[Rhodes22-list] WTF? (response to Hank and Tootle)

[TN Rhodey]

Saroj,

Well said. I don't know what it will take for people to get pissed off. I am 
hoping there is no way Jeb can follow the family footsteps. Then again if 
the democrats run the same type of campaign they will lose again. This 2 
party system really is not providing us the best candidates. I keeping 
thinking W has to be smarter than he appears and he keeps letting me down.

Wally

>From: "Saroj Gilbert" <saroj at pathfind.net>
>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] WTF? (response to Hank and Tootle)
>Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:29:40 -0400
>
>To Hank:
>
>Exactly what do you believe WAS the reason Bush and his cronies decided to 
>go to war in Iraq?
>
>The stated reason was that Iraq harbored Al Qaeda terrorists and Sadaam was 
>a recalcitrant tyrant and had WMD which he planned to use against us.  That 
>he was a tyrant there is no doubt.  Is it the job of the U.S.A. to 
>eliminate all tyrants from this world? There are plenty to choose from...
>
>Aside from the fact that there are anti-Western radical Muslims throughout 
>the world and that there were no doubt a few in Iraq, there has never been 
>evidence that Iraq had significant supportive ties to al Qaeda.  The 
>preponderance of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi 
>Arabia and yet this administration yielded to Prince Bandar on 9/13/2001 
>and facilitated the prompt removal of 100 or so, many of them relatives of 
>bin Laden who, had they stayed and been extensively interviewed, could 
>possibly have helped in capturing him.  Not only were they allowed to fly 
>within the U.S. during the total shut-down of air traffic following 9/11, 
>they had government-provided escorts.
>
>Afghanistan and Pakistan were far more likely countries than Iraq.  We got 
>half-way in Afghanistan before diverting our attention to Iraq.  On the 
>question of the WMD's, the CIA had already disputed that and provided this 
>information to this administration prior to either the presentations to the 
>U.N. or the declaration of war against Iraq.  In addition, there is very 
>good evidence that we actually began attacking Iraq militarily prior to 
>approval by congress.
>
>As far as this war having a lower casualty rate than previous wars, I am 
>not in the least interested in the rate.  It was an ill-conceived war and 
>one is too many.
>
>On the issue of prescience, there were volumes of intelligence that Muslim 
>terrorists were planning to use aircraft as weapons against the U.S. both 
>from foreign sources and within the FBI, FAA, and elsewhere.  NORAD was 
>planning preparation exercises to develop the capability to respond to this 
>event that were denied authorization by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
>Prescience means "knowledge of actions and events before they occur"... 
>there was plenty of it before 9/11.  I realize you were referring to Bush's 
>argument for going to war, but this seems actually more significant.
>
>On Bush's pronunciation of "nuclear", this is simply a "stand-in" for my 
>perception (am I alone in this?) that Bush is neither particularly 
>intellectually gifted nor intelligent.  He has succeeded in dumbing-down 
>our government to appeal to the masses, which unfortunately has wide-appeal 
>in this country.
>
>On the Mexico incident, I will ask my source (who has direct knowledge of 
>the situation as he lives in that town) if he would be willing to have you 
>contact him on this....
>
>==========================================================
>
>To Ed:
>
>Just how you came up with that "label" for me I have no idea... If I have 
>to have a label at all (which I am profoundly against on principle) I 
>consider myself an independent libertarian.
>
>While I do believe that we should take care of people who "really" can't 
>take care of themselves (infirm, aged - although my 83-year-old mother 
>still works and she is nearly blind) or who need a helping hand for a short 
>time because they've been knocked down through no fault of their own, I 
>don't believe in giving handouts ad infinitus for no reason other than 
>laziness and the unwillingness to accept responsibility for themselves or 
>their actions.
>
>I'm also a "conservative" in the pure sense of the word, not as it as 
>morphed into a label for the wealthy "let them eat cake" factions in this 
>country.  I believe we should conserve our resources and not squandor them 
>with no regard for those who will succeed us on this earth to say nothing 
>of the immediate impact... national debt is one such area that concerns me 
>greatly; energy (whether oil, coal, or natural gas) is another area that is 
>sorely disregarded by this administration... (Bush180 has totally reversed 
>the position he stated when he came into office..."We need an energy policy 
>that encourages consumption" - President Bush, 9/23/2002, speech given in 
>Trenton, New Jersey; I personally remember watching him give a speech early 
>on in his administration when he stated - paraphrased - [Americans like to 
>drive big cars... and shrugged with a "what me worry" A.E. Newmann grin).. 
>I think the earth is a fragile balance of natural phenomenon that should 
>not be consumed without regard for its future.  Do I know that for a fact? 
>No, I don't... I don't believe anyone does but God, but within my lifetime 
>I have seen the result of toxic waste (and the turn-around in many 
>instances where there has been a reversal in policy.. Lake Erie comes to 
>mind).
>
>I am clearly a capitalist... I trade stocks for a living.  I profit from 
>investments I have made in businesses.  I was a business-owner until a few 
>months ago.  My career was consulting to organizations in computing and 
>business process.
>
>Perhaps you can't wrap your head around the idea that someone can think for 
>him/herself rather than follow a platform put out by whomever they accept 
>as their "leader".
>
>By the way, who appointed you as the authority who can say what someone of 
>any point of view can think or not? ("You cannot just be liberal on an 'a 
>la cart' basis.").  In case you're interested, its "a la carte").
>
>Saroj
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tootle" <ekroposki at charter.net>
>To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 8:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] WTF?
>
>
>>
>>Saroj,
>>      You said, " heard last week that a foreigner who owned a restaurant 
>>in
>>Mexico was recently
>>deported within 5 days for wiping the tables in his own restaurant... 
>>seems
>>that he didn't have a work permit to wipe tables... only a permit to own 
>>the
>>restaurant... no lawyer... no hearing... hauled off to jail then released
>>for 3 days to pack his bags and get out of the country... just like 
>>that...
>>
>>But you are the bleeding heart liberal on this list.  You cannot just be
>>liberal on an 'a la cart' basis.  I guess Georgie has no support if the
>>conservatives are against him on immigration and the liberals are against
>>him.  Oh, what about EC?(you know enlightened capitalist?)
>>
>>Ed K
>>
>>--
>>View this message in context: 
>>http://www.nabble.com/WTF--t1605196.html#a4376587
>>Sent from the Rhodes22 forum at Nabble.com.
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list