TOPICS:
DEC 21, 2003 10:17 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:20 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:26 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:27 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:31 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:35 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:35 PM
low_life said:
How come all the major publications fabricate stories that support this office? Don't you think the truth would sell more papers?
Um..... could you be more vague?? 
DEC 21, 2003 10:36 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:40 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:57 PM
DEC 21, 2003 10:58 PM
Jeff_Fries said:
Altogether now: Care To Be More Specific?
Where should I start FRYCOOK 
? Don't you read the paper? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? That's what he went in for, not to liberate people!How come no one mentions that Bush planned to attack Iraq before 9/11. Plus there is no connection between Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam. History shows that they are enemies! Why did Bush Sr. let Iraq attack Kuwait even though we knew that they were going to before we attacked Iraq? That fell appart. Now we got W stickin up for his daddy. How come no one mentions the U.S. trained Osama, and his troops? Are'nt you wondering what this administration is going to do about North Korea, or Osama? Or are you like "pfew" We got him! But he really was'nt an immidiate threat. Bush acted on pride, and greed. A media smokescreen has fooled everyone into thinking Bush did something amazing, but he had alterior motives. So what does the press have to gain by supporting the Bush administration. Why would'nt they be truthful? Then maybe Joe Anybody might not be so quick to vote for him. They think this is about 9/11, or liberation, cause that's all they see! But that's not the case. So why does the press back this administration?
wigglefree
I'm lost
October 2003
DEC 21, 2003 11:05 PM
DEC 21, 2003 11:08 PM
DEC 21, 2003 11:12 PM
DEC 21, 2003 11:12 PM
low_life said:
Where should I start FRYCOOK ?
HOleee MOther.
DEC 21, 2003 11:19 PM
Jeff_Fries said:
low_life said:
Where should I start FRYCOOK ?
HOleee MOther.
I don't get it. 
DEC 21, 2003 11:51 PM
DEC 21, 2003 11:52 PM
I meant him, not you.
DEC 21, 2003 11:54 PM
DEC 22, 2003 12:05 AM
low_life said:
Jeff_Fries said:
Altogether now: Care To Be More Specific?
Where should I start FRYCOOK ?
Well, in my writing I find it helpful to start with nouns. That way when you saying things like "this office" people can go, "Oh, yes, that must refer to the Presidential Administration."
Just a thought.
DEC 22, 2003 12:10 AM
DEC 22, 2003 02:03 AM
DEC 22, 2003 02:52 AM
low_life said:
Jeff_Fries said:
Altogether now: Care To Be More Specific?
Where should I start FRYCOOK ? Don't you read the paper? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? That's what he went in for, not to liberate people!
There were many reasons for going to war. WMD were not the sole reason, but that's kind of a straw argument anyway, because there would have still been widespread opposition to invading Iraq even if it was known to possess or be developing them. For example, Ted Kennedy argued against invading Iraq explicitly BECAUSE he believed they possessed WMD. Are you saying that there must be one and only one reason for war? Why? Doesn't having MULTIPLE reasons for going to war help in justifying it? But then, that's the problem isn't it? You want the weakest, most easily assailed justifications for war, because it makes your job of criticizing it easier. The more complex and three dimensional the issue it is, the harder it is for you to come up with bumper sticker slogans like "Bush lied, people died!"
Finally, a final word on WMD, it is starting to looks like there was a consortium effort to develop them in Libya, where they didn't have to worry about robust UN inspections. This reminds me of Saudi Arabia's financing of Saddam's bomb program in the 1980's, expecting to get a bomb or two in return. Iraq and Libya exchange funding and technical expertise, while North Korea supplies the ballistic missile technology to deliver these weapons. Gosh, it's like a whole Axis or something.
How come no one mentions that Bush planned to attack Iraq before 9/11.
No, not Bush. His advisors Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz had been advocating the removal of Saddam since the 1991 war. Bush and his core realist advisors Rice, Powell, and his father's old NSA team advocated the status quo. After 9/11, that strategy changed, which greatly alarmed the world.
Plus there is no connection between Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam. History shows that they are enemies!
In the grown up real world outside universities and peace-ins, there's a very old strategy: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We were historical enemies with the Soviets but sided with Stalin to fight Hitler. After Hitler was defeated, we went back to being enemies. After Iran committed several acts of war against the US (seizing our embassy, bombing our Marines in Beruit) we favored and helped Saddam in his war on Iran. When Saddam was not as managable as we believed, we became his enemy. Similarly, the different factions of the Muslim world, the theocrat fanatics like Iran and Bin Laden hate America in common with the pan-Arab fascists like Saddam. There were no solid connections between Saddam and Osama, but 1. That was never a justification for the war and 2. Now Saddam will never have a chance to supply Bin Laden with WMD. That's something we'll never have to worry about.
How come no one mentions the U.S. trained Osama, and his troops?
The US didn't train Bin Laden. But we assisted he and his Afghan allies against the occupation of the USSR and the communist Kabul government's suppression of the Islamic religion. Again, that whole enemy-of-my-enemy thing. How was the US expected to predict that a guy who we helped in his jihad would immediately turn around and wage war on the hand that helped him? Who is the party that trespassed against the other? Us or the Islamist jihadists from the Persian Gulf?
Are'nt you wondering what this administration is going to do about North Korea, or Osama? Or are you like "pfew" We got him!
Well, why is North Korea even a problem? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking why North Korea was allowed to get this far with its development of nuclear weapons and missiles. I dont think you have any position to be bitching about attacking Iraq (BEFORE they have WMD or present an imminent threat), then turn around and harp about Bush's inability to deal with NK's active weapons program. In 1994, we dealt with NK's weapons by talking. By appeasing. By getting them to promise they would halt making bombs. And of course, they lied and made bombs anyway. Yet you criticize Bush for not making the same mistake with Saddam? See, theidea here is to make sure assholes never get a bomb in the first place.
Also, Bush has been pushing for development of ballistic missile defenses which required withdrawal from the old ABM treaty. So Bush is dealing with the NK threat, albeit passively. But you probably oppose developing a ballistic missile defense and prefer instead to rely on the honesty and word of guys like Kim Jong-Il, right?
But he really was'nt an immidiate threat.
So....we should wait around until he is? What would happen then? When Saddam or his sons pulled some other aggressive act, people like you and Ted Kennedy would be crying like little pussies "But they've got nukes and VX! It's too dangerous now! Why oh why didn't we stop them BEFORE they had this shit? This is all Bush's fault!"
Bush acted on pride, and greed. A media smokescreen has fooled everyone into thinking Bush did something amazing, but he had alterior motives.
Why are critics of the war so obsessed with MOTIVE, but completely ignore or disqualify anything beneficial that manifests itself from the war? Like, oh, liberation of 25 million Iraqis and Libya's dismantling of their WMD program?
So what does the press have to gain by supporting the Bush administration. Why would'nt they be truthful? Then maybe Joe Anybody might not be so quick to vote for him. They think this is about 9/11, or liberation, cause that's all they see! But that's not the case. So why does the press back this administration?
Funny, I find the press, even the mainstream "corporate" press to be very hostile and skeptical of the Bush administration. I've read several interviews from reporters who actively, stridently hate Bush, his administration, and his policies. And these are not bit players. I think of Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, Howell Raines former editor of the NY Times and just about every newspaper editor in every major newspaper in the US, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings who have audiences 10 times larger than the hated Fox News channel. Evan Thomas at Newsweek. Then of course there's the international media, which keeps the anti-Bush drumbeat going nonstop to audiences of billions. There is no "smokescreen" or "widespread coverup and deception" going on here, the press are not little trained flying monkeys who do Bush's bidding and do his lying for him.
When people like you complain about the "media whores" who "lie" and the overwhelming corruption of "the conservative media", what I'm basically reading is that you're outraged that they dont share your wild frothing hatred of all things Shrub, and that maybe perhaps you're the one who's a little misinformed 
[Edited on Dec 22, 2003 by stockula]
DEC 22, 2003 03:37 AM
stockula said:
That's an interezting book. Leftists can't believe that ordinary people think their beliefs are complete garbage, so they theorize that there must be a comprehensive cover-up and suppression of the truth by the media. The only possible explanation why their ideas are rejected.
if by "ordinary people" you mean "ordinary americans", then sure.
low_life
I'm lost
November 2003
DEC 21, 2003 10:15 PM