Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 8/2/2003 12:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. Name a few then. And by the way be precise. I want the names of democrats who said it was ok to commit perjury. Not whether men lie about adultary. If memory serves me right several republicans had to fess up about previous affairs. Unless I am living under a ton of alzheimers and spending too much time looking at Gnewts of course. Here it is John. This is a perfect example of your republicans can do no wrong and democrats can do no right approach. Do you actually believe that democrats as a group approved of either Clinton's immoral behavior or his testimony? If yes than all is lost and by the way you might as well assume that since I have been a democrat in the past that I approve of such things. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot defend Bush by saying that it is just politics and then attack Clinton because he lies. In personal life an politics lying occurs all the time. It knows no party affiliation. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 03:35 PM 8/1/2003 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote: So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. John D. Giorgis wrote: I love this. You get to nail Bush for not cooperating with our allies, like the French. *AND* You get to nail Bush *for* cooperating wth our allies, like the French. Sorry, but I can't take your Catch-22 seriously. I don't call using 3rd-hand soft info from France as cooperating with them. They didn't want the evidence to be used in the first place, and certainly didn't share the hard evidence with us, if there was any. If Bush hadn't used the evidence, the basic positions of the debate for and against invading Iraq would not have changed, and this particular facet would never have come up. Besides, why should Bush believe anything from France, over the objections of his own intelligence department, when he is suspicious of France's motives? If he's going to disregard them, why not *also* disregard soft evidence in the form of assurances passed through a 3rd party? Anything french, especially at the time the SOU was given, was tarred as suspicous by the administration and the media. Why should he take their assurances over his own CIA, and browbeat them into settling on a statement that is technically not untrue, yet misleading wrt the strength of the evidence supporting it. All this going into the most important and heavily reviewed speech he makes. It seems to me that the administration's standards should be getting tougher for things like this, not weaker. This is not a catch-22, but rather someone acting out of character. It suggests that he had an Agenda and anything he could get his hands on, regardless of its integrity, would be employed. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Jon Gabriel wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. Cite please. I'm unaware of any democratic or republican politico who said 'What he did was right, and lying about it was expected and acceptable.' Just because a late night talk show comedian like Bill Maher says it doesn't mean he is speaking for the American people. The statement Any man would lie about adultery does not require that Clinton's actions were right and acceptable, just understandable, and for most people, they were understandable. Being understandable only means that there can be some leniency in the punishment for one's transgressions, but they still remain wrong, and one still should be punished for them. The impeachment movement seemed to ignore this in order to pursue the maximum punishment available, and failed. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the british by not using the information. But by the way why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in something this important the british could share their specific information. I would suspect that more often than not in situations like this the info would be shared. I would very upset to learn that we and our allies shared only conclusions not evidence. Gautam Mukunda wrote: The British have stated that their source (informed speculation is French intelligence, but no one knows for sure) refused them permission to share the evidence, only the conclusions. This is very ordinary in the intelligence world, where sources and methods are prized above all things. So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. Cite please. I'm unaware of any democratic or republican politico who said 'What he did was right, and lying about it was expected and acceptable.' Just because a late night talk show comedian like Bill Maher says it doesn't mean he is speaking for the American people. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 04:34 PM 8/2/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. Cite please. I'm unaware of any democratic or republican politico who said 'What he did was right, and lying about it was expected and acceptable.' Just because a late night talk show comedian like Bill Maher says it doesn't mean he is speaking for the American people. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never accused any Democrat of saying those words, and as such it is wholly unreasonable for you to expect me to find them. Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this. In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd. Many Democrats did argue that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for making such a claim was to attempt to mitigate the charges against Clinton, and as such, defend him. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: ... Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this. In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd. Many Democrats did argue that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for making such a claim was to attempt to mitigate the charges against Clinton, and as such, defend him. John-- I think you are splitting hairs here. I believe that everybody else in this exchange is interpreting defended Clinton as said that Clinton was right to lie. You seem to be using it here in the broader sense of made any argument in support of Clinton. With this sense, you are of course right. Congratulations, you've won an argument. Unfortunately, it was not WITH anybody, since we seem to be using words differently. : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 3:52 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right Au contraire a great many noted that any man would lie about adultery. JDG Yes, but that doesn't make it right, just understandable. So the comment stands: Not one said he was right. Agreed. To me, the big difference is that Clinton was attacked because of his PERSONAL life, while Bush is being attacked about his PROFESSIONAL life. Also Agreed. Given his past use of illegal drugs, I find it deeply hypocritical that Bush does not push for reduced penalties for their use. (While his position seems now to be that his past drug use was wrong, he is then asking to be forgiven for it. Why should this forgiveness not be extended to present users?) But this is an example of an attack based on Bush's personal life. Oh, but this I don't agree with. You obviously have never heard him give an interview on the subject. On Oprah, while he was running, Bush said that he was an alcoholic, saw how badly it screwed up his own life, joined AA and is now in favor of more drastic punishment for offenders because of it. I don't think that's at all hypocritical. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Clinton's Perjury *Again* RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
What democrats said that it was acceptable for Clinton to lie under oath? I don't know what other Democrats may have said. I never said it was acceptable for him to lie under oath. I just didn't think it was an impeachable offense. I also think he should never have been forced to face that deposition, since Paula Jones's case was, in my opinion, purely politically motivated by people who hated Clinton no matter what he did. That said, he should have told the truth. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. -- Matt No, he used information from _British_ intelligence, which had seen the supporting data, via another intelligence service. Additionally, _usually_ when people admit something that is against their interests it is more, not less, likely to be true. That the French supplied information making Iraq look worse makes it more, not less, likely that the information is accurate. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words --- Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So then the President used information that ultimately came from French Intelligence, a country which his own administration has all but accused of having a conflict of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before. -- Matt No, he used information from _British_ intelligence, which had seen the supporting data, via another intelligence service. Additionally, _usually_ when people admit something that is against their interests it is more, not less, likely to be true. That the French supplied information making Iraq look worse makes it more, not less, likely that the information is accurate. How likely is it that the French deliberately set Bush ? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How likely is it that the French deliberately set Bush ? Dan M. Ah, now _there_ you have the billion dollar question. I'm suspicious enough of the French to say it's possible, but I don't think it's likely. I frankly don't think that the French government is competent enough to go through the chain of logic that it would require - i.e. The Americans _are_ going to invade, we can't stop them, therefore we can supply false intelligence, which they will probably use, which we can embarass them with later. French policy seems, to me, to be more easily ascribed to a combination of malice and incompetence than the sort of Machiavellian genius that would require. They haven't shown any signs of that since Austerlitz, so it seems unlikely it would pop up in 2002 all of a sudden. They would also be taking a terrible risk - the total collapse of intelligence cooperation between the US/Britain/their allies and France. That's not something that anyone wants, not even de Villepin. But it's certainly _possible_. It would be consistent with the simplest possible explanation of French motivations (i.e. that the driving force of French foreign policy is the weakening of the United States). It just seems, to me, unlikely that they were thinking that far ahead. Definitely something worth thinking about. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? What question? There isn't a question mark in the above statement. Erik wrote I think he meant the question why do they hate us or something like that. His implication is that you haven't thought about it because it makes you uncomfortable. Sounds like he lives in the same world as David. I originally dismissed this post, but it got under my skin enough to go back and dig it out since I might finally see a nuance in the part of our past discussions of why we should seek to understand others views. Seems like self reflction got thrown out with the proverbial bath water. Self refection doesn't mean one must act or sell out, one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The discussion seems to have taken a turn that even considering why others hate is un'merican in some way. Without ongoing self reflection how can a country progress? Differences in how we progress are the next level of discussion in my mind- the issue of constantly monitoring the environment of our allies and foes doesn't seem to be an option in my mind if we are to interact in a global world. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:28:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? What question? There isn't a question mark in the above statement. Erik wrote I think he meant the question why do they hate us or something like that. His implication is that you haven't thought about it because it makes you uncomfortable. Sounds like he lives in the same world as David. Seems like self reflction got thrown out with the proverbial bath water. Self refection doesn't mean one must act or sell out, one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The discussion seems to have taken a turn that even considering why others hate is un'merican in some way. I didn't see that at all. I think all of the people quoted above have thought about why terrorists might hate the US. Nevertheless, Gautam was accused of having not thought about it. On the contrary, I think Gautam has thought about it, but he obviously disagrees with the conclusion above, that we should act in such a way as to assuage their anger, [then] they won't attack us any more. I also disagree with this conclusion. While I haven't been impressed with US diplomacy recently, I think it is absurd to conclude that terrorists would leave the US alone if the US were less unilateral. A number of good reasons were already mentioned for this in this thread, so I won't repeat them here. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Dan Minette wrote: Given the fact that people in the British intelligence have indicated that Blair overstated their case and the fact that people in the US intelligence have indicated that Bush did; the most logical conclusion is that Bush and Blair, together, got more certainity out of the intelligence than was there in the first place. And from what I read yesterday, people in the British Intelligence are also saying that the CIA told No.10 to not use the 45 minutes claim. That apparently is what is at the heart of the Kelly controversy. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the problem is that you never know until after it has happened which seemingly innocuous detail may be enough to get an asset (= person) killed, which not only may be something you as a human being feel responsible for, but it cuts off your source of possible future information and alerts the enemy to the fact that you have been spying on them and gives them a pretty good idea of what information may have been compromised (= the information that asset had access to). --Ronn! :) In fact, there's a recent and very relevant example of that. Just after Pres. Clinton launched his cruise missile attack and attempt to kill Bin Laden (which failed) he defended the timing by saying that we had satellite intercepts stating that was Bin Laden's position. Unsurprisingly, from that moment on Bin Laden never used his satellite phone again - depriving us of one of our chief sources of intelligence on him. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:33:36 -0400 At 08:33 PM 7/29/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries. I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. No, hijackings and truck bombings are modern inventions technologically but the targeting of civilian populations to incite terror can be traced back 2500 years to the writings of Xenophon, the Greek historian. He lived around 4 or 500 BC, I think. Just off the top of my head, some other examples of terrorism throughout history: The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition Robespierre's Reign of Terror (late 1700's) Klu Klux Klan (late 1800's) The Argentine 'Vanished' The PLO (post WWII) The Irish Republican Army And the Basque ETA was started in the 1960's, I believe. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D Giorgis wrote: I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. At 14:08 2003-07-31 -0400, you wrote: No, hijackings and truck bombings are modern inventions technologically but the targeting of civilian populations to incite terror can be traced back 2500 years to the writings of Xenophon, the Greek historian. He lived around 4 or 500 BC, I think. Just off the top of my head, some other examples of terrorism throughout history: The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition Robespierre's Reign of Terror (late 1700's) Klu Klux Klan (late 1800's) The Argentine 'Vanished' The PLO (post WWII) The Irish Republican Army And the Basque ETA was started in the 1960's, I believe. Jon Don't forget the corsair pirates: state sponsored terrorism. If exploding trucks are a modern invention, it is only because trucks didn't exist before. There is an equivalent in what is called in French a brulôt. It's a burning ship or raft which may or may not be filled with gun powder, aimed at another ship or at a city's port. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/30/2003 10:20:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As is usual in the intelligence business, the British said that they can't reveal their sources so as to preserve their leads. Now what? Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the british by not using the information. But by the way why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in something this important the british could share their specific information. I would suspect that more often than not in situations like this the info would be shared. I would very upset to learn that we and our allies shared only conclusions not evidence. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the british by not using the information. But by the way why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in something this important the british could share their specific information. I would suspect that more often than not in situations like this the info would be shared. I would very upset to learn that we and our allies shared only conclusions not evidence. The British have stated that their source (informed speculation is French intelligence, but no one knows for sure) refused them permission to share the evidence, only the conclusions. This is very ordinary in the intelligence world, where sources and methods are prized above all things. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:16 PM 7/31/03 -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the british by not using the information. But by the way why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in something this important the british could share their specific information. I would suspect that more often than not in situations like this the info would be shared. I would very upset to learn that we and our allies shared only conclusions not evidence. The British have stated that their source (informed speculation is French intelligence, but no one knows for sure) refused them permission to share the evidence, only the conclusions. This is very ordinary in the intelligence world, where sources and methods are prized above all things. And the problem is that you never know until after it has happened which seemingly innocuous detail may be enough to get an asset (= person) killed, which not only may be something you as a human being feel responsible for, but it cuts off your source of possible future information and alerts the enemy to the fact that you have been spying on them and gives them a pretty good idea of what information may have been compromised (= the information that asset had access to). --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat every terrorist in the world. We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that this problem is necessarily pervasive in humanity at all. Which problem doesn't seem necessarily pervasive? The suicide bombers or the terrorists? If you are talking about the former, then I can only be grateful that the idea hasn't found *too* many takers outside the mid-east. But if you are talking about terrorism as a whole, rather than a small subset of terrorists, then the problem is pervasive enough all over the world. In fact, it has been increasing continuously for the last 6 odd decades. India alone has been suffering from terrorism for more than two decades now. To go back to the first question though, no, you cannot possibly neutralise/kill every single terrorist in the world. There would always be someone crazy enough to hate to that degree and resourceful enough to access the weapons our species is so good at producing. What you *can* do is make it hard for the nut-cases to get the public support and funds they need to operate. And that is a life-long process. It is not something that would get over in a year or two or even a decade or two. And if this war-time emergency status continues within the US for that decade or two, with suspicion directed towards a group of your own people, public resentments simmering, chances are that you Merkins would be too busy with home-grown terrorism to worry overly much about international terrorism. We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke or a biological bomb. I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US armed forces are likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against any likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. *chuckle* What kind of intelligence? The kind that talked of the WMDs in Iraq or the kind that alerted you to what the subcontinent was upto in the late 90s? TWAT lacks many a thing and the list of missing essential items includes realistic aims and objectives. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? What question? There isn't a question mark in the above statement. I think he meant the question why do they hate us or something like that. His implication is that you haven't thought about it because it makes you uncomfortable. Sounds like he lives in the same world as David. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
[I've been out of town.] On 25 Jul 2003, John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? Misinformation has long been an issue. Intelligence services try to plant misinformation in an enemy's mind. For example, in World War II, the Allies set up a complete, fake army to fool the Germans into thinking the attack in Normandy was a feint. Moreover, as a practical matter, intelligence services often try to plant misinformation through an ally, on the principle that such information is harder to check. Going back in time several generations, we can look at what done. Suppose the British informed the US that they had acquired significant quantities of intelligence about Stalin's efforts to build and deploy nuclear weapons. The US cannot `verify' the intelligence. What does the US do? I don't know the current procedures, but in the past, the US would have told the British that there are suggestions that the intelligence is misinformation. Certainly, the US would not have called the British liars since the British may have been fooled or their intelligence systems penetrated (as indeed they were). Nor would the US call the British incompetent since they are not. The question is whether they have been fooled or corrupted into thinking that misinformation is information. Nor would the US ignore the British intelligence as questionable, but would investigate it and only discount it if US sources suggested it was misinformation. Nor would the US believe a British intelligence report without supporting evidence, since the US understands how difficult intelligence gathering is. Even if US officials believe that British spies are better than US spies, the US officials know that sometimes the British are misled, just as US spies are misled. No one expects perfection, especially in an area as murky as espionage. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
[I've been out of town.] On 25 Jul 2003, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote ... -- intelligence to the president is supposed to be thoroughly checked, not just for accuracy, but also for spin and such. I can't say much about who the reviewing parties are, or how many people are involved But it clearly indicates that under this administration, the system failed to operate the way it nearly always has. Perhaps with the media abandoning objectivity and accuracy, most people simply don't realize that the U.S. intelligence system still strives for it, so they don't realize what a fundamental problem this reflects. Nick is right. This is very serious. Suppose the Bush Administration are good guys, as some believe: * then they cannot do a good job if they receive inaccurate information Suppose the Bush Administration are bad guys, as some believe, who however, are not Benedict Arnolds (he was a famous traitor to the US during its war for independence): * then they cannot do a patriotic job if they receive inaccurate information From the point of view of US citizens, many would say that the best hope is that the President lied in his State of the Union message, not that he or the system was incompetent. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] By the way - of the recent developments in the nuclear programs of the DPRK, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq over the past 15 years - how many occurred with the knowledge of US intelligence sources? I'll give you a hint - the answer is a very round number so I wouldnt count on being able to know when a successful test is imminent if that is your plan. Wait a minute. In another thread, you said to me that the United States would be able to stop every country that wanted to develop nuclear and biological weapons for the next 100 years. Yet here you admit that we have done a miserable job of determining that. And, in fact, we probably can't stop every rogue country from developing these weapons. So which one is it? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: And despite you snide remarks about '''fluffing up, there is nothing fluffed up about calling Japan and Australia major players in foreign affairs. two glaring omissions from Bob's list. Australia a major player in foreign affairs??? Do you perhaps say this because we are loyal lapdogs to the US and so you think this lends credibility to your views, or would you still say this if we opposed the liberation of Iraq? Australia is currently leading a small force to remedy a breakdown in law and order in the Solomon Islands, but at the invitation of the government. This to us is a fairly large undertaking, but on the world scale rather minor. Sounds similar to the requests the US has received to go into Liberia. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Do we issolate people with the flu or AIDS to prevent these deseases from spreading? No. Actually, we sometimes do, although not for AIDS. It is called `quarantine'. As far as I know, quarantine has not yet been misused for political purposes. A legally similar process, incarceration in a mental hospital, has been misused. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:01 AM Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 12:18 AM 7/30/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence. Which British? The worker bees, or top management. So, your position is that if you had been running the Bush Administration in this situation, you would have gone over Tony Blair's head and directly to the underlings? Uh, its a nice thought, but it strikes me as impractical. No, that's not what I said. I said, that the reasonable thing was to have consultations between the intelligence experts. I know that, before Afganistan, the US presented its evidence to NATO members intelligence communities. Even without revealing sources, it would make sense for the US and GB security folks to cross check each other's work. As administration officials and supporters are now saying, intelligence is a murkey business. The words have learned deny the murkeyness. They should only be used when reasonable knowledgeable people concur on the certainty of the statement. Given the fact that people in the British intelligence have indicated that Blair overstated their case and the fact that people in the US intelligence have indicated that Bush did; the most logical conclusion is that Bush and Blair, together, got more certainity out of the intelligence than was there in the first place. But, it definately appears that their assessment of the WMD was wrong. It is hard to imagine hundreds of tons of deliverables, 45 minutes away from delivery that were quickly hidden or taken into Syria without us being able to trace them. Which is information that was not available to Bush at the time. But, the information that was available to Bush was much more sketchy than he let the American people know. My suggestion for the proper action for Bush seems clear to me. Is that suggestiong to admit any information for which there is uncertainty? No, to acknowedge that because you know something is true in your heart, it doesn't mean that you have conclusive evidence. Indeed, we can see Bush origionally using words that properly reflect the uncertainty of the intelligence and then switching language as he felt the need to make a stronger case. The leaders of democracies are in a position where they have access to information that cannot be made available to everyone. They have a tremendous responsibility, when they summarize the information, to do it as well as they can. Overruling their own folks to make unwarrented statements of certainty is not living up to that responsibility. Bush misrepresented the intelligence he had and it came to bite him when the reality appeard to be at the lower end of the range of possibilities. In short, if he used words like the British have received information that leads us to believe that Hussein be trying to obtain uranium in Africa. then it would have been OK. But, that doesn't have the punch that the White House felt it needed. So, he overruled people in order to get the wording he needed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/29/2003 10:57:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence. Oh I get it; it went like this. Bush- Do you guys have information about uraniums sales to Sadaam in Africa? British - Yes we have evidence of that. Bush - Well this is really important because this is the SOU address afterall and my intelligence folks are dubious about this information British - Oh, I see you want proof Bush - Yes British - No problem. We are really really really sure that Sadaam did this Bush - Wow! three reallies. That is amazing. I can go to the american public in total confidence. Wait till I tell our intelligence guys that you are really really really sure. What he needed was evidence not assurances. (Really) There is my shot. Where is the British evidence? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 10:15 PM 7/30/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is my shot. Where is the British evidence? As is usual in the intelligence business, the British said that they can't reveal their sources so as to preserve their leads. Now what? JDG - Choose, Bob. ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D. Giorgis wrote: I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries. I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. I think his point is that these tactics have been used for ages to express political grievances and attempt a change in policy: attacks on non-combatants, disruption of servics, destruction of public property. And that the way the same are perceived differs from group to group. The Mughals considered the Marathas as terrorists, a lot of people thought they were freedom fighters. Chandrashekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh were terrorists to the British but we Indians called them revolutionaries then and martyrs today. The last 6 decades or so have seen a change in the nature of terrorism though - the targets are almost invariably non-combatants and modern technology grants them greater capabilities of destruction. I firmly believe that the next 100 years are a crucial opportunity to make the world safe for democracy, as technology gives rogue states ever greater potential for destruction. Now is the time to do something about it, before it is too late. The next x number of years have been crucial ever since the first atomic bomb exploded. And it is always going to be this way. What you say above is comfortable and laudable, but how do you propose to go about implementing it? Who defines rogue states? How do you ensure that they don't develop weapons? What do you do when each rogue state denies your claims and assertions? What organisations and instruments are you going to use to keep a check on what the rogue states are doing? How many pre-emptive wars are you willing to fight? And how many of these wars do you plan to fight in face of international opposition? How do you grade the two menaces of terrorism and rogue states in terms of danger and lethality? The last question is especially important as every pre-emptive war fought to contain a rogue state and make the world safer for democracy would also increase the support for terrorism. At least it will if the US government continues with its current modus operandi. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Bush _used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible something that would not have been possible without it - the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or in Europe (save England). I completely agree with the above statement. What I have never been able to understand, though, is just whom this war *was* in interest of, other than the Iraqi people that is [and that too when and if the reconstruction is successful]. If any American or British interests were supposed to have been served by this war or if they have indeed been served by this war, I find myself unable to identify them and reconcile the same with the way this war has been conducted. His ability to do that was diplomatic skill of the highest order. I disagree here. Imho, the diplomatic skill exhibited by the Bush administration was pitiful. Since the fall of the USSR, the US has been the sole super-power in the world. It was a bare fact, everyone knew it. Post 9/11, you guys had more sympathy and support than you have ever enjoyed globally. Bush not only used it to oust Saddam, the way this war was conducted, he almost used all of it up. That is a failure of diplomacy, not a demonstration of diplomatic skill. The US didn't really need anybody's help and the administration was willing to go in alone if need be. Then where was the need to offend, threaten, insult and denigrate other countries and institutions? I honestly see no evidence of diplomatic skill. What I see is a wasteful squandering of good will and old alliances, for a dubious and uncertain end. Now I don't mind it in the least. I am not American and I am definitely not a supporter of the notion of Pax Americana. But I would have thought the Americans would mind, at least those who *do* believe in this idea. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 01:14 AM 7/29/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: John D. Giorgis wrote: ... You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing. Ahem. ... You have also forgotten Poland, which is the second-largest country in Europe O.K., second in what sense, then? Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway... are all bigger by area. Russia, Germany, UK, France, Spain... have greater populations. Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia, Spain,... have greater GDPs. (These from: http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/rankings.htm) Sorry, I stand corrected on that one I've been reading too many articles lately on the future of the EU and how Poland *will be* the second-largest continental EU member in the near future, and got it confused in my mind. Nevertheless, the point remains that based on size, Poland should count as a major player. And despite you snide remarks about '''fluffing up, there is nothing fluffed up about calling Japan and Australia major players in foreign affairs. two glaring omissions from Bob's list. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 09:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik wrote- Really? I have heard many people claim that everybody talks when tortured. In the movies, the tortures that are applied seem so tame and unimaginative. Perhaps I have an unusually sadistic imagination, but I can imagine tortures that I don't think anyone could possibly endure without talking. (They could give false information, of course, but the torturer would make it clear that their information would be spot-checked and if it did not check out the torturer would be back) Having met a few people that have been through SEER. (Search, Escape, Evasion and Resistance as best I can recall), torturers have imagination. Soldiers who go through training learn to plan to survive- what I recall participants saying is to try to survive 24-48 hours is the critical time. You learn a story close enough to your own that you won't get tripped up, and you give the info you have to protecting what you can. Dee ___ The Navy called it SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape) and back in the 70's the instructors always said that you will talk eventually (or die), but that you should hold out as long as you can. SERE training is mainly provided to Special Ops and Aircrew (maybe the troopers of the 507th Maintenance Co. now wish they had had this training) and was developed in response to POW experiences in Korea and Vietnam. Not for the faint of heart. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe what the Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the Chairman's request had been carried out that the Democratic Representatives would have been detained, placed in jail, or had charges filed against them. At any rate, caning another Congreesman, literally nearly to death, on the floor of Congress is far worse. Can we get real here. Once again this is not the 19th century. We are talking about a congressman of one party trying to have congressmen of the other party arrested. This is outragous behavior. It is not some little prank ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Y'know, the Dems should have let themselves be arrested. Its not as if they were going to spend even an hour in a DC holding cell, and the adverse publicity for the Republicans would have been beneficial to the Democrats. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:52 PM 7/28/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing; it is refreshing that countries that owe their freedom to us feel gratitude but they would probably have agreed if we said we wanted to invade the moon). You been reading the _Weekly World News_ again? (That was a story on the cover of a recent issue.) Dang, I *knew* I was missing something by no longer going to the grocery store! (Dan, and now my mom, have taken over that shopping, because it's getting to be a bit much for me to put things into the cart and then unload it at the checkout, not to mention what happens when I've been walking around for a good solid 10-15 minutes) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John Garcia wrote: On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe what the Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the Chairman's request had been carried out that the Democratic Representatives would have been detained, placed in jail, or had charges filed against them. At any rate, caning another Congreesman, literally nearly to death, on the floor of Congress is far worse. Can we get real here. Once again this is not the 19th century. We are talking about a congressman of one party trying to have congressmen of the other party arrested. This is outragous behavior. It is not some little prank Y'know, the Dems should have let themselves be arrested. Its not as if they were going to spend even an hour in a DC holding cell, and the adverse publicity for the Republicans would have been beneficial to the Democrats. But the police sent to arrest them might have realized that there were no good grounds for arrest, and didn't do it for that reason. I was reading something earlier this month where the legality of DPS troopers in Texas arresting lawmakers to force a quorum was brought into question. Not sure when, though, and I'm hazy enough on the laws regarding elected officials and their duties to wonder if that's one of those things that would have to go through the courts to be settled, at least here. (Things can get a little weird in Texas politics) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Here is a link to all of the Texas Redistricting Maps you could ever want: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/research/redist/redist.htm I personally have to disagree with Dan's and Julia's characterizations of the Republicans' plan as being much worse than the judges plan - based on a first look of what I think is the Republican's plan. Essentially, the judgement of the level of gerrymandering centers entirely on three things - Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio as near as I can tell. The level of gerrymandering difference between the judges' plans and the Republicans' plans does not strike me as significant - merely different. The judges I am guessing tried to gerrymander some majority-minority districts. The Republicans tried to make a few more districts competitive for Republicans. I don't see a huge moral difference between those two (leaving aside tactics and timing.) JDG ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] One question I had about the Texas redistricting issue, I've seen the map of the proposed redistricting, but no maps of the current districts A map is at http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/static/pdf/planc01151m.pdf It appears to fit the descriptions of being somewhat gerrymandered, but nowhere close to the proposed Republican maps. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 12:19 PM 7/29/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: [snip] (Things can get a little weird in Texas politics) And Texas is hardly unique in that regard. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: Here is a link to all of the Texas Redistricting Maps you could ever want: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/research/redist/redist.htm I personally have to disagree with Dan's and Julia's characterizations of the Republicans' plan as being much worse than the judges plan - based on a first look of what I think is the Republican's plan. Essentially, the judgement of the level of gerrymandering centers entirely on three things - Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio as near as I can tell. The level of gerrymandering difference between the judges' plans and the Republicans' plans does not strike me as significant - merely different. The judges I am guessing tried to gerrymander some majority-minority districts. The Republicans tried to make a few more districts competitive for Republicans. I don't see a huge moral difference between those two (leaving aside tactics and timing.) Austin, as well. Plus, there are mostly-rural districts that will be split up and combined with suburbs, and the folks in the rural areas aren't happy about their political power being diluted that way. The messes in the cities, including Austin, could be enough to make a new map illegal. My biggest beef is that any map passed is going to be challenged in court, and the state will waste money I paid to it to defend the map, rather than using it on, oh, say, roads. Most of the districts are not competitive, period -- safe one way or the other. The notable exceptions are the 5 districts in which the voters are voting Republican for most everything *except* returning Democrats to Congress. If they'd just been courted to switch parties, that might have taken care of it, or at least improved it from the Republicans' point of view. That's just not going to work now -- I don't think any Texas Democrat in Congress wants to have anything to do with the Republicans due to the whole redistricting thing. Pity. Could have maybe gotten what almost everyone wanted with a minimum of time and money spent, and *good* feelings all around. Oh, and the Dems in NM are saying that they're not protesting the redistricing issue per se now, but the fact that the Texas Senate is breaking with a traditional rule *only* on the redistricting issue, and if that's dropped, they'll be back to Austin in a jiffy. (The local news anchors were a *little* skeptical) My wishlist on a redistricting map, in order (yes, I'm focusing on local issues mostly): 1) Doesn't go to court 2) Doesn't split Travis County any more than necessary due to population considerations 3) Has Williamson County all in one district Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip I didn't see anything about this [the attempt or whatever to bodily remove some Democrat Congresspersons from a Congressional library]; do you have an article or two? Thanks. Kneem and Julia, thanks for the links. Not adult behavior, and foolish to boot, as well as obstructionist and quite possibly illegal (but maybe just stupid?). Thread cross-over: that dueling in the halls of Congress is no longer acceptable behavior seems to go along with the 'evolution of morality' - or at least the evolution of *implementing* one's morals/ideals.* Debbi What Once Was 'Normal' Is Now Abhorrent Maru *Are ideals what one claims to believe as the highest, and morals how those beliefs are acted upon? Then ideals might be somewhat constant over time, while morals change over the centuries. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/28/2003 9:16:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ahem. You have forgotten Austalia, who was very much a true ally. You have also forgotten Japan, the leader of which essentially got his country's constitution ammended so that Japan could help us out in Iraq, and is a major player by any measure. You have also forgotten Poland, which is the second-largest country in Europe - which I guess you could argue is anxious to please us, but given that Poland is already in NATO and on the fast-track to the EU, is certainly in a different category than Bulgaria and Romania. You have also forgotten the Czech Republic, which is in a similar situation to Poland, with the exception of being a major player. Nevertheless, you have also forgotten Spain - the fourth-largest country in continental Europe, and is certainly a major player in the European Union. Yes of course I have forgotten these countries our traditional allies and stalwart military powers all. Poland is already an economic powerhouse in no need of political and economic support from us. I am not by the way denegating their support. I think some of it just real politik but some of it is legitimate graditude. Spain was with us as a country but its people were none too thrilled. Scandanavia was behind us of course. Now my point is not that these countries were right and we were wrong; I have already said that I support the war. My point is that we turned off many of our traditional allies and way to many people in Europe with our high handed arrogant actions before and after 911. Bush senior did not do this. He sent Baker around the world for months to build a coalition. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/28/2003 9:16:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ahem. You have forgotten Austalia, who was very much a true ally. You have also forgotten Japan, the leader of which essentially got his country's constitution ammended so that Japan could help us out in Iraq, and is a major player by any measure. You have also forgotten Poland, which is the second-largest country in Europe - which I guess you could argue is anxious to please us, but given that Poland is already in NATO and on the fast-track to the EU, is certainly in a different category than Bulgaria and Romania. You have also forgotten the Czech Republic, which is in a similar situation to Poland, with the exception of being a major player. Nevertheless, you have also forgotten Spain - the fourth-largest country in continental Europe, and is certainly a major player in the European Union. Yes of course I have forgotten these countries our traditional allies and stalwart military powers all. Poland is already an economic powerhouse in no need of political and economic support from us. I am not by the way denegating their support. I think some of it just real politik but some of it is legitimate graditude. Spain was with us as a country but its people were none too thrilled. Scandanavia was behind us of course. Now my point is not that these countries were right and we were wrong; I have already said that I support the war. My point is that we turned off many of our traditional allies and way to many people in Europe with our high handed arrogant actions before and after 911. Bush senior did not do this. He sent Baker around the world for months to build a coalition. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 01:19 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: John Garcia wrote: On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe what the Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the Chairman's request had been carried out that the Democratic Representatives would have been detained, placed in jail, or had charges filed against them. At any rate, caning another Congreesman, literally nearly to death, on the floor of Congress is far worse. Can we get real here. Once again this is not the 19th century. We are talking about a congressman of one party trying to have congressmen of the other party arrested. This is outragous behavior. It is not some little prank Y'know, the Dems should have let themselves be arrested. Its not as if they were going to spend even an hour in a DC holding cell, and the adverse publicity for the Republicans would have been beneficial to the Democrats. But the police sent to arrest them might have realized that there were no good grounds for arrest, and didn't do it for that reason. I was reading something earlier this month where the legality of DPS troopers in Texas arresting lawmakers to force a quorum was brought into question. Not sure when, though, and I'm hazy enough on the laws regarding elected officials and their duties to wonder if that's one of those things that would have to go through the courts to be settled, at least here. (Things can get a little weird in Texas politics) Julia And the Capitol Police probably knew they couldn't arrest the Democrats. OTOH, had the police tried, I think that would have handed the Democrats a big stick to beat on the Republicans with. Assuming of course that they wanted to do so. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat every terrorist in the world. We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that this problem is necessarily pervasive in humanity at all. Suicide bombing may not be terribly of but terrorism certainly isn't. Suicide bombing was almost unknown 20 years ago. But now a large number of people seem to think it is a good strategy. Perhaps it will spread. Perhaps it won't. (Personally, I think it is a very bad strategy but obviously there are a number of people in the Mid-East who would disagree.) I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries. We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke or a biological bomb. I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US armed forces are likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against any likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. So, are you saying that this war is going to last 100 years? I'm not sure I like that idea... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Ahem. ... You have also forgotten Poland, which is the second-largest country in Europe O.K., second in what sense, then? Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway... are all bigger by area. ... Sorry, I stand corrected on that one ... And despite you snide remarks about '''fluffing up, That was based on Poland. It did give the sense that you were trying to make the list sound bigger than it was, meaning that you knew it needed it. Actually, I'm not sure how Spain is 4th largest in Continental Europe, either, but let's let that slide. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? Dean ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:41 PM 7/28/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You (e) ask the British to provide documenation of their claim. If they do so you can include it in the SOU. Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence. Which of course brings us back to a, b, c, or d - all of which would be consistent with not using it in the State of the Union?Care to give it one more shot Bob?How about you, Nick? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? Dean What question? There isn't a question mark in the above statement. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John D. Giorgis ... Which of course brings us back to a, b, c, or d - all of which would be consistent with not using it in the State of the Union?Care to give it one more shot Bob?How about you, Nick? I don't know what you are after, but I think I've been overly kind to the administration in saying that this statement should have been more carefully verified. After all, it is now clear that the White House revisited this fact after it had already been discredited by the CIA, and persuaded the NSC to come up with the new wording. Why didn't Bush say but the CIA disagrees, when it is obvious that the White House knew that? That's an inexcusable withholding of information, unless we are to put greater stock in British intelligence than our own, in which case something is wrong indeed. So we have the most important political leader in the world, in his most important speech, arguing for the most important decision a nation can make -- and he leaves out the fact that our own intelligence assessment disagrees with what he is saying? That's outrageous. The administration's explanation that the CIA failed to catch the bogus information in review is ludicrous unless they'd have us believe that the White House came up with the intelligence on its own, completely independently of our own intelligence apparatus, and the reviews, done by people who are the world's leading experts on the issues, somehow didn't notice it. Phooey. Not only would that be dumb, it would require them to deliberately bypass or manipulate a rigorous system designed to prevent exactly that. I guess I'll say a bit more about why I know about the process. I used to be the product manager for the language analysis software that the NSC uses to decide which intelligence documents they need to read. Most of our customers used it to find documents that were relevant to their interests, but the NSC does just the opposite -- they use it to make sure they don't miss anything. As they review documents, they add key words about the subject of the document to their filter. Thus, the software filters out documents that tell them about things they already know about, so that they can read everything else -- this is a system for ensuring that they don't miss anything that relates to their focus area. Exactly who and how many people brief the president is classified, so I can't say that these are the very people who deliver intelligence to Bush. I can say that they are totally key to the process. (All I'm jeopardizing here, if anything, is my White House press clearance, which I haven't used in a long darn time.) There is someone on the NSC who is responsible for Iraq. There's someone who is responsible for Niger. There is someone who tracks nuclear issues. There is no way these people -- whose job it is to vette intelligence for the President -- could simply goof up like that, given their rigorous system for ensuring that they don't miss any subjects that appear in our intelligence. Are we to believe that Ambassador Joe Wilson's report from his trip to Niger did not make its way into the system, even though he says his reports went to the State Department and the CIA, but an unconfirmed British intelligence report did? It is strange, to say the least, that the DCI is taking the fall for this supposed mistake, since the NSC staff works for Condoleezza Rice. And now we have reports that the NSC's weapons guy, Bob Joseph, did know about it and said it was not credible. So did the State Department, in direct response to an administration claim that the Iraqis had a nuclear program. I've realized that there's a strong emotional component to this for me, which I suspect is shared by many others who grew up in the 60s. I had nightmares about nuclear war, lots of them, as a child. I can remember the Cuban missile crisis, vaguely, and certainly remember all of the fear in our country, the people building bomb shelters, etc. We practiced civil defense drills at school and our basement was a fallout shelter. As a result, Bush's mention of the possibility of Iraq with nuclear weapons touched a nerve. The idea of those nightmares arising again was one of the things that brought me to reluctantly support the war, and by no means a minor reason. Raising the specter of nuclear terrorism certainly was effective, which makes the omission of the rest of the story all that more egregious. When manipulation of intelligence can make its way into the State of the Union, it is very hard to imagine that it isn't being manipulated in many other areas, too. As I read the coverage of this issue, I see more and more evidence that that's exactly what's been going on. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 09:41 PM 7/28/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You (e) ask the British to provide documenation of their claim. If they do so you can include it in the SOU. Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence. Which British? The worker bees, or top management. That seems like an issue that the boys and girls in the trenches should work out together and then put forth a joint understanding to both Blair and Bush. If there is uncertainty, then the statement doesn't belong in the State of the Union message. There are many advantages to being as strong minded and focused on one's goal as Bush is. One disadvantage is that one tends to discard data that is inconsistant with one's certainty and highlight that which agrees. We do know that there was also conflict between the certainty at the top and the understanding in the trenches in GB. My view is that Bush and Blair had an understanding of Hussein through which they filtered all the information that they had. I think part of their understanding, his willingness to kill and torture countless thousands, was spot on. But, it definately appears that their assessment of the WMD was wrong. It is hard to imagine hundreds of tons of deliverables, 45 minutes away from delivery that were quickly hidden or taken into Syria without us being able to trace them. Again, it looks like a classic case of management overruling the experts in the trenches. My suggestion for the proper action for Bush seems clear to me. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: Ritu and Nick make similar points which I will respond to here. At 12:29 PM 7/25/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: Robert J. Chassell wrote: The phrase The British have learned suggests to a listening public that the US President had US intelligence agencies investigate the matter. John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded It does not suggest this to me. Indeed the mere fact that British intelligence is being mentioned in the State of the Union suggests exactly the opposite to me. Interesting. Your ideolect is certainly different from mine and from people with whom I have talked over the past half century. I find this astounding, and can't help but wonder if you aren't letting your political bias and your various subtle biases towards my opinions to color your perception of language. John, what do you know of my political biases? Would you care to explain what you think my political biases as well as my biases towards your opinions are? :) Let's see, not one Brin-L'er responded to this the first time around. let's see if at the very least one of you three can give it a try this time around; I must have missed the earlier questions - I am usually way behind on the mail. :) QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. This is a simple one, JDG, though my answer falls in none of the categories you provide. :) It is a mix of your last two options. I'd accept that the British Intelligence might have better resources than ours [I am pretending to be the US prez here] and that they have a good record of reliability and excellence. However, when it comes to the SotU address, I'd go for option [c] without any hesitation whatsoever. In fact, I'd expect to be rather incensed if I received unverified information in *any* form other than a 'for-yours-eyes-only' note or a verbal report, with all the doubts about its veracity noted before the report even started. However, let us also examine another scenario: I *want* to go to war with Iraq and this bit of unverified information is a convenient filler in my edifice of reasons. In such a case, I might be tempted to include it in my SotU address, but only after I have clarified that the US intelligence has been unable to verify this information. If the Congress also decided to trust the British Intelligence as much as I chose to, well and good. But it would be their decision to make, on their assessment of the factual situation. And if I tamper with the facts I report to them, if I imply things that aren't true, then I would have crossed the line between leadership and manipulation. That is a Bad Thing, mmm'kay? :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: As for your argument that liberation of Afghanistan would not have been justified on September 10th, 2001 - well I find it most peculiar to hear the logic of retribution coming from you.The liberation of Afghanistan was justified because it made the Afghan people better off, end story. But wasn't the liberation of the Afghans planned after Mullah Omar refused to hand over Bin Laden to the US? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Having questioned one side in the debate, let me question the other side. The discussion over the evidence for WMD that existed before Gulf War II seems to naturally flow out of what happened. Here's how I see what's happening. 1) There was general acceptance that Hussein has chemical and biological weapons when the inspectors left before the 1998 bombings by the US and GB. There was also evidence that he had a program to develop nuclear weapons that was in a fairly early stage. 2) Top leadership in the US and GB gave the impression, leading up to the war, that they had in hand intelligence that the WMD program was not just leftovers of the earlier program that were not totally destroyed. From these 16 words, and others, I got the impression that they had weapons that would test the US biological/chemical warfare defense. I also got the impression that the nuclear program was ongoing and making progress. 3) During and since the war various sources associated with the intelligence community seemed to indicate that these viewpoint expressed by the Administration was stronger than the intelligence actually supported. The reality was that the intelligence was consistent with a broad range of possibilities. Professionals use cautious words under these circumstances, for good reason. 4) Top leadership/management chose to ignore these cautions and use words that indicated certainty. I've seen that happen in other cases in business. Upper management in many companies put reports through a filter of what they know to be true in their hearts. They accept reports that fit this understanding, and find flaws with those that don't. Further, everyone in the organization knows what is wanted, and it takes courage to issue a contradictory report...especially if things are murky and top management might be right. I got the general feeling that, even if they thought that their case was a bit overstated, they knew that the weapons found after the liberation of Iraq would prove their point, so all that would get lost. As an aside here, during the war there were other criticisms of the Administrations viewpoints, both by retired professionals and by unnamed sources from within the military stating that Rumsfeld did not use enough heavy armor in the war. I was concerned at the time, but now happily admit that the heavy armor that was used was more than adequate for the task. Even then, with the concerns, I leaned towards believing that the US forces would do very well. Indeed, at the time, I was unique in my house in believing that the fall of Baghdad would take weeks, not months. The proof was in the pudding. With WMD, I expected the same. When Gautam stated that he was very confident that WMD would be found in a few months, I was too. Now, its over 3 months since the end of the war, and the closest thing to a smoking gun that has been reported is some centrifuges and plans that had not been destroyed in '98. The US has had control of the country for that time, and has found next to nothing. From the attitude and words of the administration, I expected that they had a pretty good idea where things were and that they knew the shell games the Iraqis were playing with the inspectors. Never would I have imagined that we would be left with little more evidence than was produced by the inspectors last fall and winter (they found plans too IIRC). So, in this case, the proof is also in the pudding. The administration overruled their own intelligence, as I'm guessing did the GB administration from the new coming from there, and overstated what was known. I don't actually think they lied because I think they believed what they said. However, they were wrong. When they overruled the military and attacked with less armor then recommended, they were right, and they deserve credit. When a political operative pressured the head of the CIA to go against his own folks and accept the claim of African uranium, they deserve to take the responsibility for that. The reason this is important is that the negatives for going into Iraq are long term. We are going to be occupying Iraq for a long time. I'm now seeing timeframes close to five years for this. Occupying and controlling an Arab country for this length of time does has the potential for tremendous risks. So, given the close nature of the risk/reward tradeoff in the minds of many people, the misrepresentation of the intelligence information was critical. Containment vs. attack as the best option was balanced on a knife's edge. I recently saw an interesting article arguing for three basis for going into Iraq: 1) Human Rights 2) risk to the US from WMD 3) Transforming the Middle East The author argued that the first reason has actually been strengthened since Gulf War II. The likelihood for the third reason is still uncertain. The second reasons appears less valid as time goes on. The chances of Hussein having a massive chemical/biological warfare system
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligence services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources Why not e) Both the British and the American governments have overruled the better judgment of their intelligence services. From what I've heard and read from GB, there has been even worse tension over this than here. The best example of this was the claim that GB knew that Hussein was 45 minutes away from delivering WMD. I have a hard time believing that a significant weapons deployment with that short of a launch window could disappear that quickly. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligence services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to other sources Why not e) Both the British and the American governments have overruled the better judgment of their intelligence services. Uhhh e does not answer the question of what do you do? Please try again - I am really looking forward to having some of the critics of the Bush Administration's decisions at this juncture to actually answer the question of what they would have done. JDG - But perhaps I should not hold my breath, Maru? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: Re: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligence services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to other sources Why not e) Both the British and the American governments have overruled the better judgment of their intelligence services. Uhhh e does not answer the question of what do you do? Please try again - I am really looking forward to having some of the critics of the Bush Administration's decisions at this juncture to actually answer the question of what they would have done. Accept the intelligence as given without having your political operative pushing hard to make it say more than it does. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Killer Bs Discussion) Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:49:28 -0400 QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO TRY TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST CONVINCE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE Um. C In other words. :-) No need to shout, Doc. :) Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] already. When Ashcroft's jack-booted thugs come for you, give me a call - I'll be happy to protect you. When Ashcroft's jack-booted thugs come for them, they won't be able to call you. They won't get their one phone call. They won't be able to call a lawyer. No one will know where they are or what the charges are against them. You won't be able to call them. They will be able to be held indefinitely as a suspected enemy combatant. Sounds like fun. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If John Ashcroft were anyone _but_ an evangelical Christian (speaking as a non-evangelical non-Christian) the way he is treated by the Left would be recognized by everyone for what it is - sheer religious bigotry of the most unvarnished sort. Huh? I'm one of those people who voted for a dead guy over Ashcroft. I didn't like him when he was govenor of Missouri I didn't like him when he was a senator from Missouri. And I don't like him now that he's Attorney General. This has NOTHING to do with religious bigotry. Unless disliking the man because he pushes his religious agenda upon the rest of us is religious bigotry! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe what the Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the Chairman's request had been carried out that the Democratic Representatives would have been detained, placed in jail, or had charges filed against them. At any rate, caning another Congreesman, literally nearly to death, on the floor of Congress is far worse. Can we get real here. Once again this is not the 19th century. We are talking about a congressman of one party trying to have congressmen of the other party arrested. This is outragous behavior. It is not some little prank ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:41:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lastly, if Al Gore had won the 2000 election, would you be bitterly complaining that he did so thanks to his partisans on the Florida Supreme Court? If a full recount of the florida vote had been ordered it would have been a reasonable thing to do. In close elections recounts are often performed and in some cases even mandated. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/27/2003 7:07:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO TRY TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST CONVINCE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE The State of the Union is irrelevant to this example. But it is not irrelevant because this is THE major policy speech that the president makes every year. This speech is worked on with the most care and intensity by the president's staff. It is givin to a joint session of congress. It is unique and important. Statements in this speech must or should be above speculation. In short it is not just another speech. Leaving it out of the State of the Union is an action that is consistent with actions a, b, c, and d above. So, which is it, Bob?Before you decide whether or not to include it in the State of the Union, you have to make the more fundamental determination of a, b, c, or d. Actually I don't have to do any of those things. In fact it is my point that the president should have not used this data until it could be verified or disproved by our intelligence services. You don't have to call them (a)liers or (b) incompetent. You don't have to (c) ignore it. Not using it in the SOU address is not the same as ignoring it. You don't have (d) accept it on faith. You (e) ask the British to provide documenation of their claim. If they do so you can include it in the SOU. JDG - Tough Decisions, Maru - but he is the POTUS after all ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/27/2003 9:21:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you seriously believe that if any person other than Bush were President we would have taken out Saddam by now? Really? I think there was some sentiment to do this amoung Clinton's advisors. I am not saying we would have but it is not impossible. Also, the goal of international relations is not _popularity_. The world is not a high school. That is correct. In high school one can be a bully but in the world it is better to be cooperative, to compromise on some issues. Bush _used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible something that would not have been possible without it - the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or in Europe (save England). His ability to do that was diplomatic skill of the highest order. You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing; it is refreshing that countries that owe their freedom to us feel gratitude but they would probably have agreed if we said we wanted to invade the moon). There was so much ill will towards us that Schroeder got elected because he pledged to oppose the war. When the french went crazy he was stuck. It may be true that we didn't need any help but you don't have to rub the noses of the rest of the world in that fact. Especially if you need the rest of the world to manage the reconstruction of iraq ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:52 PM 7/28/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bush _used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible something that would not have been possible without it - the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or in Europe (save England). His ability to do that was diplomatic skill of the highest order. You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing. Ahem. You have forgotten Austalia, who was very much a true ally. You have also forgotten Japan, the leader of which essentially got his country's constitution ammended so that Japan could help us out in Iraq, and is a major player by any measure. You have also forgotten Poland, which is the second-largest country in Europe - which I guess you could argue is anxious to please us, but given that Poland is already in NATO and on the fast-track to the EU, is certainly in a different category than Bulgaria and Romania. You have also forgotten the Czech Republic, which is in a similar situation to Poland, with the exception of being a major player. Nevertheless, you have also forgotten Spain - the fourth-largest country in continental Europe, and is certainly a major player in the European Union. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing; it is refreshing that countries that owe their freedom to us feel gratitude but they would probably have agreed if we said we wanted to invade the moon). There was so much ill will towards us that Schroeder got elected because he pledged to oppose the war. When the french went crazy he was stuck. It may be true that we didn't need any help but you don't have to rub the noses of the rest of the world in that fact. Especially if you need the rest of the world to manage the reconstruction of iraq Which we apparently don't. The astonishing failure of the mass media to cover the fact that the reconstruction is going fairly well is, well, astonishing. I think it's largely because most reporters are too lazy to get out of Baghdad, combined (of course) with hatred of the Administration, but you'd think that they'd be at least _vaguely_ competent. But they don't. All of that aside, Bob, you keep circling back to the same essential mistake, the belief that there was some combination of words that would have convinced the rest of the world to go along with Iraq. You have _no_ evidence for this, and a great deal of evidence otherwise. For 12 years after the war, France was essentially bought off by Saddam and campaigned to _lift_ the sanctions. Germany's anti-Americanism is so hysterical that one-third of the population thinks that _we_ were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. What makes you think that they would have agreed to an invasion that was clearly not in their commercial interests (because they were in hock to Saddam) and not in their power interests (because it demonstrated their absolute and self-inflicted irrelevance on the world stage)? If not for 9/11, Bush could not have gotten the early momentum that made the whole thing possible, and he _certainly_ could not have got Britain, Australia, (I hope that none of our Australian list members object to the constant denigration-through-omission here of Australia's heroic efforts to liberate Iraq - as much as Britain, Australia is a true friend to the US and to freedom. John Howard is no less a great man than Tony Blair for his stand.) Japan, Poland, and the Czech Republic (among others) as well as the (critical) acquiescence of Russia. He made a choice. That choice was, I think, the right one, but the choice did exist, and pretending that it didn't is allowing your hatred of the President to cripple your judgment. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... The State of the Union is irrelevant to this example. But it is not irrelevant because this is THE major policy speech that the president makes every year. This speech is worked on with the most care and intensity by the president's staff. It is givin to a joint session of congress. It is unique and important. Statements in this speech must or should be above speculation. In short it is not just another speech. Yes, and there is no more serious decision a nation can make -- none -- than the decision to go to war. I'm dismayed that Bush apologists are willing to belittle the importance of the State of the Union address and the gravity of the decision that was being advocated. At the same time, I'll sadly add that virtually every modern president has lied in order to persuade the public that it must go to war. There's nothing partisan about it, I suppose, it's politics as usual, and if there's any institution to be damned for allowing it to happen, it's the media, which has failed every time to take a really critical look at the justifications for war. I do believe that this administration thought it would get away with offering poorly investigated intelligence in the State of the Union address because the press would swallow it, at least for long enough to get us into the war. And they were right -- in fact, at its worst, the media pundits were fanning the flames by branding anyone who questioned the decision for war as unpatriotic. Going back to the 16 words, they were spoken by the most important leader in the world, in his most important speech, on the most important decision our nation can possibly make. If that isn't the time for those in power to get the facts right, there is no such time. And if those are not the circumstances in which citizens and the press deserve -- and should demand -- solid evidence, there is no such time. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:52 PM 7/28/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing; it is refreshing that countries that owe their freedom to us feel gratitude but they would probably have agreed if we said we wanted to invade the moon). You been reading the _Weekly World News_ again? (That was a story on the cover of a recent issue.) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: ... You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing. Ahem. ... You have also forgotten Poland, which is the second-largest country in Europe O.K., second in what sense, then? Russia, Sweden, Finland, Norway... are all bigger by area. Russia, Germany, UK, France, Spain... have greater populations. Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia, Spain,... have greater GDPs. (These from: http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/rankings.htm) Yes, there were some allies. But really! If you have to fluff up the list to make it look bigger, then you know that it's thin. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat every terrorist in the world. We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that this problem is necessarily pervasive in humanity at all. We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke or a biological bomb. I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US armed forces are likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against any likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 01:08 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the same things about American foreign policy that you do? That's not a fair tactic in an argument. Actually, I think that it is the most salient thing that Gautam has had to say in this argument. You have very clearly tied your objections to US foreign policy to the motivations behind terrorists - and that tie is definitely worth questioning. We aren't dealing with an opponent that wants rational things - we are dealing with a pathology. This isn't about giving them what they want so that they go away. It's about killing them before they kill us, because one of those two things is going to happen just as surely as the tides. But it's not one monolithic group! Some idiots want everyone in the world to adhere to their religion. Others are driven by more reasonable concerns. Let's deal with their concerns. Then all we have to do is fight the former faction. Please detail which of the Al Qaeda members who have attacked the US over the past 10 years you consider to have, quote, reasonable concerns, and what these concerns are. Thanks. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:50 AM, The Fool wrote: From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The left is defunct only if we remain forever in a state of total war. And that's precisely why a vaguely defined, open-ended war on terrorism that suspends normal checks and balances for civil rights is as partisan as any policy ever has been. No, it's because that's what we've got. Only in paranoid fantasies do we have a war that suspends normal checks and balances for civil rights. If it did, you and The Fool would have been arrested already. When Ashcroft's jack-booted thugs come for you, give me a call - I'll be happy to protect you. Friday browncoat republicans in the house of representatives called the police to arrest and remove democratic representatives from a library in the house of representatives. The future is here and now. Never before has something so shocking happened in the history of the united states. Worse has happened. I would say the incident where Congressman Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner nearly to death on the Senate floor over Sumner's speech on Bleeding Kansas was worse. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
At 11:22 PM 7/25/03 -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove evil from the world, I'm quite sure. Some likely conditions; 1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine alongside Israel. 2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the DPRK If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't we return to normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in 20 years? I don't think that we created the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, they (= the ones we call terrorists) do. They think they are defending their way of life against The Great Satan in the only way possible, given that The Great Satan is the world's only superpower and has overwhelming power both economically and militarily. We may not agree with that analysis or think that their way of life (keeping their populations subjugated in a culture which is several hundred years in the past) is worth defending, but that is how they feel. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:24 AM 7/25/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:02:00PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: From what I have heard, US interrogators are contemptuous of old fashioned torture since almost everyone who knows anything will die first. Really? I have heard many people claim that everybody talks when tortured. In the movies, the tortures that are applied seem so tame and unimaginative. Possibly because there are limits on what can be shown in even R-rated movies, and with very few exceptions an NC-17 rating is economically disastrous. Perhaps I have an unusually sadistic imagination, but I can imagine tortures that I don't think anyone could possibly endure without talking. And could the movie audience endure them without barfing and walking out? Relax Kid: It's Only A Movie Maru --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 06:04:49AM -, pencimen wrote: How about Dustin Hoffman getting holes drilled in his teeth in Marathon Man? I had forgotten about that one. Did he talk? I think he didn't know anything, right? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
I would agree, if I thought you were saying that the government should never be entirely, or even mostly, in the hands of the Left. I'd say the same about the Right. It seems quite clear to me that diversity and criticism (of the positive kind) have been proven to be the most effective means of achieving fair and just government. And I do believe that's what the founders of this country were aiming to put in place. And thus I'm not pleased at all with the current situation, in which the government is dominated by one faction, even though quite a few of them claim to be liberal. -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John D. Giorgis Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:28 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in *expecting* the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism. I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the Left is simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism, then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high political office in the United States for the future as far as we can see. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 06:04:49AM -, pencimen wrote: How about Dustin Hoffman getting holes drilled in his teeth in Marathon Man? I had forgotten about that one. Did he talk? I think he didn't know anything, right? No, he was completely in the dark. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 01:08 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the same things about American foreign policy that you do? That's not a fair tactic in an argument. Actually, I think that it is the most salient thing that Gautam has had to say in this argument. It is a form of ad hominem attack. And we do not object to the same things. He seems to object to most of our constitution, while I do not. BUT he probably also objects to large amounts of US meddling in the Middle East, from installing the Shah of Iran on. On these issues, I do agree with him. Now would you two stop mischaracterizing my position and attacking strawmen? ... We aren't dealing with an opponent that wants rational things - we are dealing with a pathology. No. We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed up by a large sector of public opinion in the Middle East. If we clean up our act, public opinion there will change. When it does, most of the support for Al Qaeda will dry up. Please detail which of the Al Qaeda members who have attacked the US over the past 10 years you consider to have, quote, reasonable concerns, and what these concerns are. JDG Oh, they all had some, all mixed together with the rest of their craziness. But this is a silly way to argue about this issue. We would do much better discussing the concerns of moderate Arabs (most of which are of course shared by the crazies). ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 03:28:08PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: If we clean up our act, public opinion there will change. When it does, most of the support for Al Qaeda will dry up. That's an interesting fantasy world you are describing. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:28 PM Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words No. We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed up by a large sector of public opinion in the Middle East. If we clean up our act, public opinion there will change. I'm in the middle and I have questions to ask of both sides of the arguement. Your's just happens to be the easiest to ask. What is the basis of this? What horrid things have we done in the Middle East. You mention supporting the Shah in the 50s. I'll agree with you that this definately was interfering with internal affairs, but 1) It was 50 years or so ago 2) I don't know enough about the other parties in the conflict to know if the statement that they were likely to be allies of the USSR was correct. But, we facilitated the change of government when the Shah was deposed, about 25 years ago. The main things we have done in the Middle East between that time and 9/11 was 1) Buy a bunch of oil 2) Roll back Hussein's attempt to overtake the Middle East 3) Work for Arab oil companies 4) Support Israel's right to exist. 5) Sell military equipment to less extreme governments in order to decrease their obvious vulnerability to other countries, such as Iraq and Iran #2 has some correlation with AQ, as does #4. But, I really don't see what horrid exploitive things we've done in the Middle East. Now, if it were South America or Central America that was the source of terrorism, this arguement would have had a bit more versimilitude. I've been in the Middle East twice, and I've talked to a number of expats. Americans and Europeans are definately the hired hands in the Middle East. While our status ranks above the unskilled laborers, we are supposed to know our place. Oh, they all had some, all mixed together with the rest of their craziness. But this is a silly way to argue about this issue. We would do much better discussing the concerns of moderate Arabs (most of which are of course shared by the crazies). I've worked with a number of folks from the Middle East, many for years. Unlike my South American friends, I cannot provide a list abuses involving the US government and US companies that they have outlined for me. I know that they are less than thrilled with the Israeli/Palestinian situation and blame Israel for everything. I also know that many are unhappy with the government in the Middle East, and think the US can do more. Finally, there is one other point worth thinking about. Via both schools and the media, the citizens of the Arab world have been taught a pack of lies about the US and Jews. A good example of this is the multiple presentations of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as history. It is everywhere from being presented as a top rated television series on Egyptian television to being taught in Palestinian schools. Why aren't these lies more critical to Arab public opinion than any errors the US may have committed in dealing with Arab governments? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in *expecting* the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism. I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the Left is simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism, then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high political office in the United States for the future as far as we can see. JDG Like what high offices? President? Senator? Representative? blatant exageration I suppose that you would suggest that Democrats, Libertarians, and Green party candidates shouldn't be allowed to even run on any ballots in the next election. Or better yet, we should arrest people outside the polls who voted for any left party candidates and fly them to cuba, locking them up as enemy combattants. /blatant exageration The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. It was entirely politically motivated. The republicans saw their approval failing after Osama Bin Laden evaded capture, and, wanting some sort of evil figurehead detained or killed as a trophy that people in the US can applaud, they chose to attack our most recent war enemy Saddam Hussain (sp?). He was painted as having possible ties to Osama Bin Laden (even though evidence of that is blatantly lacking) and was turned into a scapegoat. He was chosen probably because he seemed an easier target to hit (and by golly, the military took every shot they could when they even just had questionable evidence that he was at a given location... at least three attempts to kill him using missle strikes, at least one of those on a civilian target, all missed killing the intended person). This was was politically motivated to try to boost aproval ratings in the site of a struggling economy and bad environmental policy. Iraq posed no significant threat to us. There was no good reason to go to war with them. There is no reason to make a war plan for a war on terror, because a war on terror is simply not necessary. Should we have gone into Afghanistan to get Al Quida after what they did? Hell yeah. Damn skippy. They committed a very criminal act that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and retribution was called for. What did Iraq do though? Nothing. They had no proven ties to the attacks of September 11th. Should we wait for them to attack us or one of our allies before we attack them? Damn right we should. Otherwise it is we who are the terrorists, it is we who are the criminals. If this war really was about weapons of mass destruction, why aren't we going to war against Isreal and North Korea for their illegal nuclear weapons programs? Case and point: it simply isn't about that, it is all about politics. Disgusting. Let me illustrate the blatant lack of perspective that the majority of this country has. All of the following are more likely to kill someone in the U.S. than a terrorist attack: Heart disease; lung cancer; breast cancer; prostate cancer; aids; the flu; etc. That's right ladies and gentlemen, you are more likely to die from the flu than from a terrorist attack. How much is spent on medical reasearch each year? All together, about a couple billion dollars. That is to cover all these things as well as other medical research, which, even in 1991, when the most deadly terrorist attack took place in the U.S, each were at least 7 times more likley to kill someone in the U.S. than a terrorist attack. How many tens of billions of dollars were spent thusfar in the war on terror. Over thirty billion dollars spent on efforts in Afghanistan. How much has been spent in Iraq? Unknown, but conservative costs estimates before the war were above eighty billion dollars. A *preemptive* war on terror simply does not make any sense from any standpoint, and demostrates considerable bad judgement in foriegn policy from the standpoint of foriegn relations. Moreover, the blatant discarding of the constitution over this problem is a paranoid knee-jerk over-reaction to a problem that just simply does not warrant that kind of action yet. Do we issolate people with the flu or AIDS to prevent these deseases from spreading? No. Yet each is a greater threat to human life than terrorism. Should we tighten security on planes and airports because of what happened? Deffinately. Should we blatantly disregard the constitution and basic human rights? No. Issolating people that we have no proof commited any crimes and blatantly disregarding the constitution and their rights in the process is deplorable. If we have proof they committed a crime, charge them with one, if not, release them. Your suggestion that the left's inability to form an effective war plan against terror is a demonstration of bad leadership is not just wrong (as a war plan is entirely
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/24/2003 11:43:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Didn't they used to duel on the floors of Congress? Sounds like classic ingomious political chicanery to me. Sounds more like republican arrogance to me. Now the perpetrator (chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee) has since apologized but this does reveal the thinking of the republican leadership. Might makes right. Anything we do is ok because we are god's party. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/24/2003 11:47:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If your criticism is that Bush said learned instead of informed us that they believe, then who is being pedantic and mincing words here? The criticsm is that this is a weasally way of saying something that our own intelligence community could not confirm and had in fact serious doubts about. The criticsm is that this was a cleaver deception (aka a lie) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/25/2003 1:08:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Uh, didja forget? Gore *did* win -- the vote, anyway. Just not the office that usually goes with it. I am not one who thinks that Gore won. The popular vote does not determine the final result and therefore candidates do not attempt to win it. We do not know the result of a popular vote in which every vote would count. Under those outlandish circumstances (each individual's vote counts the same regardless of where it was cast) Bush might have gone after votes in populous states like NY and Cal where he had no chance of gaining the electoral votes. Bush won (Not fair and square but he won with the help of his friends on the court). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John Garcia wrote: On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:50 AM, The Fool wrote: Friday browncoat republicans in the house of representatives called the police to arrest and remove democratic representatives from a library in the house of representatives. The future is here and now. Never before has something so shocking happened in the history of the united states. Worse has happened. I would say the incident where Congressman Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner nearly to death on the Senate floor over Sumner's speech on Bleeding Kansas was worse. I'd have to agree with John here. There's a definite difference in degree, if not kind, between trying to have someone arrested and actually inflicting that kind of bodily damage. Not to say that the Republicans look all that good in this, but it could have been worse. (And then the backlash would have been that much more, as well.) Julia who still thinks that Gov. Perry needs a proctocraniectomy, and that he's not doing anything to make Republicans terribly popular in Texas right now ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/25/2003 8:54:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eh, probably not. I have an almost reflexive need to point out the truth - and ultimately I consider this growing urban legend that the USSC somehow changed the outcome of the 2000 election to be most damaging to our country. I wonder if the republicans in congress would have really elected bush if a recount of the vote in florida showed that Gore had won by a few thousand votes. I think some would have correctly viewed this act as an abrobation of their resonsibilities to americans. I doubt that Bush could have governed effectively under these circumstances. He would have gotten no cross over dem votes. He would have been viewed by Americans as illegtimate. It might have seriously damaged the republican party in the future (I think it still may). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/25/2003 9:09:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fact that a Committee Chairman in the House is making that tradeoff in a way that the minority disagrees with is hardly new. Thus, I know that I am not a hypocrite, as you accuse, because Democratic Committee Charimen in the House most certainly have rammed bills through Committee in the past - and I know that I have never complained terribly loudly about it. Unless I missed the point, the problem was that the republican sent the capital police to arrest (or do something else nasty) to the dems who were trying to meet about the bill. In addition, the dems had not actually seen the changes they were being asked to vote on. So it is a bit more than trying to ram something through. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/25/2003 9:28:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the Left is simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism, then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high political office in the United States for the future as far as we can see. So it really depends on who the left is. If you are talking about moderate democrats and liberals, their plan would have been much the same as Bush's sans the alienation of the rest of the world and the war on Iraq this year (maybe not; Some in Clinton's white house wanted to take Sadaam out so with a changed political climate this might have happened anyway). If you are talking about the real left (not just the left of center liberals), who cares? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
In a message dated 7/25/2003 10:22:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine alongside Israel. 2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the DPRK We would then be at war for at least a decade. Does that mean we can't criticize bush or the gop for that long? Golly ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO TRY TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST CONVINCE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO TRY TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST CONVINCE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 04:48 PM 7/27/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: I'd have to agree with John here. There's a definite difference in degree, if not kind, between trying to have someone arrested and actually inflicting that kind of bodily damage. And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe what the Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the Chairman's request had been carried out that the Democratic Representatives would have been detained, placed in jail, or had charges filed against them. At any rate, caning another Congreesman, literally nearly to death, on the floor of Congress is far worse. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 05:43 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We do not know the result of a popular vote in which every vote would count. Under those outlandish circumstances (each individual's vote counts the same regardless of where it was cast) Bush might have gone after votes in populous states like NY and Cal where he had no chance of gaining the electoral votes. Bush won (Not fair and square but he won with the help of his friends on the court). Ahem, how exactly did Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy become friends George W. Bush?(I'm not aware any friendship between Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas and GWB - but I suppose its possible, and in those cases you could at least imagine an ideological affinity.) Additionally, how exactly did the actions of the USSC impact the eventual outcome of the 2000 Presidential election? Lastly, if Al Gore had won the 2000 election, would you be bitterly complaining that he did so thanks to his partisans on the Florida Supreme Court? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 06:33 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if the republicans in congress would have really elected bush if a recount of the vote in florida showed that Gore had won by a few thousand votes. You can wonder all you want - except that we now know that no such result would have ever happened. the only recount that would have even produced the slightest of Gore wins was a recount that both the Gore campaign and the FLSC rejected. Indeed, it was the FLSC's rejection of that exact recount that got the FLSC's-mandated recount ruled unconstitutional by the USSC. Yes Virginia, the *only* people in the Florida recount affair who made a decision that would have produced a Gore victory were the five Republicans on the USSC. History is full of ironies. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 06:40 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uhhh because finding WMD's was considered a very nice way of deterring criticism of the war? so in your mind it is ok to use WMD to deter criticsm even if the threat of WMD (at least nuclear) was unsubstantiated. Good grief, you really do have an unlimited ability to twist things to criticize Republicans. If you at all paid attention to the context of the discussion, it is clear as to what I am referring to. Someone asked me why we were searching for WMD's in Iraq if it was unlikely that we could keep them all out of the hands of the retreating/disappearing Baathists. I noted that if you justify a war by claiming that country isn't disarming itself of WMD, and critics of the war argue that that country really didn't have any WMD, then finding at least a few WMD's is an important part of the political process of justifying the war - since the US is a republic after all, and wars have to be justified - even if you prefer not to. :) incoherent nonsequitur rant snipped JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/27/2003 5:48:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not to say that the Republicans look all that good in this, but it could have been worse. (And then the backlash would have been that much more, as well.) Worse in what way in 21st Century USA? Had them beaten? Had them lead from the Capitol in chains and sent to Quantanamo with the rest of the enemies of the US? The 19th century was, well the 19th century. Has anything remotely like this happened in the 20th or 21st century except in Texas (hey that was another republican adventure wasn't it?) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO TRY TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST CONVINCE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE The State of the Union is irrelevant to this example.Leaving it out of the State of the Union is an action that is consistent with actions a, b, c, and d above. So, which is it, Bob?Before you decide whether or not to include it in the State of the Union, you have to make the more fundamental determination of a, b, c, or d. JDG - Tough Decisions, Maru - but he is the POTUS after all ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 03:14 PM 7/27/2003 -0600 Michael Harney wrote: The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. It was entirely politically motivated. The republicans saw their approval failing after Osama Bin Laden evaded capture, and, wanting some sort of evil figurehead detained or killed as a trophy that people in the US can applaud, they chose to attack our most recent war enemy Saddam Hussain (sp?). This is nonsense, Michael. President Bush declared that Iraq was a member of the axis of evil in January of 2002 when his approval ratings were sky-high. Try another theory. (and by golly, the military took every shot they could when they even just had questionable evidence that he was at a given location... at least three attempts to kill him using missle strikes, at least one of those on a civilian target, all missed killing the intended person). So, the US should not have tried to kill Saddam and using missile strikes to try and do so was wrong? Are you serious They committed a very criminal act that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and retribution was called for. Do you really believe that the liberation of Afghanistan was justified solely by retribution?I mean, I don't even consider retribution to be in the Top Ten of reasons for the US to liberate Afghanistan and indeed, I'm not sure that it is a reason at all. What did Iraq do though? Nothing. They had no proven ties to the attacks of September 11th. Should we wait for them to attack us or one of our allies before we attack them? Damn right we should. Otherwise it is we who are the terrorists, it is we who are the criminals. Actually, on 2 August 1990 Iraq suddenly attacked Kuwait.In early 1991, Iraq signed a cease-fire with the United States, a cease-fire whose terms they have never abided by. Case closed. If this war really was about weapons of mass destruction, why aren't we going to war against Isreal and North Korea for their illegal nuclear weapons programs? Case and point: it simply isn't about that, it is all about politics. Disgusting. What's disgusting Michael is your inability to comprehend that an attack on a country that already has a nuclear weapon would very likely result in the incineration of hundreds of thousands of people - to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of civillians that would die in Seoul thanks to DPRK artillery shells. Once Iraq gets a nuclear weapon, Michael its game over - unless of course you advocate direct confrontations between nuclear powers. Let's consider for a moment what might have happened had Iraq waited to attack Kuwait until 2 August 1992. We now know that Saddam Hussein would likely have shocked the world by successfully testing a nuclear weapon at this time. Thus a nuclear-armed Saddam rolls into Kuwait and begins pushing on into Saudi Arabia - and he declares that if the US sends troops to Saudi Arabia that he will lob a couple nuclear weapons into Tel Aviv and Haifa.*Now* what, Michael? You have argued that it is terrorist and criminal to attack a country that has not attacked you or one of your allies so, you simply wait for that country to build nuclear weapons and *then* attack your allies? By the way - of the recent developments in the nuclear programs of the DPRK, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq over the past 15 years - how many occurred with the knowledge of US intelligence sources? I'll give you a hint - the answer is a very round number so I wouldnt count on being able to know when a successful test is imminent if that is your plan. Let me illustrate the blatant lack of perspective that the majority of this country has. All of the following are more likely to kill someone in the U.S. than a terrorist attack: Only because Iraq has so far been successfully prevented from developing nuclear weapons and selling them to the highest bidder. Michael, a nuclear bomb going off in NYC would kill millions of people... so that statistic of yours is absolutely meaningless. Your suggestion that the left's inability to form an effective war plan against terror is a demonstration of bad leadership is not just wrong (as a war plan is entirely uncalled for IMNSHO), it disgusts me that you beleive that the republican style of the war on terror is neccessary. How many civilians has our war in Iraq killed? I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the answer is between 100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course, the Left only cares about people killed by Americans thus if you get killed in Zimbabwe, don't expect ANSWER to start rallying international support to stop the killing. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the
