Re: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite

[John D. Giorgis]

At 09:48 PM 1/12/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So why didn't Bush immediately demand that the leak about Plame,
attributed to a white house source, be investigated? Doesn't sound like
upholding laws to me.  
>

He did.   John Ashcroft recently recused himself from that very same probe.


>> >Yeh, kind of like lying about affairs.
>> 
>> So?   Clinton had a much higher responsibility, like to "faithfully uphold
>> and defend" the laws of the United States.
>
>And lying about an affair in what way significantly way precludes him from
faithfully upholding and defending the laws of the US? We seem back in
absolute morality territory here John. 
>>

Come on Bob.IT IS CALLED PERJURY!I am shouting because that was
posted at least twice on the List in the past day, and I know full well
that you know what crime is at stake here.And yet, you somehow can't
connect the two?

But I forgot, lying is only criminal when Republicans do it. 

But at any rate, why *was* Clinton compelled to testify truthfully in the
Paula Jones case?   It was because Clinton himself pushed a law through
Congress called the "Violence Against Women Act" that made a man's entire
sexual curriculum vitae fair game in any claim of sexual harrassment.So
let us be clear here, Clinton did not just undermine the foundations of
America's judicial system by committing perjury - he did so because he felt
that the provisions of his own law should not apply to him.

If any Republican ever committed so craven an act, all the liberals on this
List would be all over him and the coming "police state in America."

And yet, Democrats couldn't stomach impeaching their criminal President,
even though the Constitution expressly provides for such a situation by
virtue of allowing the President to name a hand-picked successor as
Vice-President.   

Of course, the last laugh is on all you liberals who despair so much about
this Bush Presidency because I think that it is almost absolutely
certain that an incumbent Al Gore running for re-election with a
rip-roaring economy wins either New Hampshire or Florida to continue a
potential 10-year Presidency. 

Ah what could have been, eh?  

JDG

___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[Doug Pensinger]

John wrote:

Well, first of all, I disagree with your characterization of "95%."
As well you should.  The speech was 10,416 words, 197 of which concerned 
internal human rights violations. That's less than 2%, so I was way off.  
The rest delt almost exclusively with Hussain being a threat to the rest 
of the world.


But, even conceding that for a moment. what, does the other 5% 
suddenly not count any more?
Obviously not very much.

Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we
believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F.
but we recognize that reason "D" is a bit complex/disputed, and that "D" 
is the reason that skeptics would be most receptive to, and so we are 
going to spend most of our time arguing for "D" as that is the reason 
that will get
us the most votes?
What's wrong with it is that the U.S. is a democratic republic meaning the 
government requires the consent of the government especially as it 
concerns sending our youth in to harms way and spending massive amounts of 
our money.  The reason the people of this country consented to go to war 
against Iraq was because they were led to believe that that country posed 
an imminent threat to our security.  What the Bush administration has done 
is a political bait and switch.  With our money.  With our kids.

It makes no matter how many reasons, secret or otherwise there were.  And 
it doesn't matter how many U.N. resolutions were violated _if our security 
was not threatened_ which it is quite obvious, it was not.  If our 
security is not threatened then U.N. violations should be dealt with by 
the U.N.

I would agree that the President in his role as commander in chief should 
have the power to use deadly force w/o explicit consent in order to 
circumvent impending disaster, but he damn well be able to justify his 
actions.  In this case none of your reasons, secret or otherwise meet 
these criteria AFAIC.

And lets look at those secret reasons:  Your argument that U.S troops in 
Saudi Arabia fostered the recruitment of terrorists by  Al Qaeda, but the 
invasion of a sovergn Moslem nation is a hundred times the incentive that 
troops in SA were and beyond that the number of Americans in Iraq not only 
provide incentive, they provide greater opportunity for terrorism.  As far 
as protecting SA from Iraq, it's pretty clear that the Iraq of 2003 was a 
shadow of the Iraq that invaded Kuwait, and we managed to defend SA back 
then.  So we could have solved that particular problem by removing troops 
from Saudi Arabia and perhaps posting them in Kuwait.

So really it comes down to one valid reason for invading Iraq; that 
Hussein was a despotic ruler responsible for the deaths of millions of his 
compatriots.  But did we exhaust every possibility short of war prior to 
the invasion to prevent these injustices?  When we sent troops to the 
Middle East to pressure Hussein into permitting inspections did we also 
demand also that he recognize basic human rights for his own people?  Were 
there any resolutions, U.N. or otherwise that demanded he do so?  Just 
what measures did the Bush administration take towards this end.  Nothing 
that I know of.  Nothing short of all out invasion.

Furthermore, if our justification for invasion was to end human suffering 
aren't there places in the world would have been more effective than in 
Iraq?  How far would 160 billion dollars have gone in the fight against 
the AIDS epidemic in Africa?  How many tin pot despots in the subcontinent 
are there that are just as bad or worse than Hussein?  Why aren't we 
focusing our attention on them?

The answer is that that is _not_ why Bushco invaded Iraq.  They don't even 
care about the poor people here, why in hell would they give a rat's 
sphincter about the people of Iraq?


 It is the nature of the republic and the nature of
the United Nations that you don't spend a lot of time making a case based
on reasons that *you* believe, but aren't like to convince many of the
swing-congresspersons and swing-ambassadors who will be doing the voting.
So it's necessary to lie and deceive.  Got it.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Poision Bush

[Doug Pensinger]

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/14.php

Perhaps taking its cue from the Cheney Energy Task Force, the EPA has been 
holding secret meetings with the agribusiness industry this year, putting 
together a "sweetheart deal" with lobbyists to exempt factory farms from 
Clean Air Act and Superfund regulations.

The EPA has proposed offering "an industry-wide pardon" for air pollution 
violations to massive hog, cattle and chicken farms, says Sierra Club 
attorney Barclay Rogers.

"This deal is being negotiated behind closed doors, and the Sierra Club 
and other environmental groups are trying to pry those doors open through 
a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act," Rogers told 
BushGreenwatch.

The lawsuit demands the Bush Administration divulge information about the 
secret meetings between EPA and industry.[1] Even though documents had 
been leaked to environmental groups, EPA denied the existence of a deal 
until after the lawsuit was filed in September. The plaintiffs have asked 
the court to order EPA to immediately turn over its records.

A copy of the deal obtained by environmentalists indicates that EPA would 
agree not to pursue factory farms for polluting if they paid a $500 
penalty and agreed to take part in a study to monitor emissions.[2]

Localities, some of which have been unable to meet air quality standards 
because of farm emissions, have complained.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[John D. Giorgis]

At 10:32 PM 1/12/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 1/12/2004 7:31:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we
>> believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F.
>> but we recognize that reason "D" is a bit complex/disputed, and that "D" is
>> the reason that skeptics would be most receptive to, and so we are going to
>> spend most of our timearguing for "D" as that is the reason that will get
>> us the most votes? It is the nature of the republic and the nature of
>> the United Nations that you don't spend a lot of time making a case based
>> on reasons that *you* believe, but aren't like to convince many of the
>> swing-congresspersons and swing-ambassadors who will be 
>> doing the voting.
>
>Well one reason is that it is dishonest not to state your real intentions.

But when you true intentions include taking away arguments Al Qaeda uses in
recruitment videos - isn't emphasizing other reason - reasons you
nevertheless also wholeheartedly believe, BTW  - your *moral*duty* as
President of the United States?
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Farscape mini series...

[Russell Chapman]

Ticia wrote:

It's still not been officially announced, but signs are good:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/cult/2003/11/19/8094.shtml
I don't know about that - The Nine Network here (who made the first 4 
seasons and is contracted to make the mini-series) has announced that 
they are in pre-production, with set construction well under way.
(They also started screening it again the same week, starting as Season 
3, but still at odd late night time slots, just as they did initially)

Cheers
Russell C.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> At 10:32 PM 1/12/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In a message dated 1/12/2004 7:31:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we
> >> believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and
F.
> >> but we recognize that reason "D" is a bit complex/disputed, and that
"D" is
> >> the reason that skeptics would be most receptive to, and so we are
going to
> >> spend most of our timearguing for "D" as that is the reason that
will get
> >> us the most votes? It is the nature of the republic and the
nature of
> >> the United Nations that you don't spend a lot of time making a case
based
> >> on reasons that *you* believe, but aren't like to convince many of
the
> >> swing-congresspersons and swing-ambassadors who will be 
> >> doing the voting.
> >
> >Well one reason is that it is dishonest not to state your real
intentions.
> 
> But when you true intentions include taking away arguments Al Qaeda
uses in
> recruitment videos - isn't emphasizing other reason - reasons you
> nevertheless also wholeheartedly believe, BTW  - your *moral*duty* as
> President of the United States?

A 'moral duty' to Lie to the american people to foment wars of agression?
 One has to wonder which god this president serves.  It appears he
prefers Lucifer.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Danger of US military overextension

[G. D. Akin]

Not sure who or where this guy is, but the "Army" War College is NOT as
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.  The "Air" War College is.

George A
- Original Message - 
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:36 AM
Subject: Danger of US military overextension


> According to
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877763863.html
>
>
> A scathing report published by the Army War College criticises the
> US's handling of the "war on terrorism", accusing it of taking a
> detour into an unnecessary war in Iraq and pursuing an unrealistic
> quest against terrorism that may lead to US wars with nations
> posing no serious threat.
>
> The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at
> Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those
> mistakes, the US Army is "near breaking point".
>
> 
>
> Professor Record's chief criticism is that the Administration is
> biting off more than it can chew.
>
> He likened the US's ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's
> overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep
> your enemies to a manageable number," he said. "The Germans were
> defeated in two world wars because their strategic ends outran
> their available means."
>
> The essay concluded with several recommendations, including one
> that the US scale back its ambitions in Iraq and be prepared to
> settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine
> democracy.
>
> This is a serious issue.  I know both that the US Army does not want
> the draft reinstalled, because the draft brings in people who are not
> so good soldiers as they currently get, and that the Army is being
> stressed by the size of the current deployments.
>
> It looks to me that some kind of mobilization is necessary, whether a
> sharp increase in army pay to attract more people (requiring much more
> government spending) or a draft, perhaps with the draftees put into a
> somewhat different catgory (like `peace keeper') so as not to clash
> with current Army people.
>
> -- 
> Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
> http://www.rattlesnake.com  GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
> http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
>


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Movie News

[G. D. Akin]

The current SciFi weekly has news of 3 upcoming films.

- Thunder Story Revealed: there is a spoiler synopsis of the movie "A Sound
of Thunder" based on Ray Bradbury's short story

- Rama Eyes Web Debut: Morgan Freeman says "Rendezvous with Rama" may appear
on the web and in theaters at the same time.

- Earthsea Gets Green Light: Sci Fi Channel has given the go ahead to make a
mini-series of Ursula K. Le Guin's stories.  Production to begin this spring
in New Zealand (more fantastic scenery)

Just thought you'd like to know.

George A


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

New Family Members!

[Horn, John]

We have 2 new additions to our family!  Last night we went out an
adopted two new cats.  One is year and a half old Maine Coon.  He's
grey and white and very pretty.  (The Maine Coon is my favorite
breed of cats.)  His previous family had given him the unimaginative
name of "Tom".  The other is a 7 month old Abyssinian kitten who, as
of yet, remains nameless.

We're hoping the two new guys will get along OK with our 15 year old
cat.  Tom seems pretty placid and should be OK.  The Abby is a bit
more high strung and aggressive and might be a problem.  We'll
see...

Just thought you'd like to know!  Pics will be posted on our
web-site soon!

 - jmh


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Snarling at the state of medicine

[Horn, John]

> From: Deborah Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> who strongly advises anyone with medical problems to
> educate themselves, and not to hesitate to be a
> seriously squeaky wheel   >:(

With all the various medical problems in my family, the internet is
definitely our medical resource friend!  We've learned a lot more
about fibromyalgia, granulomas, cleft lip and palates, IBS, GERD,
LPRD, Laproscopic Nissen Fundoplications, etc, etc, than any doctor
ever explained to us!

Although I still do feel a little weird saying to my doctor "I read
on the Internet that..."  But I still do it!

 - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[John D. Giorgis]

At 04:03 AM 1/13/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:

>> >Well one reason is that it is dishonest not to state your real
>intentions.
>> 
>> But when you true intentions include taking away arguments Al Qaeda
>uses in
>> recruitment videos - isn't emphasizing other reason - reasons you
>> nevertheless also wholeheartedly believe, BTW  - your *moral*duty* as
>> President of the United States?
>
>A 'moral duty' to Lie to the american people to foment wars of agression?
> One has to wonder which God this president serves.  

I think that the The Fool wins the "Daily Orwellian" for calling a "reason
you wholeheartedly believe" a "lie."

"Propaganda is Truth." - The Fool 2004.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physics Quiz

[Matt Grimaldi]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
> 
> http://intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html
> 
> 77.5 %
> Embarrassing
> 
> xponent
> But At Least I Passed Without Study  Maru
> rob
> 

85%

-- Matt
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Movie News

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "G. D. Akin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Movie News
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:31:50 +0900
- Rama Eyes Web Debut: Morgan Freeman says "Rendezvous with Rama" may 
appear
on the web and in theaters at the same time.

George A

Wow, interesting. Do you have any more information on that? Also, has anyone 
else heard of Enders Game being made into a film?

-Travis "probably old news" Edmunds

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Stephan King

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stephan King
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:20:07 -0600
- Original Message -
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Stephan King
> >BTW, I thought Blackwood Farm was excellent.
> >
>
> I enjoyed it, but was dourly disappointed. If you don't mind, could
you
> elaborate a little as to your feelings towards the book?
Well I thought it was her most novel idea since Memnoch.

The whole concept of Goblin and his origin, while telegraphed
throughout the novel, is quite novel, as is her method of making you
forget what you have already figured out.
True. One suspected throughout the book that Goblin was a pure spirit, 
similar if not identical in nature to the creator of the Vampires, Amel.

Of course, I live fairly close to the locales of the book and enjoyed
reading about places I've passed many times.
What can I say? That's pretty cool.

It was a fun book and a good setup for Blood Canticle which I look
forward to reading.
Certainly.


The only bad thing I have to say about it is in regards to the
indecision of Quinn being gay or not. The whole question of his sexual
identity was handled clumbsily and was the only time I can recall Rice
fumbleing similar subject matter.
This is where I must disagree. First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He 
says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more subtle ways 
herself. As for his sexual identity being handled clumbsily, it was not. It 
was simply done in typical Rice style; a style which NEVER fumbles in regard 
to this subject matter. It may be quite easy though, to fumble her words and 
ideas (as you did in this book) yourself. But you see one must understand, 
that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires for 
example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is complete, 
they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain a strong 
male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not 
overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps more 
accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and immortal 
alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with. It's just 
her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity, if 
anything, is actually quite clearcut. More so than may of her characters.



>
> -Travis "Will you marry me Anne?" Edmunds
xponent
You Like Whips And Chains Big Boy? Maru
rob
I think that'd be the game, for sure.

-Travis "Will you divorce me Anne?" Edmunds

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Movie News

[Damon Agretto]

Personally I'm pretty stoked that they're doing a
movie adaption of the Earthsea stories. I loved those
books (someof my favorites from le Guin).

Damon.

=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New Family Members!

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 1/13/2004 8:16:56 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> The other is a 7 month old Abyssinian kitten who, as
>  of yet, remains nameless.
>  
 The Abby is a bit
>  more high strung and aggressive and might be a problem. 

Tahk.  Name it Tahk.

When you search for it, you'll be saying, "Here, Tahk kitty kitty. What 
spider-hole are you in this time?"

William Taylor
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> At 04:03 AM 1/13/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
> 
> >> >Well one reason is that it is dishonest not to state your real
> >intentions.
> >> 
> >> But when you true intentions include taking away arguments Al Qaeda
> >uses in
> >> recruitment videos - isn't emphasizing other reason - reasons you
> >> nevertheless also wholeheartedly believe, BTW  - your *moral*duty*
as
> >> President of the United States?
> >
> >A 'moral duty' to Lie to the american people to foment wars of
agression?
> > One has to wonder which God this president serves.  
> 
> I think that the The Fool wins the "Daily Orwellian" for calling a
"reason
> you wholeheartedly believe" a "lie."

Whence did I mention 'belief'?  You are trying to justify lying to the
American people and you are spinning truth like a top to do it. 
Republicans will say anything to justify any action.  You are very much a
master of newspeak and doublethink.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[Doug Pensinger]

A correction:

I wrote:

What's wrong with it is that the U.S. is a democratic republic, meaning 
the government requires the consent of the government especially as it
   ^^
should be governed
concerns sending our youth in to harms way and spending massive amounts 
of our money.


--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Movie News

[Miller, Jeffrey]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Damon Agretto
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 09:30 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Movie News
> 
> 
> Personally I'm pretty stoked that they're doing a
> movie adaption of the Earthsea stories. I loved those
> books (someof my favorites from le Guin).

I see you've conveniently wiped your memory of such high points of SciFi originals.  
Allow me to remind you of Scare Tactics and Riverworld..

-j-
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[TomFODW]

My real problem with any attempt to defend the fact that Bush came into 
office determined to get rid of Saddam by saying the reason was to bring about 
regime change, save the people from Iraq, and be nicey was, during the 2000 
campaign, Bush repeatedly derided the very idea of "nation-building" and 
intervention anywhere except for cold calculated national interest. Now, all of a 
sudden, 
he's in office and he's suddenly interested in nation building? Come on.

He wanted to get rid of Saddam because he wanted to do something his father 
couldn't, and he wanted to project US power. But he needed a pretext because he 
knew he never could get American support for a naked, causeless invasion. 
Saddam Hussein is a monster, and I'm glad he's gone, but there are monsters in 
China and Syria and North Korea and Cuba and Libya - why don't we go after them? 
North Korea is far more dangerous to us than Iraq, and Cuba is 90 miles off 
our coast and a chip-shot if we really really wanted to take Castro out.

You cannot convince me that George W. Bush had any reason to go into Iraq 
other than that he simply wanted to. He came into office determined to get 
Saddam, and he was willing to say anything it would take to bring that about. He had 
to wait until he could find a pretext he could present as plausible, and he 
had to sex up the intelligence even to get WMD to work. But this was not a 
humanitarian invasion to save the people of Iraq - otherwise, why did he have to 
wait two years? Why did he completely dismiss the very value of nation building 
in 2000?



Tom Beck

www.mercerjewishsingles.org

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the 
last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Danger of US military overextension

[Kevin Tarr]

At 06:30 AM 1/13/2004, you wrote:
Not sure who or where this guy is, but the "Army" War College is NOT as
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.  The "Air" War College is.
George A
I was going to point that out myself, but was distracted by something else. 
Someone was cutting down the air force saying it should be re absorbed back 
into the army and navy.

I'm about 30 miles from the AWC, a few of our bike rides go around it.

Kevin T. - VRWC
So many movies to choose from tonight
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Movie News

[Damon Agretto]

> I see you've conveniently wiped your memory of such
> high points of SciFi originals.  Allow me to remind
> you of Scare Tactics and Riverworld..

And I see you wiped your memory of  other SciFi
originals like Dune and Battlestar Galactica (both of
which I GREATLY enjoyed, moreso than their original
film versions!)

I hold out high hopes that this will be at least
decent.

Damon.


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

EPA Works Out Secret Deal with Factory Farms

[The Fool]

<>

EPA Works Out Secret Deal with Factory Farms 

Perhaps taking its cue from the Cheney Energy Task Force, the EPA has
been holding secret meetings with the agribusiness industry this year,
putting together a "sweetheart deal" with lobbyists to exempt factory
farms from Clean Air Act and Superfund regulations. 

The EPA has proposed offering "an industry-wide pardon" for air pollution
violations to massive hog, cattle and chicken farms, says Sierra Club
attorney Barclay Rogers. 

"This deal is being negotiated behind closed doors, and the Sierra Club
and other environmental groups are trying to pry those doors open through
a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act," Rogers told
BushGreenwatch.

The lawsuit demands the Bush Administration divulge information about the
secret meetings between EPA and industry.[1] Even though documents had
been leaked to environmental groups, EPA denied the existence of a deal
until after the lawsuit was filed in September. The plaintiffs have asked
the court to order EPA to immediately turn over its records. 

A copy of the deal obtained by environmentalists indicates that EPA would
agree not to pursue factory farms for polluting if they paid a $500
penalty and agreed to take part in a study to monitor emissions.[2]

Localities, some of which have been unable to meet air quality standards
because of farm emissions, have complained. 

"The result would be an evisceration of states' and localities' ability
to address air quality problems emanating from agricultural operations,"
two organizations representing state and local air quality officials said
in a letter to EPA. 

A small number of corporate farming giants dominate the U.S. meat
industry -- in 2001, for instance, 75 percent of all hogs were packed
into just 9 percent of U.S. hog farms, resulting in roughly 5,000 hogs
per operation.[3] With so many animals -- and manure -- concentrated onto
so few farms, they are a major source of air emissions of hazardous gases
and particulate matter proven to cause lung ailments and even premature
death. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official

[William T Goodall]

On 13 Jan 2004, at 10:03 am, The Fool wrote:
A 'moral duty' to Lie to the american people to foment wars of 
agression?
 One has to wonder which god this president serves.  It appears he
prefers Lucifer.
I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they 
all worship Lucifer. That and the blood-drinking and the human 
sacrifice...

Religion is EVIL. Just say no :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so 
few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping 
looks so silly." - Randy Cohen.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

US military 'brutalised' journalists

[The Fool]

The international news agency Reuters has made a formal complaint to the
Pentagon following the "wrongful" arrest and apparent "brutalisation" of
three of its staff this month by US troops in Iraq. 

<>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Stephan King

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Stephan King


>
> >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: Stephan King
> >Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:20:07 -0600
> >
> >The only bad thing I have to say about it is in regards to the
> >indecision of Quinn being gay or not. The whole question of his
sexual
> >identity was handled clumbsily and was the only time I can recall
Rice
> >fumbleing similar subject matter.
>
> This is where I must disagree.

Here is where I say very loudly:

"I been readin Anne Rice long before you were born boy"


Actually i think you mistake the nature of my complaint.



>First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He
> says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more
subtle ways
> herself.

Knowing as we do that Rice does not work from outlines when writing,
and at the onset does not know in any more than the vaguest of ways
how the book will progress or end, the matter of Quinns sexuality
underwent drastic shifts that were quite pointless, illuminated
nothing, and did not progress the story.

First Quinn is shown to be a stereotypical pantywaist of the type
usually accused of being queer (whether it is true or not). At this
point the reader is led to believe that Quinn is as gay as most of
Rice's Vampires. Up to this point Quinn shows exactly zero interest in
women.

Then Quinn has a homosexual experience with Goblin, who is male and a
ghost. This seems to confirm the readers initial expectations as does
a scene where Quinn loudly proclaims himself to be gay.

Then Quinn professes great admiration for a male teacher who thinks
Quinn is "into" him, but says he really is not interested in that kind
of relationship with this particular person.

Then in somewhat quick succession, Quinn Has sex with and fathers a
child by a black servant he has known his whole life, has rapturous
sex with a devious female ghost who was a prostitute in life, and then
falls instantly in love with mad abandon for a witch who also happens
to be heir to a massive fortune.

There is a point in the book where Quinns sexuality shifts from
exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. And the only time
Quinn is described as bisexual is during the heterosexual part of the
story.

I think that initially Rice intended for Quinn to fall in love with
Lestat de Lioncourt (doesn't everyone?), but changed horses in
midstream.



>As for his sexual identity being handled clumbsily, it was not. It
> was simply done in typical Rice style; a style which NEVER fumbles
in regard
> to this subject matter. It may be quite easy though, to fumble her
words and
> ideas (as you did in this book) yourself.


Speak only for yourself. Only you know what is in your mind.


>But you see one must understand,
> that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires
for
> example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is
complete,
> they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain
a strong
> male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not
> overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps
more
> accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and
immortal
> alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with.
It's just
> her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity,
if
> anything, is actually quite clearcut. More so than may of her
characters.
>
>
Yes, that is all true. And yet that is why she has become almost a
parody of herself.



xponent
I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 1/13/2004 4:03:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:48 PM 1/12/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So why didn't Bush immediately demand that the leak about Plame,
attributed to a white house source, be investigated? Doesn't sound like
upholding laws to me.  
>

He did.   John Ashcroft recently recused himself from that very same probe.
John - The story broke in July. That is when the probe should have occurred. 
Bush did not instigate the investigation. He did not (on the surface at least) 
fight it. Ashcroft recused himself well into the investigation. Since by 
defiintion it had to entail some of his friends and colleagues (Rove ran one of 
his campaigns I believe) whyd didn't he do it earlier. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 1/13/2004 4:03:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And lying about an affair in what way significantly way precludes him from
faithfully upholding and defending the laws of the US? We seem back in
absolute morality territory here John. 
>>

Come on Bob.IT IS CALLED PERJURY!I am shouting because that was
posted at least twice on the List in the past day, and I know full well
that you know what crime is at stake here.And yet, you somehow can't
connect the two?

But I forgot, lying is only criminal when Republicans do it. 
I have never made that claim John and you know it. Lying is always bad and 
breaking the law is always bad but there are degrees of badness. My take on 
Clinton has always been that he is brilliant but seriously flawed individual. And 
he was clearly outfoxed by his enemies. The Jones suit was allowed to go 
forward while he was the sitting president because the court ruled that it would 
not hinder his ability to be president. This turned out to be incorrect. This of 
course his fault in part. But he was certainly helped along by the Starr 
investigation. This went far afield of its original mandate. Basically with all 
the money they needed and essentially unlimited power to investigate they got 
him. I do not absovlve him of responsibility but I did not then and do not now 
view that as cause for removal from office. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The GOP Problem With Women

[The Fool]

The GOP Problem With Women 

<>

By Richard Morin

Sunday, January 11, 2004; Page B05 


Men and women may have achieved equality in many areas of American life,
but they sure aren't treated the same by Republican primary voters.

At least that's the finding of political scientists David C. King of
Harvard University and Richard E. Matland of the University of Houston,
who found that female candidates don't seem to do as well as similarly
qualified men in GOP primaries. On the other hand, the researchers found,
political independents and Democrats seem to prefer Republican women
running for office over GOP guys. 

To test how gender affects voting choices, the researchers gathered data
on every election to the U.S. House of Representatives beginning in 1990
and identified each contest where there was no incumbent. These open
seats, they note in a paper published in the latest issue of American
Politics Research, "are crucial as they are the engine that drives change
in the makeup of Congress."

Then they focused on all the open seat races in which a woman ran in the
primary of either major party. There were 243 of them. When King and
Matland analyzed these races, they found that women were far more likely
to run in Democratic than in Republican primaries -- 148 sought
Democratic nominations as compared to 95 who made Republican bids.

Drilling deeper into the data, they also discovered that Republican women
had a much harder time winning: Slightly more than half of all female
candidates won the nomination in Democratic primaries, compared with 39
percent in GOP primaries.

In fact, in only one year did Republican women seeking House seats do
better than their Democratic counterparts -- and then only by a hair. It
was 1992, memorialized by politicos and pundits as "The Year of the
Woman," when Democratic women won 57.5 percent of their races and
Republican women won 57.9 percent. (In 1994, dubbed by those same
politicos as the "Year of the Angry White Male," the gap returned with a
roar: 48 percent of Democratic women won open seat nominations in primary
contests, but only 26 percent of Republican women.) 

Interesting, but that's only part of the picture. What's missing is the
reason Republican voters seem to be turned off by women running for
office. Data to answer that question proved hard to find, but King and
Matland hit pay dirt in a little known 1993 national survey that the GOP
polling firm Public Opinion Strategies conducted for the Republican
Network to Elect Women.

The telephone survey of 820 randomly selected adults included a novel
experiment. Respondents were read a description of a hypothetical
congressional candidate, who was identified as a Republican. They were
told the congressional wannabe was a successful businessperson who had
"never run for public office before" and was running because "Congress
just doesn't get it." The prospective lawmaker's top priority was to
"reduce government spending and waste," survey participants were
informed. 

To test for gender bias, the researchers did one other thing: Half the
sample was told that the candidate was a woman, the other half was told
the candidate was a man. In all other ways, respondents heard the
identical description.

The survey revealed that sex matters, at least among Republicans. A
majority of GOP men (57 percent) and a slightly smaller proportion of
Republican women (53 percent) said they would be "very likely" to vote
for the man. But when the candidate was identified as a woman, support
plummeted by 14 percentage points among men and 11 percentage points
among women.

Just the opposite was true among self-described political independents
and Democrats. The Republican candidate received a boost of 5 to 8
percentage points if the hopeful was identified as a woman, the survey
showed. Larger proportions of Democrats, male and female, were "very
likely" to support the woman rather than the similarly qualified man.

Republican voters were consistently more likely to view the female
candidate more negatively on such attributes as trustworthiness, overall
qualifications and whether the candidate "shared my concerns," according
to the survey. The finding flipped among independents and Democrats: It
was the GOP woman who got the higher rating on these attributes. 

GOP faithful seemed to be particularly dubious of a woman's leadership
ability and her conservative credentials, the researchers found. The
proportion rating the hypothetical candidate as conservative was 14
percentage points greater when the candidate was identified as a man than
when the candidate was identified as a woman.

Fascinating, but your Unconventional Wiz must ask: Are survey results
from 1993 a bit long in the tooth? People change. Could these insights be
ancient history? 

Perhaps -- but not likely, said King, who is research director at
Harvard's Institute of Politics. The findings are con

Does this pass the smell test?

[TomFODW]

Anyone find it more than curious that the Bush Administration, which has been 
doing everything it can to obstruct the inquiry into who leaked Valerie 
Plame's name & undercover CIA status, is leaping to investigate whether or not Paul 
O'Neill leaked secret documents in his book? Smells mighty fishy to me. Where 
are all the Republicans and Conservatives who screamed to investigate every 
single tiny little rumor about malfeasance in the Clinton Administration? Why 
aren't they demanding the White House cooperate fully with the Plame inquiry? 
(Which they could solve in an afternoon if Bush wanted to.) We all know the 
answer, of course - there's no way the Republicans will investigate their own 
president. This stinks.



Tom Beck

www.mercerjewishsingles.org

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the 
last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

human rights

[The Fool]

<>

He didn't free the slaves.
He didn't rid the world of Hitler.

He didn't even - like his father - preside over the destruction of the
Berlin Wall.

Yet George W. Bush tells New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: "No President has
ever done more for human rights than I have."

With stunners like that, no wonder he spends so little time with
journalists.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: EPA Works Out Secret Deal with Factory Farms

[Kanandarqu]

> kneem posted
> EPA Works Out Secret Deal with Factory Farms 
>
> Perhaps taking its cue from the Cheney Energy Task Force, the EPA has
> been holding secret meetings with the agribusiness industry this year,
> putting together a "sweetheart deal" with lobbyists to exempt factory
> farms from Clean Air Act and Superfund regulations

I don't know much about secret meetings, etc, but there has been a 
moratorium on hog farming in NC for several years due to some
of this type of stuff.  (Lots of hogs 'round here)  There has been
concerns about hog lagoons, etc.  I know that NC State has been
doing joint research with the hog farms to try and clean things up.
There has been a 4-5 year goal on the project.  
  I am not sure if it is related, but I heard there
has been some promising research that Ash (IIRC) trees are a
natural filter (for lack of a better word) when planted in proximity to
lagoons, processing the nitrates in groves of trees.  With all the
different things they were trying I think there could be lots of
options outside of just plain old "deal making".  

Dee
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Franken Signs Deal With Progressive Media

[Robert Seeberger]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=509&u=/ap/20040113/ap_on_bi_ge/liberal_radio_franken_5&printer=1


They haven't got a name or a launch date yet, but the entrepreneurs
who dream of launching a liberal radio network have just landed
themselves a lead man: Comedian and best-selling author Al Franken.


Progress Media planned to announce Tuesday that it has reached an
agreement with Franken to host a live, three-hour daily broadcast that
would form the anchor of the programming schedule, according to people
familiar with the matter.


In an interview, Franken said the format of the show was still
evolving, but he said he was certain that it wouldn't be akin to that
used by his rival Rush Limbaugh, which Franken described as
"non-guested confrontation."


"He has no one on the show but it's confrontation," Franken said. "His
show is just him railing for three hours."


Franken said he planned to use a mix of interviews, calls from
listeners and scripted comedy. He said he planned to have a co-host
with long experience in radio, but he said that role had not been
finalized.


Franken had long been rumored to be interested in a deal with Progress
Media, the startup company that is assembling radio stations and
talent for a radio network to challenge conservative talk show
powerhouses like Limbaugh.


But Franken had been holding off in recent months, partly to promote
his hot-selling book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair
and Balanced Look at the Right," and partly because he had
reservations about the previous owners of the venture.


"Things got more serious in terms of putting together stations and
money to make this possible" with the change in ownership, Franken
said.


Last November the company was bought by an investment group led by
Mark Walsh, a former America Online executive and adviser to the
Democratic National Committee, from the venture capitalists Sheldon
and Anita Drobny.


Walsh, who serves as CEO of Progress Media, also said the new network
had reached its first major distribution agreement, with the Chicago
AM station WNTD. He said he expects to announce at least three other
distribution deals in the coming weeks.


Walsh acknowledged that much work remains to be done on the network
before it becomes a viable business, including lining up technical
arrangements and setting up offices and studios.


He said that about 65 percent of the network's programming has been
decided, but he declined to elaborate beyond disclosing another new
show to be co-hosted by the environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. called "Champions of Justice."


The network also has yet to decide on a name. Last month the company
indicated it would call the radio network Central Air, but Walsh said
Tuesday the company was no longer certain it would be using that name.


Putting Franken in the midday time slot of noon to 3 p.m. Eastern time
is a direct challenge to Limbaugh, whose hugely successful show
occupies the same time slot.


Franken, whose earlier book was called "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat
Idiot," said he plans to call up his nemesis for advice on his own
show since Limbaugh has often said he wonders why new radio hosts
don't seek out his counsel.


"I'll ask him advice: how he approaches a show, how he frames an
issue. If it doesn't happen it will be — very understandably — because
he won't take my call," Franken said.


Franken said his contract with Progress Media would last just one
year, after which time both sides would reassess how things were
going. He also said he very much wanted to do the show during a
presidential election year.


"I'm interested in doing what I can to affect this election," Franken
said. "I've been thinking about what's the best use of my energies — I
hope this is it."



xponent

Rebuttal Maru

rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

More on Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/13/national1720EST0692.DTL

An appeals court on Tuesday ordered prosecutors to turn Rush
Limbaugh's medical records over to the courts and keep them sealed
until further review.

The court also ruled that the American Civil Liberties Union can join
the conservative talk show host in fighting to keep the documents
private, creating an unlikely alliance in the case.

Prosecutors say their investigation is stalled until they are able to
review the medical records, which they seized in November. They
obtained search warrants for the files after learning Limbaugh
received more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in
six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion.

Limbaugh's attorneys argue that the seizure violated Limbaugh's
privacy and that the investigation was politically motivated. No
criminal charges have been filed against Limbaugh.

The ACLU joined the case Monday in support of the claim that
Limbaugh's constitutional right to privacy has been violated.

State Attorney Barry Krischer has repeatedly insisted that Limbaugh's
rights have been protected. A spokesman, Mike Edmondson, said Tuesday
that investigators have followed state laws since beginning their
investigation last year, after Limbaugh's former maid told them she
was his longtime drug supplier.

Courts have ruled twice before to keep the records sealed pending
appeals, though prosecutors had a brief opportunity to review the
documents on Dec. 22.

"The state's seizure of Mr. Limbaugh's private medical records without
following the due process defined in Florida law is a threat to
everyone's fundamental privacy right," his lawyer, Roy Black, said in
a statement Tuesday.

Black has said the records will only show that Limbaugh suffered from
a serious medical condition.

Limbaugh admitted his addiction to prescription painkillers in
October, saying it stemmed from severe back pain. He took a five-week
leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.

The appeals court ordered prosecutors to surrender the records to a
circuit court and keep them sealed until it rules otherwise.



xponent

The Maid Did It Maru

rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Does this pass the smell test?

[John D. Giorgis]

At 09:36 PM 1/13/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyone find it more than curious that the Bush Administration, which has
been 
>doing everything it can to obstruct the inquiry into who leaked Valerie 
>Plame's name & undercover CIA status,

You have no specific allegations of this.

> is leaping to investigate whether or not Paul 
>O'Neill leaked secret documents in his book?

The White House has not leaped to investigate this.   The invetigation was
launched by career civil servants at The Treasury Department who described
the threshhold for launching such an investigation as being "very low."

> Smells mighty fishy to me. 

Of course it does.I get the impression some days that a newspaper
headline about Bush having steak for dinner would smell might fishy to you.  

>Where 
>are all the Republicans and Conservatives who screamed to investigate every 
>single tiny little rumor about malfeasance in the Clinton Administration?
Why 
>aren't they demanding the White House cooperate fully with the Plame
inquiry? 

I have seen no specific allegations of The White House failing to fully
cooperate with the Plame inquiry.

Tom, vengence doesn't suit you.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Why President Bush Invaded Iraq Re: More Propaganda Subject Lines from The Fool

[John D. Giorgis]

At 04:23 PM 1/13/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My real problem with any attempt to defend the fact that Bush came into 
>office determined to get rid of Saddam by saying the reason was to bring
about 
>regime change, save the people from Iraq, and be nicey was, 

The only evidence for this comes from one disgruntled employee.
Certainly there is nothing in the primary record of Bush's Presidency from
1/2001 to 9/2001 to indicate that this is ture. 

>during the 2000 
>campaign, Bush repeatedly derided the very idea of "nation-building" and 
>intervention anywhere except for cold calculated national interest. Now,
all of a sudden, 
>he's in office and he's suddenly interested in nation building? Come on.

Actually, many commentators have noted that, if anything, the Bush
Administration has not shown nearly enough interest in nation-building in
Iraq, even after deciding to go to war.   Many commentators who strongly
supported the war have criticized what they feel is an apparent lack of
preparation in nation-building by the Bush Administration.

>He wanted to get rid of Saddam because he wanted to do something his father 
>couldn't, and he wanted to project US power.

Which is why Bush waited eight months to even mention this.

> But he needed a pretext because he 
>knew he never could get American support for a naked, causeless invasion. 
>Saddam Hussein is a monster, and I'm glad he's gone, but there are
monsters in 
>China and Syria and North Korea and Cuba and Libya - why don't we go after
them? 

China - Because the US doesn't want to take on a nation of 1 *billion* people?
Syria - Because Bashar Assad has hardly the same track record as Hussein,
nor does he have the same WMD ambitions as Hussein, nor does he have the UN
resolutions that authorized "all necessary means" against Iraq.
DPRK - Because the United States is smart enough to not attack countries
with nuclear weapons.
Cuba - Because Castro's miserable track record is nowheres near Hussein's
levels of oppression.
Libya - We now know it was because Libya was prepared to accept a
diplomatic solution to the problem.

>North Korea is far more dangerous to us than Iraq, and Cuba is 90 miles off 
>our coast and a chip-shot if we really really wanted to take Castro out.

Can I quote you as favoring invading the nuclear-armed DPRK?If not, why
are you propounding these straw men?Do you feel that these straw men
support your argument?

>You cannot convince me that George W. Bush had any reason to go into Iraq 
>other than that he simply wanted to. 

Then why are you on a discussion list if there is no evidence that can
convince you?Are you only here to convince me?  

>He came into office determined to get 
>Saddam, and he was willing to say anything it would take to bring that
about. He had 
>to wait until he could find a pretext he could present as plausible, and he 
>had to sex up the intelligence even to get WMD to work. But this was not a 
>humanitarian invasion to save the people of Iraq - otherwise, why did he
have to 
>wait two years? Why did he completely dismiss the very value of nation
building 
>in 2000?

He waited two years to build domestic and international support for the war.

He made the decision to invade because there were about 10 very good
reasons to invade Iraq, the existence of even five of which would have been
sufficient strategic reason to ivnade.

He dismissed the value of nation-building in 2000 because he didn't know
then what he knows now, because it played well politically, and because
9/11 changed the world.If terrorists could accomplish that level of
destruction with aircraft - imagine what they could achieve with nuclear
weapons.   And given the success of our intelligence services in keeping
track of our enemies' nuclear weapons programs, how could we really be sure
of what Saddam was hiding from the UN inspectors (and he clearly appeared
to be hiding something.)

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Why President Bush Invaded Iraq Re: More Propaganda Subject Lines from The Fool

[John D. Giorgis]

At 09:51 PM 1/12/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>> Well, first of all, I disagree with your characterization of "95%."
>
>As well you should.  The speech was 10,416 words, 197 of which concerned 
>internal human rights violations. That's less than 2%, so I was way off.  
>The rest delt almost exclusively with Hussain being a threat to the rest 
>of the world.

*AND* of failing to comply with the resolutions of the UN Security Council.
   

Resolutions that were a precondition of the cease-fire that ended the first
Gulf War.

At any rate, the 2% doesn't count?The attempt to create the first Arab
democracy doesn't count - just because the case is so simple?

>> Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we
>> believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F.
>> but we recognize that reason "D" is a bit complex/disputed, and that "D" 
>> is the reason that skeptics would be most receptive to, and so we are 
>> going to spend most of our time arguing for "D" as that is the reason 
>> that will get
>> us the most votes?
>
>What's wrong with it is that the U.S. is a democratic republic meaning the 
>government requires the consent of the government especially as it 
>concerns sending our youth in to harms way and spending massive amounts of 
>our money.  The reason the people of this country consented to go to war 
>against Iraq was because they were led to believe that that country posed 
>an imminent threat to our security.  What the Bush administration has done 
>is a political bait and switch.  With our money.  With our kids.
>
>It makes no matter how many reasons, secret or otherwise there were.  And 
>it doesn't matter how many U.N. resolutions were violated _if our security 
>was not threatened_ which it is quite obvious, it was not.  If our 
>security is not threatened then U.N. violations should be dealt with by 
>the U.N.

Come again? What were thousands of our troops doing stationed in Saudi
Arabia if Iraq did not threaten our security?

At any rate, you are offering a lot of 20/20 hindsight here.   I guess that
you are right that Bush should *not* have believed our intelligence
services, which were telling us that Saddam Hussein was hiding massive
biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons programs - if only
becaue our intelligence services had already been proven disastrously wrong
in pre-war Iraq, India, Pakistan, and the DPRK over the previous ten
years. indeed, they are almost a contrarian indicator at this point.

Nevertheless, unless you are arguing that Bush should have used US
intelligence as a contrarian indicator - then you *must* argue that Bush
must still have considered Iraq a threat to US security.Clinton had
ocntingency plans prepared for an invasion of Iraq, and certainly wasn't
about to pull our troops out of the Gulf. The entire Clinton
Administration also firmly believed that Saddam Hussein had these weapons.
  Any rational person would also believe that Hussein would have few qualms
about selling these weapons to the highest bidders. 

And if selling gallons of anthrax to the highest bidder isn't a threat to
our security, then I encourage you to come to Washington someday and open
my irradiated mail - thanks to an anthrax killer whom we still can't trace. 

>I would agree that the President in his role as commander in chief should 
>have the power to use deadly force w/o explicit consent in order to 
>circumvent impending disaster, but he damn well be able to justify his 
>actions.  In this case none of your reasons, secret or otherwise meet 
>these criteria AFAIC.

Of course, in this case, he had both a standing UN resolution an explicit
authorization from Congress.

>And lets look at those secret reasons:  Your argument that U.S troops in 
>Saudi Arabia fostered the recruitment of terrorists by  Al Qaeda, but the 
>invasion of a sovergn Moslem nation is a hundred times the incentive that 
>troops in SA were and beyond that the number of Americans in Iraq not only 
>provide incentive, they provide greater opportunity for terrorism.  As far 
>as protecting SA from Iraq, it's pretty clear that the Iraq of 2003 was a 
>shadow of the Iraq that invaded Kuwait, and we managed to defend SA back 
>then.  So we could have solved that particular problem by removing troops 
> from Saudi Arabia and perhaps posting them in Kuwait.

This is again 20/20 hindsight.  Neither the Clinton Administration nor the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia agreed with you strategic assessment in August of
2000.Are you saying that Bush should have gone against Clinton's and
Saudi Arabia's assessments unilaterally?

Secondly, I also think that you are not thinking sufficiently long-term.
The Bush Administration did not hide their belief that they intended to use
a liberated Iraq as a catalyst for a democratic reshaping of the Middle
East.   Did invading Iraq inspire some jihaids over the past two years?
Quite possibly.But 20 years from now

Re: human rights

[Michael Harney]

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> <>
>
> He didn't free the slaves.
> He didn't rid the world of Hitler.
>
> He didn't even - like his father - preside over the destruction of the
> Berlin Wall.
>
> Yet George W. Bush tells New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: "No President has
> ever done more for human rights than I have."
>
> With stunners like that, no wonder he spends so little time with
> journalists.

Hey he didn't say he *helped* human rights.  Only that he's had a
greater effect on them than any other president.  Give credit where it's
due. :-)

Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

how CAPPS II works

[The Fool]

Chart:

http://www.dontspyonus.com/chart.html

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l