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

[TN Rhodey]

I also saw (on TV) Colin Powell give a powerpoint presentaion to the UN 
showing location of WMD. If it makes you feel any better I blame congress 
almost as much as Bush. Fiew had the strength to vote against the 
resolution. Face it. we acted on mis-information and made some bad 
decisions. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to see.

I really like my local Congressman Jim Duncan. He is one of the few who 
voted against the resolution and he is a republican. There was no reason to 
attack Iraq when we did. The borders were locked down about as well as you 
can lock down a border. Heck we can't even control our border. We also 
controlled the airways. We had not yet finished in Afghanastan. We should 
have confirmed all of our information first.

Maybe I should remove logic from my thought process and just follow party 
line.

Wally

>From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] WTF? (response to Hank and Tootle)
>Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:25:53 -0500
>
>The reasons "Bush and his cronies" (I assume, that by 'Bush and his 
>cronies', you are referring to the US Congress, since they are the body 
>that authorized and voted for the resolution) are clearly laid out in the 
>resolution authorizing the action. You HAVE read it, haven't you?
>
>Herb Parsons
>
>S/V O'Jure
>1976 O'Day 25
>Lake Grapevine, N TX
>
>S/V Reve de Papa
>1971 Coronado 35
>Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
>
> >>> saroj at pathfind.net 5/14/2006 12:29:40 pm >>>
>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
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list