How many links do you need, Dave?

Here are a few more, just to keep you entertained.


From the Times wires:

Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear
weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range
missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The
presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence
community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
reached these conclusions:


Nuclear Weapons: Wrong
Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried
to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they
were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with
more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted.


Biological Weapons: Wrong
Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring
inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these
defectors were providing false information.


Chemical Weapons: WRONG
The intelligence committe drew its conclusions
from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that
were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who
made claims that Hussein had accomplished things that are technically
impossiible.


WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong
Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information;
Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance.


Hussein's Intentions: Wrong
Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have
given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although
several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any
WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation.


End of Times wire report.
--
Want more, Dave? The list is endless but these should have you spinning
your wheels a bit more than usual since your first knee-jerk reaction
was to deny any Bush failures, then
beg for examples.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:08:22 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
*********

try this link.

http://www.unmovic.org/

It is gives all the reporrtts to present of the "on goning
inspections"

This is the link to the UN Security Council Working Document as
presented to the UN Security Council on Mach 3 of 2003. Please pay
attention to Annex 2. It is quite revealing. It in fact shows how well
the UNSCOM inpsections were working prior to being booted out in 1998.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/..._programme.pdf

We may never know how much there really was or how much was destroyed.
But it is now becoming a foregone conclusions that the large
potentials that Colin Powell claimed in his Power Point Presentation
on Feb. 5, 2003 are at best in retrospect worst case analysis. Did
this administration inflate the potentials of WMD? Maybe not, but they
did harp extensively on the worst case potentials. As time has shown
the reality is that either Saddam destroyed alot just before the
invasion or there never were the large stock piles of WMD that Bush
and company had envisioned.

There are more links. You can also start at www.fas.org. Look not for
just what supports ones belief but look at all the facts presented. In
between the two extremes will really lie the truth. IF you start to
dig further into the past, you may starrtt to derive some other
conclusions. I came to an understanding in late 2002 that Iraq and any
invasion was not about WMD or OIL. It is far more deeper. The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.


Just think what if Radical Islam controled over half the oil
production in the world?

james

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:30:56 GMT, james wrote:


There are more links. You can also start at www.fas.org. Look not for
just what supports ones belief but look at all the facts presented. In
between the two extremes will really lie the truth. IF you start to
dig further into the past, you may starrtt to derive some other
conclusions. I came to an understanding in late 2002 that Iraq and any
invasion was not about WMD or OIL. It is far more deeper. The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.

That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent
it from happening is probably a good thing.

Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil
production in the world?

So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it
from happening?

Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the
U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act?

How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken
out of the picture in the 1920's?

Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to
understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify
it amongst all the free flowing propaganda?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:30:56 GMT, james wrote:


There are more links. You can also start at www.fas.org. Look not for
just what supports ones belief but look at all the facts presented. In
between the two extremes will really lie the truth. IF you start to
dig further into the past, you may starrtt to derive some other
conclusions. I came to an understanding in late 2002 that Iraq and any
invasion was not about WMD or OIL. It is far more deeper. The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.

That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent
it from happening is probably a good thing.

Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil
production in the world?

So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it
from happening?

*****

No I think Iraq is means of gaining bases in a region that we can
better monitor and track the goings on of the Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist, both Shia and Suni.

Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the
U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act?

****

That is a tough decision. If you act to early on intelligence and it
is bad then you done things in bad faith. Wait to long and you have
dead people. The better question and also the most difficult to answer
is how many lives are expendable? If none is your answer then Bush
did well.


How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken
out of the picture in the 1920's?

*****

We can play that game back to Babylonian Kings of the third millenium
BC. That is really a poor argument. The case for preemption is just
that. In 2002 Bush never made a good case for preemption. Most of what
I conclude was never presented to teh world population. Yes the Senate
and the House knew of it, but the average American Public per se was
not kept informed of these potentials.

Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to
understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify
it amongst all the free flowing propaganda?

********

Duh! Last time I reviewed my civics and political science notes, I
thought the American People were the government. You may find it
acceptable to blindly follow your elected officials like those in
Hitler Germany! Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a
President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the
American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no
pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion.

Hell yes the American People need to know. Secrecy is the death toll
of a democracy and a republican form of government. This
administrtation has been the most secret since Reagan's first term.
Then I look and see who is advising GW Bush and then it all become to
clearly now. Bush's advisors are out of the Cold War Era and need an
enemy. I wonder if there is not one then have they created one?


james

On Wed, 25 May 2005 15:37:52 GMT, james wrote:
The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.

That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent
it from happening is probably a good thing.

Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil
production in the world?

So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it
from happening?

*****

No I think Iraq is means of gaining bases in a region that we can
better monitor and track the goings on of the Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist, both Shia and Suni.

I would not disagree with that assessment. It is one that I also share
to some extent. It's also consistent with the Project for a new
American Century plan.

Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the
U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act?

****

That is a tough decision. If you act to early on intelligence and it
is bad then you done things in bad faith. Wait too long and you have
dead people. The better question and also the most difficult to answer
is how many lives are expendable? If none is your answer then Bush
did well.

In theory, no lives should be expendable. Reality paints a different
picture. As long as the radical Islamists are willing to sacrifice
their own lives in order to take out "infidels", the dynamics of that
equation changes somewhat. When the value of human life differs from
one side to the other, our "leverage" becomes limited.

In the cold war, we managed to keep "the evil empire" at bay due to
the concept of mutually assured destruction. When your new enemy
consists of people who are not afraid to die (and their reward
received in Heaven) to advance their cause, a concept such as M.A.D.
starts to crumble.

How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken
out of the picture in the 1920's?

*****

We can play that game back to Babylonian Kings of the third millenium
BC. That is really a poor argument.

No, it's just placing a current situation against a backdrop of
historical perspective.


The case for preemption is just
that. In 2002 Bush never made a good case for preemption. Most of what
I conclude was never presented to teh world population. Yes the Senate
and the House knew of it, but the average American Public per se was
not kept informed of these potentials.

For good reason I suspect.


Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to
understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify
it amongst all the free flowing propaganda?

********

Duh! Last time I reviewed my civics and political science notes, I
thought the American People were the government. You may find it
acceptable to blindly follow your elected officials like those in
Hitler Germany!

Woah! Back up and drop the Hitler metaphors. This is not about
dictatorship, but about the ineptitude, indifference, and general lack
of understanding of "big picture" politics by the average American. We
elect representatives to carry out America's business in our best
interests so that "we the people" do not have to. If the government
had to disclose each and every piece of intelligence with the
population at large, they would, at the very least, create a national
security issue, and at the worst create confusion and panic as the
average citizen tries to come to grips with what they've just been
told.


Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a
President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the
American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no
pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion.

There is a reason why we have a representative democracy and not a
direct democracy. We elect people who are supposedly trained in the
skills necessary to carry out our business. The last thing we need to
do is second guess the motives of our leaders without concrete proof
that such questioning is warranted. Perpetuating the distrust of our
leaders, are the minions of the news media, many of which are
(consciously or not) furthering the agendas of people who would like
nothing more than the fall of the democratic way of life in this
country. What better way to incite an overthrow of a government than
to create the impression that the leaders are "up to no good"? There
are all sorts of conspiracies and supposed "reports" telling of all
kinds of "dirty deals" done by our government for many years. They're
freely available to anyone with the drive to research them. But not
many of those stories are verifiable with hard facts. When you look
into the backgrounds of those who print these stories, it becomes
clear what their agendas are.


Hell yes the American People need to know. Secrecy is the death toll
of a democracy and a republican form of government.

There is such a thing as "need to know".

This
administrtation has been the most secret since Reagan's first term.

We are also the first since Vietnam, except for the brief Gulf war in
1991, to be actively engaged in long term military operations. That
necessitates a certain amount of secrecy. Do you think our government
was completely forthcoming with all intel during WWII or Vietnam?


Then I look and see who is advising GW Bush and then it all become to
clearly now. Bush's advisors are out of the Cold War Era and need an
enemy. I wonder if there is not one then have they created one?

For that to be true then you would have to somewhat support the
conspiracy theory which claims that 9/11/01 was orchestrated by our
own government. Our enemy attacked us first. What happened afterward
was just a succession of events placed into motion as a result of
9/11.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

I have found the U.K., Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places. Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right and
wrong.

I am not so easily persuaded.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

Jim:

You hit on the heart of the matter there, don't count on getting any news
which is accurate, unbiased or of assistance to the American public...
either threats or bribes control the news... but it ain't good...

Warmest regards,
John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the
extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

I have found the U.K., Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places.
Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right
and
wrong.

I am not so easily persuaded.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the
extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

I have found the U.K.

I kind of prefer the BBC, much netter than the slanted
US new networks.

, Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places. Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right
and
wrong.

I am not so easily persuaded.


Agreed, but you are comparing Apples to rotten oranges

Landshark


--
The world is good-natured to people
who are good natured.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:12:35 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

There is a great deal of truth in that. The major news media has been
infiltrated, as have much of academia, with the followers of left
leaning politics. This has been going on in ernest since the 60's and
the Vietnam war, when it was realized that the only way for a small
political minority to win their objective of large scale governmental
reform, was from within through slow, careful indoctrination and
propaganda. The two best places to achieve that goal are in the
agencies which bring us the news, and the institutions which educate
our impressionable young.

It had been working fairly well, until the advent of the internet,
talk radio, and independent news services such as Fox News. The
ability to cross check the news and parse out the spin, essentially
put the spotlight on the mainstream news media, and people like Dan
Rather and Jayson Blair. Exposure of such radical leftists in teaching
roles such as Ward Churchill, and countless others, is slowly
revealing the true intentions of these seemingly unconnected (except
for ideology) people. The rise of conservative groups and watchdog
organizations to balance the prejudice of the left on university
campuses, will hopefully slow and eventually correct much of the
damage that the left has done in the last 30 years.


I have found the U.K., Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places. Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

You have to understand that in much of the world, especially in the
socialist-leaning countries like France and Germany, there is a
decidedly anti-capitalist, anti-US slant. So if you think you will get
an objective news piece from any of them, you are seriously naive. As
for the U.K., Canada, and Australia, they are more balanced but
depending on which factions are backing the "news", you could be
reading either left or right wing slant. It helps to dig deeply into
who backs these groups in order to determine just how "objective" they
may or may not be.

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right and
wrong.

Yes, and just like Hitler blamed all or most of Germany's problems on
the Jews, so to are the operatives on the left trying to blame most of
America's problems on rich, God respecting, white people.


I am not so easily persuaded.

Neither am I.

Dave
"Sandbagger"