tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post114547603920926142..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: Rumfeld's Fingerprints All Over Bush's Forgotten QuagmireAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145639544226528962006-04-21T10:12:00.000-07:002006-04-21T10:12:00.000-07:00Jen, as I recall, the number of people killed by t...Jen, as I recall, the number of people killed by terrorists over the last 20 to 30 years is incredibly small. Compared with run o' the mill murders (in Texas especially), traffic accidents, natural disasters like Hurricanes and Tsunamis, terrorism is small potatoes. I would wager that your chances of being murdered in Houston is much greater than the chance of your being killed by a suicide bomber EVEN if you lived in the middle east.l <BR/><BR/>In America the biggest beneficiaries of terrorism have been incumbent regimes, primarily Reagan, Bush Sr. and now Bush Jr. <BR/><BR/>Waging "War" on nations said to be supporting or nurturing "terrorists" is stupid and counterproductive —unless it is the purpose of demagogues (Bush and Reagan) to exploit terrorism for political purposes. The technique was used but not even pioneered by Hitler. James I of England used it following the gun powder plot. Guy Fawkes was executed for high treason but not until James I denounced the act of terrorism, declaring "We dinna need the Papists now!" In fact, the gun powder that was found in the Houses of Parliament was traced to the governments OWN stores of armaments. Inside job? Perhaps, Fawkes' alleged attempt to blow up Parliament came at a time of great disillusionment with the reign of James I, Elizabeth's successor. <BR/><BR/>Ronald Reagan, like Bush now, waged a great "war on terrorism". "You can run but you can't hide" he boasted. But after two years there was absolutely nothing to show for this great GOP war! Nothing! When the Marine Barracks in Lebanon was blown up, Reagan simply withdrew the Marines. In fact, FBI Stats compiled and published by the Brookings Institute prove conclusively that over the two years that Reagan waged his great war, terrorism increased very nearly exponentially. <BR/><BR/>More recently, Bush sr's attack on Saddam Hussein following the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait came a time when Senior's approval ratings were probably even lower than Junior's are now. A google look up will most certainly confirm that. <BR/><BR/>Like Junior now, Bush Sr lied about his war against Iraq. Bush told the world that Hussein had developed a NUKE. <BR/><BR/>Where are those nukes? Where are those WMD? Where is a single truth told by ANY Bush at any time about anything? <BR/><BR/>The Reagan/Bush/Bush wars on terrorism were all fraudulent, premised upon demonstrable lies and bullshit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145629819695862222006-04-21T07:30:00.000-07:002006-04-21T07:30:00.000-07:00It hard to go wrong with Bush when it is realized ...It hard to go wrong with Bush when it is realized that he is a liar and that NONE of the stated reasons for war in either Afghanistan or Iraq are true. <BR/><BR/>Both are about oil ...pure and simple. In the case of Afghanistan, it was a pipeline across Afghanistan. UNOCAL and Exxon-Mobil officials had met with the Taliban in Sugar Land, TX in the late nineties. Source: UNOCAL's own web site. The negotiations broke down. Later, in July of 2001, the State Department threatened members of the Taliban with carpet bombs if they they didn't come to terms on the issue of the pipeline. Apparently, they didn't. <BR/><BR/>The war on Afghanistan had nothing to do with Bin Laden.<BR/><BR/>I recommend: <A HREF="http://www.forbiddentruth.net/" REL="nofollow">Forbidden Truth</A> by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145629004157134952006-04-21T07:16:00.000-07:002006-04-21T07:16:00.000-07:00Man, whenever people discuss retaliation after 9/1...Man, whenever people discuss retaliation after 9/11, I think how terribly disappointed many people subconsciously felt after the Oklahoma City bombing that international terrorists were NOT responsible. Whether it be mass homicide/suicide like at Columbine High School, Oklahoma City, or 9/11, collectively people want to see justice served. And when it doesn't happen, they are upset.<BR/><BR/>I think after Oklahoma City, when people suspected international terrorists, they were ready to declare war and fight. When we found out it was an inside job, by some militant Americans, and that they would go through the US judicial system, well that's disappointing.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of who was president when 9/11 happened, if war was not declared in some way shape or form, that president would catch so much flack. In my gut, after 9/11, I kind of hoped that they could find the accomplices of these terrible acts, and put them on trial and punish them accordingly. It would have been proper, clean, and would have left many innocent people in this world to lead their lives without the ruinous torture of war.<BR/><BR/>But no, this happened during the reign of Pres. Geo. W. Bush, as it likely was planned. 9/11, IMO, would not have happened under any other president. Too many wheels went into motion the moment Bush was declared president in 2000, that would not have even turned if Gore were president. And we are enduring the consequences.<BR/><BR/>Justice in the eyes of the victims of 9/11 will likely never be served, as the primary perpetrators are dead. The co-conspirators that remain, are enjoying the splendors of their hunt. Thousands upon thousands are suffering daily because of what could be called US vengeance. For those who place their faith in God, at least they have solace that "vengeance is mine, says the Lord."Jenniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01419277376891789393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145627491185390392006-04-21T06:51:00.000-07:002006-04-21T06:51:00.000-07:00Of course, Bush —and the crime family from which h...Of course, Bush —and the crime family from which he sprouts —defines "success" differently from the rest of us. But that's no reason I should buy into it. I don't buy any of his definitions, slogans, and psychotic bluster. Sure —Bush and his NeoCon gangster buddies and their various corpo-fascist sponsors have looted Iraq under the cover of chaos. Hitler, likewise, WANTED to kill off the jews! But, while Bush can simply define "terrorist" to justify murder, he cannot simply declare success in Iraq. It's an utter failure by any SANE definition and Bush is a war criminal. He's also prosecutable for violations of U.S. Codes; section 2441 —a capital crime!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145610498399530722006-04-21T02:08:00.000-07:002006-04-21T02:08:00.000-07:00DUH ! Boy am I gettin a little peeved off with the...DUH ! Boy am I gettin a little peeved off with the constant repeat of Bush fluffing it in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>WTH is it with you people, three years on and skintillions of information available to paint the picture for you.<BR/><BR/>CIVILWAR IN IRAQ WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF BUSH AND HIS COMPATRIOTS, as is the break up of Iraq into smaller autonomous states thus making easier the control of same by the Neocons.<BR/><BR/>This is EXACTLY what is happening right now in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>In fact it would be more TRUTHFULL to say, BUSH has been ADMIRABLY SUCCESSFUL in Iraq, acheiving his goal, this being his ONLY success.<BR/><BR/>Afghanistan ??????? Who cares, there's no oil there, and the pipeline through Afghanistan is being built, so again, objective reached. The rest is totaly irrelevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145591363586288542006-04-20T20:49:00.000-07:002006-04-20T20:49:00.000-07:00Again, I reiterate my strongest conviction that it...Again, I reiterate my strongest conviction that it was <I>de rigor</I> for the USA to go into Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, Osama, and - for good measure - the Taliban. The whole world expected nothing less, discounting some Muslim leaders of course. There was near-unanimous world opinion in America's behalf. When attacked brutally, the best response of any Nation-State is to retaliate brutally and allow issues of proportionality to be secondary.<BR/><BR/>I think I will get to know and respect Rurikid, but when he says <BR/><BR/><I>the Taliban made repeated efforts to offer up Osama bin Laden, but stated that they could only release him to a neutral Muslim country,..</I><BR/><BR/>I have to think I would like to play a few rounds of poker with Rurikid, if he's susceptible to transparent dodges like that. Come to think of it, I'd like Len to be sitting at the table, too because he too, put credence in:<BR/><BR/><I>Taliban offer to turn Bin Laden over because they dared to demand —not proof — but JUST evidence that Bin Laden was, in any way, guilty of having anything to do with 911?</I><BR/><BR/>On 9-12-01, this was not a case for the world equivalent of the ACLU. This was Pearl Harbor II, just what the Neocons had been praying for. Massive and effective retaliation was called for.<BR/><BR/>If Gore had been president, I am convinced it would have been effective; with Bush serving as the WPAH, it was ineffective and precursory, for the reasons both Len and Rurikid have stated.<BR/><BR/>I am adamant that the best Progressive position is to fight the tendency of grouping Afghanistan with Iraq wherever it is encountered. You will notice that Bush-Cheney attempt to bundle them every chance they can.<BR/><BR/>I respect all participants in this thread as thoughtful observers, but I cannot collude in any obfuscation on this issue.Vigilantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07640246609540057997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145588660599999212006-04-20T20:04:00.000-07:002006-04-20T20:04:00.000-07:00rurikid, I forgot to add: Isn't it interesting tha...rurikid, I forgot to add: <BR/><BR/>Isn't it interesting that Bush refused the Taliban offer to turn Bin Laden over because they dared to demand —not proof — but JUST evidence that Bin Laden was, in any way, guilty of having anything to do with 911?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145588399312472212006-04-20T19:59:00.000-07:002006-04-20T19:59:00.000-07:00EXCELLENT RESOURCES, rurikid! Dare I believe that ...EXCELLENT RESOURCES, rurikid! <BR/><BR/>Dare I believe that Bush —arguably among the worst war criminals since Adolph Hitler —will one day be exposed, will one day pay for his crimes against humanity? <BR/><BR/>Again, thanks for the links. The search for fact and truth are consistent with a moral absolute: behave in such a way that one is true can be verified to be so. <BR/><BR/>Clearly —Bush has never come close to that standard and his entire, wasted, failed life will forever be the very anti-thesis of any concept of morality. His culture of lies and deception, if made a universal standard as GOP politics would most certainly do, is a straight road to chaos, ruin and perdition. <BR/><BR/>The only way to defeat evil is with truth.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145582624699452362006-04-20T18:23:00.000-07:002006-04-20T18:23:00.000-07:00Vigilante - you stated "In an effort to be brief: ...Vigilante - you stated "In an effort to be brief: The American retaliation against 'Talibinistan' was totally (a) justified (b) expected. The retro government in Kabul was given the option of giving up OBL and weren't responsive.". That is just not so - the Taliban made repeated efforts to offer up Osama bin Laden, but stated that they could only release him to a neutral Muslim country, which is perfectly acceptable and understandable if one knows anything about Islam and about Afghanistan. But Bush contemptuously refused their offers. See <A HREF="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html" REL="nofollow">How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It</A>, <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html" REL="nofollow">Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over</A>, <A HREF="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/11/dreamers-and-idiots/" REL="nofollow">Dreamers and Idiots</A>, among others.Vierotchkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05028919670102869922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145555742104419572006-04-20T10:55:00.000-07:002006-04-20T10:55:00.000-07:00Thanks for the kind words and encouragment. Your c...Thanks for the kind words and encouragment. Your comments are always welcome. <BR/><BR/>The response may have been "justified" if one accepts official theories whole cloth. But the fact of the matter is Afghanistan was not Bush's first choice —even if it were true that the Taliban was harboring OBL. Against common sense, Bush's target was ALWAYS Iraq. <BR/><BR/>Powell —according to numerous credible and main stream sources —pointed out to Bush that that Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq. The rejoinder (from Rumsfeld, as I recall) was that the better targets were in Iraq. Drunks, after all, look for their lost keys under street lights where the light is better. <BR/><BR/>Subsequently, we have learned from the Downing Street memos et al, that even though the better targets were in Iraq it was known in the Bushy camp even then that Saddam had nothing whatever to do with 911. <BR/><BR/>But —like the drunk who searches for his lost keys —Bush stumbled into both Afghanistan and Iraq. And the elusive "keys" are still missing. The Tabliban were SAID to be harboring Bin Laden in one instance and Saddam was SAID to have WMD in the other. <BR/><BR/>I no longer believe either cover story. <BR/><BR/>Various major British newspapers carried the story that that in July preceding 911, two CIA guys visited Bin Laden in a hospital in Dubai. Bin Lade was under international arrest warrantat the time. <BR/><BR/>Why wasn't he arrested? Was he more useful if allowed to recover and live? <BR/><BR/>911 could have been prevented IF preventing terrorism had been Bush's goal. Clearly —Bush has benefited from terrorism and fear mongering but appears to have reached a point of diminishing returns. <BR/><BR/>Bush's case for war in Afghanistan is just as bogus as his case for war against Iraq; it's just not as widely publicized.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145542784092721662006-04-20T07:19:00.000-07:002006-04-20T07:19:00.000-07:00In the first place, congratulations on a great sit...In the first place, congratulations on a great site. I have not taken time to peruse earlier articles, but I will.<BR/><BR/>In the second place, I'll take exception to this statement.<BR/><BR/><I>Afghanistan was offered up because it was said that the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden –although no hard evidence against Bin Laden has surfaced since 1998.<BR/><BR/>The mentality in the White House seemed to be never let a good pretext to war go to waste. Whose ass got kicked seemed almost beside the point! An angry American populace wanted revenge, quick results, and easy victories.</I><BR/><BR/>In an effort to be brief: The American retaliation against 'Talibinistan' was totally (a) justified (b) expected. The retro government in Kabul was given the option of giving up OBL and weren't responsive.<BR/><BR/>The real point to be made is that Afghanistan offered poor targets; Bush's vanity could not be satisfied with such an 'easy victory'. His need for a 'vanity war' was what was behind this ruinous un-provoked, unnecessary, unplanned and largely unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (UUULUIOI)!<BR/><BR/>Words cannot describe the sum total of what Bush has squandered.<BR/><BR/>He <I>is</I> the Worst President in American History (WPAH).<BR/><BR/>Again, GR8 Site!Vigilantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07640246609540057997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145538634260659742006-04-20T06:10:00.000-07:002006-04-20T06:10:00.000-07:00jaye, Bush, indeed, made those remarks with regard...jaye, Bush, indeed, made those remarks with regard to "nation building". Perhaps, he just meant that he would engage in the destruction of nations and let the wretched survivors sort it all out. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, Bush created a situation in which the poppy will remain the national flower. <BR/><BR/>re: damien: "I just love it when you get Tom Delay, 5.5 tons of cocaine and 9/11 in the one hit!"<BR/><BR/>This modus operandi dates back to Iran/Contra if not earlier. Cocaine may very well be the CIA currency of choice as well as unregulated sideline with which to finance various and nefarious subversive schemes. Connecting the dots must include Bush Sr's involvement in the CIA long before he was officially appointed director of the CIA. What's known about the Bush crime family is sure to be but the tip of an ice burg.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145527389578839032006-04-20T03:03:00.000-07:002006-04-20T03:03:00.000-07:00that was me...that was me...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145527119124094392006-04-20T02:58:00.000-07:002006-04-20T02:58:00.000-07:00Speaking of drugs...more fun from Daniel Hopsicker...Speaking of drugs...more fun from <A HREF="http://www.madcowprod.com/index.html" REL="nofollow">Daniel Hopsicker</A> reporting on CIA drug flights: <BR/><BR/>A plane was recently detained in Mexico carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine. Brent C Kovac is one of the two owners. And he just happens to have been appointed by Tom Delay in 1993 to the Business Advisory Council of the NRCC. <BR/><BR/>The plane's registered owner, a Florida air charter company called Royal Sons, was run from a hanger at the Venice Fl. Airport owned by flight school Huffman Aviation of 9/11 fame. The plane carried an official looking insignia US govt insignia. According to Hopsicker, Royal Sons is part of a cluster of related air charter firms that are dummy CIA companies. When Mexican authorities surrounded the plane the pilot "escaped".<BR/><BR/>Hopsicker recalls: "...Huffman Aviation's owner Wally Hilliard had his own Lear jet busted by DEA agents, during the same month Mohamed Atta arrived at his flight school, unhappy to discover 43 pounds of heroin aboard."<BR/><BR/>He concludes: "...the sleepy retirement community of blue-haired widows [Venice Fl] is about to replace Palermo or Caracas as the place to see and be seen in the international narcotics trade."<BR/><BR/>I just love it when you get Tom Delay, 5.5 tons of cocaine and 9/11 in the one hit!<BR/><BR/>(<A HREF="http://damien911.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-2.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>)(<A HREF="http://damien911.blogspot.com/2005/12/hopsicker-interview.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145513002099778022006-04-19T23:03:00.000-07:002006-04-19T23:03:00.000-07:00With a record $5 billion worth of heroin exports, ...With a record $5 billion worth of heroin exports, Afghanistan poppy growers must have been covered in dust for a minute after having rolled on the floor while holding their stomacs in extreme tremors of hillarity when they've heard Bush talking about a "Marshall Plan" for their country...Sebastien Parmentierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510809227926364827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145507238491062072006-04-19T21:27:00.000-07:002006-04-19T21:27:00.000-07:00The irony of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan is Bu...The irony of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan is Bush's insistance that we wouldn't be nation-building during the presidential debates. He had said even earlier, when he was governor, that we should finish the job in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>So he was lying before he even had the job.<BR/><BR/>It just gets more Orwellian every day.Jaye Ramsey Sutterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05866341038412407027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-1145497855561894532006-04-19T18:50:00.000-07:002006-04-19T18:50:00.000-07:00"There are townsNot to besiege.There are terrainsN..."There are towns<BR/>Not to besiege.<BR/>There are terrains<BR/>Not to contest.<BR/>There are ruler's orders<BR/>Not to obey."<BR/><BR/>Sun-Tzu, "The Art of War"Sebastien Parmentierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510809227926364827noreply@blogger.com