Let's Talk some POLITICS up in here - #2

[featphoto]

billl said:

1700 young Americans dead going after Hussain after our president & his lackys lied about the reason = CRIMINAL

True, I'm sure Saddam is a real sweetheart of a guy. I mean, how can you not respect a guy that tried to wipe out a whole ethnic population from his country. And that doesn't even include all of his own countrymen that were offed because they voiced dissent. Clearly we should have just left this guy alone. It's amazing to me to see the accusations (from some) of censorship regarding this administration all while there are people all over the world actually dying because they disagree with what their government (elected or otherwise) is doing. I'm not saying that it's not possible that there is some form of censorship here. What I am saying is, losing your job because of you being outspoken is very different from being killed. But that's just me, I guess. I'm also not dismissing the arguement of the reasons for the war but I do think that the assumption that they outright lied to start a war is wrong. While I don't agree with the administration on many things and I don't like they way they have handled some things; but to say that they just outright lied is, at this point, inconclusive. They obviously felt they had the goods. They didn't. History will judge them.

Bill L

---I assume that your comment was refering to the Iraq / Bin Laden connection in regards to 9/11. My comments were based on the fact that they thought they had the evidence needed to link them and they came up well short. The end result, in this case, is the administration got caught without the goods and had to rejustify their actions. Thankfully, Saddam made that an easy job.

well, first off I'll ignore 3/4 of your response, since it had nothing to do with my initial comment ... we can discuss job loss, censorship and ethnic cleansing at another time, because those aren't the reasons we were given for our invasion of Iraq ... as off-base as it would have been, invading Iraq because Hussain was a murderous, evil son of a bitch would at least have been honest.

however, the excuse foisted on the public (that's you & me spunky) for entering Iraq was weapons of mass destruction (remember those?), which Bush et al insisted were there despite no evidence from the inspectors plus no patience to allow the inspectors to do their jobs fully ... as we all know, they aren't there, weren't there, and the voices in the intelligence community which kept saying so were pointedly ignored. the supposed underlying reason in Bush's fevered brain for invading Iraq was the whole Hussain/Al Quaida link, which he clung to despite the absence of any credible intelligence supporting it ... and, of course, the uber underlying reason is oil and our crippling dependance on it.;

[BillL]

No need to ignore 3/4 of my post (most people just ignore 100% of them). Lets look at a few things, shall we?

the excuse foisted on the public (that's you & me spunky) for entering Iraq was weapons of mass destruction (remember those?),

True.

which Bush et al insisted were there despite no evidence from the inspectors plus no patience to allow the inspectors to do their jobs fully

I say this is a gray area. At the time these decisions were being made, they had various intelligence reports stating that there were WMD. Inspectors were on the ground and, in typical UN fashion, buried in red tape. Yes, we showed no patience. Had they the weapons that we suspected, and we had decided to wait it out and something did happen there would have been an uproar (similar to the allegations that Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing) like you've never seen. I would say it's very easy to Monday morning quarterback, but when you're the top dog you have to go with the information available. Was the information accurate? Obviously not.

as we all know, they aren't there,

Anymore

weren't there,

Most likely they were, but I would think this depends on the time frame used.

and the voices in the intelligence community which kept saying so were pointedly ignored.

Many of them had their own issues as to why they were ignored. It seems that there were some agendas on all sides of this issue.

the supposed underlying reason in Bush's fevered brain for invading Iraq was the whole Hussain/Al Quaida link

Which is why I responded with my assumption after signing the post.

which he clung to despite the absence of any credible intelligence supporting it

Easy to say now, but at that time there were lots of differing reports. Many contrary to the UN inspections. Let's face it, if you and your best friend (in this case the UK) had your own intelligence and you trusted it (which in this case was a mistake) why would you trust someone elses?

and, of course, the uber underlying reason is oil and our crippling dependance on it.;

Also true. We are dependant on oil (as is all of the industrialized world). Someday, when an alternate source of energy is affordably available, there will be no longer be a dependance on oil and you'll witness the collapse of a number of industries. The Mid East will end up in third world status without oil being exported in the quantities that they currently export.

Bill L

[featphoto]

billl said:

No need to ignore 3/4 of my post (most people just ignore 100% of them).

aww, c'mon ... anyway, I can ignore you over lunch any time ...

Also true. We are dependant on oil (as is all of the industrialized world). Someday, when an alternate source of energy is affordably available, there will be no longer be a dependance on oil and you'll witness the collapse of a number of industries. The Mid East will end up in third world status without oil being exported in the quantities that they currently export.

Bill L

... and then, praise Allah, we can stop being forced into constant close contact with a cultural/religous system with which we really don't get along on a very basic level ... ya know, I've never bought into the "if you really get to know them you'll understand & like them" philosophy .. I think, like Political Correctness and a few other gems, that's one of the disasterous concepts that the left side of the political aisle has burdened us with ... and being one who definitely leans left-of-center on many things I hate to admit it, but it's true. Hopefully we'll get to the point when we're allowed to say, "hey, I don't like you and you don't like me, so let's just keep our distance", 'cause I think that's the real truth concerning our relationship with the Middle East.

now, the Greeks on the other hand ...

[BillL]

now, the Greeks on the other hand ...

Can't trust any of them. As a matter of fact, next time we have lunch I'll have a present for you.

Bill L

->now, let me think...is it a wooden rabbit or a wooden horse? I always get my movies mixed up.

[Mike]

billl said:

The Mid East will end up in third world status without oil being exported in the quantities that they currently export.

Bill L

Aw...I sure will miss supporting Sheik Habib and his clan.
With any luck they won't even be able to afford bombs. Well, I guess they could sell a Rolls or a Lear every once in a while.

[Mike]

billl said:

I say this is a gray area. At the time these decisions were being made, they had various intelligence reports stating that there were WMD. Inspectors were on the ground and, in typical UN fashion, buried in red tape. Yes, we showed no patience. Had they the weapons that we suspected, and we had decided to wait it out and something did happen there would have been an uproar (similar to the allegations that Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing) like you've never seen. I would say it's very easy to Monday morning quarterback, but when you're the top dog you have to go with the information available. Was the information accurate? Obviously not.

Bill L

why can't i just leave this alone?

Bill L.
The "various intelligence reports" you allude to came from Chalabi and his kiss ass cronies which were obviously fabricated to support Bush's already made plans to occupy Irag. So of course those reports were amplified bullshit!!!

Cheney made 7 trips to Langley and the CIA to have them re-write their reports which flatly stated that there was no evidence of WMDs in Irag, and Irag presented no threat to the USA in any way. The accurate reports simply didn't support the GREATEST SCAM ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN HISTORY!!!

Do you not wonder why when we need it the most, suddenly 35 yrs of experience and actual intelligence are gone from the CIA and you now have 1 1/2 yrs of no experience and a bunch of "yes men" occupying what was once a very helpful organization.
So taken at face value Dubya acted on the word of a criminal Iraqi, Chalabi, and ignored and rewrote intelligence from this countries own CIA. Once again his "own agenda" was put before the security of the USA. Personally I think George W. Bush and Ken Lay should be cell mates for a long time, but alas it's the American public that continues to pay the penalty. I think your average Iraqi wishes he had "just gone after Bin Laden" and leave us alone. Hussein was a turd, but at least we had lights.

I know you like to stir crap, and I find it hard to believe that you can actually be that gullible, so perhaps for some reason BUSH/CHENEY have recruited you in their plans to undermine the security and future of this Great Nation.

Naw...I guess on second thought you could really be that gullible. Good luck with that.

[Scott Hays]

The only credible evidence we might have had about the existence of wmds -- and which no one seems willing to discuss (at any level) -- was on account of the fact that we probably had a pretty good record of the stuff we had previously given to Saddam. Since it was Rumsfield and Cheney that were party to the last largesse on our part, it stands to reason that they were frustrated they just couldn't find it! My guess is that UN inspections had an "unintended" effect ...namely, that Saddam rid himself of the things we thought he had. In any case ... whatever he might have had he didn't have, and it was wishful thinking on the part of the Administration to give credence to the fabricating ex-patriots (Chalabi among them) as their primary (and undisclosed) source of information.

Furthermore, if this administration only fabricated data in this one case, then perhaps credence could be given to the "overzealous" argument. But fabrication, editing and misrepresentation of information to support an identified policy is an established pattern of behavior. To say that "everyone does it" is a bald mis-statement. Spin is one thing. Rewriting findings of expert panels is quite another.

[Scott Hays]

I would add one more thing ... even though I am not (nor was) a big fan of Bill Clinton, I think lying about a blow-job -- to anyone -- is far less reprehensible than fabricating or misinterpretting data that leads to an invasion of another country and the totally unnecessary loss of life (American and other) that such misrepresentation has caused. The number of Presidents who have led immoral lives, while in office, numbers in the dozens. The number who have lied about external events in order to fabricate a reason for war numbers about six.

[Mike]

Hence the bumper sticker..."When Clinton lied, No one Died!".

[Scott Hays]

A short thread about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting popped up on the HoyHoy list/digest the other day (I get it as a digest, so refer to it as HHD). Some screwballs thought the effort by members of Congress to continue its dismantling by reducing funding by 25% was a pretty good idea. Before I could join the fray, the full Congress pretty much decided just how out of touch with reality the fringe right wing really is by voting 248-140 (ish) to almost restore full funding (about $150 million in funding for children's shows and development of programming has been cut, but hopefully a more enlightened Senate will put that back, too). At any rate, I was so incensed by the effort that I thought I would share what Jon Carroll of the San Francisco Chronicle had to say on the subject on June 27:

It is possible to argue that government money has had a malign effect on public television. The right-wing has been making muttering noises about obscenity and political bias forever. In that same period of time, PBS has gotten increasingly timorous, tedious and irrelevant. It has gone from being destination television to "sorry, the train only stops here on Tuesdays" television.

I think there's a causal relationship between the two events, between the pressure and the caving in. Here's the irony: HBO, which is owned by the giant multicultural conglomerate Time Warner, has become the place to go for destination television, for great dramas and adult comedies. Even basic cable has a new destination: FX, which is owned by Fox, which is run by Darth Vader and his minions.

PBS does have "Frontline," but it sort of pretends it isn't there. Hey, we have 800 episodes of "Antiques Roadshow" and "Cooking With Almost Anyone With a Pulse," and then we have the, you know, other stuff. And we sometimes have (shhhhhh) Bill Moyers. We don't like him, but we have him.

All of which brings up a very good question: Should the government be in the arts business at all? If it's going to shake its mighty stick and have executives quail before it, maybe it would be good to take away the stick and fire the quailing executives. The right wing may not like "Deadwood," but it can't touch it.

It's a very persuasive argument, but it's wrong. First, it's a version of blame-the-victim. The problem starts with the people who want to control PBS - - it's part of a larger thought-control experiment -- not with the people who are doing a desperate balancing act. Government funding of the arts works wonderfully in many countries, Canada and England and forgoshsakes the Czech Republic. They understand that art is important in the national life of the mind. Content really isn't the point; freedom is the point.

Artists tend to have trouble with authority, and their freedom to question authority strengthens the national sense of purpose. The right to be weird and nasty is what we are fighting for.

The right-wing seems to believe that all the arty types were lined up for Bill Clinton, but the facts are against that view. Satirists had all sorts of ammunition -- the situation in Rwanda, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the craven waffling on appointments -- and they fired at will. The "liberal elite" is far more of a fiction than the "neocon elite," which really does have coordinated talking points and nationwide fund-raising strategies. Liberals can hardly get a quorum together to plan a pancake breakfast. They got beat again by Karl Rove in 2004. What's the danger again?

But there's another thing, a big thing: children's programming. This is something PBS does extremely well. It provides an alternative to the giant product placement that is commercial television children's programming. In this era of two-income households, television serves as a baby sitter and a teacher. You may not be fond of that idea, but it's true anyway.

There's no real prestige in children's programming, which is why HBO doesn't try it. It's hard work to get it right, which is why "Sesame Street" was such a revelation when it came on the air. If there had been no PBS, there would have been no place to put "Sesame Street," and the culture would have been deprived of the Cookie Monster.

And that's the point: We need the forum. We need the possibility. The best thing about PBS is that it's there. "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" isn't perfect, but as long as it's on the air, it could get better. The amount the government spends on CPB is a pittance; Congress could take it out of petty cash. And someday, someone in Congress might want a place that isn't controlled by the dominant dodos.

CPB is just another front in the culture war, which, as the Bushies use it, is just a giant smokescreen designed to cover the corruption and deception of the current administration. We're robbing you blind and killing your children but, ooh, bogeyman Bill Moyers is going to eat your house! Panic!

[Mike]

shays said:

the full Congress pretty much decided just how out of touch with reality the fringe right wing really is

Perhaps it's a start of some group common sense. They've got a long way to go yet...

Here's hoping (Jack & 7up hoisted in one hand, and in the other...) they are interested in identifying and sitting down the less globally enlightened ones...soon!

[Scott Hays]

Results of a poll released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists reveal that 52% of all scientists working for NOAA fisheries feel that political appointees in the Department of the Interior have reworded, edited and/or modified scientific work they have submitted or have felt pressure from corporate representatives to change (or reword) their findings. I wish I had kept a permanent document of every such report surfacing from the work of this Administration ... the number must easily be in the dozens by now.

To be fair, the report also noted that 13% of responding fishery scientists felt intimidated or pressured by environmental groups or activists.

[Mike]

shays said:

I wish I had kept a permanent document of every such report surfacing from the work of this Administration ... the number must easily be in the dozens by now.

To be fair, the report also noted that 13% of responding fishery scientists felt intimidated or pressured by environmental groups or activists.

Yep...The Truth gets so badly beaten up these days it can be hard to recognize at times.

That's why I say, keep your eye on the money!!!

Dubya is actually one of the most "transparent" crooks to ever come along.

[Mike]

Who thinks Karl Rove (The Architect) will (or should) get away with his act of treason?

Jashley, Bill L....whereyat?

[Scott Hays]

Karl Rove is probably not a traitor, and the Dems are just taking advantage of a rare mistake to practice a little hyperbole. Their role is understandable -- they're sharks in the water surrounding a letting of blood. Rove's probable actions aren't too far from business as usual, either. "Deep background", whether in the form of being "helpful" to compliant and friendly members of the press so they get their story correct or to extract some revenge against a person who dared to speak out against stated policy is something that insiders of both political parties have done for a long time. It is vile, sneaky ... and part of Beltway hardball.

Still ... this particular act, in which an undercover CIA agent was exposed in retaliation for her husband exposing one of the lies of this Administration might have had serious repercussions to our national security. As such, further investigation is warranted. If Karl Rove is found to have commited a treasonous act, then I think it would only be fair to shackle him up, drag him out to the Rose Garden, and allow him to be executed as any good patriot knows a traitor should be.

The real issue here is the brazen lies that this Administration is able to conjure up, get people to believe, and then watch as the public hardly blinks an eye when they are exposed.