| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2006/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44620 Activity:very high |
10/1 When a Democrat has oral sex with an intern, whatever. When a
Republican writes gay letters to one underaged boy, he quits.
\_ When a Democrat has oral sex with an intern, they spend $100
million to investigate. When 3k people die in the worst mass
murder in American history, whatever.
\_ I wouldn't call two wars and a trillion dollars "whatever", but
that's just me.
\_ "I really don't spend that much time on him"
\_ Which is different than him not actually spending much time
or resources on him.
\_ Iraq is not about Osama bin Laden or Al Quaeda. -tom
\_ Bin Laden and Al Qaeda disagree with you.
\_ Yes, yes, it's just about Bush Junior avenging his
daddy and HALIBURTON! and Blood For Big Oil! and
making the top 1% richer and Israel who actually
lew up the towers and turning the US into a
dictatorship and establishing and expanding American
Hegemony(tm) through the world and probably a few
others I forgot. Please fill in where I left off.
\_ It's about the Project For a New American Century.
You know, the group including Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, etc., who sent an open letter to
Clinton in 1998 that America should assert its
strength to remake the world to our best
interests, and that we should start by invading
Iraq. This is not a secret conspiracy.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
-tom
\_ That letter doesn't imply anything close
to what you assert. What it says is that
Saddam must be removed as a threat. Where
are you getting this "America should
assert its strength to remake the world to
our best interests, and that we should start
by invading Iraq" stuff? I never figured
Tom to be a tinfoil hat type.
\_ Statement of Principles, June 1997:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States
stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the
West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an
opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have
the vision to build upon the achievements of past
decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape
a new century favorable to American principles and
interests? ... We seem to have forgotten the essential
elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a
military that is strong and ready to meet both present
and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and
national leadership that accepts the United States'
global responsibilities."
stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to
victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a
challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build
upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States
have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American
principles and interests?
...
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan
Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready
to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy
that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles
abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United
States' global responsibilities."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
You really need to open your eyes. -tom
\_ So now you are introducing an entirely different document
and it *still* doesn't say what you said above, or even
imply it.
\_ You clearly aren't reading. You don't think there's
any connection between the foundation started in 1997 by
the group of chicken hawks now in power to promote American
militarism, whose first open letter advocated the invasion
of Iraq, and the fact that the same group of chicken hawks
decided to invade Iraq on trumped-up evidence? -tom
\_ Maybe, maybe not. You are reading into it what you
want to read into it. There's a lot of inferences
being made. The first letter just said that Saddam
should be removed from power. The second letter
advocates a string military, a global leadership
position, and foreign policy which puts US interests
first. You might be right that there's a conspiracy
to US global domination at all costs, but you can't
prove it based on the evidence you've presented.
\_ I agree entirely with you. It would be
better if our nation did not take action
to reshape the world to be favorable to
American interests, but instead reshaped
it to be unfavorable. Er uh yeah! So,
back to reality for a moment: what is
wrong with a nation attempting to reshape
the world in a self-interested way? That
is the reason for being for all nations.
Now then, if you're opposed to the
existence of nations, that's another
story, but any nation that does not try
to serve self-interest will be tossed in
history's trashcan. You may disagree with
their methods, you may disagree with the
specifics of what is self interest and
what is not, but railing against national
self-interest is senseless.
\_ It seems to me that there are many
ways to define national self-interest,
and that none of them apply to the
Iraq debacle. A stable middle east?
Access to cheap oil? Less power for
Islamic extremists? A stable and
financially sound U.S. government?
The spread of American values and
diplomatic capital with other nations?
It's a failure on all counts. Unlike
most motd liberals, I actually supported
the invasion of Iraq. But unlike the
motd conservatives, I'm willing to admit
I was wrong and that the present
clusterfuck is worse for America and
the world even than Saddam.
\_ I agree the post-invasion was and
continues to be screwed up. But
let's do a what-if. What-if they
had declared martial law on day 1,
rounded up and destroyed the zillion
tons of free floating weapons,
sealed the borders to Iran+Syria,
and then held elections of some sort
once the country was stable and
under control? Same invasion, but
very different post-invasion with
a different "today". If you can
agree that this was a possible
outcome of the invasion, then the
invasion itself was in American
self-interest, they just botched the
aftermath. And btw, yes, I'm
\_ Ok, we agree.
conservative in foreign affairs
but generally leaning one way or
the other doesn't require blind
knee-jerk responses to real world
issues and questions. Even those
evil conservatives can make
rational evaluations. You just
won't find that kind of conservative
on the freeper zones any more than
you'll find rational liberals on
dailykos.
\_ Nice straw man. I noticed you
completely stopped trying to
address the point, which is
that invading Iraq is part
of a very specific plan by
a very specific group of
people, who had decided to
do it before they were even
in power. -tom
\_ That isn't a strawman. It is
a direct response to "unlike
motd conservatives...". And
what exactly is your point?
That some guys with no power
wanted to invade Iraq? I have
no power and want a lot of
things, too. So what? What
is your point? I'm dumb, so
if you spell it out for me,
I'll address it.
\_ You realize you're
responding to two different
people, right?
\_ Yup. And one of them
called accused me of
strawmanning for
replying to the other.
I was clarifying.
\_ The guy to whom you
were clafifying
interrupted your
clarification to
agree with you, and
has returned to
attempting to do
useful engineering
work.
\_ "Iraq is not about
Osama bin Laden or
Al Qaeda." That's the
point I raised up above.
The Iraq invasion is
the culmination of a
strategy planned and
implemented in the open;
you do not have to posit
the existence of secret
conspiracies or anything
at all; you only need to
read what these people
wrote. Whether you think
their strategy was a
good idea or not is
not really relevant to
my point. -tom
\_ Uh, sure... who was
disputing these guys
wrote an *open* letter
in the 90s or claimed
there was a conspiracy
or whatever? Me and
the other person
ignored that and went
on to other topics
because there was no
"there" there. It was
an *open* letter. What
was your point again?
Slowly for me this time
because I'm really
really dumb. Thanks.
\_ I agree, you're
really dumb. -!tom
\_ If there's a
point, you or tom or anyone else are welcome to make it. As
far as I can figure the point is "there was a public document
and uhm...". That's about it. Personal attack is always a
good substitute for substance. Keep it up, you'll go far.
\_ Tom's point: Iraq was not about UBL. Your response:
WDYHA? Yeah, you're a fricking debating genius.
\_ No one but tom was talking about that. I'm not a
debating genius but I can stay on board as a conversation
shifts and moves on. tom seems to get that. Why don't
you?
\_ See below.
\_ Tom said Iraq was not about UBL or AQ but about the PfaNAC.
You then replied with a parody of conspiracy screeds, which
appeared to imply that Tom was a conspiracy nut. Tom then
elaborated on his point by suggesting that the PfaNAc was
behind the invasion of Iraq. He then provided a URL to a
letter from PfaNAC suggesting "that America should assert
its strength to remake the world to our best interests, and
that we should start by invading Iraq." You then said that
the letter did not say anything of the sort, and then you
\_ no sorry that was someone else. i never said the
letter was anything but exactly what it looked
like which was a bunch of powerless guys who wanted
to invade iraq. i didn't write anything at anytime
that disputed tom's take on their open letter.
implied that Tom was a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nut.
Tom then posted a portion of the PfaNAC's Statement of
Principles that matches, closely, the policies of the
current administration; this would seem to suggest that the
PfaNAC, of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other
architects of the invasion of Iraq are active participants,
dictated the policy that led to the invasion of Iraq. You
then switched tacts and chose to turn the debate to whether
the policy advocated was effective or not. When confronted
\_ no i was talking with someone else at this point
as previously mentioned.
on this, you denied disputing the point to begin with.
\_ because i didn't. there was no dispute.
Now, I see you launching two ad hominem attacks against
Tom and then denying a position you held half a page up.
\_ no, i'm glad to see tom and i agreed on the basics
and were done which is about where someone else
stepped in with personal attacks on me.
That would appear to be the substitute for substance you
later mentioned. Per your own advice: "Keep it up, you'll
go far."
\_ thanks, i've done fine but the rest of your
analysis is based on a confusion as to who was
responding to what and who wrote what at various
points. it was a pleasure chatting with you.
have a nice day.
\_ You do the same. In the meantime, would some
eager young CSUA member like to write a command
line tool for proper conversation threads on the
motd? TIA.
\_ Let's see: oral sex between two consenting adults or solicitation
(and possible corruption) of a minor, which one's illegal?
Hell, which one's even potentially illegal?
\_ Adultery and oral copulation are still on the books in many
states. Age of consent in DC is 16, isnt it? That makes the
IMs legal, does it not? -devil's advocate
\_ Is adultery and oral copulation illegal in DC?
\_ absolutely no idea, but just saying.... -da
\_ From what I understand, it would be legal, but for legislation
that the guy himself backed specifically related to actions
done over the Internet. The irony is piled high.
\_ Right on. Which legislation was this?
\_ The blah blah Child Protection and Welfare blah blah
Act. I'm pretty sure he's in violation of his own law.
\_ Does anyone know if he has any previous anti-gay quotes?
It would seem like a southern republican should make some
asinine statements while stumping against gay marriage...
\_ No idea, but he sure did a lot of work for the Co$:
http://www.fso.org/en_US/news-events/pg005.html
\_ Clinton was impeached. I also think making unwelcome advances toward
a minor is rather different than receiving oral sex from a (by all
accounts) willing adult.
\_ This doesn't have to be partisan. This guy's a scumbag. The GOP
leadership screwed up by not investigating this earlier. And
whoever leaked it saved it for an October surprise. I'm not seeing
any good guys here.
\_ Your post already defines the good guys: anyone who didn't send
the IMs, cover up the incident, or save the reveal for an
election season surprise. Right now, there seem to be plenty of
people on both sides of the aisle who fit that definition,
including Nancy Pelosi.
\_ Nice censorship for deleting my response. Since we don't know
who was involved, how can you claim that Pelosi wasn't one of
them?
\_ As for censorship, I'm using motdedit, so it wasn't me
deleting your post. As for Pelosi, yeahbuhwhaaat?
\_ Yeah no kidding. They're all politicians. Anyone who got
themselves into Federal office and especially the repeat
offenders is almost certainly a slime and a "bad guy" in
more ways than their voters could stomach if they knew.
\_ We don't know who saved and leaked the IMs. How can you claim
Pelosi isn't involved when we simply don't know? |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Letter to President Clinton on Iraq. January 26, 1998 The Honorable William J Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC Dear Mr President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the United States and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqs chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddams secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administrations attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddams regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the United States has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Sincerely, Elliott Abrams Richard L Armitage William J Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R James Woolsey Robert B Zoellick. |
| www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. |
| www.fso.org/en_US/news-events/pg005.html CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DEFEATS PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGGING BILLS! Recently the Citizens Commission on Human Rights had a major victory, when the Executive Director of CCHR returned from the State Capital in Tallahassee to report that she had been there to educate legislators on faulty and destructive bills which vested interests and psychiatrists had been pushing through 14 other state legislatures as law. One of these bills was so terrible, that it stated if one was put under a psychiatrist's "care", one would be required by law to take whatever drugs he prescribed for you. When they arrived in Florida, however, they had to tangle with our CCHR Executive Director. And after two weeks of intensive work, she reported that CCHR had defeated not one, not two, but ALL THREE destructive psych bills! org CLEARWATER BUSINESS ASSOCIATION HOSTS FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN Mary Story from the Church of Scientology, Brett Miller from the Clearwater Businessman's Association, Republican State Committee woman Nancy Riley and Congressman Mark Foley Mary Story from the Church of Scientology and Brett Miller from the Clearwater Businessman's Association present leatherbound copies of Dianetics and The Way to Happiness to Republican State Committee woman Nancy Riley and Congressman Mark Foley. On May 24, 2003, the Clearwater Business Association showed their continued support of the democratic process by hosting a brunch in the Fort Harrison's Crystal Ballroom, for one of the leading representatives in Washington, Congressman Mark Foley. Over 150 people came to hear his views on taxes, education and national security, and they were able to pose questions to him. Congressman Foley meets with members of the Clearwater Business Association at the luncheon Congressman Foley meets with members of the Clearwater Business Association at the luncheon. |