Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken wrote ...

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it.

Without getting into the particulars of the debate starring Mr. Cottrell, et
al, I'd like to know just what the hell is wrong with "revisionist history?"

I don't know what your connection to Oregon State is, but if you're around
the campus, go ask someone (ideally a tenured faculty member) in the history
department what "revisionist history" is.

You'll likely find that history gets "revised" because of a few things, but
first and foremost is the revelation of new information.

To be against revising history to reflect the totality of the fact base for
the subject in question is either ignorant, stupid, moronic, or some
combination of all three.

Some groups may be happy with the stories as told in the "first draft," but
that first telling rarely reflects the totality of the situation. History
itself is "argument without end" (1) and to halt that argument because
something new may not fit with a power group's established paradigm is
intellectually abhorrent.

Dan
(1) Pieter Geyl

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:
Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...
That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.

Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.

Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion. Even Clinton thought he had them
on the eve of the invasion. The democrats, who had
been receiving intelligence information from well before
Bush came to office, thought he had them.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:33:19 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.
If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...
The war may not be issue #1 with the "trust fund baby" crowd
you hang with but out in the heartland where the military is
seen as a bootstrap

You mean in the land of red-state morons?

Yep, exactly. Poignant picture on the front page of today's
Times and an article on the non-stop, booming military funeral
business at Arlington National. People care, they may be morons
but they care about their dead soldiers. And even red-state
morons can figure out that $4 billion a week is a lot of money
to pay for our soldiers to have a dangerous ringside seat to
an Islamic civil war.

And I suspect that I knew more people killed, or know more people
who had friends and family killed or injured, than "most" friends of
your friends...and that goes back to Gulf War 1.

Hang out with the National Guard down to the local watering
hole quite often do you ?

FWIW, my losing friends in Gulf Wars I & II began in Gulf War I with
David Herr, a friend since high school, and since I'm certain it hasn't
ended, I can't speak to that.

LOL !! You're so full of **** you're almost endearing.

And you don't even begin to have slightest idea of what you speak.

Don't really care if this helps or not,
R

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

" wrote in
ups.com:


Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken



Our own CIA, though, didn't, at least not before the State of the
Union. When they vetted the speech, they made Bush say something
along the lines of "the Brits think that Iraq was trying to buy
uranium from...", because the CIA didn't believe it.

The CIA didn't believe that piece of intelligence (and they were
right not to).
- Ken



So, you don't think it was wrong for the pres to state to the American
people that the British believe this, although it was extremely clear
that the CIA did not? If we didn't believe this, don't you think he
should have added "but we don't believe this" after he said it? Couldn't
you call this "cherry-picking" if you were wont to do so?

He said this because he wanted to scare us into going to war. It's a lie
of omission, and a very clear one at that. Is this a revisionist
opinion? One wonders just what other lies were put forth. It's high
time for this long delayed investigation to happen.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
So, you don't think it was wrong for the pres to state to the American
people that the British believe this, although it was extremely clear
that the CIA did not?

What's the definition of the word "wrong"? Just kidding. Itty bitty
Clinton joke.

If we didn't believe this, don't you think he
should have added "but we don't believe this" after he said it?

Not really. Why say something if you didn't want to say it.

Couldn't
you call this "cherry-picking" if you were wont to do so?

Of course it is. Surprised ya with that answer didn't I.
If you're trying to build a case for doing something you
don't look for things that undermine your case. It
shouldn't surprise anyone that he was putting forth
only information which would strengthen the course
of action that he wanted.


He said this because he wanted to scare us into going to war.

I would have said "justify going to war", but yes basically.
He was trying to make a case for going to war. There were
lots of reasons to remove SH from power. This wasn't the
main reason...and he should have left it out.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:
Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...
That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.

Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.

Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.
Also clipped was the fact that Clinton believed it
as did plenty of democrats with intelligence information
from before Bush came into office.

You can paint Bush as the big bad guy, but people
believed it well before he came to office.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
And I'm guessing come election day the American people will
demonstrate how ****ed off they are too, nitwits like you
notwithstanding.

--
Ken Fortenberry

you had me agreeing right up to this part, Ken....I suspect
you might be disappointed at how glacial the overall change will be, and how
underwhelming the level of "****ed off" is transmitted. Hope I'm wrong, but
I see numbers that depress me in some key areas.....
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

O.k., I realize that under the circumstances it may not be wise to
ask.......but, what the hell.......did either of you boys graduate from
high school?

Wolfgang
who, after due consideration, puts the odds at about one in three.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
We can agree on that point. Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

Er, no.

HTH,
R

geez, RDean, I was in agreement for about 5 straight posts by you(the stuff
on the underwhelming 'caring' out there), then you came up with this. Where
do you think our resources should have been focused?
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message

Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..." and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them?

my guess is that the battlefield officers are of as diverse a range of
opinions from branch to branch, unit to unit, as the rest of us. Maybe more
informed about some things, less about others. Why the **** should we be
fighting a war in Iraq, and what on earth does it gain us, long-term?


Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Tell me we aren't going to get the Walter Cronkite/Tet Offensive reporting
analogies going.....please.
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
...Hang out with the National Guard down to the local watering
hole quite often do you ?

Actually, it was at the southern Mississippi school of law and auto
salvage.

LOL !! You're so full of **** you're
almost endearing.

Something else for you to aspire to.

Wolfgang
ain't politics fun? :)

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

why is this chestnut(wrong on a few levels) surfacing so commonly on the
Internet over the past 2 months??
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

For once I'm not blaming anyone. ;-) The point is
your revisionist history.

If what was believed in 2000 was the same as what
was believed in 2002-2003 then that pretty much
undercuts your assertion. If other countries' believed
what our intelligence community believed, that does
as well.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On 30 Oct 2006 13:29:41 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

That Saddam Hussein (not to mention his sociopathic offspring) was an
undesirable sort with a lengthy rap sheet seems to be a point of
general agreement amongst everyone from Coulter to Carville . The
point of disagreement, and the nit I pick with your sentence above was
whether or not his removal was *needed* at all, much less his
*immediate* removal by military means. Would the US and world
interests and stability have been better served by his departure
through diplomatic means?

Do you honestly think there was any chance _at all_ of getting Saddam
and his gang out of power through _any_ non-military means, including
diplomacy...would another 15-plus years done it, in your opinion?

We'll never know; but things look pretty
lousy down the road we chose. Heck, even Bush 41 saw this coming.

Er, no. He and his advisors were worried about the conditions _then_ -
they made comments on the future possible need to take Saddam out. Based
on "the past situation is an absolute future map" logic, it would have
always been ill-advised to have gotten rid of Saddam and his gang, no
matter what he/they did.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information.

The *same information* talking point is a myth. While Dems had a some
of the same information, they did not have all of the same information.
Just as BushCo stovepiped the stuff favorable to their aims, they
obfuscated the dissenting opinions. While BushCo saw it all, the Dems
did not. The "Downing Street Memo", while not proof in itself, is
certainly damning corroboration of the testimony of others. The
intelligence was being fixed around the policy, and the Dems got the
fixed stuff, not the same stuff.

No, it isn't a "myth." Who do think provides (official) info to the
Executive and the Legislative? And I'll suggest that you consider the
legal concept in which knowledge of the agent is deemed knowledge of the
principle. Did every Congressperson, GOP or Dem, avail themselves of
all information officially available to them? I can't say absolutely,
but I will go so far as to say I find it extremely unlikely, and if they
failed to do their homework, that's on them.

And actually, I'd offer that top members of both parties, and a few
other select members, also of both parties, had at least the same info
as "BushCo," through channels or otherwise. Presidents get 8 years max
- Congresspeople aren't even through decorating their offices in that
time. And staffer networks are so entrenched that there's probably info
on John Adams bowel habits, um, floating around DC. If a senior member
had really wanted to know about anything, officially or otherwise,
they'd have gotten all they wanted and then some. Hell, some, including
Kennedy, probably had in-depth investment info on the whole deal.

I'm disillusioned with many Dems for their spineless rollover for
political expediency; but how can you vote against action when the Sec.
of State is threatening mushroom clouds over US cities? They were
powerless in either case. No honest evaluation or debate was possible.
I am well aware that many made a political vs. principled choice, and
I will remember those names as 2008 approaches. I think Dems, far more
than Repubs, are willing to honestly and openly criticize their own.

Which explains why Foley got run out on a rail the minute he was, um,
exposed as having traded emails and Studds got a half-assed censure for
actually having sex with a page, right? And thinking that Dems in
Congress are willing to honestly and openly criticize their own,
especially in the wake of Bill Clinton, is something I'm glad I don't
understand.

Lieberman's primary defeat in CT is a good example.

And when he wins, as it appears he will, what will that be?

IAC, the UN weapons inspectors
simply could not be relied upon credible, informed sources - regardless
of any other potential reasons, they simply didn't have the access such
as that would indicate their reports could have been fully-informed.

I disagree that the UN inspections were not yielding substantially
reliable information. True, just because you don't see it doesn't mean
it isn't there; but enough other measures were in place to mitigate the
need for immediate military action.

Such as?

I believed then, and I am more
confident now, that this was not a war of necessity.

And when would it have become such? IIRC, you said you thought
Afghanistan was a war of necessity. If I do remember correctly, why was
it so?

TC,
R

Joe F.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:40:56 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

why is this chestnut(wrong on a few levels) surfacing so commonly on the
Internet over the past 2 months??
Tom


I didn't know that it was. AFAIK, this is simply another example
(non-partisan) of "the power of modern media."

Why, in your opinion, is it wrong?

TC,
R

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
IIRC, you said you thought
Afghanistan was a war of necessity.

You do not remember correctly. Leastwise I don't remember saying that.

Joe F.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
...

surfaced of Paris Hilton getting thrown a bone from some (or several)
St. Louis player(s)

How about getting your current events straight? Ms. Hilton was getting the
bone from an Arizona Cardinal, not a St. Louis Cardinal. The latter is into
giving baseball experts the finger at the present time.

Come to think of it, maybe y'all should give each other the finger and a
"bite me" and resume whatever passes for y'alls real life?

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message

I didn't know that it was. AFAIK, this is simply another example
(non-partisan) of "the power of modern media."

Why, in your opinion, is it wrong?

TC,
R

trust me, Rick.......you have to be at least the tenth person to draw this
analogy since Labor Day, in my readings.
It is wrong insofar as it pre-supposes that Cronkite, and especially the
more diffuse current media sources, drive the opinion. IMO, they trail
developing undercurrents, and you would have seen the end result no matter
what.
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:38:28 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message

Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..." and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them?

my guess is that the battlefield officers are of as diverse a range of
opinions from branch to branch, unit to unit, as the rest of us. Maybe more
informed about some things, less about others. Why the **** should we be
fighting a war in Iraq,

If the US is going to have combat troops anywhere, they need to be able
(as in, generally speaking and within certain guidelines, "authorized")
to fight a war, not referee religious gangsterism. If you mean why did
Saddam need to be gotten rid of _then_, a message needed to be sent, and
Afghanistan wasn't capable of sending it. And since Saddam was an
actual and ongoing danger to the region and potentially, the world, he
was the obvious choice. And it has apparently partially worked. Gaddafi
shut the flock up and while Ahmadinejad might be doing the whole "Great
Satan" shtick, he and his crew aren't really doing more than testing the
waters, particularly in Iraq. Which is among the reasons we need to be
there AND need to start getting much more proactive about this thing or
get the hell out and hope for the best.

and what on earth does it gain us, long-term?

Define "long-term."


Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Tell me we aren't going to get the Walter Cronkite/Tet Offensive reporting
analogies going.....please.

I wasn't planning on it. Simply offering it up as something of
potential interest for anyone who wished to look into it.

TC,
R

Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

wrote in message
If the US is going to have combat troops anywhere, they need to be able
(as in, generally speaking and within certain guidelines, "authorized")
to fight a war, not referee religious gangsterism.
agree with this part

If you mean why did
Saddam need to be gotten rid of _then_, a message needed to be sent, and
Afghanistan wasn't capable of sending it.
I hate to disagree completely, but I do. Afghanistan sent a very clear
message, which would have stayed crystal clear if we had stayed and rebuilt
the infrastructure and aggressively acted to keep the Taliban out for a
longer period of time. Going to Iraq actually muddied things, long term,
insofar as the vast Muslim world is concerned.

And since Saddam was an
actual and ongoing danger to the region and potentially, the world, he
was the obvious choice.
but, he really hadn't been for a decade or so.

And it has apparently partially worked. Gaddafi
shut the flock up
and world economic pressure and an aging oil infrastructure didn't play as
much into that as Iraq?

Which is among the reasons we need to be
there AND need to start getting much more proactive about this thing or
get the hell out and hope for the best.
I'll choose the latter, personally.
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:58:44 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
LOL !! You're so full of **** you're almost endearing.

And you don't even begin to have slightest idea of what you speak.

Oh, yes I do. You're not really gonna try to claim you're
not full of ****, are you ? Too late for that, Richard.
There's Google, ya know.

Don't really care if this helps or not,

Nah, not so much. But perhaps you can help if you're so
inclined. I have some crab cakes I'm about to serve over
a bed of mixed greens. I was going to make a remoulade but
discovered too late that I have no creole mustard. Can't
make a remoulade without creole mustard. So then I'm thinking
maybe Caesar dressing, I have anchovies, parmesan, eggs etc.
but I'm using mixed greens from Saturday's Farmer's Market
while they're still good and Caesar is really better with
romaine not mixed greens. So, if you had crab cakes you wanted
to serve over mixed greens and remoulade was a no go, what
would you do ?

Good Lord, you are insane! Creole remoulade on crab cakes, served on a
salad? I'd not do it. OTOH, are you talking about crab
"patties"/"dressing?" If so, a little _real_ mayo, bottled or fresh,
finely minced onions, parsley if you've got it, fresh or dried, a little
horseradish, knife-pureed garlic and salt, black pepper, a little Lea
and Perrin, a coupla drops of Tabasco or Crystal, a coupla drops of
sherry if the mayo was bottled, and some Tony's or Old Bay. A light
vinaigrette on the greens, add the patty, and top it with a dollop of
the sauce.

HTH,
R

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

For once I'm not blaming anyone. ;-) The point is
your revisionist history.

If what was believed in 2000 was the same as what
was believed in 2002-2003 then that pretty much
undercuts your assertion.

Have you considered the possibility that what may have
been true in 2000 was no longer true in 2003 ? And that
US intelligence knew it was no longer true but spread
misinformation anyway ?

Do you have any reason to believe so? Other than
party of the President switching to one you dislike,
is there some other reason?
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:19:40 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message

I didn't know that it was. AFAIK, this is simply another example
(non-partisan) of "the power of modern media."

Why, in your opinion, is it wrong?

TC,
R

trust me, Rick.......you have to be at least the tenth person to draw this
analogy since Labor Day, in my readings.

I don't regularly read any other groups like ROFF, so I'll take your
word for it.

It is wrong insofar as it pre-supposes that Cronkite, and especially the
more diffuse current media sources, drive the opinion. IMO, they trail
developing undercurrents, and you would have seen the end result no matter
what.

Actually, in the case of Cronkite, etc., in 1968, no, it isn't "wrong."
As to current media sources, that's much more debatable - IMO, it's more
of a chicken-or-the-egg thing, with both sometimes coming first. IAC,
as to the Tet reporting, while it is certainly up for limited debate,
such as the degree in which the North forces "lost" and the South and US
forces "won," but otherwise, Cronkite's (and others contemporary to, and
immediately after, his) reporting was at least highly inaccurate. And
the public generally accepted it as the "truth," ignoring the facts, and
reacted to the inaccurate reporting - it did drive opinion.

I guess there could be debate as to whether it was purposefully
inaccurate, or even fraudulent, but as to the discussion on the effects,
any motive behind it really isn't material. But for what it is worth,
IMO, Cronkite was generally a decent enough journalist and person, and
if he did do it intentionally and barring any additional info, I'll
choose to believe his motives were pure if his journalistic ethics
weren't - if he did what his soul told him to do, I can respect that.

But what it has done is put military management in fear of similar
"mis-reporting," and as a consequence, oft-times, "what will the press
report?" gets figured into things in which it has no business. I don't
know what you've seen, so I can't comment, but if you care to, do some
looking around at objective sources (apparently, without reference to
Iraq) written before 2003.

TC,
R
Tom

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

"rb608" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

I mean the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed September 18,
2001. That bill does not reference Iraq. If you meant H.J. Res 114,
where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25, then yeah, I'll give that to you; but to imply that the
invasion of Iraq was in any substantial way connected to 9/11 is no
less dishonest.

why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers

I am admittedly unqualified to put myself in the place of battlefield
strategist. Nor am I privy to whatever delusions or machinations go on
in the heads of our so-called leaders. I'm more accusatory as to why
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al ignored the UN weapons inspectors
and their own intelligence agencies when the information didn't fit
their agendas.

Secondly, does the Tet Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

Oh my; a Viet Nam analogy? Whodathunk it. Yeah sure, I could drone on
stupidly about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence; but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Joe F.


The problem in Iraq, is we are not fighting a war! If we are going to send
the military, let them do military things, not a police action! If the
military was unleased, the Al Sadr militia would be no more, as well as any
other militia. Al Sadr would like wise not be a problem If we are not
going to let the military do the military thing, get out.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Having a mistaken belief that Saddam had WMDs is one thing. Going to war
over that mistaken belief is quite another. Waging the war with stunning
incompetence is yet another.

In any case, the fictitious WMDs were just a pretext for war. If WMDs
were the real reason we should have invaded Pakistan and North Korea.
The real reasons were a political calculation that an endless "war on
terrorism" would keep the neocons in power, a lust for oil, and an
Oedipal challenge to GWB's father, who didn't "finish the job."

Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

rw wrote:
Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.

I haven't seen anyone say that, who are you replying to?
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

rw wrote:
wrote:
rw wrote:

Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.


I haven't seen anyone say that, who are you replying to?

I'm replying to the YouTube url that Cottrell posted -- the subject of
this thread. Didn't you watch it?

I watched it, I think you took it wrong.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

rw wrote:
wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm replying to the YouTube url that Cottrell posted -- the subject of
this thread. Didn't you watch it?


I watched it, I think you took it wrong.

You didn't think it was an attempt to shift blame to the Democrats?
Seriously?

Seriously! I think it was an attempt to expose their hypocrisy
on what they said then vs what they are saying now.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm replying to the YouTube url that Cottrell posted -- the subject of
this thread. Didn't you watch it?


I watched it, I think you took it wrong.

You didn't think it was an attempt to shift blame to the Democrats?
Seriously?

--

I saw a great Mike MacGavik** just this morning.

If you appreciate fine Irony, I'm sure you'll like it too.... if only it
gets on youtube.

Synopsis:
MM that republican paragon of corporateness, first starts by aligning
himself with the Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates in their
opposition to the war in Iraq.

He then launches into a scathing denunciation of Maria Cantwell for her
support of the sitting Republican President's pursuit and execution of a war
in Iraq.

It was high theatre....don't miss it if you can.

**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_McGavick
http://www.mikemcgavick.com/

MM's press release on the ad:
http://www.mikemcgavick.com/pressrelease.asp?prid=126

Skwala
sitting this one out....

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that what may have
been true in 2000 was no longer true in 2003 ? And that
US intelligence knew it was no longer true but spread
misinformation anyway ?

Do you have any reason to believe so?

Like I told you, read the Downing Street memo. Not
only do I have reason to believe so, it's as close
to fact as we're likely to encounter until history
is once more revised.

So I re-read the memo. Even in the memo they are worrying
about SH using his WMD.

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD
on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting
began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait.
Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
"

Odd thing for you to cite if you claim that they didn't
think Iraq had WMD.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying