RE: Barack Obama
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:57 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Barack Obama - Original Message - From: Dan Minettte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: RE: Barack Obama The three closely placed shots to the forehead from about 10 yards is very suspicious. (This, I've heard is from the coroner report) The official story that has changed at least 4 times makes it even more suspicious. I googled and quickly found this site: http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2007/07/pat-tillman-death-and- conspiracy -part.html Geez Dan, that is a godawful site to be citing from. OK, I will take the website's comments with a grain of salt. What led me to believe that I could rely on it is that they had a link to what they said was the original report that everyone was talking about: http://www.rmda.belvoir.army.mil/rmdaxml/rmdadocuments/ERR%20DOCUMENTS/Tillm an-USACIDC_ROI_0013-06-CID201-50048.pdfhttp://www.rmda.belvoir.army.mil/rmda xml/rmdadocuments/ERR%20DOCUMENTS/Tillman-USACIDC_ROI_0013-06-CID201-50048.p df http://tinyurl.com/37jmk7 To check on this, now that you've commented on this website being suspect, I went to http://www.rmda.belvoir.army.mil/rmdaxml/default.asp and found what looks like the official site for army documentation and declassification. I went to the pages they cited, and it looks like they cited accurately. It is quite obviously one of those cherry-picking-partisan websites devoted to putting some opposing spin on an issue. And it blatantly attempts to mislead, frex the conflation of 10 feet with 10 yards. I think their point was that 10 yards wasn't mentioned in the report...that the news media took a misread by AP and ran with it. Now, its possible that there is another ME report that cites 10 yards (the report appears to be pictures so the text search doesn't work) but I didn't find it after a quick lookwith 1000 pages I certainly could miss something. Maybe someone else can find it. :-) If you look later in this analysis, you will see strong criticism of the military's handling of the truth afterwards. That appears to be almost universal. I'm sure your googling shows that the same as mine does. Yes, but I used thatalong with the reference to original source material including accurate page numbers...which I didn't see elsewhere (just variations of the same sound bite) to arrive at the conclusion that this information was fairly trustworthy. Another ME report that specifically mentions yards would lower the trust I have in this site. Solid evidence that they referenced a fabricated report would destroy it. Well, that is pretty much what I see and what I'm saying. But I am going further and saying that the cover-up is *causing* the conspiracy theories. Contribute to, I'll agree. But, given the fraction of Americans who believe that Bush was connected to the 9-11 attack, I think that there is a significant group of people who are willing to believe almost anything bad about Bush...so that it would only take a spark. I think this point requires some clarification. In this case when one speaks of murder, one has to assume that the speaker could be thinking of any range of events from an accidental homicide to premeditated murder. I suppose, but I tend to read murder as, you know, murder. For example googling Pat Tillman murder, I get as the opinions on the first 5 sites: quote Rolling Stone Mag: Propaganda, Wrapped in Lies, Covering up Murder? Was Pat Tillman fragged? end quote The second is a right wing site quoting a left wing site: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/31/wonkette-who-ordered-pat-tillmans-murd er/ quoting http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-political-assassinations/who-ordered -the-execution-of-nflarmy-hero-pat-tillman-284472.php Dept. of Political Assassinations Who Ordered the Execution of NFL/Army Hero Pat Tillman? It's almost too depressing to mention again, but let's recap the Pat Tillman revelations from Army medical examiners and internal Pentagon reports released last week and find out what happens when famous football stars turned Army Heroes become anti-war critics: * He was shot three times in the forehead at close range with an American M-16. * This was after he was shot in the chest, legs and hand. * And this was after he screamed to the friendlies that he was Pat Tillman and please stop shooting him. * But they didn't; they executed him. * They were Americans. The third is another right wing site quoting a left wing site: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188861.php http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/82034/6929 quote have confirmed that Tillman had arranged to meet with a leading anti-war intellectual, Noam
Re: Barack Obama
- Original Message - From: Dan Minettte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:38 PM Subject: RE: Barack Obama -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:57 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Barack Obama Families who donate their children's lives to the service of their country deserve a much more honest response from their elected and appointed officials. That's all true. I have no problem with that. But, when you write The whole story very well could be a dead fish of the friendly fire species, but it stinks like assassinationthen I think that you are arguing that murder ordered from on high is a position that a reasonable person might take. I'm arguing it is not. The assumption that I made from your post about _your_ viewpoint is that you tend to believe it wasn't deliberate...but that reasonable people could differ on this...and we need to investigate all possibilities further. Just a quickie here while I have a moment. The thing I might quibble with, if indeed it makes any difference, is that murder ordered from on high is a possibility that reasonable people must view with fear and great caution; and as much light as possible must be shone upon relevant events in order to eliminate the possibility (and reinforcing the justice that makes it unlikely in the future), or in the worst case, reveal it and deal with it for the sake of justice and the health of our democratic republic. You might say that I'd like to increase a healthy respect for transparency among those in positions of authority. xponent Reinforce Meritocracy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
- Original Message - From: Dan Minettte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: RE: Barack Obama The three closely placed shots to the forehead from about 10 yards is very suspicious. (This, I've heard is from the coroner report) The official story that has changed at least 4 times makes it even more suspicious. I googled and quickly found this site: http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2007/07/pat-tillman-death-and-conspiracy -part.html Geez Dan, that is a godawful site to be citing from. It is quite obviously one of those cherry-picking-partisan websites devoted to putting some opposing spin on an issue. And it blatantly attempts to mislead, frex the conflation of 10 feet with 10 yards. If you look later in this analysis, you will see strong criticism of the military's handling of the truth afterwards. That appears to be almost universal. I'm sure your googling shows that the same as mine does. So, it does seem to be a middle ground analysis. Not on this planet. Those guys are right wingers to the core. Here is a better cite for your argument: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pat_Tillman On April 24, 2007 Spc. Bryan O'Neal, the last soldier to see Pat Tillman alive, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he was warned by superiors not to divulge information that a fellow soldier killed Tillman, especially to the Tillman family. Later, Pat Tillman's brother Kevin Tillman, who was also in the convoy travelling behind his brother at the time of the 2004 incident in Afghanistan but did not witness it, testified that the military tried to spin his brother's death to deflect attention from emerging failings in the Afghan war. Later in the hearing Jessica Lynch testified about misinformation and hype relating to the battlefield and how the military lied about her capture and injuries as they had lied about Tillman's death reality, to create a palatable myth for public consumption. She also met with the Tillman family and compared her incident in Iraq to Pat Tillman's in Afghanistan, saying, Our stories are similar. But i note that this cite also supports what I have said. The Official stories have not been truthful and that has increased suspicions. I have not heard the claim that Tillman's death was sanctioned from higher-ups. But I do believe that some sort of cover-up is a fact. There were too many official stories spread over too long a period to be explained simply by bureaucratic fubars. I think there is well established. I think that, initially, there was supposition by folks who wanted a hero, and that, once wrong, their instinct was to protect their ass. Well, that is pretty much what I see and what I'm saying. But I am going further and saying that the cover-up is *causing* the conspiracy theories. The whole story very well could be a dead fish of the friendly fire species, but it stinks like assassination. Why? Which is more realistic, that everyone involved would go along with the murder of one of their own, or that real time mistakes caused a friendly fire incident. An attempt to create another Jessica Lynch from an NFL hero has a lot of verisimilitude. Murder and cover up from his compatriots in the Rangers, privates, fellow NCOs up through the highest ranks of the military is another thing. I think this point requires some clarification. In this case when one speaks of murder, one has to assume that the speaker could be thinking of any range of events from an accidental homicide to premeditated murder. I'm not particularly attracted to the premeditated murder theories, though I do believe they are basically consistant with the facts of the matter. I do find compelling the idea that the other unit screwed the pooch so completely that Tillman was killed, and further I believe that simply being removed from The Rangers (as members of the other unit were) is an insufficient reaction to the killing of a fellow soldier. (My reading of events leads me to believe that these guys screwed up so fully and completely that they should be held criminally liable.) For example, Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who testified in a Congressional hearing that quote I wanted right off the bat to let the family know what had happened, especially Kevin, because I worked with him in a platoon and I knew that he and the family all needed to know what had happened, O'Neal testified. I was quite appalled that when I was actually able to speak with Kevin, I was ordered not to tell him. I've seen this sourced in several places. Asked who gave him the order, O'Neal replied that it came from his battalion commander, then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey. He basically just said ... 'Do not let Kevin know, that he's probably in a bad place knowing his brother's dead,' O'Neal told House
RE: Barack Obama
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:58 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Barack Obama I had a conversation with a smart Silicon Valley type yesterday who said that the US has chosen to project the wrong brand to the Middle East. That's not so very different from what you say here -- give 'em hospitals and the Internet and project a brand of helper instead of invader and you're likely to win more hearts and minds, and at the cost that I would wager is quite a bit smaller than the brand we're projecting now at the point of our many guns and missiles. How would this work? We've been giving billions to Egypt for decades...with no real effect. The Saudis, the Iranians and Iraqi governments had been getting tens of billions from us, in payment for oil. These billions have made a number of families very rich...including Bin Laden's. (as an aside, the typical member of AQ, suicide bomber, etc. is not one of the dirt poor barely making it. Rather they usually come from middle to upper class families. Given the relatively small fraction of these families in the Middle East, this is rather telling. I'm not arguing for the virtue of Bush II's Iraq war. I opposed it from before the start. Rather, I'm arguing that, before that war, the US muddled through in a difficult Mid-East situation. I'd argue that the first Iraq war was a good idea, as well as the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't think that the non-representative governments in the Mid-East are the responsibility of the US and Europe. Tyrants and murderers have existed for millennia, and are not simply the result of Western meddling. Arguments that state that AQ is a US creation give far too much control over world events to the US. I see a consistent theme in writings by a number of list membersthat the cessation of US meddling in the rest of the world would turn things around. AQ would fade away, governments would better server their people, and the US would be much safer. I'll address this a bit more in my response to others in this thread. If I'm wrong on this, I don't mind being corrected, but I am trying to give my best understanding of the meaning of the posts I am reading. And it wouldn't have cost us the growing shame of the Pat Tillman story, which is starting to smell more and more like they shot their own hero because he wouldn't read from their script. Do you have any evidence supporting this hypothesis that the friendly fire incident was deliberate murder and ordered from on high? There is a wealth of evidence, including the original transcript, that this was a fairly typical friendly fire incident that wasn't properly acknowledged by higher ups. Included in this was an early oh shit by people involved. There is overwhelming evidence that a command level decision was made to get a good story out as soon as possible, without bothering to check the factsand then an attempt to keep that story going even after it was known to be counterfactual. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Barack Obama
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:07 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Barack Obama Please use quotes when replying. On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:30 AM, jon louis mann wrote: gore would be my choice for a dark horse, if he decides to run, but that may only happens if hillary stunbles. It's a longshot. A very long shot. I don't see him running at all, but I sure as hell hope I'm wrong. the american people want to see osama held accountable, far more than saddam, who was a straw man. he ordered 9/11 and for that there must be closure. Saddam Hussein was a friend to the US until we decided he wasn't. There are photos of him shaking hands with and smiling at Donald Rumsfeld. There are also photos of Reagan and Brezhnev smiling and shaking hands too...and Reagan considered the USSR an evil empire. We chose to deal with Iraq, just as we chose to deal with Syria, Communist China, the Taliban for a while, etc. I'm not really sure what you think we should have done. Just bought oil from these countries but not have any contact? OBL was trained by the US when Communist Russia existed; we taught him how to be an insurgent against a larger force ... and then our war-by-proxy with the USSR ended, more or less; what was OBL to do with his training then? There is no real data that supports OBL being trained by the US. Almost exclusively, the US involvement was with Afghan resistance units. Members of these units included those who became the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. The US tilted towards the Northern Alliance, but wasn't much involved after the Soviets left Afghanistan. The training of foreign resistance fighters was very minimal. They probably benefited, indirectly, from the US supply of arms to the Afghanistan resistance movement, but there was no interest in training fighters from Saudi Arabia who were even more fundamentalist than the ruling family. We made both of these monsters. That is a fact. How? Did the US found the Bath party, for example? But that is not how it would be SEEN by the rest of the world. Surely you understand that and the implications. if we pull out of iraq it will be holy war between shiite and sunni. It ALREADY IS a war between shi'ite and sunni. Not reallythe death toll has fallen by more than a factor of two in the last 6 months. The projections after a full pullout are on the order of half a million to a million deaths in a year or so. In hindsight, the best thing to do with Iraq is let Hussein stay in power, keep the low level war going to minimize the torture and killing (to an estimated 30k deaths/year, and try to keep the sanctions for as long as possible. After 9-11, they probably could have lasted a few more years, before the pressure from the French (who's ambassador admitted to working for Hussein) and Russians to end the sanctions so they could make money on Iraq's oil. At that point, Hussein had planned to restart his MWD programs...according to the same documentation that explained why he hid the fact that he had little in the way of WMD. That's still not a good thing. The US has had and still has fairly limited options. It appears to me that you view the US as much more influential than I do. I see us as having difficult and limited options during the Iraq-Iran war. You see us as creating Hussein and strongly supporting him. If that were true, why did he have so little in the way of US arms in 1991? You also see a relatively minor connection between the US and AQ as critical. I see the Middle East as being complicated and the development of AQ as multi-causal. The main influence of the US on this has been, as AQ has stated, the strong cultural influence (poisoning in AQ's view) of Western Culture on the Middle East. Horrible things like the tolerance of atheism, letting women outside of the home, and letting homosexuals live. Do I understand your viewpoint correctly? If not, how does it vary from my interpretation? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
- Original Message - From: Dan Minettte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 5:23 PM Subject: RE: Barack Obama -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:58 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Barack Obama And it wouldn't have cost us the growing shame of the Pat Tillman story, which is starting to smell more and more like they shot their own hero because he wouldn't read from their script. Do you have any evidence supporting this hypothesis that the friendly fire incident was deliberate murder and ordered from on high? There is a wealth of evidence, including the original transcript, that this was a fairly typical friendly fire incident that wasn't properly acknowledged by higher ups. Included in this was an early oh shit by people involved. There is overwhelming evidence that a command level decision was made to get a good story out as soon as possible, without bothering to check the factsand then an attempt to keep that story going even after it was known to be counterfactual. The three closely placed shots to the forehead from about 10 yards is very suspicious. (This, I've heard is from the coroner report) The official story that has changed at least 4 times makes it even more suspicious. When people claim that this sounds like murder, I do not blame them for having suspicions. It does not make them right. I think the jury needs to remain out a bit longer on that account. But the facts are very suspicious and official lies only make the suspicions stronger. Add to that Tillman's outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, the appearance of a field murder does require addressing. I have not heard the claim that Tillman's death was sanctioned from higher-ups. But I do believe that some sort of cover-up is a fact. There were too many official stories spread over too long a period to be explained simply by bureaucratic fubars. The whole story very well could be a dead fish of the friendly fire species, but it stinks like assassination. Questions such as why Tillman's uniform was burned immediately and why his death was withheld for so long need to be answered. There are quite a few serious allegations floating about. His family is owed. Owed big time. xponent On The Fence Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Barack Obama
The three closely placed shots to the forehead from about 10 yards is very suspicious. (This, I've heard is from the coroner report) The official story that has changed at least 4 times makes it even more suspicious. I googled and quickly found this site: http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2007/07/pat-tillman-death-and-conspiracy -part.html It quotes interviews with the Medical Examiner which were referred to, probably inaccurately, in media reports. quote Page 118, Questions to Medical Examiner 2: embedded quote Q: Do you believe all entrance wounds were from the front of Cpl Tillman's head? A: Yes Q: In your opinion, could small caliber rounds such as the .223/5.56 or 7.62 have caused the defect in Cpl Tillman's head? A: Yes. The size, characteristics, beveling of the skull, the impact points are more rounded instead of slit like as is on the rear of his head, all of the characteristics were consistent with what I saw during the autopsy of Cpl Tillman. embedded quote ended At no time does the ME indicate what type of weapon used. He only indicates that a small range of calibers could have made the wounds. The M240B fires a 7.62mm round. The questioning continues regarding distance (Page 119): embedded quote Q: During the conduct of this investigation, there are some questions as to the distance in which Cpl Tillman was struck. Can you determine the approximate distance the shooter had to be from Cpl Tillman for him to sustain such injuries? A: No. But it was not within a few feet. It was not a contact wound or associated with close range discharge of a weapon. When I say close range I am referring to withing four to five feet. Q: Based on your observations, can you eliminate the injuries sustained by Cpl Tillman as close range? A: Yes. Q: What about an intermediate wound...5 - 10ft? A: We don't use such terms in this office. If there was stippling or soot, it may have been within 5ft, but I cannot be sure of distance in this case. These are indeterminate distance gun shot wounds, however, they are not close or contact wounds. quote ended If you look later in this analysis, you will see strong criticism of the military's handling of the truth afterwards. So, it does seem to be a middle ground analysis. I have not heard the claim that Tillman's death was sanctioned from higher-ups. But I do believe that some sort of cover-up is a fact. There were too many official stories spread over too long a period to be explained simply by bureaucratic fubars. I think there is well established. I think that, initially, there was supposition by folks who wanted a hero, and that, once wrong, their instinct was to protect their ass. The whole story very well could be a dead fish of the friendly fire species, but it stinks like assassination. Why? Which is more realistic, that everyone involved would go along with the murder of one of their own, or that real time mistakes caused a friendly fire incident. An attempt to create another Jessica Lynch from an NFL hero has a lot of verisimilitude. Murder and cover up from his compatriots in the Rangers, privates, fellow NCOs up through the highest ranks of the military is another thing. For example, Spc. Bryan O'Neal, who testified in a Congressional hearing that quote I wanted right off the bat to let the family know what had happened, especially Kevin, because I worked with him in a platoon and I knew that he and the family all needed to know what had happened, O'Neal testified. I was quite appalled that when I was actually able to speak with Kevin, I was ordered not to tell him. Asked who gave him the order, O'Neal replied that it came from his battalion commander, then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey. He basically just said ... 'Do not let Kevin know, that he's probably in a bad place knowing his brother's dead,' O'Neal told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. And he made it known I would get in trouble, sir, if I spoke with Kevin on it being fratricide. end quote must really have been part of a plot to murder Tillman. There are other quotes that have him saying that Tillman was the only boss who didn't degrade anyone. He was 18 years old...and I really don't see him as part of a massive government plot. Questions such as why Tillman's uniform was burned immediately Because the friendly fire death of a poster boy for the war was inconvenient...especially after the wheels started turning. and why his death was withheld for so long need to be answered. Was his death withheld or the cause of death? There were a number of people with Tillman at the time. They would _all_ have to be either part of a murder, or part of the cover up. This would include a number of people who were shot at, and one who was wounded. IMHO, the Pat Tillman murder conspiracy is like the Bill Clinton mass murderer conspiracy theory. Since Bill was found covering things up, he must be covering up murder. I find
Re: Barack Obama
On Aug 1, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Fifteen years ago I got into casual debates with very insightful friends about the then-burgeoning threat of China. (It was a much simpler time.) I proposed a solution: Give them the Internet. Let them play in the freedom of cyberspace, let them become dependent on the flow of information-rich sources such as Europe and the US. Not on the governmental level; saturate the *people* with this free exchange of Forbidden Ideas, and see how long China actually remains a threat to the Rest of the World™. Huh. And now we want to attack Iran, and we're babbling about Pakistan? Hmm. How much would it actually cost to wire everyone there to the net? I had a conversation with a smart Silicon Valley type yesterday who said that the US has chosen to project the wrong brand to the Middle East. That's not so very different from what you say here -- give 'em hospitals and the Internet and project a brand of helper instead of invader and you're likely to win more hearts and minds, and at the cost that I would wager is quite a bit smaller than the brand we're projecting now at the point of our many guns and missiles. And it wouldn't have cost us the growing shame of the Pat Tillman story, which is starting to smell more and more like they shot their own hero because he wouldn't read from their script. Here's my dream ticket. Gore and Kucinich. Think about that for a while. I will. Just finished watching Inconvenient Truth and nearly wept for what might have been done in this country with a leader who is not a whacko cowboy oilman puppet, but somebody who has apparently dreamt of a better world, not just more power, for most of his life. And Kucinich -- every time he speaks, I want to throw my vote away and show the world that he's not so far out that Americans can't support him. In fact, IIRC, I actually traded votes with someone in Ohio who _had_ to vote for Kerry (while I'm in solidly Blue-safe Northern California) so I could afford to vote for Kucinich on behalf of my Ohio vote-mate. It was an easy choice to make. Thanks for that hopeful thought, but I don't think the Vice President (Gore, that is, not the Dark Lord of the current infestation) wants to remain in a position to say I used to be the next President of the United States. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Barack Obama
Maybe. I'm not so sure. For one thing, the Taliban are not OBL; they're a separate group of Islamic extremists. Left only to themselves, I think the Taliban and the Qaeda would quickly kill one another in violent internecine conflict. It was conflation of the Taliban with the Qaeda that allowed Americans to be lulled and lied into a pointless war on two fronts. Further, I'm not sure at all that the US wants Osama so bad we'd be willing to invade yet another nation -- this one nuclear-capable. The pro-peace groundswell is mounting fast, and I think a lot of politicians have lost sight of just how tired the US is of war, and I think that a man or woman who stood up and said we'd rather have peace and end it, and get Osama quietly, would do pretty damn well. And -- here's the clincher -- even if it meant Osama would escape. If we ignore the figurehead and instead gut out the reasons for the Qaeda to exist, isn't that a hell of a fine turn-around? What good is OBL if he's left doddering in his caves and rambling insanely to no one, left without a stage on which to declaim any longer, bereft of followers? If that was the trade for ending the stupidity of al-Qaeda, I'd take it. Osama is one man. He is not the one who actually flew airplanes into anything; he is not the one who planted bombs in Madrid or London. If we remove the food, the organism dies; why seek the superfluous heart when we can starve the irreplaceable belly? Fifteen years ago I got into casual debates with very insightful friends about the then-burgeoning threat of China. (It was a much simpler time.) I proposed a solution: Give them the Internet. Let them play in the freedom of cyberspace, let them become dependent on the flow of information-rich sources such as Europe and the US. Not on the governmental level; saturate the *people* with this free exchange of Forbidden Ideas, and see how long China actually remains a threat to the Rest of the World. Huh. And now we want to attack Iran, and we're babbling about Pakistan? Hmm. How much would it actually cost to wire everyone there to the net? Unfortunately we haven't had a chance to see what the reaction would be; no prominent politician seems to be willing to trust the US people enough to actually give voice to what so many of us so obviously want. They'd rather drape and drip in the blood of the flag; they'd rather cant left in their speeches, when the left they're touting was the right just three decades ago. Patriotism appears indeed to be the last refuge of scoundrels. Obama's off my list. I'm waiting for others, Dem, Repub and cetera, to remove themselves similarly. Here's my dream ticket. Gore and Kucinich. Think about that for a while. gore would be my choice for a dark horse, if he decides to run, but that may only happens if hillary stunbles. i don't see kucinich as a possible veep. gore may have found a different role as doomsayer. the american people want to see osama held accountable, far more than saddam, who was a straw man. he ordered 9/11 and for that there must be closure. going into iran would be a huge mistake and the congress will not allow it. pakistan is a different story if the us were chasing al qaeda and went no further. it could bolster musharraf and help stem radical islam in pakistan. al qaeda is already global thanks to bush. we could have a shot at wiping out al qaeda's holdouts on the pakistan/afghanstan border. if we pull out of iraq it will be holy war between shiite and sunni. when the dust settles i doubt there will be many al qaeda remaining in iraq. i don't think the same thing will happen in afghanistan, we'll have to see, but i doubt if we'll leave afghanistan until the taliban and osama are destroyed. one thing for sure, this war on terror is benefiting china... jlm Knowledge is Power Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
Please use quotes when replying. On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:30 AM, jon louis mann wrote: gore would be my choice for a dark horse, if he decides to run, but that may only happens if hillary stunbles. It's a longshot. A very long shot. I don't see him running at all, but I sure as hell hope I'm wrong. the american people want to see osama held accountable, far more than saddam, who was a straw man. he ordered 9/11 and for that there must be closure. Saddam Hussein was a friend to the US until we decided he wasn't. There are photos of him shaking hands with and smiling at Donald Rumsfeld. OBL was trained by the US when Communist Russia existed; we taught him how to be an insurgent against a larger force ... and then our war-by-proxy with the USSR ended, more or less; what was OBL to do with his training then? We made both of these monsters. That is a fact. I don't think killing OBL is very important to most of the US now. Polls seem to show his death as being far behind settling issues such as ENDING the invasion of Iraq and creating universal health coverage. going into iran would be a huge mistake and the congress will not allow it. Yes, and maybe, in that order. Certainly attacking Iran would be stupid. Would Congress approve? Possibly not. But ... Is it up to them any more? Remember we had a rubber-stamp clusterfuck of retards who passed any declaration made by their idiot poster boy Bush in ’02 thru ’06. I am not confident that universal, unilateral war power was denied him. pakistan is a different story if the us were chasing al qaeda and went no further. But that is not how it would be SEEN by the rest of the world. Surely you understand that and the implications. if we pull out of iraq it will be holy war between shiite and sunni. It ALREADY IS a war between shi'ite and sunni. one thing for sure, this war on terror is benefiting china... And Halliburton. And, therefore, Cheney. Treason is not the word to describe what Bush has done, what he is. The word doesn't exist yet. How do you, in one word, explain the idea of traitor, coward, bully, opportunist and deluded cowboy freak? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:58 AM, Dave Land wrote: I had a conversation with a smart Silicon Valley type yesterday who said that the US has chosen to project the wrong brand to the Middle East. That's not so very different from what you say here -- give 'em hospitals and the Internet and project a brand of helper instead of invader and you're likely to win more hearts and minds, and at the cost that I would wager is quite a bit smaller than the brand we're projecting now at the point of our many guns and missiles. Yeah, that was what I had in mind. Lo those many years ago we weren't a military threat to China -- feh, we still aren't now; they outnumber us four to one -- the idea was to give them what they wanted. Well, what does a lot of the ME want? Not our freedom, as the Retard in Chief has claimed; rather, they want to have a little, oh I don't know, comfort maybe, The comfort derived from money, possibly; or the comfort of having a voice in world affairs. Barring that, I suspect they'd like to be able to kiss their children good night and not have to wonder if they'll wake in the morning to find their kids' bedrooms have been turned into a US-made crater. And it wouldn't have cost us the growing shame of the Pat Tillman story, which is starting to smell more and more like they shot their own hero because he wouldn't read from their script. Pat Tillman was killed by George W. Bush. The progression is obvious; no Iraq, no invasion; no invasion, no PT volunteering; no PT volunteering, no sortie in hostile territory; no sortie, no PT getting shot. Every man and woman dead in Iraq today is dead because of George W. Bush. Iraq was an *elective* war. It was a war Bush CHOSE TO EXECUTE. The responsibility for every dead man, woman and child rests on his retarded head. George W. Bush has killed more than 3700 American boys and girls, and probably ten times that number of Iraqis. He is a coward, he is a traitor to his nation, he is a murderer, and he is guilty of treason. He is, without question, the worst president in the history of the US, and he is a shame on all of us. Here's my dream ticket. Gore and Kucinich. Think about that for a while. I will. Just finished watching Inconvenient Truth and nearly wept for what might have been done in this country with a leader who is not a whacko cowboy oilman puppet, but somebody who has apparently dreamt of a better world, not just more power, for most of his life. You know, Gore is far from perfect. Why I like him is he's willing to say so. It's a refreshing change, isn't it? Thanks for that hopeful thought, but I don't think the Vice President (Gore, that is, not the Dark Lord of the current infestation) wants to remain in a position to say I used to be the next President of the United States. He may not have a choice. If he is not on the ballot in November, I think I might just write him in. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
On Aug 2, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: He may not have a choice. If he is not on the ballot in November, I think I might just write him in. In fact, I've done it: http://www.gore_cucinich.start-a-petition.com/ -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
On 8/1/07, jon louis mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government. Diplomacy first, last and always. War is the last recourse of a failed negotiator. It is not the first option of anyone but socially-maladapted cowboys. That's what Obama said, but it isn't what Obama said. He said that he would use diplomacy, etc. but that as a last resort (and he was pretty specific about it being a last resort) that he would be tough and go after aQ in Pakistan with Pakistan's consent, in the unlikely event that such action would be needed. I guess that takes care of Obama's turn to be quoted out of context. Who's up next? -- Mauro Diotallevi Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now. -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Shorter Barack Obama: Kill ’em all and let Go d sort ’em out!
I think it might be easier to decide whom to vote for in ’08 based on how many stupid things any given candidate has yet *failed* to say. Barack Obama canceled himself out for me today. From the Beeb: US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan’s government. Blogged here, FWIW. http://indigestible.nightwares.com/2007/08/01/big-mistake-barack/ -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Barack Obama
i met obama on a flight to chicago last december. he seemed very young, idealistic, and inexperienced, but a charming fellow, nonetheless. he has definitely alienated his supporters on the daily kos. certainly his handlers are steering him away from the left of the party and more toward the center, which realistically is where the majority of votes are to be found. remember what happened to mcgovern in 72, despite the fact that america was against the war. i think the electorate wants the us out of iraq, but they want to finish the job in afghanistan. if it means going into the mountains bordering pakistan, and putting an end to the resurgence of the taliban, americans want to get osama. i don't know how realistic it is to fight in those mountains, but i expect it will come to that once the troops pull out of iraq. obama may make it on the ticket with hillary, or biden (if hillary stumbles, which i doubt). dark horse richardson could conceivably gain momentum and pass edwards. i like kucinich's platform, but he is too far to the left to win the nomination, and a bit of a dweeb (his wife is hot, though). jlm US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistans government. Diplomacy first, last and always. War is the last recourse of a failed negotiator. It is not the first option of anyone but socially-maladapted cowboys. We have had more than a bellyful of war and killing, and we are getting tired of asshat politicians, who know they will never be personally risking their lives, who seem so goddamned willing to put our boys and girls into harms way at a whim. Ive been keeping well away from the contenders races; I find all the current candidates contemptible. Not because theyre horrible people, but because many of them are elected officials now and seem to believe they should spend the next two years not doing the jobs they were hired to do so they can instead seek office elsewhere. Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Barack Obama
On Aug 1, 2007, at 8:41 PM, jon louis mann wrote: i met obama on a flight to chicago last december. he seemed very young, idealistic, and inexperienced, but a charming fellow, nonetheless. he has definitely alienated his supporters on the daily kos. Huh. I don't read Kos and it's not on my blogroll. That is neither a boast nor a confession, but I thought it was worth mentioning. remember what happened to mcgovern in 72, despite the fact that america was against the war. i think the electorate wants the us out of iraq, but they want to finish the job in afghanistan. Both are probably valid, yeah. Afghanistan was rational and sensible; I've commented often (here and in my blog) on the stupidity behind Iraq when we damned well could have helped Afghanistan rebuild and become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, sort of like how we helped Japan and Germany after WWII. I have yet to meet even the most staunch defender of Bush who can come up with a good reason *WHY* we didn't just Stay The Course with Afghanistan and leave the rest of the ME alone. if it means going into the mountains bordering pakistan, and putting an end to the resurgence of the taliban, americans want to get osama. Maybe. I'm not so sure. For one thing, the Taliban are not OBL; they're a separate group of Islamic extremists. Left only to themselves, I think the Taliban and the Qaeda would quickly kill one another in violent internecine conflict. It was conflation of the Taliban with the Qaeda that allowed Americans to be lulled and lied into a pointless war on two fronts. Further, I'm not sure at all that the US wants Osama so bad we'd be willing to invade yet another nation -- this one nuclear-capable. The pro-peace groundswell is mounting fast, and I think a lot of politicians have lost sight of just how tired the US is of war, and I think that a man or woman who stood up and said we'd rather have peace and end it, and get Osama quietly, would do pretty damn well. And -- here's the clincher -- even if it meant Osama would escape. If we ignore the figurehead and instead gut out the reasons for the Qaeda to exist, isn't that a hell of a fine turn-around? What good is OBL if he's left doddering in his caves and rambling insanely to no one, left without a stage on which to declaim any longer, bereft of followers? If that was the trade for ending the stupidity of al-Qaeda, I'd take it. Osama is one man. He is not the one who actually flew airplanes into anything; he is not the one who planted bombs in Madrid or London. If we remove the food, the organism dies; why seek the superfluous heart when we can starve the irreplaceable belly? Fifteen years ago I got into casual debates with very insightful friends about the then-burgeoning threat of China. (It was a much simpler time.) I proposed a solution: Give them the Internet. Let them play in the freedom of cyberspace, let them become dependent on the flow of information-rich sources such as Europe and the US. Not on the governmental level; saturate the *people* with this free exchange of Forbidden Ideas, and see how long China actually remains a threat to the Rest of the World™. Huh. And now we want to attack Iran, and we're babbling about Pakistan? Hmm. How much would it actually cost to wire everyone there to the net? Unfortunately we haven't had a chance to see what the reaction would be; no prominent politician seems to be willing to trust the US people enough to actually give voice to what so many of us so obviously want. They'd rather drape and drip in the blood of the flag; they'd rather cant left in their speeches, when the left they're touting was the right just three decades ago. Patriotism appears indeed to be the last refuge of scoundrels. Obama's off my list. I'm waiting for others, Dem, Repub and cetera, to remove themselves similarly. obama may make it on the ticket with hillary, or biden (if hillary stumbles, which i doubt). dark horse richardson could conceivably gain momentum and pass edwards. i like kucinich's platform, but he is too far to the left to win the nomination, and a bit of a dweeb (his wife is hot, though). Here's my dream ticket. Gore and Kucinich. Think about that for a while. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
