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

[brad haslett]

Wally,

Here is some "light" reading for you (230 pages). 
I've read some excerpts and analysis but haven't
digested the whole document.  Hope to get that done
this week if I can get away from the 'Tower of Babel'.

Brad

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/iraq/ipp.pdf

--- TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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).. 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com