? No compassion for the IP who hope to control the criminals and hope to obtain & maintain the peace. No compassion for the Anfel victims, promised amnesty, taken is buses to the “peace” under the ground? No compassion for those whose tongues were cut out; those who were shredded (FEET FIRST, so they would live longer, die more slowly); those who were killed and buried—with hands tied behind their backs and bullet in their heads—by the thousands. No compassion concerning these MASS GRAVES of individual victims when the body count is close to 400,000 and may grow closer ONE MILLION people before the count is finished. No compassion for those who would have and could have continued to give their lives for a palace, or a bribe, or an Uday PLEASURE? No compassion for the brave humanitarian workers who risk their lives to help Iraqis even under this danger? Apparently, you are (compassion-deficient) compassion limited..
The poster WROTE “. . .makes me want to get blind forever.”
Well, be happy. It looks like you already have your wish.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
FALLUJA:
Many Iraqis are under liberation; much of Iraq is under organization; Falluja should be under OCCUPATION. Full OCCUPATION: Martial Law, Strict Curfew, concertina wire, the works. Possibly, after re-commencing major combat.
At a time of the Coalition's choosing the Military appears, and OCCUPATION BEGINS.
Call it Occupational Therapy!
Among other things, those who are yelling "occupation" will finally be speaking the truth about the only occupation in Iraq--Falluja.
Many Iraqis are under liberation; much of Iraq is under organization; Falluja should be under OCCUPATION. Full OCCUPATION: Martial Law, Strict Curfew, concertina wire, the works. Possibly, after re-commencing major combat.
At a time of the Coalition's choosing the Military appears, and OCCUPATION BEGINS.
Call it Occupational Therapy!
Among other things, those who are yelling "occupation" will finally be speaking the truth about the only occupation in Iraq--Falluja.
SHADES OF SOMALIA?????
The news is reporting that the contractors' burned bodies were dragged through the streets, hit and dismembered, then hung from a bridge.
It isn't the 1990s, you pieces of human garbage! I could guess what will happen now; but I won't say how--there are several ways.
Keep in mind, THE GARBAGE IS USUALLY TAKEN OUT SOONER OR LATER!
It reaffirms the resolve: no matter how long it takes, whatever it takes!
The news is reporting that the contractors' burned bodies were dragged through the streets, hit and dismembered, then hung from a bridge.
It isn't the 1990s, you pieces of human garbage! I could guess what will happen now; but I won't say how--there are several ways.
Keep in mind, THE GARBAGE IS USUALLY TAKEN OUT SOONER OR LATER!
It reaffirms the resolve: no matter how long it takes, whatever it takes!
LATEX GLOVES (or a BANDAGE?)
If (in the flury of activity) those were latex gloves, who would have access to those? Are latex gloves an item widely available?
Strange that someone passing by would happen to have those gloves. Very strange that he would put them on (in the excitment) when he just happened to be there, passing by.
Looks like a leader may have been spotted. Someone who may have been inciting, while protecting himself against. . . .identifying him by his fingerprints.
That's my observation and my guess.
PostScript: After watching several times, it might be a bandage? Either way, they should be able to find that man.
If (in the flury of activity) those were latex gloves, who would have access to those? Are latex gloves an item widely available?
Strange that someone passing by would happen to have those gloves. Very strange that he would put them on (in the excitment) when he just happened to be there, passing by.
Looks like a leader may have been spotted. Someone who may have been inciting, while protecting himself against. . . .identifying him by his fingerprints.
That's my observation and my guess.
PostScript: After watching several times, it might be a bandage? Either way, they should be able to find that man.
SPOTTED
During the first view (Fox tape) of murdered contractors' vehicle, there was a man whose arm came into foreground range of the camera. DID THAT MAN HAVE ON LATEX GLOVES?
I've seen the tape 2 or 3 times and it still looks like he has LATEX GLOVES on his hands. Why? Maybe he didn't wish to get his hands dirty; or, maybe HE DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO GET HIS FINGERPRINTS!!!!
During the first view (Fox tape) of murdered contractors' vehicle, there was a man whose arm came into foreground range of the camera. DID THAT MAN HAVE ON LATEX GLOVES?
I've seen the tape 2 or 3 times and it still looks like he has LATEX GLOVES on his hands. Why? Maybe he didn't wish to get his hands dirty; or, maybe HE DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO GET HIS FINGERPRINTS!!!!
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
TERRORISM
The Twenty-first Century Plague is TERRORISM. The disease is spread by HATE; the purpose is to KILL. TERRORISM: THE INTENT TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE (USUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KILLING AS MANY AS POSSIBLE,) FOR ANY REASON, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.
HOW DID THIS PLAGUE BECOME ACCEPTED--BY ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. . .EVER?
Insidiously, it became the weapon of a cause. It was accepted by that cause. Sucess depended on the acceptance of the weapon. It was accepted, if it wasn't directed at you. It was ignored, because it wasn't here (wherever here is.) Now, it can be here, there, and everywhere. No one is immune; no one is protected.
If this were smallpox, of epic proportions, the whole world would realise the possibilities and acknowledge the danger. TERRORISM IS SEVERE, DEADLY, AND WORLDWIDE. IT WILL NOT GET BETTER FOR A LONG TIME.
If you do not condemn terrorism; you condemn yourself, and your children, and their children. You condemn your neighbors, your friends, their friends. You condemn people in another land, and those on another continent.
Unless we ALL CONDEMN TERRORISM, we will sentence ourselves to live under the threat of that same terrorism. When we remain silent, they grow stronger. Tacit consent allows them to continue.
THE WORLD'S FUTURE IS IN YOUR VOICE; DO NOT LEAVE YOUR FUTURE IN THE HANDS OF THE TERRORIST. CONDEMN IT! SHOUT, LOUD AND STRONG AND LONG. . .AND SHOUT IT NOW.
NO MORE TERROR, FOR ANY REASON. . .EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
(This should apply in State Law, National Law, International Law, and Space Law.)
[note: Yes, Virginia, there are Space Laws!]
The Twenty-first Century Plague is TERRORISM. The disease is spread by HATE; the purpose is to KILL. TERRORISM: THE INTENT TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE (USUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KILLING AS MANY AS POSSIBLE,) FOR ANY REASON, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.
HOW DID THIS PLAGUE BECOME ACCEPTED--BY ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. . .EVER?
Insidiously, it became the weapon of a cause. It was accepted by that cause. Sucess depended on the acceptance of the weapon. It was accepted, if it wasn't directed at you. It was ignored, because it wasn't here (wherever here is.) Now, it can be here, there, and everywhere. No one is immune; no one is protected.
If this were smallpox, of epic proportions, the whole world would realise the possibilities and acknowledge the danger. TERRORISM IS SEVERE, DEADLY, AND WORLDWIDE. IT WILL NOT GET BETTER FOR A LONG TIME.
If you do not condemn terrorism; you condemn yourself, and your children, and their children. You condemn your neighbors, your friends, their friends. You condemn people in another land, and those on another continent.
Unless we ALL CONDEMN TERRORISM, we will sentence ourselves to live under the threat of that same terrorism. When we remain silent, they grow stronger. Tacit consent allows them to continue.
THE WORLD'S FUTURE IS IN YOUR VOICE; DO NOT LEAVE YOUR FUTURE IN THE HANDS OF THE TERRORIST. CONDEMN IT! SHOUT, LOUD AND STRONG AND LONG. . .AND SHOUT IT NOW.
NO MORE TERROR, FOR ANY REASON. . .EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
(This should apply in State Law, National Law, International Law, and Space Law.)
[note: Yes, Virginia, there are Space Laws!]
POLITICS and PATRIOTISM
I see the Democrats working hard to defeat the Republicans. In the process, the Democrats are doing serious damage to the United States of America. They don't seem to see this. The Anti-War Movement is doing serious damage to the United State of America--they don't seem to care. The extreme left-wing liberals appear to feel that their opinion is the only thing that counts.
This time; for this election; I will put aside my own needs. I have voted for many Democrats, and some Republicans. This time I will vote MY CONSCIENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR COUNTRY, and WITHOUT REGARD FOR PERSONAL NEED (and I am needy), and CAST MY VOTE AGAINST THE TERRORISTS!!!!!
IF the Democrats continue to undermine America to get the vote, they won't get my vote.
I see the Democrats working hard to defeat the Republicans. In the process, the Democrats are doing serious damage to the United States of America. They don't seem to see this. The Anti-War Movement is doing serious damage to the United State of America--they don't seem to care. The extreme left-wing liberals appear to feel that their opinion is the only thing that counts.
This time; for this election; I will put aside my own needs. I have voted for many Democrats, and some Republicans. This time I will vote MY CONSCIENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR COUNTRY, and WITHOUT REGARD FOR PERSONAL NEED (and I am needy), and CAST MY VOTE AGAINST THE TERRORISTS!!!!!
IF the Democrats continue to undermine America to get the vote, they won't get my vote.
RICE and TESTIMONY
I would like to see Condoleeza Rice testify; BUT, I wouldn't want AQ to see it. AND, it wouldn't be good if the Democrats saw it, because they might attempt to twist it or make it political meat for the campaign. I'd like to see her testify; BUT it compromises the Executive Branch, and sets a precedent. Some of those who say it wouldn't set a precedent are those who cite a previous precedent--which shouldn't have happened because it SET A PRECEDENT.
NO, Rice should not testify, in public, under oath. We need the information she can provide behind closed doors, with selected sections released under agreement.
I would like to see Condoleeza Rice testify; BUT, I wouldn't want AQ to see it. AND, it wouldn't be good if the Democrats saw it, because they might attempt to twist it or make it political meat for the campaign. I'd like to see her testify; BUT it compromises the Executive Branch, and sets a precedent. Some of those who say it wouldn't set a precedent are those who cite a previous precedent--which shouldn't have happened because it SET A PRECEDENT.
NO, Rice should not testify, in public, under oath. We need the information she can provide behind closed doors, with selected sections released under agreement.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
INTERESTING: 60 MISSILES TO AQ
(Berger:) We sent General Ralston to go have dinner, as I recall, with General Karamat, the head of the Pakistani military. And as those missiles were heading into Pakistani airspace, General Ralston said, by the way, General Karamat, at this moment missiles are coming over your airspace, so that the Pakistanis would not read those as incoming missiles from India with nuclear warheads and we'd start a nuclear war
. . .
BEN-VENISTE: Do you have any reason to understand now whether or not bin Laden might have been warned back in '98 by Pakistani intelligence?
BERGER: There has been speculation to that effect, Mr. Ben- Veniste, that he was tipped off. I tend to doubt it for the simple reason that we also killed apparently a number of Pakistani intelligence officials who were at the camps at the same time. So one would think that had there been a tip, they would have gotten their own people out. So I have no reason to believe that's true
**"killed apparently a number of Pakistani intelligence officials"**
(Berger:) We sent General Ralston to go have dinner, as I recall, with General Karamat, the head of the Pakistani military. And as those missiles were heading into Pakistani airspace, General Ralston said, by the way, General Karamat, at this moment missiles are coming over your airspace, so that the Pakistanis would not read those as incoming missiles from India with nuclear warheads and we'd start a nuclear war
. . .
BEN-VENISTE: Do you have any reason to understand now whether or not bin Laden might have been warned back in '98 by Pakistani intelligence?
BERGER: There has been speculation to that effect, Mr. Ben- Veniste, that he was tipped off. I tend to doubt it for the simple reason that we also killed apparently a number of Pakistani intelligence officials who were at the camps at the same time. So one would think that had there been a tip, they would have gotten their own people out. So I have no reason to believe that's true
**"killed apparently a number of Pakistani intelligence officials"**
QUESTIONS: Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols
Was there any connection established between Terry Nichols and Ramzi Yousef?
Some have tried. Both were (apparently) in the Philippines at (approximately) the same time. The OKC bombing law suit brought by a few Oklahoma citizens offered information of a connection as part of the suit. Whether or not the information is reliable, we don't know.
Since Terry Nichols is currently on trial in Oklahoma, we may find more information, or we may find nothing or no connection.
(note: Not every event is terrorism, and some may be terrorism. I may not "have the wisdom to know the difference; but, I'm going to look at events, turn them over to analyze them, and decide (preliminarily) what I think about it.
You can't find what is not there; but if you don't look you'll find nothing and know nothing. You can have a bias, but you have to be sure to look at as many facts as possible, to try to connect the dots factually and without that bias.)
BUT BERGER SAYS:
When the CIA came back and said, "Sir, we believe this is Al Qaida," I believe I would have been in favor of acting. I don't think we were at that point and I'd seen enough situations in my eight years where preliminary judgments were wrong. The Egypt Air plane that went down was terrorism. Oklahoma City, sir, was foreign terrorism for quite some time until we found out that it wasn't foreign terrorism.
In short, Berger says that Egypt Air was terrorism; OKC was NOT TERRORISM.
I accept that (for the time being) but will continue to watch for more information and look for someone (knowledgeable) who will refute the Yousef/Nichols info--including the rumor that Yousef had been known to be in the employ of Iraq. Looking forward to more data.
Was there any connection established between Terry Nichols and Ramzi Yousef?
Some have tried. Both were (apparently) in the Philippines at (approximately) the same time. The OKC bombing law suit brought by a few Oklahoma citizens offered information of a connection as part of the suit. Whether or not the information is reliable, we don't know.
Since Terry Nichols is currently on trial in Oklahoma, we may find more information, or we may find nothing or no connection.
(note: Not every event is terrorism, and some may be terrorism. I may not "have the wisdom to know the difference; but, I'm going to look at events, turn them over to analyze them, and decide (preliminarily) what I think about it.
You can't find what is not there; but if you don't look you'll find nothing and know nothing. You can have a bias, but you have to be sure to look at as many facts as possible, to try to connect the dots factually and without that bias.)
BUT BERGER SAYS:
When the CIA came back and said, "Sir, we believe this is Al Qaida," I believe I would have been in favor of acting. I don't think we were at that point and I'd seen enough situations in my eight years where preliminary judgments were wrong. The Egypt Air plane that went down was terrorism. Oklahoma City, sir, was foreign terrorism for quite some time until we found out that it wasn't foreign terrorism.
In short, Berger says that Egypt Air was terrorism; OKC was NOT TERRORISM.
I accept that (for the time being) but will continue to watch for more information and look for someone (knowledgeable) who will refute the Yousef/Nichols info--including the rumor that Yousef had been known to be in the employ of Iraq. Looking forward to more data.
9/11 INV--LEHMAN - BERGER Q&A
LEHMAN: Let's talk about 93 World Trade Center investigation.
We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day.
We have received many criticisms of the handling of that crisis at the time, in that it was handled as a criminal problem, and that the information gathered in the investigation that would have turned the light bulb on in the policy community as to the extent of the Al Qaida participation was never shared within the intelligence community until after the trial.
BERGER: Mr. Lehman, I think this is a -- I'm not attributing this to you, but I think this is a good example of reading history backwards.
In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden.
BERGER: These were things that were learned in '97 and '98.
You know, when you turn the book upside down, and when you start with the last chapter and you read backwards, it's a hell of a lot easier...
1993 WTC bombing-
***"We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day."*** (3/24/04)
***"In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden."***
If true, Saddam Hussein was harboring AQ, who was the third key planner? The blind sheik, probably.
LEHMAN: Let's talk about 93 World Trade Center investigation.
We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day.
We have received many criticisms of the handling of that crisis at the time, in that it was handled as a criminal problem, and that the information gathered in the investigation that would have turned the light bulb on in the policy community as to the extent of the Al Qaida participation was never shared within the intelligence community until after the trial.
BERGER: Mr. Lehman, I think this is a -- I'm not attributing this to you, but I think this is a good example of reading history backwards.
In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden.
BERGER: These were things that were learned in '97 and '98.
You know, when you turn the book upside down, and when you start with the last chapter and you read backwards, it's a hell of a lot easier...
1993 WTC bombing-
***"We now know that three of the key planners and players were Al Qaida. And indeed, one of them was able to escape and was given safe haven in Baghdad right up until, as far as we know, the present day."*** (3/24/04)
***"In 1993, we had no notion of the linkage of Ramzi Yousef to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others who ultimately were tied to bin Laden."***
If true, Saddam Hussein was harboring AQ, who was the third key planner? The blind sheik, probably.
PRE-9/11 CLIMATE:
Before 9/11 the public, and the climate in the world, would not have supported some actions against terror. Europe does not agree with the US actions now; how could they have agreed prior to 9/11? Well, much of Europe would not, could not, and still does not, and might not ever. . .agree about how VERY IMPORTANT the WoT is.
I believe Iraq was and is a part of it. So much of the world disagrees with me. To be blunt, I hope I'm NOT CORRECT.
I (also) hope that I heard Sandy Berger incorrectly. (flight 800)
Before 9/11 the public, and the climate in the world, would not have supported some actions against terror. Europe does not agree with the US actions now; how could they have agreed prior to 9/11? Well, much of Europe would not, could not, and still does not, and might not ever. . .agree about how VERY IMPORTANT the WoT is.
I believe Iraq was and is a part of it. So much of the world disagrees with me. To be blunt, I hope I'm NOT CORRECT.
I (also) hope that I heard Sandy Berger incorrectly. (flight 800)
AT WAR after early August, 1998.
We were at war after August 1998, the people didn't realize it or know it. When Bin Laden declared war against us, Congress should have been notified and war declared officially.
There were many possible errors which led to 9/11; but, this might have been a big one. There are various reasons why this was not done:
US Economy; acknowledgement of terror activities in general; declaring war on an organizationed group--rather than a country; acknowledging specific terror activities and being pushed into a hasty response; panic.
We were at war after August 1998, the people didn't realize it or know it. When Bin Laden declared war against us, Congress should have been notified and war declared officially.
There were many possible errors which led to 9/11; but, this might have been a big one. There are various reasons why this was not done:
US Economy; acknowledgement of terror activities in general; declaring war on an organizationed group--rather than a country; acknowledging specific terror activities and being pushed into a hasty response; panic.
SANDY BERGER--(IT WAS AN ERROR--INCORRECT--RETRACTED & EXPLAINED)
Sandy Berger was the National Security Adviser to Clinton Administration, 1997-2001.
During Wednesday's testimony, Berger was discussing Flight 800. I have been waiting for years to hear more.
Did Berger just say what I think he said? I had missed his testimony on Wednesday-- the coverage was not carried except in replays during the next few days. I missed the first part in the replays. Now I have to watch the whole thing again because there may have been something very important earlier (that Berger said.)
Did Berger say that preliminary indications on the cause of the Flight 800 disaster were not Al Qaeda. That later preliminary judgements were that it was AQ, that too many witnesses sighted missiles from earth into the air.
I heard pieces of this in the background until it caught my attention. Now I don't know if that is what I heard; it is what I thought I heard. If this was not the case, why mention it; an air accident has nothing to do with 9/11. Wonder if there is a transcript somewhere. I heard all of Rumsfeld; some of Powell; Berger; Clarke.
THE ABOVE IS IN ERROR, BELOW IS FROM ACTUAL BERGER TRANSCRIPT:
BERGER: We thought TWA 800 was terrorism. *It was not terrorism.* People actually -- dozens of people saw the missile strike TWA 800 as it went up over Long Island.
(Here is where I was rolling back "mental tape"--What? Flight 800? People saw the missile strike. . .) (Then, I heard: . . .)
LEHMAN: Yes, but you just told us...
BERGER: Preliminary judgments, I have come to learn, are not the same as judgments. And when the CIA was ready -- they were certainly not sitting on their hands, and when they were ready to come back and say, "It's our best judgment that this is Al Qaida," we should have acted. That did not happen on our watch, sir
Well, it was a challenging day. I'm still watching; but, probably, there will be little more on this one.
I did learn something new!
Sandy Berger was the National Security Adviser to Clinton Administration, 1997-2001.
During Wednesday's testimony, Berger was discussing Flight 800. I have been waiting for years to hear more.
Did Berger just say what I think he said? I had missed his testimony on Wednesday-- the coverage was not carried except in replays during the next few days. I missed the first part in the replays. Now I have to watch the whole thing again because there may have been something very important earlier (that Berger said.)
Did Berger say that preliminary indications on the cause of the Flight 800 disaster were not Al Qaeda. That later preliminary judgements were that it was AQ, that too many witnesses sighted missiles from earth into the air.
I heard pieces of this in the background until it caught my attention. Now I don't know if that is what I heard; it is what I thought I heard. If this was not the case, why mention it; an air accident has nothing to do with 9/11. Wonder if there is a transcript somewhere. I heard all of Rumsfeld; some of Powell; Berger; Clarke.
THE ABOVE IS IN ERROR, BELOW IS FROM ACTUAL BERGER TRANSCRIPT:
BERGER: We thought TWA 800 was terrorism. *It was not terrorism.* People actually -- dozens of people saw the missile strike TWA 800 as it went up over Long Island.
(Here is where I was rolling back "mental tape"--What? Flight 800? People saw the missile strike. . .) (Then, I heard: . . .)
LEHMAN: Yes, but you just told us...
BERGER: Preliminary judgments, I have come to learn, are not the same as judgments. And when the CIA was ready -- they were certainly not sitting on their hands, and when they were ready to come back and say, "It's our best judgment that this is Al Qaida," we should have acted. That did not happen on our watch, sir
Well, it was a challenging day. I'm still watching; but, probably, there will be little more on this one.
I did learn something new!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)