Democrats were willing dupes...again

[Serenity]

Gosh, imagine how the the Bush Sr. led CIA felt when they were supplying Saddam with all of that support in their skirmish with Iran. Duped, I'm sure. But they are Republicans, so in the interest of national security and intelligence I guess they are above the law.

 

:noway:

 

They aren't above mine.

 

But this guy is. Judo Gene Lebell.

[Fairweather]

 

It's true. When he went AWOL in the 70's, he was actually sneaking around Baghdad in black clothes all ninja style n' shit, delivered a case o' mustard gas to Saddam before Saddam took power. Then he stole outta the country in the back of a goat truck heading for Jordan.

 

You wouldn't believe what I discovered working for the CIA.

 

I ask for substantiation of outrageous claims, and you respond with mock humor. Where's the beef, Ninja man?

[Bug]

Reagan presided over one of the best propaganda machines in history. He will go down in history right beside Adolf Hitler.

Every member of his cabinet was indicted for some crime. Do you know what kind of proof you need to indict a cabinet member or even a former cabinet member.

 

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are not God's gift either. I just think that anyone who focuses on the idiocracy's of any DC politician is missing the point. Its a forest dude.

Its a very sick forest.

[Fairweather]

 

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are not God's gift either. I just think that anyone who focuses on the idiocracy's of any DC politician is missing the point. Its a forest dude.

Its a very sick forest.

 

Classic fall-back maneuver. Where's your spine, man?

[Mal_Con]

[Serenity]

You've never shaken hands with someone you secretly wanted to kick in the balls?

[Fairweather]

Malcon - What's your point?

 

[Crux]

So while we were in the process of incarcerating the largest influx of citizens ever for mere posession, the man who is now our president was crammin that stuff up his nose. Are any of those other guys out yet? Wonder how that affected their lives?

 

"Libtard"; a word used by idiots who think the multi-party system should be abolished and republicans should rule like corporate fascists.

 

Oh wait, that happened.

"Libtard" is now used in the spirit of preemptive warfare by idiots who fear their corporate fascists will lose power. Sort of like the Pope spreading the word that Mother Mary has STDs, just in case she decides to fuck.

 

(No thanks needed for the clarification. I'm just here to help.)

[Fairweather]

...here's one of the chief 'tards now! And with irreverent anti religious bigotry to announce his entry. How...predictable.

[Mal_Con]

Res ipsa loquitur

[Fairweather]

Res ipsa loquitur

 

A predictable answer from someone who likely subscribes to the local paper and doesn't bother to look beyond the pictures. No, the image you posted does not speak for itself.

[Fairweather]

"Now, if we could all just tone down the rhetoric a bit...

 

 

...I've got an all-expenses-paid vacation in Caracas and a plane I've just gotta catch."

[StevenSeagal]

You do also remember that hostages held by Iranians were released in exchange for weapons, and there was also some cash in there that ended up funding Central American death squads. All of course enacted in secret without the knowledge of Congress. (read: illegal)

 

So actually, we were on some levels funding BOTH sides, which kind of kills the "clear and present danger", "pick the most altruistic motive for funding murderous regimes" rationalization.

 

Um, those were different hostages than the ones in question. And they were held by Hezbolla in Lebanon, not Iran. That Reagan was willing to strike a deal for Iranian influence and spare parts several years after the embassy hostage crisis is an issue separate from the one in question. I think you have your history mixed up.

 

No mix up here. I know exactly which hostages were which. In any case, last I checked, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah=Iran, doesn't it? The issue there is our government publicly proclaimed that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" yet did exactly that, without congressional knowledge.

"Spare Parts"? You mean weapons, and if current accusations against Iran are at all true, some remnants of which are probably being used against American troops in Iraq right now.

 

And alright then, I partially retract- I have no source to cite regarding poison gas elements coming from the US to Iraq, I have only heard this from unconfirmed channels- but does it even really matter which killing instruments we gave them?

 

The bottom line is, who do we think we are to provide support for such regimes while supposedly standing as the beacon for human rights in the world? On that note, let's go look at China- currently one of the world's most repressive, brutal, human rights abusing regimes. We give nothing more than tepid condemnation and idle urgings to them. Why? Because we have this great business relationship with them and without it, our economy would fold. They own our asses, and everyone knows it. And how did this come about?

 

So in the end, it seems that human rights, freedom, democracy, is not really what we are concerned with; we're concerned with meddling and interfering in shitty foreign situations in whatever way we can find that might benefit us economically, playing groups off one another and fighting wars whenever we piss off one side enough. Then we invoke the former issues as justification to keep everyone dutifully quiet and supportive.

 

[Doug]

FW - Thanks for the chart on the weapons. I don't know that the clandestine weapons sales that occurred during that time frame would make a dent in the statistic, but thank you none the less.

 

To the point of the article you posted, I have listened and read 4 reports on the topic in the time frame I was at my daughter's gymnastics class this evening. From Fox to NPR. From all indications none of the politicians involved knew the alleged ultimate source of the funding for the trip. Does it look bad, hell yeah! Did they commit a crime or impeachable defense? You tell me.

 

As far as being willingly ignorant of the geopolitical situation in that era, you are probably correct. I do know that the US was friendly with the Shah and that pissed off a bunch of the Islamic Fundamentalists who ran he and his cronies out of the country and took a few US hostages to boot. And Carter pissed them off so bad they timed the hostage release with is leaving office. Or at least that's what I read in school. Our family was friends with a few of the families evacuated from Tehran in 1977 and I only know what I've heard from them and from an old roommate (ex-pat Iranian) and his dad.

 

I read a lot of pretty decent points you make in your posts but it is too bad they are mostly obscured by the bluster you frequently add to them. While you seem to be more astute politically than many of the posters on this site, I do find your skills at civil discourse severely lacking.

 

Speaking of duped, would it be somewhat accurate to say that the US and our congress were duped by deliberately faulty and misleading information leading up to the vote by congress to go to war with Iraq? Just asking.....

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

willing dupes, Iraq, no mention of W?

[Fairweather]

The issue there is our government publicly proclaimed that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" yet did exactly that, without congressional knowledge.

"Spare Parts"? You mean weapons, and if current accusations against Iran are at all true, some remnants of which are probably being used against American troops in Iraq right now.

 

And alright then, I partially retract- I have no source to cite regarding poison gas elements coming from the US to Iraq, I have only heard this from unconfirmed channels- but does it even really matter which killing instruments we gave them?

 

 

Full circle. If you recall, Reagan was up against a Democrat congress that was sweet on just about everything commie in central america. I think it was house majority leader, Jim Wright, who was writing love letters to Daniel Ortega. I'm not saying that bypassing congress was the right thing to do, but communism still had luster back then, and many Democrats were still publicly enamored. Desperate times.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Fairweather

[Serenity]

Doug, could you please cite your clandestine credentials, assuming they are declassified, that would make you a SME on covert weapons shipments?

 

Just kidding, don't feel like you have to come up with some sharp comeback.

[Serenity]

The war was started mainly for several reasons.

 

1. We were in a defensive stance as a result of Al Qaeda's first strike initiative.

 

2. Terrorist organizations by their nature are decentralized, and are not a streamlined target such as a country, or a large conventional military is.

 

3. Iraq had strategic position.

 

4. It gave the bad guys a place to come kill us (and vice-versa), instead of waiting to see where/what they would hit next.

 

5. There were no good options. Turn the other cheek, and let's hope the bad guys go away is not a strategy. Look at Spain, they pulled out due to the terrorist threats, and Islamic factions continue to target them regardless.

 

Let's not forget, that all this played into a broader geo-political strategy.

 

Believe what you will.

[Serenity]

China does not 'own our asses'. The US economy alone still eclipses the economy of China and Europe combined.

 

[billcoe]

McDermott. McDemocrat. McDupe.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm

 

 

Thats crap reporting Fairweather. No Pulitzers for you! We pay those people to find the facts. If you believe they can get those sitting on their asse's in Washington DC you are sadly mistaken.

 

 

Check out this part specifically: "And there is no indication they were aware the trip was financed by Saddam Hussein's regime."

 

 

Full text:

 

"

US charges man 'on Saddam's pay'

The US congressmen - David Bonior, Mike Thompson and Jim McDermott - with an Iraqi official during the 2002 trip to Iraq.

The lawmakers criticised US war preparations during the trip

A US man who organised a trip by three US lawmakers to Iraq in the run-up to the war has been charged with working for the regime of Saddam Hussein.

 

Muthanna al-Hanooti, who worked for an Islamic charity, was arrested on Tuesday when he entered the US from abroad, officials said.

 

Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the lawmakers' trip.

 

The congressmen travelled to Iraq in October 2002 and expressed concern at US preparations for war.

 

Mr Hanooti, who worked for the Life for Relief and Development, appeared in court in Detroit on Wednesday where he was released on bail.

 

Prosecutors also said he was responsible for monitoring Congress for Iraqi intelligence - allegedly providing Baghdad with a list of lawmakers he believed favoured lifting economic sanctions against Iraq.

 

In exchange for co-ordinating the congressional trip, Mr Hanooti allegedly received two million barrels of Iraqi oil, prosecutors said.

 

Congressmen 'not aware'

 

The indictment against him does not mention the Democratic lawmakers who made the trip - Jim McDermott, David Bonior and Mike Thompson.

 

And there is no indication they were aware the trip was financed by Saddam Hussein's regime.

 

"Obviously we didn't know it at the time," said Mr McDermott's spokesman Michael DeCesare.

 

"The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That's the only reason we went," the Associated Press news agency quoted him as saying.

 

At the end of their stay in Iraq, the lawmakers pressed both the Iraqi and the US administrations to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors.

 

"There is a way to solve this crisis without war," said Mr Thompson at the time.

 

"It is for the Iraqis not to interfere and for the United States not to interfere in the inspections process." "

____________________________________________________________

 

Didn't Cheney go to Iran (Axis of evil) not that long ago? I want him talking to those folks. We, as a country, need direct, unbullshit filtered dialog.

 

MHO

[Serenity]

The bottom line was they had no business being there in the build up to the war. I remember feeling that they were distinctly giving shelter to the enemy.

 

I sat next to that POS on a plane from DC one time, had to professionally restrain myself from telling him what a shameful thing I thought he had done.

[Serenity]

Anyway, I know you guys are going to believe whatever you want to. Just know we're all doing our best to make you proud, with honor and restraint, even if you won't ever appreciate it.

 

Those congressman should be ashamed.

 

Later.

[billcoe]

The war was started mainly for several reasons.

 

1. We were in a defensive stance as a result of Al Qaeda's first strike initiative.

 

2. Terrorist organizations by their nature are decentralized, and are not a streamlined target such as a country, or a large conventional military is.

 

3. Iraq had strategic position.

 

4. It gave the bad guys a place to come kill us (and vice-versa), instead of waiting to see where/what they would hit next.

 

5. There were no good options. Turn the other cheek, and let's hope the bad guys go away is not a strategy. Look at Spain, they pulled out due to the terrorist threats, and Islamic factions continue to target them regardless.

 

Let's not forget, that all this played into a broader geo-political strategy.

 

Believe what you will.

 

Well now I am confused. I thought that the #1 reason really was our (include Clinton in this) policymakers lack of an energy policy coupled with Americans unbridled love of big-gas, guzzling cars which we built our economy around, coupled with our own declining oil production and increased importing to fulfill the burgeoning needs along with the huge reserves in Iraq and the fact that they tried to get off the dollar and into the Euro in 2002 plus the fact that they were a big time threat to Israel (remember the $10,000 Sadamm payouts to Palestinian suicide bombers families) and potential nuclear rival (remember Israel bowing up the reactor in what 1983?) with the final nail in the coffin the Bush administrations belief they could get control of Iraqi reserves militarily easier than reality would dictate.

 

Confused for sure now. Maybe I'm wrong there Mike. (Borat voice) NOT!

[Fairweather]

McDermott's trip was not sanctioned by anyone. Not even his House of Representatives. Not even his party. He was there to make a statement. The fact that he was "unaware" of who his financiers were should make his duplicity all the more embarrassing.

[Hugh Conway]

China does not 'own our asses'. The US economy alone still eclipses the economy of China and Europe combined.

 

Are you willfully stupid? Your "believe what you want comment" is priceless irony for someone so woefully out of touch with economic matters

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29