Osama bin Laden is dead

[GostHacked]

For years I've heard about how Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan and the UN and Elf-Petrofina and Maurice Strong were to blame for the failure of the sanctions against Iraq. But apparently it's George H.W. Bush's fault.

The point I was trying to make is, he does shift blame either way. You can also say Clinton screwed up, however, there was another Bush in office just before Clinton. Bush Cheney 2004 also likes to remind us all about how corrupt our own Canadian government is, and I agree with him.

Yes, the claim that American's just didn't care about OBL by 2004 is obviously pretty weak.

That is a twist on my words. SO I shall clarify that the US Admin no longer cared about OBL. For what Americans care about seem to be much different than what the current administration cares about.

[kuzadd]

kimmy: my "new buddy" lol, BC, will tell you, of that I am certain, that Kerry would have had the same policy, as Bush.

There would have been NO withdrawal from Iraq, for one.

FYI: OBL and his network, were created under a democratic president Jimmy Carter, do some homework on that, Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski

see interview here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ncy_afghanistan

and loads of other info, inc. entire books

When Carter was out and Mr Reagan came in, the Republican, his administration kept right on with the funding , supplying weapons, funding the ISI, and the madrass schools throughout Pakistan, educating, training, supplying weapons.

1984-1994: US Supports Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan

Edit event

The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban are still using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.” (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books). [Washington Post, 3/23/2002; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 5/6/2002]

and this nonsense continued on through Bush 1 and Clinton (Serbia)

In other words, Republican, Democrat, it didn't matter, AlQuaeda was fomented, funded, aided, abetted, through numerous administrations, as they were useful, very useful wrt the US's foreign policy. NOTHING has Changed!

Kimmy:

None of that actually constitutes evidence that the tape isn't what it appears to be.

and the Bush administration touting it as such, constitutes ZERO evidence, that the tape is authentic.( for numerous reasons)

Nor does AlJazeera playing it.

Nor do anonymous mail drops or deliveries by persons CLAIMED to be affiliated with AlQuaeda, lend credibility.

Therefore Kimmy, the "confession tape #2 ", (cause #1, was touted also by the Bush administration as the "real thing" also) is, or should be realistically viewed as suspect.

The Bush admin., did nothing to authenticate said tapes, because there was NO advantage to doing so for them, and that should tell you something. Why Kimmy?

Big red flags, should be waving.

They aren't for you because you so dearly wish to believe this nonsense, based on no factual evidence, or any supported reason, to actually believe it.

[kuzadd]

wrt : jessica lynch, pat Tillman and WMD's

kimmy

All of those things became much bigger stories when the truth was found out than they were when the lies were in the first place.

were they, I would say that is not true.

jessica lynch, do you recall the coverage?

over the top!

Did the media dutifully report the garbage, or did they look into it?

They dutifully reported.

Pat Tillman, did the media look into that, NOPE, dutifully reported.

Had Tillman's parent's not pushed the issue, the media would have been quiet.

WMD's. where was the media on that one?

Did they do there homework?

Nope!

Instead we had the propaganda mistress Judith Miller and most pundits, simply regurgitating, Bush co. drivel, where was there credible investigation?????

There wasn't any, so to speak of.

Did their dutiful reporting mean these stories were the real deal,or were credible. NOPE!

Yet, there they were being reported on as if all was good in the land of make believe.

This is your logic wrt Aljazeera playing the tapes, that makes the tapes credible, it doesn't make them anything. Except a sensational scoop.

Many networks regurgitated the Jessica Lynch story, it was still a lie.

Pat Tillman: Lie

Wmd's : Lie

Saddam's Statue coming down, reported as a milestone! Not so much, when it was quietly found out it was a PR stunt, bet you didn't know that?. Gosh wonder why it wasn't screaming from the front pages?!

Because in war time the media will engage in a support the President mentality.Yup!

Because the media, will willingly cooperate with the gov. to engage in wartime propaganda. Yup! (Long, long history on that, read up on it. ) See also: Yellow Journalism: especially Randolph Hearst and outright LIES during wartime.

How about GW1 and the Kuwaiti princess, do you know what I am referring to?

I'll tell you , you didn't see that bit of bs, front page, either once that scam, got out!

The media will report, on what get's the ratings, sells advertising, but, will NOT REALLY cross the admin. in power, particularly during war time.

Edited August 16, 2007 by kuzadd

[Sulaco]

Kimmy:

I've learned many surprising things in the past few days.

For years I've heard about how Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan and the UN and Elf-Petrofina and Maurice Strong were to blame for the failure of the sanctions against Iraq. But apparently it's George H.W. Bush's fault.

And for years we've been hearing how it was Bill Clinton's fault that the Islamists got so brave-- Somalia, Al Qaeda, that stuff. But apparently that was George H.W. Bush's fault too.

Whatever it takes to make excuses for Junior.

Add a "too" to the end of that first pragraph and your statement would basically be accurate.

What is this - an appeal to authority? A strawman? You certainly haven't been hearing that from me. I've only just met you. Yes - CLinton was a putz. But hey - he was working with an international order left to him by Bush Sr.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Sulaco

[kimmy]

Kimmy:

Add a "too" to the end of that first pragraph and your statement would basically be accurate.

What is this - an appeal to authority? A strawman? You certainly haven't been hearing that from me. I've only just met you. Yes - CLinton was a putz. But hey - he was working with an international order left to him by Bush Sr.

No, not specifically from you. But it has been a mantra of a great many right wing types for years. I just find it interesting at how quickly the mantra got amended when I suggested that Bush Sr's handling of Iraq part 1 was far wiser than Bush Jr's handling of Iraq part 2.

Leaving aside quibbling over how "neatly" Iraq part 1 was wrapped up, I still think the original point stands: the aftermath of the first Gulf War was minor compared to the aftermath of the second.

And I can't see how anybody could disagree. By any measure-- financial cost, American/allied death toll, civilian deaths in the aftermath, humanitarian issues-- Bush Sr's war was better by an order of magnitude than Dubya's foolish adventure.

-k

[kimmy]

As for the claim that OBL's objective was to see Pres. Bush reelected - quoting CIA operatives is hardly helpful. The agency has demonstrated its incompetency in the lead up to this war, since then, and frankly for amny years prior.

The CIA screwed up the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq? Are you sure about that?

They also appear to have an institutional ahtred of Pres. Bush. Without having seen prior attempts by OBL to influence elections (I don't think anyone is claiming his other tapes have had the goal of influencing elections one way or another), they claim that this was one such and claim to know his desires. Ridiculous. Especially given that OBL has not shown much political savvy prior to releasing that tape and had never demonstrated much interest in domestic politics. But again the theory plays into certain modes of thinking about this conflict and Pres. Bush's decisions.

So of course you, like they work backward. You conclude OBL must be intelligent and that his tape must ahve been meant to do what actually occured. You assume a motive. And then you work backward to bolster our argument. There is no a priori support for the claim.

That there was a motive is obvious from the timing of the message. Kerry and Bush and every political analyst and media outlet on the planet recognized as much and said as much on the very day the tape appeared. You're not going to argue that OBL wasn't attempting to influence the US election, because that would be silly.

So what influence did he hope he might have?

By 2004, many people had made the observation that every time Bin Laden came out with a new tape, Bush's popularity went up.

And surely he did not think an 18 minute attack on Dubya would do anything except help Bush. Only a little bit of common sense is required to see that the message "Bin Laden hates Bush!" "Bin Laden fears Bush!" "Bin Laden wants Kerry to win!" could only hurt Kerry and help Bush. It is obvious what effect the message was intended to have.

So once you've looked at the easy questions-- whether OBL was trying to influence the US election, and which direction he wanted to influence it in-- you should start thinking about the more difficult question: why?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

And I can't see how anybody could disagree. By any measure-- financial cost, American/allied death toll, civilian deaths in the aftermath, humanitarian issues-- Bush Sr's war was better by an order of magnitude than Dubya's foolish adventure.

Lot's to debate here....Bush Sr. didn't get 4 years of occupation and he certainly didn't get Saddam, which was the American objective. The 12 year "aftermath" of Gulf War I had it's own set of costs, risks, and humanitarian issues (that would be the not neatly part you wish to ignore). The peaceniks claimed that 50,000 civilians were dying per month from UN sanctions.

Did the invasion of Iraq and occupation cost more? I sure hope so, because that would make Bush Sr's decision to leave Saddam standing even more foolish.

[Riverwind]

I sure hope so, because that would make Bush Sr's decision to leave Saddam standing even more foolish.

You are assuming that Saddam was actually a threat to US large enough to justify the blood and money spent on getting rid of him. We know today that there were no WMDs and that there was never any real evidence that he had them. The world would be a safer place for everyone - including most Iraqis - if Saddam was still in power today. Given that reality it is impossible to claim that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a complete and total failure.

Things might have been different if Dubya had built a real concensus that the invasion was necessary as his father did in 1991.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Riverwind

[kimmy]

kimmy: my "new buddy" lol, BC, will tell you, of that I am certain, that Kerry would have had the same policy, as Bush.

There would have been NO withdrawal from Iraq, for one.

He might say that, but what BC2004 will say if it's required to support his idol, vs what BC2004 actually believes, might be two different things.

BC2004's real views are given in comments like these:

Bin Laden's cause is not benefitting from thousands of dead recruits....so the word tremendous rings hollow. Did you think President Bush would just lob a few cruise missiles (like Clinton) and call it a day?

Yes sir....that is the fundemental difference. You will not hear President Bush whining about the big bad tewawists getting even more "upset" because the American infidels won't go home. President Bush keeps a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office as inspiration for engaging Usama's and any like minded scourge as long as he has a say in the matter.

And truth be told, BC2004 is right. Kerry and his Democrat buddies had/have little stomach to stay in Iraq, and no interest in pursuing further military action against countries like Iran or other military action in the "war on terrah."

I also doubt whether very many of your Michael Moore-worshipping buddies think it didn't matter who won the 2004 election.

BushCheney is correct, do you really think that, OBL needs Bush, as president, to inflame the Muslim world, that is hilarious!

OBL doesn't need him. But he's sure been a big help.

Bush's resolve is unquestioned, something that can't be said of Kerry or the Democrats. With Bush in the White House, OBL could count on 4 more years of exactly the same. And who knows if Kerry would have ever achieved the level of enmity that Muslim fanatics feel towards Dubya.

You keep saying it didn't matter who was president, but I don't think very many people actually agree with you on that point. And I doubt that OBL agreed with you on that point in 2004 when he made that tape.

-k

[kimmy]

Lot's to debate here....Bush Sr. didn't get 4 years of occupation

As I've pointed out a number of times, that's what made it a lot smarter than Junior's big adventure.

and he certainly didn't get Saddam, which was the American objective.

Oh? I thought the objective was to liberate Kuwait, end Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia, and restore stability. Which was all achieved.

The 12 year "aftermath" of Gulf War I had it's own set of costs, risks, and humanitarian issues (that would be the not neatly part you wish to ignore). The peaceniks claimed that 50,000 civilians were dying per month from UN sanctions.

Is there any credible proof that "50,000 civilians per month were dying from UN sanctions"? Whether the Peaceniks were saying it or not, I call BS on that.

And again, the question of scale. The civilian death toll resulting from the insurgency and breakdown of law and order in Iraq is far larger than the number who died as a result of Saddam's oppression.

Did the invasion of Iraq and occupation cost more? I sure hope so, because that would make Bush Sr's decision to leave Saddam standing even more foolish.

Either that, or it shows Bush Jr's decision to go create a power-vacuum in Iraq to be a giant fiasco in comparison. I go with the latter.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

You [kuzadd] keep saying it didn't matter who was president, but I don't think very many people actually agree with you on that point. And I doubt that OBL agreed with you on that point in 2004 when he made that tape.

Kuzadd is right. It wouldn't make any difference to OBL or al Qaeda who was elected president-- terrorism as it's happening wouldn't have ceased/diminished if Kerry had been elected-- but it would have made a difference to the rest of the world, and it would have made a difference to Americans.

[bush_cheney2004]

Kuzadd is right. It wouldn't make any difference to OBL or al Qaeda who was elected president-- terrorism as it's happening wouldn't have ceased/diminished if Kerry had been elected-- but it would have made a difference to the rest of the world, and it would have made a difference to Americans.

Correct...it did make a big difference to Americans. We finally got a president and administration not afraid to kick ass and take some names (with ground troops). If the big bad terrorists want to fight the Great Satan, let's make it worth their while.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are assuming that Saddam was actually a threat to US large enough to justify the blood and money spent on getting rid of him. We know today that there were no WMDs and that there was never any real evidence that he had them. The world would be a safer place for everyone - including most Iraqis - if Saddam was still in power today. Given that reality it is impossible to claim that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a complete and total failure.

Your wisdom is based on 20/20 hindsight...brilliant! Nevertheless, it was US policy and public law to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Bush Sr. failed, Clinton and Blair failed, Bush Jr. and Blair succeeded. There is no such thing as "safer", so be afraid if you must. Boo!

Things might have been different if Dubya had built a real concensus that the invasion was necessary as his father did in 1991.

Nonsense...it would still have been an invasion of Iraq with lots of death and destruction. If you mean Canada's "blessing", you must be joking.

[Riverwind]

Your wisdom is based on 20/20 hindsight...brilliant!

The entire mess was accurately predicted by Bush Sr and many many informed people before Bush went in. You cannot excuse Bush Jr. incompetence by claiming he was operating on the best information he had. The decision to invade was only made after ignoring information that did not support his pre-determined conclusion.

Nevertheless, it was US policy and public law to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

At any cost? I don't think so.

Your There is no such thing as "safer", so be afraid if you must.

Actually, I am not particularly afraid of terrorists. What pissing me off are chicken littles who insist that there is a terrorist around every tree and it is necessary to invade random countries because they 'hate our freedom'. These kinds of cowards are the worst type of cowards because they actually think they are being brave. Edited August 18, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

The entire mess was accurately predicted by Bush Sr and many many informed people before Bush went in. You cannot excuse Bush Jr. incompetence by claiming he was operating on the best information he had. The decision to invade was only made after ignoring information that did not support his pre-determined conclusion.

Nonsense, the decision to invade was made years before.....the "information" was only the pretext needed for a sales job...and it worked. Two other PMs agreed. But I guess they were also "incompetent".

At any cost? I don't think so.

At whatever cost....just git 'er done. Not because he had to, but because he wanted to. Big difference. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[GostHacked]

Nonsense, the decision to invade was made years before.....the "information" was only the pretext needed for a sales job...and it worked. Two other PMs agreed. But I guess they were also "incompetent".

At whatever cost....just git 'er done. Not because he had to, but because he wanted to. Big difference. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Sure you say it was all public knowledge. So why did not the Bush Admin tow that line instead of the threat Iraq placed on the US. WMDs, and all that stuff.

?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZPiZYju7h4&NR=1

Edited August 19, 2007 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure you say it was all public knowledge. So why did not the Bush Admin tow that line instead of the threat Iraq placed on the US. WMDs, and all that stuff.

?????

Because that was the marketing strategy, and it worked. The marketing strategy for Kosovo was "genocide", which turned out to be bull puckey. But the sales job worked (Clinton was a much smoother pitch man.)

Iraq was on the US turd list for twelve years after the first war...it wasn't a tough sell after 9/11. President Bush actually got more support in Congress than Bush Sr. Yuck- Yuck!

Edited August 19, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

Correct...it did make a big difference to Americans. We finally got a president and administration not afraid to kick ass and take some names (with ground troops). If the big bad terrorists want to fight the Great Satan, let's make it worth their while.

You're super-stoked about GW's willingness to "kick ass" with ground troops... but can't correlate that with why OBL would want Bush to win the 2004 election?

You mention "the sales job"... can you really not see how easy Dubya has made "the sales job" for jihadis?

Because that was the marketing strategy, and it worked. The marketing strategy for Kosovo was "genocide", which turned out to be bull puckey. But the sales job worked (Clinton was a much smoother pitch man.)

Iraq was on the US turd list for twelve years after the first war...it wasn't a tough sell after 9/11. President Bush actually got more support in Congress than Bush Sr. Yuck- Yuck!

I appreciate your remarkable candor regarding the gigantic con-job that Dubya pulled on his country and his allies.

Nonsense, the decision to invade was made years before.....the "information" was only the pretext needed for a sales job...and it worked. Two other PMs agreed. But I guess they were also "incompetent".

Conned, I would say. Blair more or less admitted as much in his farewell speech, didn't he?

At whatever cost....just git 'er done.

At whatever cost? Does the question of whether the end result justifies the cost just not matter?

It seems to me that only idiots enter into something without considering whether the end result justifies the cost.

huh. Guess that's why I'm not president.

Not because he had to, but because he wanted to.

It wasn't necessary... but he wanted to?

3000 US soldiers... hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens... hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers' money... because he wanted to?

"He wanted to" belongs with "It looked like it would be fun" and "a fortune cookie told me it would work" on the list of justifications for war that I hope I never hear.

What do you say to the families of those soldiers, or the taxpayers who are stuck with an all-time record debt as a result of Dubya doing what he wants?

Big difference. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Oh. Of course. "I'm leading! Follow, or get out of the way!"

(shoulda seen that coming...)

At whatever cost....just git 'er done.

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States!

-k

Edited August 19, 2007 by kimmy

[bush_cheney2004]

You're super-stoked about GW's willingness to "kick ass" with ground troops... but can't correlate that with why OBL would want Bush to win the 2004 election?

You mention "the sales job"... can you really not see how easy Dubya has made "the sales job" for jihadis?

I hope so...that is the idea. Find and engage the enemy....then kill them.

I appreciate your remarkable candor regarding the gigantic con-job that Dubya pulled on his country and his allies.

I don't believe in con jobs..I believe in raw economic and geopolitical power. Both came together for Saddam's demise.

Conned, I would say. Blair more or less admitted as much in his farewell speech, didn't he?

Only in your mind.

At whatever cost? Does the question of whether the end result justifies the cost just not matter?

It seems to me that only idiots enter into something without considering whether the end result justifies the cost.

huh. Guess that's why I'm not president.

Yes, see JFK inauguration speech, to wit, "pay any price, bear any burden, etc. etc." No need for you to apply.

It wasn't necessary... but he wanted to?

3000 US soldiers... hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens... hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers' money... because he wanted to? "He wanted to" belongs with "It looked like it would be fun" and "a fortune cookie told me it would work" on the list of justifications for war that I hope I never hear. What do you say to the families of those soldiers, or the taxpayers who are stuck with an all-time record debt as a result of Dubya doing what he wants?

See job description for President of the United States (not PM of Canada). Clinton and Bush Sr. wanted to as well, but lacked the necessary pretext and testicular weight.

Edited August 19, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

See job description for President of the United States (not PM of Canada). Clinton and Bush Sr. wanted to as well, but lacked the necessary pretext and testicular weight.

What was the pretext??

I don't believe in con jobs..I believe in raw economic and geopolitical power. Both came together for Saddam's demise.

But telling us the reasons for war are wrong, but the end result was what they wanted, then that is a con job.

[bush_cheney2004]

What was the pretext??

Rewind to 2002 headlines.

But telling us the reasons for war are wrong, but the end result was what they wanted, then that is a con job.

If you say so. Canada was never part of the "us", so stop complaining.

[GostHacked]

Rewind to 2002 headlines.

If you say so. Canada was never part of the "us", so stop complaining.

It's cause we saw the con job for what it was? The pretext was a lie. Only the duped US population went along with the whole plan. Con job.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's cause we saw the con job for what it was? The pretext was a lie. Only the duped US population went along with the whole plan. Con job.

"We"..."Us"...are you confused? Not only did the "duped" US population go along, they elected President Bush to a second term even after the "con job". Not to worry...it had nothing to do with Canada anyway.

Why do some Canadians project this assumed posture as Americans wrt Iraq? It's like you must convince yourself over and over again about the decision to stay home.

[kimmy]

Right now I suspect that rational people like JBG and Sulaco are bonking their heads against their monitors as they read Dick's past couple of messages.

It's almost as if BC2004 thinks "Team America: World Police" was a documentary.

Yes, see JFK inauguration speech, to wit, "pay any price, bear any burden, etc. etc." No need for you to apply.

Somehow I suspect he might have been talking about something that's actually worth paying any price, bearing any burden, etc etc, when he talked about making those kind of sacrifices.

See job description for President of the United States (not PM of Canada). Clinton and Bush Sr. wanted to as well, but lacked the stupidity necessary to embark on one of the biggest fiascos in American history.

I fixed that for you.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I fixed that for you.

There is no finer a mea culpa than modifying another member's post.

JFK was speaking to Americans about Americans....unless you are a US citizen, you have neither the standing or responsibility to understand. But I'm sure he would appreciate the MLW fan club.