Etiquette guidelines, was Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A personal attack is bad not because it is false or true but because it seeks to confuse the arguement with the person making the arguement. Can we add this to our etiquette guidelines? The reasoning behind the rule. Sonja :o) GCU: No attack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 2/1/2004 10:46:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So I'll say it's not relevant to what sort of a person he is when Mary Jo asks me to, and not before. That seems fair. It's more of a chance than he gave her. It just isn't very germaine to the arguement at hand. A personal attack is bad not because it is false or true but because it seeks to confuse the arguement with the person making the arguement. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
> Incidentally, Tom, when do you ever follow that rule? > Or does it only apply to liberals? Speaking about > Republicans when you have no knowledge, that's not > exactly a problem for you, is it? > Not sure I can recall the last time I accused anyone of any political stripe of murder. 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: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 2/1/04 10:46:35 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > God knows what really happened. > > > > Exactly. YOU DON'T know. You weren't there. I wasn't > there. Stop talking like > you were. > > Tom Beck Tom, I know what the _most favorable interpretation of the facts_ is. That's what I supplied. The facts according to Kennedy's defenders. Incidentally, Tom, when do you ever follow that rule? Or does it only apply to liberals? Speaking about Republicans when you have no knowledge, that's not exactly a problem for you, is it? There must be a pony in here somewhere... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 2/1/04 10:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > God knows what really happened. > Exactly. YOU DON'T know. You weren't there. I wasn't there. Stop talking like you were. 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: Doing Business With The Enemy
Folks, Gautam: >> > Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too >> > busy drowning innocent young women to think >> > about what he was saying - something like that. Reggie: >> Personal attacks make for good arguements since when? >> Maybe you've been working such long hours that you've >> forgotten that one of the principles of this list is to >> attack the argument, not the person who made it. >> Tell us why Ted Kennedy's arguements are wrong >> without resorting to bringing up an incident that >> happened ... how many decades ago? Ronn!: > Mary Jo Kopeckne is still dead after all those decades. Dave: Which doesn't make Gautam's ad hominem attach justifiable or Reggie's rejoinder any less on point. I thought that Reggie was pointing out that the Senator probably wasn't "busy drowning innocent young women," as that event had taken place decades before the Iraq comment. On the other hand, if Senator Kennedy *had* come up with his statement on the Texas oil-interest origins of the Iraq war when he was, as Gautam so delicately put it, "busy drowning innocent women," then he has some prodigious prophetic powers. Sincerely, Dave Dave Land[EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy > At 08:23 PM 2/1/04, Reggie Bautista wrote: > >Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war > > > was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons. > > > Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would, > > > again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but > > > morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too > > > busy drowning innocent young women to think about what > > > he was saying - something like that. > > > >Personal attacks make for good arguements since when? Maybe you've been > >working such long hours that you've forgotten that one of the principles of > >this list is to attack the argument, not the person who made it. Tell us > >why Ted Kennedy's arguements are wrong without resorting to bringing up an > >incident that happened... how many decades ago? > > > Mary Jo Kopeckne is still dead after all those decades. True enough, but that is still irrelevant to the current discussion. There is no excuse for ad-hominem attacks. Ad-hominem attacks are sloppy reasoning and sloppy thinking. TK is not alone in his claims that the Iraq War was "cooked up in Texas," and there are a lot of good reasons why he and others are not completely correct in that accusation, as well as good reasons why the accusation was made in the first place. But there are much stronger arguments against that accusation that dismissing the accusation because of Mary Jo Kopeckne. What happened with Mary Jo Kopeckne, no matter how wrong and how unpunished, has no causal link with TK's claims and the claims of others concerning the Iraq War. The one simply has nothing to do with the other. Reggie Bautista ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 08:23 PM 2/1/04, Reggie Bautista wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: > He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war > was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons. > Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would, > again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but > morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too > busy drowning innocent young women to think about what > he was saying - something like that. Personal attacks make for good arguements since when? Maybe you've been working such long hours that you've forgotten that one of the principles of this list is to attack the argument, not the person who made it. Tell us why Ted Kennedy's arguements are wrong without resorting to bringing up an incident that happened... how many decades ago? Mary Jo Kopeckne is still dead after all those decades. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personal attacks make for good arguements since > when? Maybe you've been > working such long hours that you've forgotten that > one of the principles of > this list is to attack the argument, not the person > who made it. Tell us > why Ted Kennedy's arguements are wrong without > resorting to bringing up an > incident that happened... how many decades ago?... > and accusing him of being > drunk. Maybe he was. But that's not a particularly > persuasive > counter-arguement. > > Reggie Bautista I'll stop bringing up that particular incident when Mary Jo Kopechne comes and asks me to. He _killed_ somebody, then used his family influence to cover it up. People complain about the _Bushes_? The Kennedys treat that state like their personal fiefdom. He _killed_ someone. The most sympathetic possible interpretation to him is that he let her drown and then walked away without a care in the world. God knows what really happened. So I'll say it's not relevant to what sort of a person he is when Mary Jo asks me to, and not before. That seems fair. It's more of a chance than he gave her. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war > was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons. > Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would, > again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but > morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too > busy drowning innocent young women to think about what > he was saying - something like that. Personal attacks make for good arguements since when? Maybe you've been working such long hours that you've forgotten that one of the principles of this list is to attack the argument, not the person who made it. Tell us why Ted Kennedy's arguements are wrong without resorting to bringing up an incident that happened... how many decades ago?... and accusing him of being drunk. Maybe he was. But that's not a particularly persuasive counter-arguement. Reggie Bautista ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 07:20 PM 1/31/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quadifi is an ecomaniac I would have thought that description would better fit Al Gore . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/29/2004 9:50:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Maybe. If so he is fairly unique among dictators. > Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to pick two, are > unlikely to have been influenced by access to the > world economy. And if that had really been enough, he > would have done it a long, long time ago. Also, if > that was really his motivation, he would have > contacted the French or the Russians. But that's not > whom he approached first, which all by itself is > pretty indicative. > Indicative of what? He approached us first during the Clinton adminstration and much of the negotiations apparrently took place during the early run up to Iraq. Let us deal with your two counter examples. Korea does not have oil or for that matter anything else of economic value so they are using their scare tactics to try to extort money from the west of the world. Sadam was crazy. Quadifi is an ecomaniac but clearly he is not as nuts as Sadam. He could make the reasoned decision that his past tactics were not getting him what he wanted or needed. He dealt with us because he knew that we were the key players in getting him back into the world economy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/29/2004 9:50:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Maybe. If so he is fairly unique among dictators. > Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to pick two, are > unlikely to have been influenced by access to the > world economy. And if that had really been enough, he > would have done it a long, long time ago. Also, if > that was really his motivation, he would have > contacted the French or the Russians. But that's not > whom he approached first, which all by itself is > pretty indicative. > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 1/28/2004 11:39:15 PM Eastern > Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other > than > > such displays of force, what do you think a > Qaddafi > > would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_ > > except force is likely to get results from someone > > like him. > > Money. He wants to get back into the world economy > and knows this is the only way. Maybe. If so he is fairly unique among dictators. Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to pick two, are unlikely to have been influenced by access to the world economy. And if that had really been enough, he would have done it a long, long time ago. Also, if that was really his motivation, he would have contacted the French or the Russians. But that's not whom he approached first, which all by itself is pretty indicative. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/28/2004 11:39:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other than > such displays of force, what do you think a Qaddafi > would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_ > except force is likely to get results from someone > like him. Money. He wants to get back into the world economy and knows this is the only way. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/28/2004 10:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > And of course, all those years of negotiation going back to the Clinton > Administration just happened to break through at the same time that Hussein > was being toppled.And indeed, coincidentally at the very same time the > Iranians were deciding to come clean about their own program.And > indeed, coincidentally the Syrians even made an (albeit much less serious > than those from their Iranian or Libyan counterparts) initiative to come > clean about their own program. > > But of course, all of the above is just one giant happy coincidence > reflecting the fruits of St. Clinton's hard work and > dilligence, right? John I am simply summarizing an article in the NYT written by someone who was directly involved in the negotiations under Bush. He did not claim that it reflected the fruits of Clinton's hard work but he did acknowledge that the process began under Clinton. So don't make this out to be me trying to give Bill credit for something he did not do. Lybia agreed to deal because it was in their economic interests to do so. That is why they gave up the Lockerbee planners (well before Iraq). Did the war help this process along? Very likely. But without the prior negotiations it would not have happened and it probably would have happened any way. Note once again I was in favor of the war and believe that it will influence renegades to be more responsible but one military action no matter how large will not win the day for us. We need diplomacy cooperation and patience ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/28/2004 9:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Maybe. But since Qaddafi said to Berlusconi "I will > do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what > happened in Iraq and I am afraid" it seems like > there's a more plausible explanation. > > I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the > Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he couldn't swim. I was only referring to an op ed article that explicitly refuted the claim about the effect of the war on the negotiation. Remember I supported the war and still do. I think getting rid of Sadam was a good thing. I believe that our willingness to go to war has changed the dynamics in the mideast and around the world. I have never claimed nor do I believe that the invasion is "all about oil". I don't buy the notion that conservatives are only interested in lining their pockets. But if you want me to admit that I really dislike Bush I am happy to do so. He and his cronies have mishandled the run up to the war and its aftermath. They are arrogant and high handed. They believe they are right and don't think they have to convince anyone either inside or outside the US that this is so. They are quite willing to play fast and lose with the laws that they claim to be upholding. The Bush economic plan is a disaster. I am no economist but from what I have read economists do not think his cuts are in any healthy. And yet he and his administration do not even have the courage of their convictions. They cut taxes but are unwilling to cut spending. The war will cost billions. How can one cut taxes in the face of this new responsibility. They have passed a medicare drug bill which will cost billions as well but have offered no plan to pay for it. This is all so cynical that it makes me sick. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
> There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the > Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because > they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the > simplistic interpretation, and maybe the most correct one, of the Civil > War was that it was about the slavery issue, a lot of those who fought > for the Confederacy did not justify their participation for that > reason. "Slavery" doesn't get to what was really going on in the hearts > and minds of many of those who fought. (And those in the North weren't > primarily fighting to free the slaves, either, although there were those > who went to war willingly for that end.) > > Some people might slap the "oil" interpretation over anything the US > does in the Middle East. Evidently that is not the motivation for a > large number of people supporting the current actions. > > Poke at this parallel, scream at me if you like, but this is where *my* > mind went in the face of the oil/no, not oil argument. Substitute any > idea that might be self-serving for Bush himself but not supported by > supporters of the war for oil, if you like, and I'll throw the same > Civil War situation back again. > Let's say that you're right, and that many (maybe even most) of the Confederate soldiers were not fighting to defend slavery. So what? The motivation of their leaders CERTAINLY was primarily if not exclusively to defend slavery. THAT was the "state's right" that all the states seceded to protect. The Civil War was ALL about slavery; yes, there were other factors, but they all came back to slavery. Once the war began, people on each side fought for many reasons; but if there had not been any slavery, there would have been no Civil War. That said, I don't claim that this is a war over oil. And even if it were, calling it that would not denigrate the soldiers, who are fighting for their country. But there could be - and in the Civil War apparently was - a major disconnect between the motivations of the people doing the fighting and that of the people who sent them to fight. (Southern soldiers, cynical about the plantation owners, called the war 'A rich man's war and a poor man's fight'.) To understand the origins of a war, it's perhaps less important to understand the people who were sent to fight. They rarely know much about the strategy and policy that led to the outbreak of the war. Especially when the leadership dissembles or conceals or deceives or exaggerates - c.f, Vietnam then and Iraq now. 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: Doing Business With The Enemy
> In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other than > such displays of force, what do you think a Qaddafi > would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_ > except force is likely to get results from someone > like him. > There have been stories that he also responded to such things as his growing awareness of Libya's backwardness, isolation, and economic stagnation, his own approaching mortality, the death of his son, along with fear of what happened in Iraq. There are stories that this has been in the works for several years, although it may have been accelerated by what happened in Iraq. I distrust unitary explanations. 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: Doing Business With The Enemy (LLL)
Doug Pensinger wrote: > > Julia wrote: > > > (and ask me about what I know about the aftermath of Gettysburg any time > > you like) > > Consider yourself asked. 8^) After the battle, there were a lot of men left lying for dead. A group of Quakers came though with wagons, and checked each man. Those who were still alive were lifted into the wagons and taken to their homes, and cared for until they died or recovered. Those who recovered were sent on their way. (One of my ancestors was one such man.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
Dan wrote: Since Bush is trying to keep what happened before as secret as possible, even from people who have the security clearance to look at the material, it raises the possibility that the answer is closer to 2 than 3. My own guess is that its at the level where a Monday morning quarterback could show how Bush should have stopped 9-11, but that a real plus-delta would have considered stopping the attack real time much more difficult than it looks in hindsight. I'm guessing he might want to avoid the political embarassment of having enough to give Monday morning quarterbacks talking points, so he's stonewalling a bit on this. Stonewalling "a bit" is a pretty mild assesment. I have no idea how much the administration knew prior to the attack and it would be rather pointless to speculate. But the stonewalling makes me suspicious. Whatever the degree of knowledge, I believe that we have the right to know. -- Doug. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy (LLL)
Julia wrote: At the risk of irritating an awful lot of people -- There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the simplistic interpretation, and maybe the most correct one, of the Civil War was that it was about the slavery issue, a lot of those who fought for the Confederacy did not justify their participation for that reason. "Slavery" doesn't get to what was really going on in the hearts and minds of many of those who fought. (And those in the North weren't primarily fighting to free the slaves, either, although there were those who went to war willingly for that end.) Some people might slap the "oil" interpretation over anything the US does in the Middle East. Evidently that is not the motivation for a large number of people supporting the current actions. Poke at this parallel, scream at me if you like, but this is where *my* mind went in the face of the oil/no, not oil argument. Substitute any idea that might be self-serving for Bush himself but not supported by supporters of the war for oil, if you like, and I'll throw the same Civil War situation back again. I think the analogy is very astute. Another similarity is the flood of anti Lincoln, pro-secession propaganda Southerners were flooded with that helped push them towards war. On the subject of slavery being the simple explanation, I think that although it's easy to say that slavery caused the split, when you look at the other reasons people suggest: trade differences, states rights, differences in social structure etc. etc. they all have their roots in slavery as well. So slavery becomes both the simple explanation and underlying cause for the war. One thing Iâd like to clear up. While I believe that had the same set of circumstances occurred in an oil poor state, we would not have gone to war against them, I do not believe oil is the reason that Bush herded us towards war. There are myriad other reasons, not least among them the idea of a U.S. hegemony that was discussed on the list at some length. The same people that compose the heart of the Bush administrationâs push towards war (and as Paul OâNeil and others have noted, it was in the works well before 9/11), Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz were members of a group of conservative ideologues calling themselves the Project for the New American Century who had been yammering for war since 1997. This link is a letter they sent to President Clinton in January of 1998: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Here is their statement of principals: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. Now you may be encouraged by statements like: âAmerica has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.â Keep in mind that these are the same people that said Iraqâs reconstruction would only cost a few billion. By this time next year we will have spent close to ten times that amount. You may recall the New Yorker article posted here late last year that documented that while the administration solicited the advice of experts on how to approach the reconstruction, they subsequently ignored the advice. Of course weâre all paying for that lapse now. So though they sound high and mighty, these are men who have a fixed idea about how things should be done, and they arenât about to let experts or the facts get in their way. (and ask me about what I know about the aftermath of Gettysburg any time you like) Consider yourself asked. 8^) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the > > Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he > couldn't swim. > > > > Stealing lines from LBJ? > How far the mighty have fallen! > > > > xponent > Good One Though Maru > rob "Talent creates, genius steals" - Picasso :-) = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you're probably right. I don't think that > this sort of display of force is a great long-term > solution; we shouldn't ever count on such side > benefits. > -j- Well, why not? One of the major reasons for doing this was such a "side benefit" - which doesn't make it much of a side benefit at all. "Pour encourager les autres" as Voltaire said. In all seriousness, I still don't get it. Other than such displays of force, what do you think a Qaddafi would respond to? As far as I can tell, _nothing_ except force is likely to get results from someone like him. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > At 08:15 PM 1/28/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >> As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence > >> that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya began to > >> breakas Saddam > >> Hussein was being toppled. > >> > >>Recent op ed piece in the NYT by a former bush appointee argued quite > explicitly that the thaw with Libya began well before the invasion > (beginning with initiatives during the Clinton administration)and it was > the result of prolonged diplomatic efforts. He should know. He was part of > the negoiating team > > > > And of course, all those years of negotiation going back to the Clinton > Administration just happened to break through at the same time that Hussein > was being toppled.And indeed, coincidentally at the very same time the > Iranians were deciding to come clean about their own program.And > indeed, coincidentally the Syrians even made an (albeit much less serious > than those from their Iranian or Libyan counterparts) initiative to come > clean about their own program. > > But of course, all of the above is just one giant happy coincidence > reflecting the fruits of St. Clinton's hard work and dilligence, right? Well, at least the earlier negotiations had the channels open, right? :) Would things have gone so smoothly had there *not* been the lines of communication there for the purpose? I'd say that a percentage of the credit should go to those who were working before, and the rest should go to Bush. I don't care to say *what* those percentages are, though, as I don't know enough about it. Julia shirt's finally dry, but it stinks a bit ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 08:15 PM 1/28/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence >> that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya began to >> breakas Saddam >> Hussein was being toppled. >> >>Recent op ed piece in the NYT by a former bush appointee argued quite explicitly that the thaw with Libya began well before the invasion (beginning with initiatives during the Clinton administration)and it was the result of prolonged diplomatic efforts. He should know. He was part of the negoiating team > And of course, all those years of negotiation going back to the Clinton Administration just happened to break through at the same time that Hussein was being toppled.And indeed, coincidentally at the very same time the Iranians were deciding to come clean about their own program.And indeed, coincidentally the Syrians even made an (albeit much less serious than those from their Iranian or Libyan counterparts) initiative to come clean about their own program. But of course, all of the above is just one giant happy coincidence reflecting the fruits of St. Clinton's hard work and dilligence, right? 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: Doing Business With The Enemy
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 06:14 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Recent op ed piece in the NYT by a former bush > > appointee argued quite explicitly that the thaw with > > Libya began well before the invasion (beginning with > > initiatives during the Clinton administration)and it > > was the result of prolonged diplomatic efforts. He > > should know. He was part of the negoiating team > > Maybe. But since Qaddafi said to Berlusconi "I will > do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what > happened in Iraq and I am afraid" it seems like > there's a more plausible explanation. I think you're probably right. I don't think that this sort of display of force is a great long-term solution; we shouldn't ever count on such side benefits. > I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the > Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he couldn't swim. Because he'd be walking on the backs of the working poor! (jus' kiddin') -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:14 PM Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy > I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the > Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he couldn't swim. > Stealing lines from LBJ? How far the mighty have fallen! xponent Good One Though Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Recent op ed piece in the NYT by a former bush > appointee argued quite explicitly that the thaw with > Libya began well before the invasion (beginning with > initiatives during the Clinton administration)and it > was the result of prolonged diplomatic efforts. He > should know. He was part of the negoiating team Maybe. But since Qaddafi said to Berlusconi "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq and I am afraid" it seems like there's a more plausible explanation. I swear, Bob, if President Bush walked across the Potomac you'd declare it was proof that he couldn't swim. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/27/2004 11:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence > that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya began to > breakas Saddam > Hussein was being toppled. > >Recent op ed piece in the NYT by a former bush appointee argued quite explicitly that >the thaw with Libya began well before the invasion (beginning with initiatives during >the Clinton administration)and it was the result of prolonged diplomatic efforts. He >should know. He was part of the negoiating team ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gautam, you make my case for me. Instead of > > sticking to the argument, you > > make it personal, just like the people who's loyalty > > is questioned when > > they don't toe the Republican line in regards to > > 9/11. > > > > -- > > Doug > > Because, of course, it is personal. I supported the > invasion, and not for oil money either. Your > insistence that only corruption or malice explains the > actions of the Administration suggests that I'm > stupid, ignorant, corrupt, or malign. I'm pretty sure > I'm not any of those. Now, it's possible for honest > people to disagree on whether the invasion was a good > idea or not. But as long as you insist that it > _isn't_, it _is_ personal. I volunteered to go to > Baghdad. So did quite a few friends of mine. We > didn't do it so that people like you could tell us we > were stooges for the oil lobby. It seems to me that > one of the statements you quoted was right - when > people look at George Bush and Osama Bin Laden and > think that _George Bush_ is their enemy, there's > something wrong with them. Now, I don't think you're > one of those people. But you do seem to be trying to > prove me wrong. At the risk of irritating an awful lot of people -- There were a number of young men in the South who fought for the Confederacy not because they were trying to defend slavery, but because they felt allegiance to their states before their country. While the simplistic interpretation, and maybe the most correct one, of the Civil War was that it was about the slavery issue, a lot of those who fought for the Confederacy did not justify their participation for that reason. "Slavery" doesn't get to what was really going on in the hearts and minds of many of those who fought. (And those in the North weren't primarily fighting to free the slaves, either, although there were those who went to war willingly for that end.) Some people might slap the "oil" interpretation over anything the US does in the Middle East. Evidently that is not the motivation for a large number of people supporting the current actions. Poke at this parallel, scream at me if you like, but this is where *my* mind went in the face of the oil/no, not oil argument. Substitute any idea that might be self-serving for Bush himself but not supported by supporters of the war for oil, if you like, and I'll throw the same Civil War situation back again. Julia (and ask me about what I know about the aftermath of Gettysburg any time you like) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Doing Business With The Enemy > --- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did he? When did he do that? > > > > -j- > > He suggested that "the most interesting theory" about > 9/11 was that President Bush was warned in advance > about it by the Saudis. He claimed not to believe it > - but bringing it up as "the most interesting theory" > clearly attaches some credence to it. Knowing about > 9/11 in advance and not stopping it is high treason in > anyone's book. That's just one among many pretty much > common accusations like that. I don't think the accusations (with a few crazy exceptions, of course) are that Bush knew full well that four planes were set to attack targets like the Pentagon and the WTC and the White House, and only the White House was protected because it all fit in with his scheme. Positing that he was warned about it, there are plenty of other reasons for his not doing anything effective in response. Some are 1) He was warned, but didn't take take the warning seriously enough. 2) He was warned, took steps that he though were adaquate, but he was fooling himself. 3) He was warned, but the warning was too vauge to be effective. 4) He was warned, but he was warned about a lot of different things. Only in hindsight could you point to that one warning. This fits into a broader set of possibilities that I will innumerate: 1) Bush knew about the attack, and let it happen on purpose for nefarious reasons. 2) Bush knew enough so that any reasonable person would have expected him to be able to have stopped the attacks, but he was asleep at the switch. ... ... gradations responsibility that can be assigned in a plus-delta review. . . 3) There was no way that even the very best people could have forseen the attacks. The first possibility is, indeed, high treason. I will rule it out, and I don't think this is what Dean is talkng about. The theory that Dean is talking about is between #2 and #3, much closer to 2 than 3. 2 is not treason, but incompetence. The worst you can call it is dereliction of duty. Since Bush is trying to keep what happened before as secret as possible, even from people who have the security clearance to look at the material, it raises the possibility that the answer is closer to 2 than 3. My own guess is that its at the level where a Monday morning quarterback could show how Bush should have stopped 9-11, but that a real plus-delta would have considered stopping the attack real time much more difficult than it looks in hindsight. I'm guessing he might want to avoid the political embarassment of having enough to give Monday morning quarterbacks talking points, so he's stonewalling a bit on this. BTW, I recall the attacks on the patriotism of the Democrats well before the Dean comment, in connection with their asking questions about both the certainty of Bush on the WMD, and the clues about 9-11 that Bush had before it occured. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John D. Giorgis > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 08:57 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Doing Business With The Enemy > > > At 11:00 AM 1/27/2004 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote: > >> 2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete > >> economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya? > > > >John, I don't recall - are you for or against economic > sanctions as a form > of power? > > Do you have a read on the effectiveness of them, given the > recent Lybian > Surprise? > > I am against general economic sanction in almost all cases. *nod* You and I pretty much agree. Neat! ^_^ > * - An extremist filled with rage about the plight of the Iraqi people > opened fire on students at my alma mater, Case Western > Reserve University last year. My new gf's alma mater, too. I was reading email, and she recognized your name.. ;) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:47 AM Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Sure. It is a small, rugged pulsed neutron generator. It generates > > about 10^8 neutrons per second, with energies of 14 Mev in very short > > (measured in microseconds) bursts. > > Thanks. Sounds pretty obvious that it is for a nuclear weapon. Is there > any other use you can think of that does not involve a weapon? Wireline pulsed neutron measurements in oil wells. They are used to measure water saturation in cased oil wells. Indeed, I'm hoping I'm will get a contract characterizing such a tool this year. They sold suites of logging tools to Hussein, and he insisted on those being included. But, the dual use is well known, and they were on the prohibited list for sale for a darned good reason. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
> From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too > busy drowning innocent young women to think about what > he was saying - something like that. Ad hominems, straw men. We can also bring up, Cheney and Shrubs Numerous DWI's or Laura Shrubs manslaughter, but they aren't relevant to the discusion either. "I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth. Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?" Paul O'Neill, 60 Minutes ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > Sure. It is a small, rugged pulsed neutron generator. It generates > about 10^8 neutrons per second, with energies of 14 Mev in very short > (measured in microseconds) bursts. Thanks. Sounds pretty obvious that it is for a nuclear weapon. Is there any other use you can think of that does not involve a weapon? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:52 AM Subject: Re: Doing Business With The Enemy > Could you explain what a "nuclear bomb trigger" consists of? Does this > mean something like an electronic timer? A conventional explosive to > cause an implosion? Something else? I'm just trying to understand how > specialized these "triggers" were. Sure. It is a small, rugged pulsed neutron generator. It generates about 10^8 neutrons per second, with energies of 14 Mev in very short (measured in microseconds) bursts. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 11:45:58PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > I'll give one clear example of Halliburton behaving in an unpatriotic > manner under Clinton. I've seen, from reputable sources, that they > sold nuclear bomb triggers to Hussein, using their French subsidy > to make it technically legal. (BTW, I'm also mad at the French for > giving a wink and nod to such activities.) I posted it here, without > it being disputed as factual. Could you explain what a "nuclear bomb trigger" consists of? Does this mean something like an electronic timer? A conventional explosive to cause an implosion? Something else? I'm just trying to understand how specialized these "triggers" were. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
Gautam wrote: Because, of course, it is personal. No, it's not. Not on this end anyway. I supported the invasion, and not for oil money either. Your insistence that only corruption or malice explains the actions of the Administration I may have intoned that there is the possibility that corruption or malice are present, but I have never insisted that "only corruption or malice explains the actions of the Administration" I want to know if there was corruption or malice. The Bush administration is one of the most secretive presidencies ever, what are they hiding? Why don't you answer my questions about why they are stonewalling the 9/11 investigation? suggests that I'm stupid, ignorant, corrupt, or malign. No, it does not. It means we disagree about what we see, that's all. It means that though we probably won't change each others minds because we are so polarized, we may have an influence on others in this forum who are not so polarized. In that, you are doing yourself a disservice by making the argument personal. I'm pretty sure I'm not any of those. I'm certain of it. Now, it's possible for honest people to disagree on whether the invasion was a good idea or not. But as long as you insist that it _isn't_, it _is_ personal. ??? reword, please. I volunteered to go to Baghdad. So did quite a few friends of mine. We didn't do it so that people like you could tell us we were stooges for the oil lobby. What are you saying here Guatam? That I shouldn't argue with you because you volunteered to go to Iraq? That I'm wrong because you're going to Iraq? That you're right because you're going to Iraq? It seems to me that one of the statements you quoted was right - when people look at George Bush and Osama Bin Laden and think that _George Bush_ is their enemy, there's something wrong with them. But that was just someone's character assassination. Now, I don't think you're one of those people. But you do seem to be trying to prove me wrong. Well I am one of those people that think that the Bush administration is bad news for the U.S. and the world and I and others have documented how and why we think this is so. If that somehow automatically makes me a terrorist in your mind, or even raises a question about my dedication to what this country stands for, I'm sorry, but you're very much mistaken. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
John wrote: You cannot plausibly hold both positions. If you hold to the opinions of your second paragraph, then these activities were just as reprehensible under Clinton as under Bush, because it was still the breaking of a law, even a bad law. I'm arguing that the way laws are enforced, say immigration laws for instance, are influenced by the war on terrorism. Should we castigate Clinton and everyone before him ( and including Bush pre 9/11) because they didn't enforce the immigration laws as well as they are being enforced now? I could make a cheap shot here about perjury, but I am really trying to restrain myself. Poor job. 8^) It is not at all clear to me what the spirit of a law that provides an exception for offshore subsidiaries is supposed to be. The empty office in the Caymens? Haliburton's so called offshore subsidiary is a sham. I guess that it could be sorted out in Court, but Clinton seemed strangely uninterested in pursuing these cases - isn't that just as reprehensible in your mind? No. See above. I honestly do not understand the connection between patriotist and logistics contracts.Out of curiosity, are you at all familiar with standard practice in the awarding of military logisitics contracts? No. But I am a little familiar with conflict of interest practices and I'd say that the Bush administration has a serious conflict of interest. Can you speak at all as to how the contract awarded to Kellogg, Brown, and Root differed from established norms?Can you tell me whom you think that no-bid contract awarded to KB&R should have been awarded to had it been open to bid? If not, on what grounds are you basing your charges of hypocrisy? How would we know who would have been awarded a contract had there been bidding if there wasn't any bidding? Are you saying there is no one in the world capable of delivering gasoline (and the like) other than KB&R? I'm basing my charge of hypocrisy on is the proclivity to charge one's political rivals of sympathizing with our enemies while looking the other way when it comes to one's friends whom are actually doing buisness with a country that one included as a memeber of the Axis of Evil. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam, you make my case for me. Instead of > sticking to the argument, you > make it personal, just like the people who's loyalty > is questioned when > they don't toe the Republican line in regards to > 9/11. > > -- > Doug Because, of course, it is personal. I supported the invasion, and not for oil money either. Your insistence that only corruption or malice explains the actions of the Administration suggests that I'm stupid, ignorant, corrupt, or malign. I'm pretty sure I'm not any of those. Now, it's possible for honest people to disagree on whether the invasion was a good idea or not. But as long as you insist that it _isn't_, it _is_ personal. I volunteered to go to Baghdad. So did quite a few friends of mine. We didn't do it so that people like you could tell us we were stooges for the oil lobby. It seems to me that one of the statements you quoted was right - when people look at George Bush and Osama Bin Laden and think that _George Bush_ is their enemy, there's something wrong with them. Now, I don't think you're one of those people. But you do seem to be trying to prove me wrong. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
-- > It is not at all clear to me what the spirit of a law that provides an > exception for offshore subsidiaries is supposed to be. I guess that it > could be sorted out in Court, but Clinton seemed strangely uninterested in > pursuing these cases - isn't that just as reprehensible in your mind? I'll give one clear example of Halliburton behaving in an unpatriotic manner under Clinton. I've seen, from reputable sources, that they sold nuclear bomb triggers to Hussein, using their French subsidy to make it technically legal. (BTW, I'm also mad at the French for giving a wink and nod to such activities.) I posted it here, without it being disputed as factual. It was probably technically legal, so there would be little that Clinton could do. They were opposed to him politically, so he had no sway with them. But, can't we agree that this action, at least, is reprehensible? If your argument is that they didn't do it, I would be very happy to see the refutation, honest. Originally, I was arguing the other side on Culture and was shocked to see that there was credible evidence that the triggers were sold. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 11:00 AM 1/27/2004 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote: >> 2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete >> economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya? > >John, I don't recall - are you for or against economic sanctions as a form of power? > Do you have a read on the effectiveness of them, given the recent Lybian Surprise? I am against general economic sanction in almost all cases.In general, sanctions harm the average person in a country, not a country's leadership. In particular, the plight of the Iraqi people under UN sanctions during the 1990's was a prime component of anti-American rage in the Middle East - a wellspring that was eventually tapped by Al Qaeda.* As for the Libyan situation, I do not believe that it was a coincidence that after years of stalemate the ice in Libya began to breakas Saddam Hussein was being toppled. JDG * - An extremist filled with rage about the plight of the Iraqi people opened fire on students at my alma mater, Case Western Reserve University last year. ___ 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: Doing Business With The Enemy
Gautam wrote: You don't think that claiming the President knew something like that in advance was despicable? Why don't you tell me, Guatam, why the administration has stonewalled the investigation into the causes of 9/11 and why people _shouldn't_ assume that someone that's hiding something might just have something to hide? The Republican chair of the investigation is on record as saying that the administration has been stonewalling them. Is he accusing the president of treason? This is a man that should be able to get as high a clearance as is necesssary to have access to the pertanent information and should have been granted access imediately. All Bush has to do to prove that he _didn't_ know anything beforehand is cooperate with the investigation. Why isn't he? This isn't an aqusation of treason, it's a reasonable demand by Americans to know the truth about the events leading up to the attack. And please, if you answer the question, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from using emotional, personal arguments like the ones below. I notice that most of your list of comments were in response to Dean's idiotic statements. No, I don't think any of them were. Most of them were from early 2002, I believe, when it started to come out how much the FBI and other agencies knew in advance of 9/11. Which doesn't make them accusations of a lack of patriotism, they are responses to the (at the time) front runner for the Democratic nomination suggesting that the President of the United States is a traitor. So you don't have to say the word, you can glean the message from the context. Just how filled with hate are you, Doug? If I worked in the Bush Administration (as is not impossible) will you be on this list telling people how I've become part of the conspiracy? Now I'm a conspiracy waco and filled with hate because I think Bush uses the patriotism card against his political enemies. I see. If I go to Iraq, will you be proclaiming that I'm doing it for Halliburton money? Gautam, you make my case for me. Instead of sticking to the argument, you make it personal, just like the people who's loyalty is questioned when they don't toe the Republican line in regards to 9/11. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 04:16 PM 1/27/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >John wrote: > >> 1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been >> unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration, > >Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was questioned at the drop >of a hat by the current administration you mean? > >I don't know. Was Clinton's vice president the CEO of Haliburton right up >to the year of the election? Doug, I do not kow how to respond to this argument. You argue here that these activities are not so bad when we are not at war, not questioning people's patriotism, and when the company's former CEO is not in the Administration. And yet, you then say >Irrelevant when there are laws on the books being broken. If they are bad >laws, get rid of them. And if you challenge weather or not the letter of >the law is being broken, fine, lets go to court and find out. You cannot plausibly hold both positions. If you hold to the opinions of your second paragraph, then these activities were just as reprehensible under Clinton as under Bush, because it was still the breaking of a law, even a bad law.I could make a cheap shot here about perjury, but I am really trying to restrain myself. > Certainly >the spirit of the law is being broken It is not at all clear to me what the spirit of a law that provides an exception for offshore subsidiaries is supposed to be. I guess that it could be sorted out in Court, but Clinton seemed strangely uninterested in pursuing these cases - isn't that just as reprehensible in your mind? and further, people who support and >sustain these companies by, say, giving them massive no-bid contracts, >have absolutely no business calling anyone else unpatriotic. It's the >hypocrisy that really pisses me off. I honestly do not understand the connection between patriotist and logistics contracts.Out of curiosity, are you at all familiar with standard practice in the awarding of military logisitics contracts? Can you speak at all as to how the contract awarded to Kellogg, Brown, and Root differed from established norms?Can you tell me whom you think that no-bid contract awarded to KB&R should have been awarded to had it been open to bid? If not, on what grounds are you basing your charges of hypocrisy? 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: Doing Business With The Enemy
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geez, ya let one girl die from drowning in your car > > and you're branded > > for life. > > Julia > > I am not, I should say, in any way a Kennedy hater. > My first political campaign was for Mark _Kennedy_ > Shriver. Ted's career makes him one of the most > influential Senators in history. The last 1-2 years, > though, have been a disgrace, and people should stop > pretending that he is in any way what he used to be. I was being -- something. Should have thrown a smiley in there. I grew up seeing that Ted Kennedy was doing some good stuff, but that his personal life seemed to be a bit of a mess at times, and figuring that eventually it was really going to bite him in the end. So I've had mixed feelings about him for awhile. (One interesting memory was of hearing a song on the radio going home from July 4 fireworks, where some amateur folksinger was bewailing all the various messes he was blaming Carter for, and ending with Kennedy being his great hope. It was to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." Weird what sorts of things will stay with you from your childhood. This was in 1979 or 1980) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/27/2004 8:26:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire > collected speeches of George Bush, would you find the > word unpatriotic even once? Come on Gautam can you please refrain from empty retorical devices. That is like saying that a mob leader who orders murders is innocent because he never pulled the trigger. It is irrelevant whether Bush used this term. Members of his administration, Republican members of congress and conservative commentators have accused war desenters of being unpatriotic of supporting terrorism etc. Of course Bush is not going to make direct statements himself. The point about the Halliburton story about the Caymen Island story is that this was clearly a technique for getting around a US law. Possibly legal but definitely unethical. If these efforts truly aided countries engaged in terrorism (aka members of the access of evil) then these companies are behaving in a reprehensible manner. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
In a message dated 1/27/2004 8:26:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire > collected speeches of George Bush, would you find the > word unpatriotic even once? Come on Gautam can you please refrain from empty retorical devices. That is like saying that a mob leader who orders murders is innocent because he never pulled the trigger. It is irrelevant whether Bush used this term. Members of his administration, Republican members of congress and conservative commentators have accused war desenters of being unpatriotic of supporting terrorism etc. Of course Bush is not going to make direct statements himself. The point about the Halliburton story about the Caymen Island story is that this was clearly a technique for getting around a US law. Possibly legal but definitely unethical. If these efforts truly aided countries engaged in terrorism (aka members of the access of evil) then these companies are behaving in a reprehensible manner. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geez, ya let one girl die from drowning in your car > and you're branded > for life. > Julia I am not, I should say, in any way a Kennedy hater. My first political campaign was for Mark _Kennedy_ Shriver. Ted's career makes him one of the most influential Senators in history. The last 1-2 years, though, have been a disgrace, and people should stop pretending that he is in any way what he used to be. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war > was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons. > Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would, > again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but > morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too > busy drowning innocent young women to think about what > he was saying - something like that. Geez, ya let one girl die from drowning in your car and you're branded for life. Sheesh. (Of course, all I know about it comes from Jack Olsen's book That and the bumper stickers reading "More people died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island" that I saw around on various vehicles.) Of course, that's not the only stupid thing he's done, but tying up a vital bridge at rush hour isn't remembered more that two decades later by anyone, unless they were actually in one of the cars stuck for awhile. Julia the Main St. bridge in Nashua, early in 1980, on a Wednesday afternoon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So we can infer high treason from the above remarks > but we can't infer > that the Bush administration is playing the > patriotism card unless Bush > uses the word "unpatriotic" in a speech? > > -- > Doug You don't think that claiming the President knew something like that in advance was despicable? I notice that most of your list of comments were in response to Dean's idiotic statements. Which doesn't make them accusations of a lack of patriotism, they are responses to the (at the time) front runner for the Democratic nomination suggesting that the President of the United States is a traitor. Just how filled with hate are you, Doug? If I worked in the Bush Administration (as is not impossible) will you be on this list telling people how I've become part of the conspiracy? If I go to Iraq, will you be proclaiming that I'm doing it for Halliburton money? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
Gautam Mukunda wrote: He suggested that "the most interesting theory" about 9/11 was that President Bush was warned in advance about it by the Saudis. He claimed not to believe it - but bringing it up as "the most interesting theory" clearly attaches some credence to it. Knowing about 9/11 in advance and not stopping it is high treason in anyone's book. That's just one among many pretty much common accusations like that. So we can infer high treason from the above remarks but we can't infer that the Bush administration is playing the patriotism card unless Bush uses the word "unpatriotic" in a speech? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:26:54 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was questioned at the drop of a hat by the current administration you mean? So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire collected speeches of George Bush, would you find the word unpatriotic even once? The word unpatriotic doesn't have to be used, nor does it have to come from Bush himself. What has Bush said to discourage these kinds of attacks? Quotes like those below are available in almost limitless supply. It was the Republican's strategy in 2002 to question the patriotism of those who opposed them, however indirectly, and it remains a tool in their arsenal. White House communications director Dan Bartlett: statements by Democrats "are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do." Vice President Dick Cheney (with Bush's approval (according to Time magazine)) Democrats "need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11." Minority (at the time) Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., speaking about administration critics: "For us to be talking like our enemy is George W. Bush and not Osama bin Laden, that's not right." Fred Barnes (Fox): Democrats "looked like not a loyal opposition but a disloyal opposition, encouraging ... conspiracy theories about how President Bush might have known about the terrorist attacks prior to September 11 and didn't do anything about them." Washington Times: "some Republicans with access to the White House" said that "the White House must convince both the Democrats and the press that a return to the national unity that prevailed until last week is essential to the health and security of the nation." Lott again: "How dare Sen. Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field." Rep. Thomas Davis, R-Va., head of the National Republican Campaign Committee: Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country." Ashcroft in response to critisizm of the administration: We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil. (see http://tinyurl.com/2kazz for analisis by the Washington Post) Ann Coulter: "Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason haven't slowed them down." Michael Kelly, columnist, in the Washington Post: "In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in Partisan Review, of Great Britain's pacifists: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' " . . . An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist." Limbaugh: "Daschle's allies in this situation include the barbarians who run North Korea, the Islamic extremists who run Iran and the mass murderer Saddam Hussein who controls Iraq. That's the company Tom Daschle has joined" (Windows Media Player audio). "Now he's decided to roll the dice and align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein," and You seek political advantage with the nation at war. There is no greater testament to the depths to which the Democratic Party and liberalism have fallen. You now position yourself, Senator Daschle, to exploit future terrorist attacks for political gain. You are worse, sir, than the ambulance-chasing tort lawyers that make up your chief contributors. You, sir, are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to patriotism, you are a disgrace to this country, you are a disgrace to the Senate, and you ought to be a disgrace to the Democratic Party but sadly you're probably a hero among some of them today... Novak: Barbara Krull sends me an e-mail saying, 'It is patriotic to debate foreign policy, especially when we have troops on the ground whose lives depen
RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did he? When did he do that? > > -j- He suggested that "the most interesting theory" about 9/11 was that President Bush was warned in advance about it by the Saudis. He claimed not to believe it - but bringing it up as "the most interesting theory" clearly attaches some credence to it. Knowing about 9/11 in advance and not stopping it is high treason in anyone's book. That's just one among many pretty much common accusations like that. He's not alone. Ted Kennedy claimed that the Iraq war was "cooked up in Texas" for corrupt oil reasons. Sending us to war to pay off your buddies would, again, be treason in my book - maybe not legally, but morally. Teddy was probably drunk off his ass, or too busy drowning innocent young women to think about what he was saying - something like that. But I don't hear anybody in the Democratic Party repudiating him either. I'm pretty sure that he's also accused the Administration of being unpatriotic, although I couldn't swear that he used the word per se. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
> Howard Dean > accused the President of the United States in a time > of war of high treason. > > So which party is questioning people's patriotism again? Did he? When did he do that? -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John wrote: > > > 1) Given that the practices described below almost > certainly have been > > unchanged since the days of the Clinton > Administration, > > Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was > questioned at the drop > of a hat by the current administration you mean? So, tell me, Doug, if you searched the entire collected speeches of George Bush, would you find the word unpatriotic even once? Note that Wes Clark (for example) said that anyone who didn't support the graduated _income tax_ was unpatriotic, and he used the word. Howard Dean accused the President of the United States in a time of war of high treason. So which party is questioning people's patriotism again? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
John wrote: 1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration, Before we were at "war" and peoples patriotism was questioned at the drop of a hat by the current administration you mean? how do you explain your above statement in the above context?Was there a member of the Clinton Administration who was buddies with Halliburton? I don't know. Was Clinton's vice president the CEO of Haliburton right up to the year of the election? 2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya? Irrelevant when there are laws on the books being broken. If they are bad laws, get rid of them. And if you challenge weather or not the letter of the law is being broken, fine, lets go to court and find out. Certainly the spirit of the law is being broken and further, people who support and sustain these companies by, say, giving them massive no-bid contracts, have absolutely no business calling anyone else unpatriotic. It's the hypocrisy that really pisses me off. -- Doug Anybody but Bush, '04 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Doing Business With The Enemy
> 2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete > economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya? John, I don't recall - are you for or against economic sanctions as a form of power? Do you have a read on the effectiveness of them, given the recent Lybian Surprise? -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Doing Business With The Enemy
At 11:45 PM 1/26/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >It's all OK for [President Bush's] buddies... Two questions for you Doug. 1) Given that the practices described below almost certainly have been unchanged since the days of the Clinton Administration, how do you explain your above statement in the above context?Was there a member of the Clinton Administration who was buddies with Halliburton? 2) Do you truly believe that the United States should have complete economic sanctions against the Iran, Syria, and Libya? 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: Doing Business With The Enemy
It has always seemed to me, that as long as the business doesn't directly involve weapons, it is probably beneficial in the long run to establish commercial ties with countries that we would like to become more free. First commercial ties, then naturally personal and family ties, and finally government ties... On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:45:49PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: > It's all OK for Bushies buddies... > > > Doing Business With The Enemy > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Doing Business With The Enemy
It's all OK for Bushies buddies... Doing Business With The Enemy http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml (CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money? Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states. In other words, there are U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya that have sponsored terrorists. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports. "The revenue that is generated from the work that these companies are doing, we believe, helps to underwrite and support terrorism,â says William Thompson, the New York City comptroller who oversees the $80 billion in pension funds for all city workers. He says he wants everyone with a retirement or investment portfolio to know what these companies are up to: âWe're going to increase the public visibility on this issue until these companies change their practices.â Heâs actually identified specific companies that have invested in these rogue countries, including Halliburton, Conoco-Phillips and General Electric. And he points out that New York's pension funds own nearly a billion dollars worth of stock in these three Fortune 500 companies, which have operations in Iran and Syria. What was Thompsonâs reaction when he found out about this? âAnger that there were companies that could be contributing to attacks on our nation,â he says. âYouâd think to yourself, well, why would they do that? â I didn't think they could. And more than anything it was, you thought, that the law prevented them from doing this.â In fact, U.S. law does ban virtually all commerce with the rogue nations, but there's a loophole that G.E., Conoco-Phillips and Halliburton have exploited: The law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans. âThese three companies, as far as we were concerned, appear to have violated the spirit of the law,â says Thompson. âIn the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran.â That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands â a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly. Halliburton is the company that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO in 1995 to 2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian Government. In the case of Iran, Thompson says they earn most of their revenues through their oil industry. So what is the connection between that oil business and terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? âThe Iranian Government is receiving dollars from it. And then turning around and exporting terrorism around the world. It benefits terrorism. At least that's our belief,â says Thompson. 60 Minutes decided to ask Halliburton's subsidiary about its work in Iran. But we weren't allowed to enter the building with a camera. So we went in with a hidden camera, and were introduced to David Walker, manager of the local Calidonian Bank, where the subsidiary is registered. 60 Minutes was expecting to find a bustling business, but, to our surprise, Walker told us that while Halliburton Products and Services was registered at this address, it was in name only. There is no actual office here or anywhere else in the Caymans. And there are no employees on site. We were told that if mail for the Halliburton subsidiary comes to this address, they re-route it to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. âIf you understood what most of these companies do, you would, they're not doing any business in Cayman per se. They're doing business, international business,â says Walker. âWould it make sense to have somebody in Cayman pushing paper around? I don't know. And some people do it. And some people don't. And it's mostly driven by whatever the issues are with the head office.â Does that mean the head office is calling the shots? If it is, that would be against the law, which says the subsidiary must be completely independent of the U.S. company. But 60 Minutesâ attempts to ask headquarters in Houston about this were rebuffed. In a letter to New York City Comptroller Thompson, Halliburton says its Cayman Island subsidiary is actually run out of Dubai. 60 Minutes went there and learned that it shares office space, phone and fax lines with a
