[Rhodes22-list] stirring the hornet's nest.... (political)

[Cheryl O'Grady]

Bill, I love your website.  

I can't wait to hear your stories of Italy, a place I love.  I spend a semester of college in Rome, one of the highlights of my life.  When I went back with my family a few years ago, I fell in love with it all over again.

Cheryl
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] stirring the hornet's nest.... (political)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:31:03 -0500

> 
> My, my, my ...
> 
> I just figured out how to get to under 100 pieces of unread mail in a hurry!
> 
> I'm going to do it, and I'm going to stay under 100!
> 
> The long and the short of it, from my point of view, is this:
> 
> I think the record of how we got from where we were to where we are 
> is pretty clear to most people.  I don't think more dissembling 
> will get the dissemblers off the hook.
> 
> As many of you know, I compiled a book about this last year, 
> entitled "Quote Without Comment".  These are the actual words of 
> people who would now like you to forget what was said then.  I did 
> not comment on their words then, and I won't now.
> 
> I have posted between 40 and 50 actual quotes over a 75 year period 
> on my website (www.QuoteWithoutComment.com).  Take a look.  It's 
> free.  No one disputes whether the quotes are accurate, or whether 
> all sides of the issues are fairly represented.  It's all there.
> 
> There are another 700 quotes in the book.  You can download the PDF 
> version for $8-$10 from a number of different sites.  The 
> electronic version is terrific because it is instantaneously 
> searchable--I use it all the time.  It's a great reference on 
> recent history.  There is also a paperback and a Palm version 
> available.  Google: Quote Without Comment to find retailers.
> 
> And that's about all I've got to say about that.
> 
> Bill Effros
> 
> (95 to Go)
> 
> Slim wrote:
> 
> > Thank you, Brad.  I like it a lot more when you write in your own words
> > instead of sending me long and tedious speeches to wade through.
> >
> > With regard to the tyrants, I'll wear the tag "cynical" if the government
> > will wear the tag "dastardly" or "hypocrite."  I don't know if we're doomed
> > to repeat the past, but it seems likely.
> >
> > Whether or not our efforts to democratize the region have done any actual
> > good is totally speculative at best.  Consider the price.  The same for any
> > would-be decline had we not intervened.  We just don't know.  It depends on
> > who's doing the talking.  You pays your money and you takes your chances.
> >
> > On border battles, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. is hardly
> > a fair comparison to Kuwait.  It's not as if Saddam was marching across the
> > continent.  So, you don't like my definition of Fascism and my 
> > obvious implication?  OK,
> > how do you define Fascism and why doesn't it apply to mein furor, Bush with
> > the no-bid contract to Halliburton, our diminished civil rights and all that
> > fear-mongering?
> >
> > And where the hell is Bill Effros when you need him?
> >
> > Slim
> >
> > On 11/16/05 8:01 AM, "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Wally, Rummy, et al,
> >>
> >> What the hell, our Gulfport attorney won't be in her
> >> office for another hour so why not entertain myself
> >> with this?
> >>
> >> Rummy, you accuse me of chest thumping and then go on
> >> to beat your own.  I can hear it all the way to
> >> Tennessee.  Read the rest of your post and get back to
> >> me on that issue.  Re-read my disclaimer on Buchanan.
> >> He is not one of my favorites but that doesn't mean he
> >> isn't dead on from time to time.  I quote the
> >> Clinton's when they are correct on issues, my personal
> >> distaste for Billy which dates back to long before he
> >> was President notwithstanting.  Argue the message, not
> >> the messenger.  I couldn't agree more on the fiscal
> >> responsibility issues and that is why Bush is in such
> >> trouble with some elements of GOP - like me.
> >>
> >> Wally, I thought I made it clear that I was pressed
> >> for time and didn't want to engage in a point for
> >> point debate with Slim, but this shouldn't take long.
> >>
> >> "First the tyranny of Saddam. This is no reason to
> >> invade a sovereign state.The US has ignored or even
> >> supported so many tyrants I can't count 'em.  But just
> >> to name a few, Pinochet, The Shaw of Iran, Kim Jong
> >> Ill, even Saddam himself was armed by the US.  So we
> >> say, "He's abusing his own citizens so we better go in
> >> there and take him down."  Not only is this bad
> >> foreign
> >> policy, but it's bullshit policy because we don't
> >> really care.  We didn't care about the Shaw's death
> >> squads or Pinochet's.  Why now Saddam?  The whole
> >> tyrant argument holds no water at all."
> >>
> >> That's a pretty cynical view Slim.  We supported
> >> Stalin when he was of use to us, and paid a heavy
> >> price.  Past mistakes do not doom us to future
> >> inaction. Are you implying that because we were
> >> previously on the wrong side of history we are damned
> >> to tolerate every despot?
> >>
> >> "The same goes for the argument about spreading
> >> freedom and democracy. What a load of crap!  Don't
> >> tell me that our government actually give a rat's ass
> >> about an Iraqi democracy.  No, I'm not saying
> >> democracy itself is crap, but why would we care about
> >> Iraq when we don't care about the dozens of
> >> other non-democratic countries?  Why Iraq?  Why not
> >> invade Cuba?  Isn't Fidel a tyrant?  Why not North
> >> Korea?  We know Kim Jong Ill is a tyrant.  This is bad
> >> foreign policy."
> >>
> >> It is no secret that we have ignored a lot of tyrants
> >> in the Mid-East because THEY HAVE OIL!  Our "friends"
> >> the Saudi's are perhaps the worst of the lot.  The
> >> leaders of these nations have focussed the attention
> >> of their citizens on hating the US for their miserable
> >> conditions instead of their own leaders.  The
> >> democratic process in Iraq has all ready spilled over
> >> into other countries in the region.  Do you have a
> >> better idea?  A billion Muslims constitute a large
> >> population to ignore.  Are they a threat under their
> >> current leaders?  Uh, yes.  Can we force them to
> >> change?  No, that has to come from within, and it is.
> >> Kim Jong III?  We have China to help handle that.
> >> Fidel?  A lot of Cubans in Miami would love to invade
> >> Cuba.  Bay of Pigs ring a bell?  He was a threat then,
> >> not now unless you consider cornering the market on
> >> 57' Chevys a threat.
> >>
> >> "I agreed with Mike Abdullah when he stated we had no
> >> business in Kuwait in the first place.  We shouldn't
> >> be fighting other countries' border battles. As Mike
> >> said, What was Saddam going to do with his oil?  Drink
> >> it?  He was selling it on the open market and black
> >> market just like every other Arab state.  That was bad
> >> foreign policy."
> >>
> >> Gee Slim, that sounds familiar.  Poland, Austria,
> >> Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc., "peace in our time",
> >> yada, yada, yada.  Remember what Santayana wrote about
> >> repeating history.  What did he do with his oil?  Buy
> >> weapons from the French, Germans and Russians?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "But whatever, then we had Saddam completely contained
> >> with the no-fly-zone and the sanctions.  He was no threat to
> >> us.  Perhaps he was a "threat" to Israel, but why go
> >> to war with someone you've already beaten?  This is
> >> bad foreign policy."
> >>
> >> Actually Slim, Saddam used to shoot at us in the no
> >> fly zone.  I'd be happy to introduce you to some of my
> >> co-workers who can vouch for that.  Perhaps he was a
> >> threat to Israel?  Does paying $25,000 to families
> >> that provide suicide bombers in Israel constitute a
> >> threat?
> >>
> >> "Did we need to go in and hunt for WMD?  Do we need to
> >> go into ANY country hunting for WMD?  Again, why not
> >> North Korea?  This is bad foreign policy."
> >>
> >> Read above about China and North Korea.
> >>
> >> "Did we need to go into Iraq to control the oil?  No.
> >> What have oil prices done since then?  The exact same
> >> thing they would have done had we not gone to war.
> >> They've gone up.  Happy now?"
> >>
> >> You are correct, oil prices are a function of supply
> >> and demand and geological limits.  We did not go to
> >> war directly over oil but if it wasn't for oil, Sadamm
> >> would be just another piss-ant dictator that we could
> >> ignore, like most of Africa.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Did we need to go into Iraq as a response to 9/11?
> >> This is asinine foreign policy.  Everyone knows Saddam
> >> had nothing to do with that."
> >>
> >> It was the official policy of the Clinton
> >> administration to take out Saddam.  Aside from one or
> >> two missles up some donkey's ass around the
> >> impeachment hearings, it was all talk and no action.
> >> 9/11 raised the awareness level of the threat and
> >> provided a convenient selling point.
> >>
> >> "Thousands are now dead or wounded so Halliburton
> >> could make a windfall. Folks, the definition of
> >> Fascism is when government is in bed with
> >> business.THIS IS VERY BAD FOREIGN POLICY!"
> >>
> >> Sorry Slim, that statement is not worthy of a
> >> response.
> >>
> >> "Our government is despised by nearly every soul
> >> outside our borders.  And over half those inside!  Do
> >> polls dictate our policy?  I think not. Although I
> >> noticed the Indonesians' attitude towards us perked up
> >> a bit after all the tsunami relief money that poured
> >> in.  But even our low-key, happy neighbors to the
> >> north hate Bush.  The joke going around Canada is
> >> that all you have to do to get elected is to be
> >> anti-Bush.  I won't go into how mein furor is screwing
> >> Canada on the softwoods issue.  I'll leave that for
> >> another thread.  But we buy lots and lots of oil from
> >> Canada so we ought to be nice to her.  Guess who else
> >> wants Canadian oil?  China.  And lots and lots of it.
> >> Maybe we should invade Canada.  Yeah, that's the
> >> ticket, eh!"
> >>
> >> News flash!  We've been despised outside our borders
> >> long before W came into power.  Do polls dictate our
> >> policy?  NO!  Does being liked by everyone dictate our
> >> policy?  NO.  Tojo and Adolf didn't like us either.
> >>
> >> "It's beyond me how anyone can favor this war for any
> >> reason."
> >>
> >> A lot of people feel as you do Slim, including a huge
> >> part of the moderate element of the GOP.  So what do
> >> you suggest, cut and run?  We tried that.  I believe
> >> John Kerry said a few thousand would be killed when we
> >> pulled out of Vietnam.  He was off by a few million.
> >> To allow Iraq to fall into civil war would doom any
> >> chance of the Middle East ever progressing beyond
> >> dictatorships and tyrants. Why do we care?  Israel for
> >> one, then there's the OIL!
> >>
> >> Any one pissed off yet?  THUMP, THUMP, THUMP!
> >>
> >> Gotta take care of business, see ya!
> >>
> >> Brad
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Brad,
> >>>
> >>> Your post doesn't really answer any of Slim's
> >>> points. As you know I have
> >>> been against this was from day one. It doesn't
> >>> matter what side led us into
> >>> the mess.
> >>>
> >>> Wally
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> >>>> Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] stirring the hornet's
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> nest.... (political)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:15:59 -0800 (PST)
> >>>>
> >>>> Slim,
> >>>>
> >>>> Forgive me, I lied.  It is only 5am and I do have
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> time
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> for one more post.  This is something I ran across
> >>>> reading the morning papers.  Buchanan is not a
> >>>> favorite of mine but sometimes he "gets it".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Enjoy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Brad
> >>>>
> >>>> --------------
> >>>> November 16, 2005
> >>>> The Politics of War and the Patriot Card
> >>>> By Pat Buchanan
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the indictment of Scooter Libby, President
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Bush
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and Vice President Cheney have been under
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> relentless
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> assault.
> >>>>
> >>>> The gravamen of the charge is that Bush, Cheney and
> >>>> the War Party cherry-picked and hyped the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> intelligence
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> on Iraqi WMDs and Saddam's ties to al-Qaida and
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> 9-11,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and spoke of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities based
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> on
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> flimsy evidence and forged documents that Saddam
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> had
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.
> >>>>
> >>>> Echoed by anti-Bush media that can smell blood in
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> water, the Democratic Party is charging that Bush
> >>>> misled, deceived or lied us into war. With polls
> >>>> showing 57 percent of the nation no longer believes
> >>>> Bush to be honest and truthful, the unanswered
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> charges
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> have had a devastating impact.
> >>>>
> >>>> But Bush has a last card to play, and on Veterans
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Day,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> he played it, the ace of trumps in any president's
> >>>> hand: the patriot card.
> >>>>
> >>>> Speaking in Pennsylvania to the troops, Bush said
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> pro-war Democrats like John Kerry saw the same
> >>>> intelligence he did and voted to take Saddam down,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> that Democrats now accusing him of faking
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> intelligence
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> are undercutting our fighting troops in Iraq.
> >>>>
> >>>> Translation: Democrats are giving aid and comfort
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> the enemy in time of war. We are one step away form
> >>>> the T-word.
> >>>>
> >>>> With his poll ratings at rock bottom and little to
> >>>> lose, Bush has just escalated the war politics.
> >>>> Democrats who have had it all their way since Cindy
> >>>> Sheehan set up Camp Casey would do well to wonder
> >>>> whether they have not ridden out a little too far
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> into
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Indian country and are heading for the Little Big
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Horn
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> where their daddies disappeared long ago.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the late 1940s, the Party of Truman and FDR was
> >>>> shredded by Nixon, Bill Jenner and Joe McCarthy for
> >>>> having sold out Eastern Europe at Yalta, lost
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> China,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and coddled communists and Stalinist spies like
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Alger
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hiss and Harry Dexter White. And there was a reason
> >>>> the attacks stuck. They had the ancillary benefit
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> being true.
> >>>>
> >>>> The media may have rewritten history to make the
> >>>> Edward R. Murrow Left look like the heroes of the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> era,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> but the Democratic Party never recovered from the
> >>>> charge its leaders had groveled to Stalin. JFK knew
> >>>> it, and ran and won the presidency as an
> >>>> anti-communist hawk.
> >>>>
> >>>> A generation later, Nixon and Agnew charged the
> >>>> Democratic Party with having marched us into
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Vietnam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and then, when the going got tough, of having
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> turned
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> tail, cut and run, and gone over the hill to march
> >>>> with the children against the war into which they
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> had
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> themselves led the United States. Those charges
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> stuck
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> for the same reason: They were true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Between 1961 and 1969, when America was plunged
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> into
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Vietnam, Washington was Democratic, from the White
> >>>> House to the Capitol to the pro-war Washington
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Post.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> When Nixon arrived in 1969, Democrats started
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> calling
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> it "Nixon's War," but the country knew it was a
> >>>> Democratic war. And when the liberals turned on
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Nixon,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> America turned on them and gave him a 49-state
> >>>> landslide. Vietnam was the wheel on which
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> liberalism
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> was broken and the FDR New Deal coalition shattered
> >>>> forever.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, Democrats have maneuvered themselves onto the
> >>>> same risky terrain once again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice took us to war, but
> >>>> Democrats were the happiest of camp followers. And
> >>>> everybody knows it. Daschle, Kerry, Edwards, Biden,
> >>>> Clinton and Schumer all declared Saddam a threat to
> >>>> the Middle East and the United States. All voted in
> >>>> October 2002 to give Bush his blank check to take
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> us
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> to war. Now that the war is dragging on toward its
> >>>> fourth year, now that footage of young men trying
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> walk with artificial limbs is on nightly TV, now
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> the morning papers report three or four more
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> American
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> dead every day, they are trying to say they were
> >>>> misled, they were deceived, they were lied to. It's
> >>>> not our fault!
> >>>>
> >>>> But the truth is they failed America. They handed
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Bush the war power the Constitution had given to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Having enlisted enthusiastically in a "cakewalk"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> war,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> national Democrats and Big Media are deserting and
> >>>> applying for conscientious objector status in what
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> now
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> appears an endless war.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, it is too late for that.
> >>>>
> >>>> What Bush was saying in Pennsylvania is this: You
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> may
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> accuse me of falsifying intelligence, but you are
> >>>> falsifying history. And you will not get away with
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I am going to fight it out on this line, even if it
> >>>> costs me my presidency. But if I am going down, you
> >>>> are going down with me.
> >>>>
> >>>> If Iraq is lost to chaos and civil war, and this is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> historic defeat and strategic disaster for the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> United
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> States, Bush is saying, I will charge you with
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> cutting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and running, abandoning our troops under fire and
> >>>> losing the Iraq war. No wonder Bill and Hillary
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> seem
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> wary of throwing in with the Cindy Sheehan crowd.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- Slim <salm at mn.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Never mind the spin or the rhetoric, forget
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> about
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> so-called intelligence,
> >>>>> never mind your own left or right stripes.  What
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> === message truncated ===
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________
> >> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >>
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list





"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke, Irish philosopher