02-05-2007, 08:58 AM | #121 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
To stray from that for a second, If we can pretend for a moment that the tooth fairy is real and that Sadaam was in fact a bad guy, it seems to me that whatever evidence we were given by hollywood points to a guy bent on regional dominance by any means necessary. Yes, hollywood has provided us with a cast of characters saying Sadaam violated this, but hasn't done that, but is contained, but is still a threat, but is still shooting at planes, but the no-fly zones are working, but he still violates 10 years of UN-sanctioned weapons inspections, but no evidence of anything exists, but he killed a bunch of people with wmd at one time, but he's no longer a threat, but he had a history of funding islamic terrorism, but that he's been rehabilitated and is good once again, that he sponsors orphanages in the Congo and constructs universities in Baghdad, but he once invaded a country and tried to enslave it, that he kills off political opposition and dissent, but he won 100% of the democratic popular vote for his 'presidency', but there is no evidence now of a means to project his ambitions in the region, and he is now honest and forthright, but he once fired missiles into Israeli cities, but now somehow he is contained and harmless and simply needs looking after like an old lady at a nursing home and the like. It seems to me the movie is available to whomever wants to watch it. I guess we're all different, we all process our facts differently, we have the ability to see similar things in different ways. Sometimes what is black to one person, can be bright white to another. I guess one person's horror movie is another person's musical. It seems to me we've all watched the same story, and sliced and diced it up in 50 differents ways to suit our sensibilities. |
|
02-05-2007, 09:46 AM | #122 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Great "come back"...."Rovesque" in that attempts to turn the strength of my argument from "facts" to confusion and uncertainty.....
From my last post....I'll try asking, one more time.... Quote:
|
|
02-05-2007, 10:00 AM | #123 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Heres the reality folks.....as well as the primary reason for Partisan Politics. Perception creates opinion, and opinion is....well...theres the A$$hole analogy. I have found that keeping this in mind when reading a post, can be extremely helpful in trying to make a debate, a discussion as well. |
|
02-05-2007, 10:17 AM | #124 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
I really think it changed everything. And host, I'm not trying to cause confusion, I truly, honestly believe this is the way things were/are. Yeah, it's just one person's opinion. Last edited by powerclown; 02-05-2007 at 10:44 AM.. |
|
02-05-2007, 10:28 AM | #126 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
greg: i wasn't making assumptions about your personal politics, really: i was just reacting to what i was reading. sometimes the internal logic of posts tells more about how folk think than what they say about what they think.
i am going to be on here in a reduced capacity for a while: i'll try to come back and address your post in more detail later. but in general, elphaba was kind enough to provide a gloss on the motives behind my post, and in general i think it accurate. so what she said.... more later then.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
02-05-2007, 10:52 AM | #127 (permalink) | ||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see anything of substance....a breakthrough, "if you will", that justified the dramatic reversal of Cheney and Admiral Wilson's post 9/11 comments of the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq. That is the problem, as I see it, with your argument powerclown. Nothing changed after 9/11....with regard to any actual threat capability from Saddam. Only the rhetoric changed. Do you think that the twice postponed <b>briefing</b>, described in the LA Times article, following Bush's newest misleading and unproven claim in last month's "address to the nation", would have been postponed, if not for the constant emphasis and focus on the facts by people as inconsequential as those of us who do that "work" in places like this. Do you see, at all, that your blanket; Quote:
So, they aren't allowed to question, and you could, but won't, because of "September 11".....so who is there to hold the CIC accountable.....to pressure him to stop short of backing up his bogus SOTU rhetoric with a bullshit, propaganda media "presentation", like the one Powell gave to the UN in Feb., 2003, to "justify" the invasion and occupation of Iraq? THe LA Times shows that what we do, collectively, is working....it's slowly making these thugs blink...making them hesitate to lie to us as blatantly and superficially as they did about Saddam's WMD. <b>I support the troops, powerclown, by forcing this adminstration to either tell us and "the troops" the truth, or to STFU until they are prepared to do so.....</b> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 02-05-2007 at 10:58 AM.. |
||||||||
02-05-2007, 11:00 AM | #128 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
|
|
02-05-2007, 11:45 AM | #130 (permalink) |
Eccentric insomniac
Location: North Carolina
|
Ok, I will try to distill what I am attempting to say.
First: I believe Bush scored above 1330 on his SAT's, and he maintained a good GPA throughout highschool and college. Is he smart enough to be the president? Couldn't tell you. Is he smart enough for graduate school? Most definately. Also, in order to successfully campaign and win high office he demonstrated a tremendous amount of discipline, which implies that he would have had the willpower to be successful in gradutate school as well. He may not be a master orater, but he is not an idiot either.
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 10:21 PM.. |
02-05-2007, 11:46 AM | #131 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
greg:
one other thing: the debate that is the center of this thread is about the contrasting versions of the history of the run-up to the iraq debacle. going through will and host's post will give you a good outline of it. i dont feel any particular need to repeat what they have already been good enough to post. i'd be happy to comment on things if it seems germaine, but for the most part, there we are.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
02-05-2007, 11:52 AM | #132 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Actaully..."trying" to do good is extremely relevant in this situation. Unfortunately, the perception of what is good, and what is not are the underlying issue of disagreement. I for one, fully understand there is an attempt to create freedom for a people that were kept away from it in the past. There is however a point where we must accept this "Good" has been botched with ineptitude....we were there last year in my opinion, and now are destroying any possible chance of meeting the objective of the month.
It has reached the point where our policy is destructive to the United States, as well as the Iraqi future....and therefore becomes counter-productive to all involved. Anyone who believes this war can be salvaged by further military action is, in my opinion.....not paying attention to the realities of warfare. |
02-05-2007, 12:12 PM | #133 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quick moment of pride: I got a 1556. We only said that Iraqi Freedom was about freing Iraqi's after it was clear that there was not going to be a smoking gun so far as links to 9/11 or WMDs. Our best bet right now is to do absolutely everything reasonably possible to have Iraqi defence forces protecting law abiding Iraqis from the 'bad guys', be they insurgents or forigners. The US needs to make sure that Iraq doesn't become dependant on our assistance, otherwise we won't ever be able to leave. The trick to that is to move from a position of defensive forces to a position of mostly training and being with the Iraqi defence forces on the ground. No more Coalition-only convoys. We have US soldiers and Iraqis serving shoulder to shoulder and we do more to teach them to defend their home. We also need a time table of withdrawl, so that the American people and the Iraqi defence forces know what they're working with. I'm of the personal opinion, based on previous situations, that 8 months is not unreasonable, but I'd be happy with anything under 14 months. After that, the US forces are only there to train local police or to be in a US embassy. |
|
02-05-2007, 12:37 PM | #134 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
"host"= http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx SAT Score=1162 [IQ=127] "willravel"= http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx SAT Score=1550 [IQ 15 SD =148.56] [IQ 16 SD=151.79] ....and there is this: Quote:
|
||
02-05-2007, 04:00 PM | #136 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
The two arguments from the "stay the course" (aka "new way forward" surge and hold) crowd here that I find have the least intellectual honesty are:
Powerclown's contention that opposing the surge is anti-troop: "The time for dissent has passed. Congress has debated, and they have spoken. Our troops are in place and under fire. It is now (or was) the Public's job to express approval for the mission of the troops."Dissent is at the foundation of our democracy. Is is the public's job to hold their political leaders accountable for their policies and actions, particurlarly when those policies are based on lies and their subsequent actions are managed ineptly and irresponsibly (with the the troops as their pawns). To suggest otherwise is simply a means to demonize those with whom you disagree with no basis of fact. Greg's inference of a "pull-out now" as the only alternative: I think that regardless of past misadventures or conquests, the US has placed itself firmly in a position where to pull out of Iraq now would cause far more harm to come to the Iraqi people and would be decidedly against our national best interests because the whole region would be likely to decay as a result of the internal strife in Iraq.There are other options - the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group plan, and mostly recently the Obama plan (The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007). Where I fault the Dems and those who oppose the "surge" policy are not having the balls to stand behind one of these (or other) real alternatives. The new NIE for Iraq (summary pdf) paints a pretty pestimistic assessment of current conditions and the short-term future, regardless of options. Time for me to hop off this merry-go-round of a discussion.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-05-2007 at 04:42 PM.. |
02-05-2007, 04:49 PM | #137 (permalink) |
Eccentric insomniac
Location: North Carolina
|
I think Biden's plan is not unreasonable. Though I think he has added the drawdown of US troops almost as an afterthought. I am not against getting troops out of Iraq, but not until we have made the country stable.
If we were able to successfully implement all other aspects of his plan except troop removal we would no longer have any reason to remain in Iraq and our withdrawl would be inevitable. Of course, the devil is in the details.
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence |
02-05-2007, 04:55 PM | #138 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
I dont see any details or explicit measurable benchmarks in Bush's "new way forward". Without holding the Iraqi government to such benchmarks, it is doomed, IMO, to be more of the same.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
02-05-2007, 05:39 PM | #139 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
I can't support a total withdrawal of troops quite yet. There seem to be too many dynamics still at work in Iraq, from the question of whether the militias can be destroyed, to whether political compromises can be made, to an Iraqi security force that still needs manpower, training, and supplies. Since no one else outside of the coalition seems interested in helping Iraq, it is the coalition's responsibility to get it back running, and it needs more time. If I were a senator, I would vote in favor of giving them that time. It has turned into a situation where to stop now would make null and void any and all contributions and sacrifices made by our soldiers. Only by quitting will their losses be in vain. I also realize the value of cutting your losses. We went into this thing cold. Once the shit started hitting the fan, we lost our equilibrium and had no idea what we were doing. Now that we have learned more about who the enemy is and how he operates, and since we have put a political process in place (from scratch) and we are learning the dynamics of that, I think we have a better chance of success. Before making final decisions, lets see how effective or ineffective this 'surge' is. It seems to be addressing an area of significant importance, securing of Baghdad and eliminating the militias. That al-Sadr is alive today (although 2 of his top monkees were killed today) is proof that there is still an on-the-job learning process going on. Quote:
Last edited by powerclown; 02-05-2007 at 05:50 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
02-05-2007, 06:56 PM | #140 (permalink) | ||
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
And you are also making the same narrow assumptions as Greg - either support the Bush plan or withdraw the troops: Quote:
There are many who believe it is time to hold the Iraqis more accountable in a definable measurable way, both in terms of politcal progress among the sectarian interests and in terms of training the ISF, while continuing our support in a different manner than a growing face of US military occupation with no end in sight. Without such benchmarks and a firm and clearly understood timetable for the Iraqis to act, they will continue to suck off the US tit and our guys will continue to be in the cross-fire of what the recent NIE says is primarily a sectarian civil war.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-06-2007 at 07:30 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
02-05-2007, 08:57 PM | #141 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
Hasn't the complaint from the very start been "not enough soldiers"? Now people are saying "too many soldiers". Give it a try...see if there is improvement. If the objetives aren't being met in a set amount of time, pull 'em back. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by powerclown; 02-05-2007 at 08:59 PM.. |
|||
02-05-2007, 10:02 PM | #143 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
02-05-2007, 11:05 PM | #144 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
What happened to Shinseki when he asked Rummy for more troops? What makes you think that Rummy was going to send anymore troops after he fired Shinseki? What makes you think that the generals would dare to ask Rummy for more troops after they all saw what happened to Shinseki? Why the hell do you think Bush fired Rummy?
Abizaid is 'macro-general' who looks at the bigger picture of not just war in Iraq, but religious extremism around the world. He's not so much concerned with flooding troops into Iraq as he is with strategically placing them elsewhere in the world where islamic extremsim exists: afghanistan, africa, pakistan. Thats why Abazaid is cautious about the Bush troop level numbers into Baghdad. But the thing is, time is running out. People like you are foaming at the mouth for immediate, unconditional withdrawal. If you read your own articles, General Casey recommends 2 additional brigades into Baghdad, saying that if General Petraeus asks for more, he should get them. I'm not saying that additional troops alone are going to solve the political problems facing Iraq. I am saying that a lessening of ethnic fighting in Baghdad, a halt in the suicide bombings and sectarian neighborhood murders and cleansings, and the re-establishment of some level of security and basic services to the citizens of Baghdad would increase the chances for political advancements on multiple fronts. |
02-06-2007, 06:41 AM | #145 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Offered without comment: <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act">Iraq Liberation Act</A>, passed by Congress in 1998 and signed by President Clinton.
Quote:
|
|
02-06-2007, 07:29 AM | #146 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Loquitor: What's your point?
The Iraq Liberation Act clearly had a political and diplomatic focus and specifically did not authorize military intervention: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)(related to funding opposition groups) in carrying out this Act.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
02-06-2007, 08:50 AM | #147 (permalink) | |||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
<b>Here is a recent report on the shi'a cleric with the LEAST ties to and sympathies with Iran:</b> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 02-06-2007 at 08:56 AM.. |
|||||||
02-06-2007, 08:50 AM | #148 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
one thing that i take to be bizarre about this discussion when it addresses elements of, say, the biden plan, is the way in which the options are posed: either one fumbles along the path layed out by the bush administration or one withdraws all american troops immediately from iraq. that is an idiotic framework that functions mostly--if not entirely--from a viewpoint informed by the administration's choices, as if these choices were the legitimate center of any debate.
the question is not increase troop numbers or pull out right away: it is more about strategic direction. the americans need to find a way to internationalize this farce so they can begin rolling out of its center. the americans are a faction within a civil war and are not in a position to be other than a faction within a civil war--the problem then is the american presence itself at this point. replacing the americans with an international coalition of peacekeepers (say--for the sake of being able to point to something in this context--no doubt the actual nature and goals of such a force would be determined collectively) seems the only way out. this would require extensive diplomatic work, which HAS TO BE PART OF THE STRATEGY that informs a coherent withdrawal of american military forces from iraq. so american military actions have to be linked to diplomatic action in the context of a lucid overall strategy. this seems beyond the abilities of the bushpeople to manage. and it is this failing that makes me wish that the americans had a no=-confidence mechanism that could clear these people out of power. the bush people have obviously created about the worst possible climate for this diplomatic project--but they really have to suck it up, eat some shit and deal with it---- and this they seem wholly unwilling or unable to do--and it is here that the extent to which american options have been boxed in by the disaster that is neocon-influenced policy remains fully in force. instead of a coherent diplomatic strategy that worked in tandem with the military deployment, you get dickwaving in the direction of iran--a dickwaving that is at this point the best friend of ahmadinejad (whose administration is in a vry very weak position, likely to fall but for american dickwaving--and i would have thought that the administration considers him to be a problem rather than a kind of screwy tactical asset--if he is a problem, then maybe not doing things that prop him up, that help keep him in power, might be a good idea--but not in bushworld--go figure). fact is that the bush administration appears to reject the notion of coupling a diplomatic strategy--which is the condition of possibility for a coherent withdrawal--to its military strategy. and it is because this administration has made this choice that all options seem to be equally zero-sum. the problem is the bush administration itself.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-06-2007 at 08:55 AM.. |
02-06-2007, 08:52 AM | #149 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
They're still trying to "move the ball"; working up their "hail mary" pass "play", as their offense is poised to take the "field", one last time.... Quote:
Last edited by host; 02-06-2007 at 09:26 AM.. |
||
02-06-2007, 04:00 PM | #150 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
My point is that Saddam was viewed as a threat by the Clinton Administration. And in terms of using military force, shortly after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be shot at various Iraqi facilities due to Saddam's defiance of the WMD terms of the Gulf War termination agreements - was that illegal? (ineffectual, I'll grant you).
|
02-06-2007, 04:26 PM | #151 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
What I fail to understand is how it is relevant to a discussion of supporting the troops and the contention by some that there are only two options - support Bush or withdrawl the troops.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
|
02-06-2007, 06:49 PM | #152 (permalink) |
Eccentric insomniac
Location: North Carolina
|
Edit: I was talking in circles.
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 10:21 PM.. |
02-07-2007, 05:07 AM | #154 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Here is just one perspective on one specific Bush action: In a letter (pdf) to Congress about Bush's plan to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell recognized both the moral implications and the risk to our own troops: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."Eminence requires a demonstration of leadership and leadership requires a capacity to listen and not simply bully those who may not support your "cause.". And it requires a recognition that imposing our military might should not be always our first option.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-07-2007 at 05:51 AM.. |
|
02-07-2007, 07:52 AM | #155 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
dc_dux, it is as obvious as posting "look both ways before crossing", but there is a need for you to spell it out.....Greg700 does not see that the "problem", the principle shortcoming in US policy, is totally opposite what he posted that it is. The next reaction by the American people to the policies that took us from Le Monde's 9/12 headline, <b>"We are all Americans, Now!"</b>...to THIS, is already underway....since the mid-term election, last november. The continuing "military madness" of the last 5 years and 5 months, along with the tottering state of US currency exchange rate, will determine how far away from militarism we journey, in this new cycle of voter sentiment, already underway..... ....and Greg700, re: your early comments about Clinton cutting the military in 1995.....Even at the end of 1995, with Clinton in office just 35 months, that "activity" was the still the early stages of the Cheney designed, Bush '41 approved, post cold war era, post Gulf war I reductions in military programs and force size. I'd be happy to show you the accuracy of this with links, excerpts, etc. ....and your "lament" about US forced failing to kill al Sadr in Najaf in 2004.....what have you been reading? Recall that Saddam was behind al Sadr's father's assassination in 1999.....it made him a a martyr, and.....since al Sadr the younger, took over the leadership of his father's huge, mainly poor shi'a following, and the fact that al Sadr is fiercely nationalistic, unlike the shi'a political leadership that spent time in exile in Iran, and is closely aligned with Iran, al Sadr is the shi'a leader who has no ties to Iran, and has avoided making them. It is a truer statement that it is a stroke of luck that the US failed to kill al Sadr. In your closed world, can you see the "logic" in posting an advocacy, on this forum of all places....for killing the son of a man who was killed by Saddam, and was so despised by him, that this exchange took place: (....and, to an extent, isn't there a measure of truth in Saddam's claims....he repeated them as he stood at the gallows....that his shi'a enemies are "persians", i.e. Iranian spies? Can you perceive, at all, even now, the delicate balance in the region that only existed because Saddam was Saddam because Iraq was where, and how, it was....next to Iran, populated mainly by shi'a aligned by both blood and religious sympathies, with Iran? Can you see that, in destroying Saddam's Iraq, the US gained the Saddam's role of checking Iran, but with the liability, that, unlike Saddan and his sunni base, the US is regarded as an infidel.... ?) Quote:
I don't have easy solutions to offer, but I didn't proclaim that it was necessary or justified to invade and occupy Iraq, and as willravel said, <b>did we miss the post where one of us advocated immediate US military withdrawal from Iraq?</b> But....I do have a clue. I know that the killing of al Sadr, by US forces..... killing the sole major shi'a leader with no ties to Iran, and an intent to discourage forming them, would have been another in a long series of profound, and very troubling US mistakes in it's GWOT! Last edited by host; 02-07-2007 at 08:21 AM.. |
||
02-07-2007, 01:50 PM | #156 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Detroit, MI
|
I haven't seen any argumentative evidence yet that the Iraq War was strategically or even morally unsound. Vietnam was handled less than ideally on the tactical level (show me the Perfect War), but fighting the spread of communism proved - historically - to be the right thing to do in the broader sense. For all the protesting and draft dodging the left indulged themselves in during 'Nam, can anyone say the fall of the Iron Curtain and defeat of communism was a bad thing for the world? In the same way, does anyone believe that fighting the spread of terrorism is wrong?
Are we saying the concept of GWOT is sound, but the methods are wrong? Are we expressing our disapproval over how the GWOT has been fought, or is the problem the GWOT itself? Something else? |
02-07-2007, 03:17 PM | #157 (permalink) | |||
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-07-2007 at 03:53 PM.. |
|||
07-29-2007, 01:23 PM | #158 (permalink) | |||
Banned
|
I found it interesting that a BBC channel chose, with no external follow up reporting from the rest of the media, to broadcast the following on radio, just last week. I post this here because it is support for the coverage of this historic (and buried....) event that I posted about in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2188768&postcount=22">post #22</a>, on the first page of this thread. I don't fully understand it's implications, but the congressional hearings that followed, produced a report that was hidden for the next four or five decades, and the son and grandson of one of the conspirators became US presidents, the latter bringing about more "fascist like" "reform", in just a few years, than I could ever have imagined:
Quote:
History Channel video: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-29-2007, 06:51 PM | #159 (permalink) | |
Thank You Jesus
Location: Twilight Zone
|
Quote:
This was an OP about troops and support, and once again you turn it into Bush, FISA and whatever else you feel the need to throw in. I am really surprised you also didnt bring up the wealthiest 10% with the Prescott Bush segway, dam your slipping. Does this mean that RFK should have been investigating his murdering, smuggling grandfather?
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him? |
|
07-29-2007, 07:00 PM | #160 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Tags |
offensive, support, troops |
|
|