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

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.

On 30 Oct 2006 10:33:57 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

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.

So what? That isn't relevant. IAC, most Dems signed off on that, too.

If you meant H.J. Res 114,

Page 1497

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Page 116 STAT. 1498

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25,

It's in general chronological order. Saddam could have nuked 50
orphanages and gassed 25 million people on October 1, 2001, and it would
have been "buried" after #23.

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.

With hindsight that _appears_ to be the case, at least to any direct,
sustained involvement (although it's unlikely the full story with all
the details will ever be known). Pre-March, 2003, there was
conflicting credible information about it (and there still is). Again,
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

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.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information. 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.
IOW, them saying the evidence indicated they had observed in their
inspections indicated he had ICBMs and real nukes, absent eyes-on direct
observation, would have been just as suspect. And the simple fact is
that he had weapons and programs that readily produce weapons capable of
"mass destruction," AND most importantly, he had previously used them
multiple times AND used them when they weren't a "last defense," but
rather, a simple offensive expediency.

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

I'll take your word for it.

about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence;

But the religious aspects aren't material. 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.

but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Again, I'll take your word for that.

HTH,
R

Joe F.

wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 10:33:57 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

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.

So what? That isn't relevant. IAC, most Dems signed off on that, too.

If you meant H.J. Res 114,

Page 1497

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Page 116 STAT. 1498

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25,

It's in general chronological order. Saddam could have nuked 50
orphanages and gassed 25 million people on October 1, 2001, and it would
have been "buried" after #23.

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.

With hindsight that _appears_ to be the case, at least to any direct,
sustained involvement (although it's unlikely the full story with all
the details will ever be known). Pre-March, 2003, there was
conflicting credible information about it (and there still is). Again,
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

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.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information. 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.
IOW, them saying the evidence indicated they had observed in their
inspections indicated he had ICBMs and real nukes, absent eyes-on direct
observation, would have been just as suspect. And the simple fact is
that he had weapons and programs that readily produce weapons capable of
"mass destruction," AND most importantly, he had previously used them
multiple times AND used them when they weren't a "last defense," but
rather, a simple offensive expediency.

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

I'll take your word for it.

about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence;

But the religious aspects aren't material. 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.

but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Again, I'll take your word for that.

In all seriousness (what the hell, it costs me nothing), who do you
think you're fooling? I mean, do you honestly suppose that anyone here
believes you are making a good faith effort at discussion? For that
matter......and perhaps more importantly.....do YOU believe it?

Wolfgang

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

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.

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

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

Joe F.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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