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

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:05 PM 1/18/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>Judges 11:31 - 40.  Virgin Burnt Offering.

I'm glad to know that you put such stock in The Bible to believe everything
you read.   If I didn't know better, I'd say that The Fool is becoming a
Christian on us.  :-)

30 
Jephthah made a vow to the LORD.(2)   "If you deliver the Ammonites into my
power," he said, 
31 
"whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in
triumph from the Ammonites shall belong to the LORD. I shall offer him up
as a holocaust." 
32 
Jephthah then went on to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the LORD
delivered them into his power, 
33 
so that he inflicted a severe defeat on them, from Aroer to the approach of
Minnith (twenty cities in all) and as far as Abel-keramin. Thus were the
Ammonites brought into subjection by the Israelites. 
34 
When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came
forth, playing the tambourines and dancing. She was an only child: he had
neither son nor daughter besides her. 
35 
When he saw her, he rent his garments and said, "Alas, daughter, you have
struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the
LORD and I cannot retract." 
36 
"Father," she replied, "you have made a vow to the LORD. Do with me as you
have vowed, because the LORD has wrought vengeance for you on your enemies
the Ammonites." 
37 
3 Then she said to her father, "Let me have this favor. Spare me for two
months, that I may go off down the mountains to mourn my virginity with my
companions." 
38 
"Go," he replied, and sent her away for two months. So she departed with
her companions and mourned her virginity on the mountains. 
39 
At the end of the two months she returned to her father, who did to her as
he had vowed. She had not been intimate with man. It then became a custom
in Israel 
40 
for Israelite women to go yearly to mourn the daughter of Jephthah the
Gileadite for four days of the year. 


Footnotes

2 [30-40] The text clearly implies that Jephthah vowed a human sacrifice,
according to the custom of his pagan neighbors; cf 2 Kings 3:27. The
inspired author merely records the fact; he does not approve of the action.

3 [37] Mourn my virginity: to bear children was woman's greatest pride; to
be childless was regarded as a great misfortune. Hence Jephthah's daughter
asks permission to mourn the fact that she will be put to death before she
can bear children.



New American Bible Copyright © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian
Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC.

___
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

Human Sacrifices [was: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official]

[Alberto Monteiro]

The Fool wrote:
>
> Judges 11:31 - 40.  Virgin Burnt Offering.
>
And it's not something that is praised by the guy who wrote that
book

Alberto Monteiro

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

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

[The Fool]

> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> William T Goodall wrote:
> > I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they
> > all worship Lucifer. That and the blood-drinking and the human
> > sacrifice...
> 
> Please keep your facts straight.  The human sacrifice was a one-time
thing.

Judges 11:31 - 40.  Virgin Burnt Offering.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[Reggie Bautista]

William T Goodall wrote:
> I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they
> all worship Lucifer. That and the blood-drinking and the human
> sacrifice...

Please keep your facts straight.  The human sacrifice was a one-time thing.

Perhaps you meant to refer to the ritualized cannibalism?  :-)

Reggie Bautista
VFP Signs and Symbols
Transubstantiation Class


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

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

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Beck wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> First, these monsters have different "hid dice":
> Saddam might
> be the worst of them _by far_. [some of them are
> quite new in the
> monster business, like Hafez Assad's heir, whose
> name I can't
> remember]
> 
> Second, these monsters have friends, and if the USA
> wants
> to take them down, probably it would have to take
> the allies
> down too. Or maybe taking them down would _turn_
> their
> allies into new monsters.
> 
> Alberto Monteiro

Plus, the argument that "we're not doing the right
thing everywhere, therefore we must do the right thing
_nowhere_" is not terribly persuasive...

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

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

[Alberto Monteiro]

William T Goodall wrote:
>
> I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they
> all worship Lucifer. That and the blood-drinking and the human
> sacrifice...
>

No, it's not. Lucifer means something like "carrier of light", and it
came from the Latin translation of the Septuaginta, that had
"Phosphoros", which was the (wrong) translation of 
Venus-qua-morning-star, which was part of a text that was
_condemning_ astrology

> Religion is EVIL. Just say no :)
>
You must recognize that it was not Evil in that case: Religion is 
better than Astrology. Believing that there is a God that wants you
to behave properly is better than believing that the configuration of
the planets justifies all your actions.


Alberto Monteiro

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

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

[Alberto Monteiro]

Tom Beck wrote:
>
> 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?
>
First, these monsters have different "hid dice": Saddam might
be the worst of them _by far_. [some of them are quite new in the
monster business, like Hafez Assad's heir, whose name I can't
remember]

Second, these monsters have friends, and if the USA wants
to take them down, probably it would have to take the allies
down too. Or maybe taking them down would _turn_ their
allies into new monsters.

Alberto Monteiro

___
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

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: 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: 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

[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: 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: 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: 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

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

[Bemmzim]

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. Another 
reason is that your true intentions might have convinced quite a few groups and 
individuals of the correctness of our plan. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[John D. Giorgis]

At 10:23 PM 1/11/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>John wrote:
>
>
>> If you go back and look at almost any major speech on the subject by the
>> Bush Administration, you will not find the case presented as you did 
>> above.
>>
>
>Sorry, John, this is completely revisionist.  I posted a URL to Colin 
>Powell's speech to the U.N. several months back while discussing this 
>topic.  He spent about 95% of the speech pointing out the evidence for 
>WMDs in order to justify the invasion.  There was one paragraph relating 
>to the plight of the Iraqi people.  The Bush administration sold this war 
>to us by telling us Iraq was a threat.  Period.  any attempt to deny this 
>is .

Well, first of all, I disagree with your characterization of "95%."But,
even conceding that for a moment. what, does the other 5% suddenly not
count any more?

Secondly,if you go back to Colin Powell's speech, I think that you will
clearly find COPIOUS references to the legal justifications for the war
based on Iraqi noncompliance with UN resolutions.   The same is true for
Bush's speech to the United Nations.   In both cases, Powell and Bush
asserted that the UN's credibility was at stake by not enforcing Iraqi
compliance with UN resolutions.Tom, however, ommitted these legal
reasons.  

Furthermore, what about the two reasons for this war that the Bush
Administration couldn't publicly admit, because to do so would completely
undermine those very same reasons?   I would also add a third reason to
that list in that the Bush Administration could certainly never *say* that
"Well, the record of our intelligence services is complete and utter
failure in keeping track of the nuclear programs of Pakistan, India, Iran,
the DPRK, and indeed, pre-war Iraq and since it is undipsuted that Iraq
wants to acquire nuclear weapons, and since we don't have great confidence
in our ability to *know* how close Iraq is, especially with the Iraqis
clearly trying to hide something from us."   

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.

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:


If you go back and look at almost any major speech on the subject by the
Bush Administration, you will not find the case presented as you did 
above.

Sorry, John, this is completely revisionist.  I posted a URL to Colin 
Powell's speech to the U.N. several months back while discussing this 
topic.  He spent about 95% of the speech pointing out the evidence for 
WMDs in order to justify the invasion.  There was one paragraph relating 
to the plight of the Iraqi people.  The Bush administration sold this war 
to us by telling us Iraq was a threat.  Period.  any attempt to deny this 
is pure, unadulterated, bovine fecal matter.

--
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 09:14 PM 1/11/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Um...well...considering that he never mentioned any of this at any point,
and 
>that the reasons he's given for invading Iraq have turned out not to be the 
>case (no WMD, no real Al Qaeda connection, no responsibility for 9-11) - 
>doesn't it bother you at ALL that this man appears to have come into
office planning 
>an aggressive war against a country that we now know (and he must have known 
>then) did not really pose any threat to us?

If you go back and look at almost any major speech on the subject by the
Bush Administration, you will not find the case presented as you did above.

Instead, the case included:

1) Iraq was blatantly not complying with 12 years worth of United Nations
resolutions.   (Thus, there were many aspects of Iraq's WMD programs we
could not be certain of.  However, we did know that Iraq was clearly acting
as if they were hiding something.)

2) Iraq was oppressing the freedoms and rights of 38 million people.

3) Invading Iraq would save the lives of the millions of Iraqis who were
starving, dying from lack of treatment, and being murdered - all by Saddam.

In addition, there were two very strong reasons for invading Iraq that the
Bush Administration clearly recognized yet could not, and indeed, could
NEVER publicly state to the American people.

4) Invading Iraq would allow us to remove our troops from the Muslim Holy
Land of Saudi Arabia, thus removing a key recruiting tool of Al Qaeda

5) So long as Saddam was in Iraq, we had an obligation to defend Saudi
Arabia - which was very clearly viewed as extreme hypocrisy by much of the
world, and indeed, particularly the Arab world.   Indeed, US support for
Saudi oppression was a key feature of Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts.   A
liberated Iraq, however, would allow the US to less visibly support Saudi
oppression, and indeed, allow us to begin to subtly work to end Saudi
oppression.

These last two reasons are all the reason we needed to invade Iraq and
I hope you can see that it is self-evident that we can't exactly go
trumpeting the fact that we are basically going along with at least part of
two key Al Qaeda demands - removing our troops from the Muslim Holy Land
and ending overt and visible support for the Saudi oppressors.

>I repeat: this is not the Pentagon having contingency plans. After all, I 
>doubt seriously that the Bush White House was calling up the plans for war 
>against Argentina or Belgium. 

That's because the Bush Administration lives in the land of reality.And
given our so-called "intelligence" on the nuclear programs of Pakistan,
India, Iran, and the DPRK over the past decade, the Bush Administration
would have been very wise to keep such contingency plans on tap, in case
our "intelligence' failed us as badly in Iraq as in those countries.

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

[Deborah Harrell]

> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:

> >So, is this a disgruntled employee snapping at the
> >folks who fired him?  Or is this former member of
> the Nixon and Ford admins blowing a whistle for good
> >reason? 
 
> I think almost certainly the former.

  I daresay I have correctly guesstimated the
way most of the active Brinellers will have answered
my rhetorical questions!

> The piece opens with O'Neill criticizing the way
> that Bush runs Cabinet
> Meetings.   It sounds an awful like he just did not
> fit into the
> operational culture of The White House, as there is
> a lot of evidence that
> Bush's "CEO" style has managed conflicting ideas
> from his staff fairly well in my mind.
> 
> At any rate, who cares about this stuff?  

  I also wrote:
"Many of the people Bush has chosen to surround
himself
with - Cheney and Ashcroft in particular - are not
friends of the Constitution, democracy, "the common
man" or the rule of law.  I am quite sure that I never
learned in Civics class that indefinite detention,
torture-by-proxy, and 'unquestioning belief is the
only form of patriotism allowed' were core American
values."

If the premier leader of the free world acts
'cavalierly' about some important topics, and does not
appear to understand basic underlying principles of
American government, we had all _better_ care. It is
one thing to plan for a possible necessity -- another
to make the merely possible seem imperitive.

Debbi

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

[TomFODW]

> At any rate, who cares about this stuff?    About the most damning claim
> O'Neill has is that Bush actually had far more pre-planning for the war in
> Iraq than we have previously none.   So, we are going to pillory Bush for
> planning ahead?
> 

Um...well...considering that he never mentioned any of this at any point, and 
that the reasons he's given for invading Iraq have turned out not to be the 
case (no WMD, no real Al Qaeda connection, no responsibility for 9-11) - 
doesn't it bother you at ALL that this man appears to have come into office planning 
an aggressive war against a country that we now know (and he must have known 
then) did not really pose any threat to us?

I repeat: this is not the Pentagon having contingency plans. After all, I 
doubt seriously that the Bush White House was calling up the plans for war 
against Argentina or Belgium. 



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

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:42 PM 1/11/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
>So, is this a disgruntled employee snapping at the
>folks who fired him?  Or is this former member of the
>Nixon and Ford admins blowing a whistle for good
>reason? 

I think almost certainly the former.

The piece opens with O'Neill criticizing the way that Bush runs Cabinet
Meetings.   It sounds an awful like he just did not fit into the
operational culture of The White House, as there is a lot of evidence that
Bush's "CEO" style has managed conflicting ideas from his staff fairly well
in my mind.

At any rate, who cares about this stuff?About the most damning claim
O'Neill has is that Bush actually had far more pre-planning for the war in
Iraq than we have previously none.   So, we are going to pillory Bush for
planning ahead?

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

[Deborah Harrell]

--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<>
> 
> "From the very beginning, there was a conviction
> that Saddam Hussein was
> a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells
> Stahl. "For me, the
> notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the
> unilateral right to do
> whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap,"
> says O'Neill. 
 

So, is this a disgruntled employee snapping at the
folks who fired him?  Or is this former member of the
Nixon and Ford admins blowing a whistle for good
reason? 

"...In the book, O’Neill says that the president did
not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no
free-flow of ideas or open debate...O'Neill is the
only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says
that someone high up in the administration – Donald
Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill not to do this book... 

"...During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized
the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too
interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our
troops all around the world in nation-building
missions, then we're going to have a serious problem
coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that." 

“The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how
emphatically, from the very first, the administration
had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first
day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just
saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of
what they had said during the election.” 

"...The former treasury secretary accuses Vice
President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker,
but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian
guard that encircled the president" to block out
contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says
O’Neill..." 


Many of the people Bush has chosen to surround himself
with - Cheney and Ashcroft in particular - are not
friends of the Constitution, democracy, "the common
man" or the rule of law.  I am quite sure that I never
learned in Civics class that indefinite detention,
torture-by-proxy, and 'unquestioning belief is the
only form of patriotism allowed' were core American
values.

Debbi
But Some Are More Equal Than Others Maru   :-/

__
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: Not Bush2 (Was Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official)

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 12:55:12AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:

> I like Thomas Friedman's idea that GW Bush's presidency is *NOT* Bush 
> II, but Reagan III, or even better, Regan Squared.
>
> Regan made Goldwater look moderate, the W Bush administration makes
> Regan look moderate and Goldwater seem a half-hearted fiscal moderate,
> social liberal, big government pragmaticst.

At least Reagan made some significant spending cuts. And when the
deficit skyrocketed, he even raised taxes if I recall. I don't expect to
see such fiscal semi-responsibility from this Bush.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Not Bush2 (Was Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official)

[Trent Shipley]

On Sunday 2004-01-11 00:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Plans in the Pentagon are not the same thing as plans in the White House. I
> think the point is not that the Defense Dept. was doing its job but that
> the newly installed Bush administration was thinking about invading Iraq
> months before Sept. 11 gave them what they would use as an ostensible
> reason. Given that Dubya's entire presidency is basically about doing stuff
> his father couldn't, this does not surprise me.

I like Thomas Friedman's idea that GW Bush's presidency is *NOT* Bush II, but 
Reagan III, or even better, Regan Squared.  

Regan made Goldwater look moderate, the W Bush administration makes Regan look 
moderate and Goldwater seem a half-hearted fiscal moderate, social liberal, 
big government pragmaticst.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[TomFODW]

> And there are plans for invading N Korea, Cuba, Russia, China, Japan,
> Columbia, New Zealand, Spain, Canada..any country you want. It's what
> the military does.
> 

Plans in the Pentagon are not the same thing as plans in the White House. I 
think the point is not that the Defense Dept. was doing its job but that the 
newly installed Bush administration was thinking about invading Iraq months 
before Sept. 11 gave them what they would use as an ostensible reason. Given that 
Dubya's entire presidency is basically about doing stuff his father couldn't, 
this does not surprise me.



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

[Kevin Tarr]

At 03:16 PM 1/10/2004, you wrote:
<>
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the
notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do
whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap," says O'Neill.
O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is
the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by
Ron Suskind. Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he
interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months
of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing
Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's
downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war
crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil. "There are memos," Suskind
tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam
Iraq.'" A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For
Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks
about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones
have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.
And there are plans for invading N Korea, Cuba, Russia, China, Japan, 
Columbia, New Zealand, Spain, Canada..any country you want. It's what 
the military does.

There already were Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil, like France.

Kevin T. - VRWC
Don't let the facts hit your ass on the way out
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

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

[The Fool]

<>

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the
notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do
whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap," says O'Neill. 

O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is
the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by
Ron Suskind. Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he
interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months
of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing
Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's
downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war
crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil. "There are memos," Suskind
tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam
Iraq.'" A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For
Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks
about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones
have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says. 

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in
a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be
invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of
it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in
the book. 

--

<>

<>

>From the Nuremberg Indictments, Count 2, "Crimes against peace":
All the defendants with divers other persons, during a period of years
preceding 8 May 1945, participated in the planning, preparation,
initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.




I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted
Co-Conspirators of America
and to the Republicans for which I can't stand
one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud
Indefensible
with Liberty and Justice Forget it.

 -Life in Hell (Matt Groening)

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