CNN Propagates False Iran Claim That Even White House Rejects
CNN Propagates False Iran Claim That Even White House Rejects
As Atrios notes, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said this morning:
The bottom line, Heidi, is the US certainly does have intelligence tying these Iranian weapons shipments to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei. It’s not something that the Bush White House wants to talk about in public too much because they really do not want to ratchet up tensions with Iran, the facts aside.
Starr claims the White House doesn’t want to talk about this “too much.” Actually, the White House explicitly denies it. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said yesterday:
SNOW: This is where we get to the rhetorical question I was asking you before. Do we have a signed piece of paper from Mr. Khamenei or from President Ahmadinejad signing off on this? No. …
I’m trying to be careful about how we do this. The question is, do we know that some particular senior official signed off? No. It’s an opaque government. It’s not a transparent government.
Watch both clips back-to-back:
In other words, CNN is now overstating the intelligence on Iran beyond the overstatements of the Bush administration.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
yea, but, considering bushco LIES about everything…
February 14th, 2007 at 10:16 amyeesh…
again, thanks so much Ted, selling it off to someone who would turn CNN into an infotainment channel, thanks, for nothing.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:18 amisn’t it interesting to watch what war profiteers do when they get ahold of the government by the withered cajones that remain?
Once again the “liberal” media does its part for its fearless leader Bush.
No doubt she was thinking “hey, the Republicans make stuff up, so I can too!”
February 14th, 2007 at 10:21 ambarbara starr is easily one of the most gullible of the very many candidates for that title in the pentagon press room.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:23 amSomewhere Rove is smiling at his new found Judy Miller.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:24 amAnd the war drums beat ever so louder…
February 14th, 2007 at 10:25 amBarbara starr is nothing but a parrot. She is nothing but a recorder button pushed on ‘ Replay’. All her reproting is nothing but a ’stenography’,and she is not alone in this, all media reporters of major networks fall in her category.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:25 amHearst would be proud. Remember the Maine!
February 14th, 2007 at 10:27 amCNN is in full jingoistic mode! Earlier today they had an online poll asking if the Iranian government was responsible for the weapons smuggling. Astonishingly over 70% agreed it was!!!
This just goes to show how gullible people are and how little they think critically. All that was required was making the accusations and over 70% believed them.
I am terrified concerning war with Iran, increasingly fascistic tendencies and the malleability of public opinion! Vice President Grim Reaper must be in his bunker smiling and rubbing his hands together!
February 14th, 2007 at 10:27 amcan you say “operation mockingbird”? or some other program like that? :)
February 14th, 2007 at 10:28 amDuring the FAKE London Terror Threat – which came just 36 hours after AIPAC tool Lieberman lost to Lamont (totally orchestrated By Karl Rove in order to CHANGE THE SUBJECT), it was Barbara Starr who announced during this FALSE FLAG THREAT that US Submariner, Ariel Joseph Weinmann, had been arrested SIX MONTHS EARLIER for espionage – turning over nuclear submarine secrets to “a foreign country” – said to be Israel by the rest of the world media – but proclaimed to be “Russia” by Barbara Starr – thanks to her “anonymous Pentagon sources.”
Ariel Joseph Weinmann’s espionage for Israel was as bad as the Jonathon Pollar Spy case…and you know NOTHING ABOUT IT – thanks to CIA/Rockefeller/Israeli operative – Barbara Starr.
Israel’s submarines now have our targeting and launch codes. Can they strike Iran now using our subs against our will?
Ask Barbara Starrr – she knows the truth – because she invents the lies.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:28 amI blocked CNN from my house the moment Glenn Blech arrived.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:29 amweird, huh
February 14th, 2007 at 10:30 amThe Rasmussen poll is bought and paid for by the Republican Party.
No poll conducted by Rasmussen will ever reflect reality.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2005/03/if_you_cant_tru.html
Former Pollster Pleads Guilty to Fabricating Results
Tracy Costin, the former owner of polling company DataUSA Inc., entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit mail fraud for fabricating the results of polls the company conduct on behalf of, among others, President Bush in 2004.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2006/09/former_pollster.html
February 14th, 2007 at 10:30 amThis is what passes for journalism these days? Is it any wonder that people hold this so-called “reporters” in such contempt?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:30 amthe WH and Pentagon “correspondents” are nothing more that shills for the WH. Have they ever investigated any of the many lies, misdeeds and mistakes of BushCo? They are lazy and CORRUPT. and stupid. spare us your “insight” – your “take” on the issues, whores!!!!!
February 14th, 2007 at 10:32 amDangit CNN, I thought you were better than that.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:32 amWhy don’t these obfuscating, uniformed “news reporters” like Ms Starr just take a few sleeping pills to put them away for a long time? What sort of constructive purpose would perpetuating this certain untrue information (except in the minds of Cheney and his gang) out to the public. CNN should can her and her ilk immediately. This BS of blabbering out statements without verifying the information is stupid at best! Sorry Barbara but, never fear, Faux Snooze will hire you to continue on in this vein!
February 14th, 2007 at 10:33 amOr, and stay with me now, CNN has an intelligence source that actually knows the truth, but Bush wants to downplay it so that Iran doesn’t go bonkers for having been exposed.
Certainly is possible, although there’s no way of knowing. It’s kind of like how we have a lot of dirt on the Saudis, but don’t want to dish it to keep up appearances.
I’m thinking we have a lot of dirt on a lot of governments, but keep it to ourselves for fear of causing problems.
Either that or CNN is just wrong, or had an intelligence source tell them something wrong.
I’m a bit surprised (OK, I just lied) that Think Progress says this is a “false Iran claim”. How does Think Progress know it’s false? It certainly needs to be corroborated, but does it automatically become false since no corroboration exists yet?
It’s a fool’s errand to proclaim that things are false which you actually have absolutely no knowledge about.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:35 amAlot of people are still in deep denial over the state of democracy in this country. People who should be smarter than that. Don’t you get it TP? The U.S. media is bought and paid for and is complicit in everything this criminal administration has done. They don’t just follow the White House. The White House follows the same puppet masters that the corporate media follows. Why can’t you accept that? They were complicit in 9/11 cover up, complicit in the lies that sent this country into Iraq, and complicit in the lies that will lead this country to attack Iran.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:40 amcnn is desperate for ratings and you all know how that shock and awe video brings the eyeballs. last week, cnn had a live video feed that woof eagerly turned to when there was gunfire between hamas and hezbollah fighters. it was a camera that appeared to be set up on a rooftop and cnn was clearly hoping for some bullet-riddled bodies and explosions.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:40 amUmm . . . do I detect some dissent on the part of the WH ?
Is this signs of a power struggle between what their handlers demand and what they can concievably buy into ?
Are we seeing our media propegating intentions without the current complicity of their tools in office ?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:41 am#19, “It’s a fool’s errand to proclaim that things are false which you actually have absolutely no knowledge about.”
The same goes for proclaiming things are true, e.g., Iranian goverment is involved in weapons smuggling.
Thanks for the logic lesson.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:42 amI don’t call it PNN
Pentagon News Network for nothing.
Has anyone noticed how Mick Ware has become almost a pentagon mouthpiece since leaving Newsweek and coming to PNN?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:42 amWhen I saw Barbara on TV, I’d say: “There’s a good reporter”. When asked why, I’d say: “She has the face of a dead sheep, she must be good to be on CNN”.
Well that was yesterday. Today: “What’s that dead sheep doing on my TV?”
February 14th, 2007 at 10:42 amAmerican Corporate Media stands by their man.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:42 amThe fact that cnn blatantly pushes this propaganda is patently unamerican.
Get the lies straight barbara.
If the Iranian government fails to stop there citizens from shipping weapons into Iraq, then the Iranian government is also at fault. It is there job afterall to not allow this to happen. It floors me they keep shipping weapons into Iraq however. Don’t they realize we will attack them for it after a while? I would think we are 1-2 months out from full scale war in Iran unless they suspend there nuke weapon program and stop aiding terrorists in Iraq. Who knows though. There leader is retarded enough to maybe want war.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:44 amIn the words of Eric Alterman: “Repeat after me – ‘What so-called-liberal-media?’”
February 14th, 2007 at 10:46 am*
listening to him now on sam’s show…
we gotta stop this – and we can – NOW.
Stop the Iran War Before It Starts
Scott Ritter
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/ritter
February 14th, 2007 at 10:50 am!
The hard-liner government of Iran was on the verge of collapsing, and then they decided on a new tactic:
Get the US to threaten us, and then the citizens that have been grumbling about our rule will support us again!
Well, Pres. Bush is ready to kill more American lives to keep the fundamentalist Muslim government in charge in Iran.
Why do Republicans hate American troops so much?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:56 amAli Khameini? Didn’t Michael Ledeen declare him dead?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:57 amWhatever weapons are coming into Iraq from Iran are only a nominal percentage of the flow coming in from every other direction…
February 14th, 2007 at 11:00 amIraq has become a gaping black hole where every arms dealer and smuggler in the neighborhood can send as many weapons as they can deliver.
If the Iranian government fails to stop there citizens from shipping weapons into Iraq, then the Iranian government is also at fault. It is there job afterall to not allow this to happen.
Comment by RogerDebate_Dodger — February 14, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Wow, you really do create the ultimate strawmen, and then refuse to debate.
Typical
Please provide proof that there are Iranians shipping weapons into Iraq. Your own administration can’t even get that story straight. But hey, if you’re still holding onto the myth of WMD, I can somewhat understand your misguided belief of
Iran’s weapons involvement
Don’t they realize we will attack them for it after a while? I would think we are 1-2 months out from full scale war in Iran unless they suspend there nuke weapon program and stop aiding terrorists in Iraq.
Boy, you sure are gung-ho regarding another war, as you sit safely behind your computer screen.
Enlist, and join the cause!
Who knows though. There leader is retarded enough to maybe want war.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:01 amUnless you had a typo, and meant their leader, I can only assume you subconsiously meant this:
There, Bush, idiotic enough to maybe mislead us into another war.
to which I whole heartedly agree
The media is being sloppy again, just like they were in the run-up to the Iraq war. They need to question everything.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:01 amThose liberal bastards at CNN
February 14th, 2007 at 11:03 amI’m a bit surprised (OK, I just lied) that Think Progress says this is a “false Iran claimâ€. How does Think Progress know it’s false? It certainly needs to be corroborated, but does it automatically become false since no corroboration exists yet?
It’s a fool’s errand to proclaim that things are false which you actually have absolutely no knowledge about.
Comment by Lucifer — February 14, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Lucifer, I can see that you are one of those glass half full or half empty kinda persons. Did you get anything out of Tony Snow’s White House press conference yesterday when he got pummelled by those correspondents who had the balls to question him on the subject for factual info on the subject because all he did was dance around the topic. Believe me, this administration would be great to play poker against as they NEVER hold anything close to the vest. In fact, it is just the opposite with them to a fault — including propagating outright falsehoods before they can substantiate them. I am sorry, but you’ve chosen the wrong crowd to prop up as truthtellers!
February 14th, 2007 at 11:06 am#19 Lucifer
I’m a bit surprised (OK, I just lied) that Think Progress says this is a “false Iran claimâ€. How does Think Progress know it’s false? It certainly needs to be corroborated, but does it automatically become false since no corroboration exists yet?
I’d like to direct your attention to the part of the story that says: “Starr claims the White House doesn’t want to talk about this ‘too much.’ Actually, the White House explicitly denies it.”
And, the head of the Joint Chiefs also says there’s no evidence of Iran’s leadership being involved. So, it becomes false when the White House and the Joint Chiefs both publicly say it’s false while Barbara Starr says it isn’t. The burden of proof is on her. If she has somebody in the White House telling her that Iranian leadership is involved with the weapons shipments in direct contradiction with the official White House word, she either needs to have the White House source identify him/herself or not report what they’re saying. The White House can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell the public ‘this’ and then leak to reporters to tell the public ‘that’.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amWould these be the same weapons that Ronny Reagan sold to the Iran Government during the Iran-Contra treasonous affair? Wasn’t President Ahmadinejad part of the Iranian revolution that held Americans hostage therefore having access to Ronny Reagan’s weapons? Maybe we should ask Oliver North to clear up this situation. Ollie, wtf did you do with those weapons that you sold to Iran? Ollie, did you record the serial numbers someplace so that if we ever get attacked with these weapons we will know that they are US weapons being used against our troops?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:08 amLive broadcast on NPR of Bush press conference at the moment……. he’s getting some tough questions, starting to sound flustered and belligerent already………
February 14th, 2007 at 11:17 amThe WH doesn’t want to admit that they sold these weapons to Iran. Refresh my memory, wasn’t Cheney involved with the Reagan administration in some capacity?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:18 amRaven – thanks. listening now. He sounds angry
February 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amWithout a doubt US and US supplied weapons are being used against US troops.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhole warehouses of weaponry were ignored in the invasion.
Interesting no one seems to mention all this other armament, and are focusing on a few sidearms and rifles from Persia.
#38
February 14th, 2007 at 11:22 amraven, keep us updated, sounds fun
Cheney and Rumsfeld go back to the Ford administration, can’t remember who was assuming which position…….
February 14th, 2007 at 11:24 am“the facts aside.”
And yes they are.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:26 amCNN, FOX, what’s the difference anymore? With neocon bunnies like Heidi Collins and Kyra Phillips bouncing around big bad Wolf, CNN transcends “liberal” into “zeaoltry.”
February 14th, 2007 at 11:26 amHe’s now interrupting the reporters as they are asking the questions.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:27 amHe’s extremely defensive sounding.
Beginning to falter more in his responses.
#37 CoffinsDrapedWithFlags
Would these be the same weapons that Ronny Reagan sold to the Iran Government during the Iran-Contra treasonous affair?
The weapons listed in the Iran-Contra sale were TOW anti-tank missiles and Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. I think they threw in some F-14 parts, too.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:34 amGeorge W. Bush, February 14th, 2007:
February 14th, 2007 at 11:36 am“Sometimes money trumps peace”
is there really any MSM outlet that is ever going to give us “real” news? They are all mouthpieces for elite policy.
i stay away from tv, get most of my “news” from Democracy Now! Z, and the like; and the Economist from time to time to see what the big bad corporate military industrialists are up to.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:38 amIs Brenda, er, Babs Starr related to Kenneth?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:38 amWith need more Keith Olbermanns and Jack Caffertys. I’m tired of these pandering Bush butt kissing punduts…
February 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am48 “Sometimes money trumps peace”!?
that’s hilarious, what is that in response to?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:40 amwow, that’s a honest moment.
karlX….
February 14th, 2007 at 11:47 amThe question was (paraphrased)
“Regarding the European nations who have significant trade with Iran, how does that relate to their (Eurpoeans) relations with Iran.”
Yes, honesty strongly underlined with hypocrisy…..
Wait, now he’s talking about switch grass again.. gotta go!
So what . did america not supply weapons to the Taliban to kill Russians … what comes around goes around ……who cares
February 14th, 2007 at 11:49 amComment by Roger_Roger
I’ve already given the local recruiting officer your information, they will be contacting you shortly.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:50 amWe know Wolf Blitzer worked of Israeli papers…what is with Barbara Starrd does she work for Mossad? Can we even believe that the MSMi is doiing it again. Christ they have allowed (except for Chris Matthews , Diane Rehms and Alex Chadwick) the neo-cons to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran for the last three years. Ruel Marc Gerecht, Daniel Pipes, Micheal Ledeen, Cheney, Bolton the same group have been marching our nation towards a confrontation with Iran.
Instead of many of these liars being locked up for the false pre-war intelligence that they created and dessiminated for Iraq..they run free yelling Iran Iran. Lock them up “faster please”
WILL SENATOR ROCKERFELLER COMPLETE PHASE II OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE?
“inappropriate” the Pentagons Inspector Generals description of the the manipualtion of intelligence coming out of Feith office shoulld be used for lies under oath about a blow job. But it seems a bit weak to describe the INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB how about CRIMINAL!
THE VERY LEAST OUR REPS CAN DO FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NEEDLESSLY LOST THEIR LIVES IN THIS WAR OF CHOICE AND LIES IS HOLD THOSE WHO LIED OUR NATION INTO IT ACCOUNTABLE. ARE THEY UP TO THE TASK OR DO THEY NEED A BLOW JOB TO INVESTIGATE? WILL THAT GET THEIR INVESTIGATIVE JUICES FLOWING LIKE THE FORMER REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:51 amGuns dont kill people ,,,, Insurgents do …….. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
February 14th, 2007 at 11:53 amA blow job would get some kind of juices flowing, probably not investigative.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:58 amdid america not supply weapons to the Taliban to kill Russians … what comes around goes around ……who cares
Comment by Tobey Tall
Exactly. But to some posters here (bob, Exley, Roger^2) US has the divine right to do what it wants. Lets forget that US supported Indonesia to kill East Timoreses, Pinochet to kill chileans, Saddam to kill iranians, South Africa to kill Angoleses (?), Contras to kill nicaraguans and american nuns, etc… but they sh*t their pants when others get weapons to defend against US actions.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:58 amAs the debate over Iran’s involvement in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq heats up, the Bush White House is facing a credibility gap of historic proportions. As Bush himself said in 2002:
“Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
For the details and video, see:
February 14th, 2007 at 11:59 am“Fool Me Once: Bush and Iran.”
Perhaps Barbara Starr would like to “clarify” the following Bush statement (thanks to Josh Marshall at TPM).
“Bush: To be patriotic you don’t have to agree with my policy, but you do have to support it. ”
What am I missing? Simple logic says that if you support a policy you are agreeing with that policy. Basically, Bush is saying that you are either with us or you are with the terrorists. Fear and smear. The new way forward is still stay the course.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:03 pmA reporter asked Bush about the 3 people in his administration that are implicated in outing Valeria Plame. The reporter specifically stated that he didn’t want Bush to talk about the Libby trial, just the 3 people in his administration. Bush stated “I won’t talk about that.” Bush was pressed several times to comment on the 3 people in his administration and he would not answer that question. Makes me ask… what’s the real connection?
Thanks for clarification on the types of weapons that Ronny sold to Iran. Now we know that they have the anti-aircraft missles to take out our planes.
Still need to know Cheney’s connection to the Reagan administration. I know that Cheney and Rummy go back as far as Nixon. Just can’t remember the Cheney/Reagan connection.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pmBubble Boy’s “sources” claimed that 170 US deaths can be attributed to Iranian made EFP’s…
OK Malta is on the US Invasion List next…
I Wonder how many of our 3127 DOD confirmed Dead and 23,417 Injured military personnel were results of AK-47 fire? Bubble Boy’s “sources” attributed 170 deaths to the Iranian made EFP’s.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
Maltese involved in trafficking weapons to Iraq – Italian police
UMBRIA/Italy, Malta (di-ve news) — February 12, 2007 — 2050CET — A group involved in trafficking thousands of weapons to rebellious groups in Iraq had close connections with Malta, the Italian police said on Monday. The Italian police arrested 16 persons in the Umbrian region in Italy, breaking up a ring of arms trafficking to militiamen in Iraq.
Some of the men who were arrested by the Italian police are wealthy entrepreneurs working within the export industry and coming from Russia, Libya, China and Malta. The Italian Ministry of Defence said that the men have close links with a Libyan diplomat.
Italian police said 500,000 AK 47 rifles and ten million pieces of ammunition were traced, but no weapons were confiscated.
http://www.di-ve.com/dive/portal/portal.jhtml?id=268504&pid=23
February 14th, 2007 at 12:11 pmDon’t be surprised when you find out Barbara Starr actually is paid by the Pentagon.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pmSomewhere in there Cheney went to work in the private (shadow?) sector, a la Halliburton.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pmI’m not clear on the chronology yet, and where he was, and when.
Juan, You always seem to make the same mistake. It was Allende who was the oppressor in Chile and it was the Sandinistas who were the murderous dictators in Nicaragua….Just thought I would clear up your confusion again. You’re welcome.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pmchimpeach,
So, it becomes false when the White House and the Joint Chiefs both publicly say it’s false while Barbara Starr says it isn’t. The burden of proof is on her.
Ah, so now all of a sudden the White House and their guys in the JC are beacons of truth. Funny how that happened! Of course the burden of proof is on Barbara Starr, but that still doesn’t make it correct to claim something is false. The very fact that it still might very well be true, despite denials by the White House and others, tells you that you cannot go throwing around the word “false” unless it is proven to be exactly that. The English language is rich, try “unproven” or “uncorroborated” or any synonym thereof.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pmHard to believe so many others in the world would support the terrorists, I thought everyone loved us.
/sarcasm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:15 pm#63. CDWF….
February 14th, 2007 at 12:21 pmWish I could have been able to watch Dubious’ facial expressions as he was refusing to answer the reporters question about the other 3 persons…
He sounded almost fearful in his blustering, have to give him credit for how quickly he turned it into an attack on the reporter………
Gonna go now, the lunch hour infestation of trolls has arrived.
This is soooo confusing….. who’s telling the truth? Someone is lying here? What am I suppose to believe?
Never trust a Republic to tell the truth and keep your wallet hidden from Republics… they know how to spend YOUR money and keep theirs.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:22 pmSince no improvement is being made on the Iraq War and we do not want another one, we need to spend our resources on other issues such as global poverty in order to discourage more terrorism and wars. According to the Borgen Project, in reality only .16% of our federal budget is spent on poverty reduction, the least among wealthy nations. We should let our representatives know that we want change.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pmYeah, the Ayatolla made the bombs himself and drove them to Baghdad where he personally gave them to Al Sadr. Then under cover of darkness, Al Sadr and Khamenei went and planted a roadside bomb and blew up a passing American Humvee. According to my official Pentagon source.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pm#68 Seixon
Ah, so now all of a sudden the White House and their guys in the JC are beacons of truth.
Ah! No. You need to read the rest of what I said. I didn’t say that the White House or even the Joint Chiefs are beacons of truth. But, when the White House and the Joint Chiefs are in agreement on something, and Barbie Starr comes along and says “No, the White House told me this,” she needs to explain how the White House is saying two different things. She may have been told the opposite of the official line by someone in the White House, but then she needs to present it as there being a contradiction, not as her version being the one that everybody has to believe. If she wants people to think that, she needs to present a better case for it.
Take another look at this: “It’s not something that the Bush White House wants to talk about in public too much because they really do not want to ratchet up tensions with Iran, the facts aside.”
If she has a source inside the White House who let her report that, then yes they do want to talk about it in public. They wouldn’t have told her she could report it if they didn’t. They’re just trying to be weasels about it. They know that the president and the press secretary can’t be nailed on it if it’s leaked out by someone else. And who the hell would give her an exclusive, anyway?
February 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pmCNN correspondent Michael Ware in Baghdad was rolling his eyes at Wolf Blitzer discussing this report. He was saying that there is a total disconnect between the White House and the facts on the ground in Iraq. He wanted to know what facts the White House was basing this story on. It was quite a revealing moment.
Does anyone have this report from the Situation Room on CNN last night so it can get posted?
February 14th, 2007 at 12:37 pmOops! Somebody at CNN accidently released RNC talking points a week too early.
Well, no worry. Next week all the networks will be on the same page. Shame on you CNN, you need to coordinate your propaganda more responsibly.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:37 pmJust thought I would clear up your confusion again. You’re welcome.
Comment by Exley
Yeah, a New York boy who has never been out of the country is going to teach me what happened in Chile and Nicaragua…yeah.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:38 pm#68 Seixon
The very fact that it still might very well be true, despite denials by the White House and others, tells you that you cannot go throwing around the word “false†unless it is proven to be exactly that. The English language is rich, try “unproven†or “uncorroborated†or any synonym thereof.
I’ll grant you that. “False” is not yet proven. It’s the way she presents her information that’s the biggest problem. There’s a disconnect and I suspect it’s at her end.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:42 pmI guess CNN and FOX are vying for the most incredible, whore-like, lying sack of shit award, this year.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:44 pmJuan…I don’t know to whom you are referring in posting #78. But I do know your old pal Exley will continue to correct your various misconceptions about history. No need to thank me. It’s my pleasure.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pmSeixon, my ‘uncorroborated soucres’ tell me you wear a pair of rubber boots and velcro gloves when you hit the pastures, looking for love.
See? Anyone can make allegations, look at Exlax in post #67 – too many Chuck Norris films will do that to you. Babs Starr is doing the equivalent of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a theatre. Or perhaps using a SOTU address to allege that someone is seeking to buy yellowcake even though the CIA tells you not to say it.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:53 pmBut I do know your old pal Exley will continue to correct your various misconceptions about history. No need to thank me. It’s my pleasure.
Comment by Exley
But Reader´s Digest is not a reliable info source, nor Kissinger´s biography.
BTW, remember yesterday when you told me about the henious attack in 9/11 that Al-Qaeda (if you want to believe this proven deceitful admin), why havent you enlisted to fight those evil-doers?
February 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pmHey Terry, did you do any reading last night on the Geneva Conventions and learn the difference between a prisoner of war and an unlawful combatant? You kinda embarassed yourself last night on another thread when you showed that you did not know the difference or anything about Ex Parte Quirin…If you are still confused, I will be more than happy to explain it to you again, Triple-T.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pmNot me Exlax – saw Barfly and Venus pants you again though.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:04 pm-CNN Propagates False Iran Claim That Even White House Rejects-
CNN must not have recieved the daily talking points memo from the WH. You know how bad weather slows things down and all. They went with the latest and what they thought they knew in lieu of recieving the memo, and it got them squashed and debunked all in the same day.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:05 pmI’d stick around to see Juan pants you again on your Latin American history, but I need to go out now.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pmsaw Barfly and Venus pants you again though.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:08 pmExley, nothing wrong with a little de-pantsing, unless of course, all the ladies point and laugh, then yes, that probably would be embarrasing.
Just sayin….
[...] other reporters are already hyping and overstating the administration’s claims on Iranian intelligence, Henry has maintained healthy skepticism [...]
February 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pmHey Terry, did you do any reading last night on the Geneva Conventions and learn the difference between a prisoner of war and an unlawful combatant?
Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
The Geneva Conventions does not mention “unlawful combatant” because it is a term Bush pulled right out of his ass.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pmComment by rachel
Rachel,you sound reasonable;have you considered another moniker.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pmCNN has finally been ‘OUTED’ FOR THE BUSH PROPAGANDA ORGANIZATION THAT THEY ARE! Finally!
February 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pmI just have to wonder where the mainstream media will go after Bush is swept from office? When it becomes declasse once again to push propaganda, rumors, half truths, lies, and pure spin and still call youself a relavant news agency?? By then, everyone will have turned to the internet and, as we speak, the MSM is quickly becoming a true dinosaur. FACT: When you turn on your tube, all they have is ‘YESTERDAY’S NEWS”….now that’s a fact!
February 14th, 2007 at 1:44 pm#89 is there anything that Bush hasn’t pulled out of his ass?
February 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pmIs she slept while commenting? It looks so by the picture.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWe need a forced draft law for anyone that’s pro war … for them and their whole family.
How quickly things would change.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:00 pmAh…So I see that Terry has not done his homework and will continue to embarass himself with lack of knowledge on the 1949 Geneva Convention and Ex Parte Quirin….That’s okay with me, TTT…It amuses me to see you embarass yourself as you did last night.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:00 pm#90 Nat,
As I explained to Terry, Juan C, and Barfly last night, the term “unlawful combatant” pre-dates the Bush administration and has been a designation recognized by the law of war for almost a century now. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the 1942 case of Ex Parte Quirin repeatedly refers to “unlawful combatants.”
Go read the case, Nat.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pmDRxJ,
I think you may have hit the nail on the proverbial head. Terry Turtle’s frequently stated obsession with “pantsing” of othe men may indeed bespeak certain feeling of “inadequacy” experienced by Terry. Poor guy…
February 14th, 2007 at 2:05 pmHere we go again. The incessent beating of the war drums by the “liberal media” on the behalf of the self-appointed “decider’.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAnd as Exley said yesterday, he can name no case in which Quirin was ever cited as precedent, before Bush decided to use it. Nine presidential administrations never tested it’s veracity. Yet suddenly, now it’s the law of the land.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pmPoor guy…
Comment by Exley
Had enough, history buff?
February 14th, 2007 at 2:09 pm#67 Exley
you really lose credibility if you deny the U.S. role as sponsor of state terrorism in Chile, Nicaragua, East Timor, and on and on… U.S. provided: cash, arms, military training, air support.
were you the one, on the nicaragua argument, said something like: “the nicaraguans were found to be the agressors”
comical that you attempt to take that stance
February 14th, 2007 at 2:11 pmBTW, remember yesterday when you told me about the henious attack in 9/11 that Al-Qaeda (if you want to believe this proven deceitful admin), why havent you enlisted to fight those evil-doers?
Comment by Juan C
Hey, Ex… would you answer this?
February 14th, 2007 at 2:11 pmBarfly,
Once the Supreme Court issues a decision, it is the law of the land. Ex Parte Quirin has been cited in a number of lower court and Surpeme Court decisions since 1942 as good law. It has never been overturned. It has been and continues to be the law of the land since 1942.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:14 pmHoyer is kicking ass on the floor of the House right now.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:14 pmAh, look at Juan C desperately trying to escape his hypocrisy by sticking to his silly conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an “inside job” planned and carried out by the CIA or Mossad or whoever…Juan has never been very clear on who he believes carried out 9/11. That’s because he knows his conspiracy theory is false and he merely uses it as a shield to carry out his inconsistent positions.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:18 pmsorry off topic here
February 14th, 2007 at 2:19 pmhey juan, work closing early here (mass) snow storm; hope your doing well friend; i’m thinking about some good books for you.
exley is a really great example of U.S. state sponsored terrorism apologist, eh?
ciaociao
k
Comment by karlX
Hi, Karl, thanks. Yeah, Ex is not a bad guy. He is just scared.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:24 pmLike Terry the Turtle said, too many Chuck Norris movies for you, Ex:
President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a ‘totalitarian dungeon’. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. ‘Democracy’ had prevailed.
But this ‘policy’ was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:26 pmAs I explained to Terry, Juan C, and Barfly last night, the term “unlawful combatant†pre-dates the Bush administration and has been a designation recognized by the law of war for almost a century now. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the 1942 case of Ex Parte Quirin repeatedly refers to “unlawful combatants.â€
Go read the case, Nat.
Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
This is from wikipedia in reference to the Ex Parte Quirin case:
“Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. ‘Unlawful combatants’ are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.”
The Bush administration has come up with their own definition of what an unlawful combatant is. This case just states that “unlawful combatants” get a military tribunal.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pmHere’s one for you, Exley:
Although the Quirin decision appears to authorize military tribunals for “unlawful belligerents,” the court failed to articulate specific criteria that must be present in order for a military tribunal to be valid.
The Court said: “We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here . . . were plainly within those boundaries.”
The Court narrowed its decision to avoid any sweeping statement regarding military jurisdiction and provided little guidance for application to future cases.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pmEx, why dont you answer an apparently simple question? If you are so hurt by Al-Qaeda involvement in 9/11 and you will give anything for your country, why dont you enlist?
Is it the old Christianity paradox?
I wanna go to heaven but I dont wanna die…
Furthermore, anytime you want to talk about 9/11, lets see who theory has more info holes, mine or Commission Report.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:29 pmLike Terry the Turtle said, too many Chuck Norris movies for you, Ex:
Harold Pinter Nobel lecture:
President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a ‘totalitarian dungeon’. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. ‘Democracy’ had prevailed.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pmTP doesnt let me post part of this.
Like Terry the Turtle said, too many Chuck Norris movies for you, Ex:
Harold Pinter Nobel lecture:
February 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pmThe Court narrowed its decision to avoid any sweeping statement regarding military jurisdiction and provided little guidance for application to future cases.
Comment by Barfly — February 14, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
The Supreme Court ruled against Bush’s military tribunals a few months ago.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pmMore:
Pinter pounds the US and UK imperialism in his speech.
The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.
The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.
So, yeah, Ex, whatever you say.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:39 pmAbout Chile:
CIA reports:
As early as the 1964 Chilean Presidential election, American businessmen with interests in Chile had offered to provide the CIA with funds to prevent Allende from being elected. All of these early offers were rejected.
In early 1970 a Station officer was contacted by a United States businessman employed by International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) urging the US government to provide financial support to one of Allende’s opponents, Jorge Alessandri. The Station provided the businessman the name of an individual who could securely funnel ITT funds to Alessandri.
Several months later another ITT representative approached the CIA in Washington to probe whether CIA would accept funds from his company and channel them to the Alessandri campaign. He was told that CIA could not receive and transfer funds to Alessandri on behalf of a private firm. The CIA also told him that, although the US Government was most anxious about a possible Allende victory, it was not supporting any specific candidate in the election. As occurred several months earlier, however, the Station provided this businessman advice on how to funnel ITT funds securely to Alessandri.
After Allende’s election and before his inauguration, the CIA, under 40 Committee direction, made an effort—in coordination with the Embassy in Santiago—to encourage Chilean businesses to carry out a program of economic disruption.
Wow, that sounds democratic, right Ex? Uh, but Allende was a dictator…hahaha!!!
February 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmBarfly,
What the court is saying there is that in order to reach it’s decision under the facts of the present case (Quirin), it was not necessary to create or outline bright line requirements that may need to be fulfilled in future or speculative cases in order to have a military tribunal try unlawful combatants charged with violating the law of war. Indeed, in the prior paragraph (not cited by you), the Court cites another military commission case (Ex Parte Milligan), a Civil War-era decision in which the court held that an Indiana man tried by a military commission was done so improperly because he did not fall within the parameters outlined by the rule of law and, under the facts of the case, and the law of war, Milligan was not an “unlawful enemy belligerent.”
In Quirin, the court was saying that the petitioners could indeed by prosecuted as unlawful combatants under the rule of law.
“It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered, or after entry remained in, our territory without uniform — an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission”.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:54 pmEx parte Quirin??? Case law for German saboteurs on American soil somehow defines unlawful combatants? Listen punk, the concept of unlawful combatant was never even codified until the MCA was passed by the corrupted Republican congress. Hopefully, that won’t last long.
Exley, I’m not sure an enema would help you much. I suggest you go with a high colonic and be sure to ask for the special rotory attachment. If that is successful, then there is a remote chance that a deprogramming regime could clear the residual filth embedded in your soul. Short of that, why don’t we just go with STFU.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pmNat,
The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress had not given sufficient and express authorization for the creation of military tribunals in the AUMF of September, 2001. Basically, all the Court did in Hamdan was say to Congress, “Look, military commissions are fine, but there needs to be a statute authorizing such commissions.” Congress heeded the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Military Commissions Act last October, authorizing the establishment and use of military commissions.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:00 pmNat,
The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress had not given sufficient and express authorization for the creation of military tribunals in the AUMF of September, 2001. Basically, all the Court did in Hamdan was say to Congress, “Look, military commissions are fine, but there needs to be a statute authorizing such commissions.†Congress heeded the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Military Commissions Act last October, authorizing the establishment and use of military commissions.
Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
This is funny. A war criminal starts a war and now he is determining who is an “unlawful combatant.”
February 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pm#118, Juan,
“We find no information—nor did the Church Committee—that CIA or the Intelligence Community was involved in the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende. He is believed to have committed suicide as the coup leaders closed in on him. The major CIA effort against Allende came earlier in 1970 in the failed attempt to block his election and accession to the Presidency.”
Thanks for the confirmation, Juan….As I have said all along, (and have now been proven right…again) the U.S. government and CIA had no hand in the popular 1973 uprising against the growing Allende dictatorship. What happened in 1973 was a popular revolution against a Marxist regime.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pmExley, put down that Time-Life crap. See previous therapeutic recommendations. You’re welcome.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:14 pmCongress heeded the Supreme Court’s decision and passed the Military Commissions Act last October, authorizing the establishment and use of military commissions.
Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Who establishes the rules for these Commissions, the dolt in the White House or Congress?
February 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pm“Case law for German saboteurs on American soil somehow defines unlawful combatants?”
Yes. Read the case, stonehinge. Educate yourself. Here is a small passage:
“By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between … those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”
Got it now, stonehinge? Good. Now run along and do your homework.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pmExley, why don’t you actually read the Church Report, instead of misquoting it. It proes you lie.
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp
February 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pmBasically, all the Court did in Hamdan was say to Congress, “Look, military commissions are fine, but there needs to be a statute authorizing such commissions.†Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
If the Quinn statute is as clear as you say, this clarification would be unnecessary. How ironic you contradict yourself, completely discredit yourself and your own arguments, and aren’t sharp enough to see it.
Tell me sprite, how does the Geneva Convention supersede the Quinn statute, considering it was signed into law afterwards?
February 14th, 2007 at 3:27 pmExley, the case law only defined lawful combatants — insignia, etc. The judges expressly refused to define unlawful combatants. Now, to justify his illegal detentions and denial of habeas corpus, the MCA leaves it to the president to make such definitions. That dog won’t hunt.
Get the colonic, moron.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pmDear Rainbow Sprite Exley. Were you aware that Quirin violates Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention? Were you also aware that legal scholars note that Quirin misinterprets the articles of war section 4(A)?
February 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pmDear Rainbow Sprite Exley. Were you aware that Quirin violates Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention? Were you also aware that legal scholars note that Quirin misinterprets the articles of war section 4(A)?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 14, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
I saw this when I was reading over the Geneva Conventions:
I wasn’t sure what they meant by “competent tribunal.”
February 14th, 2007 at 3:43 pmStonehinge,
You are again incorrect. The Quirin court recognized and cited the international law of war’s distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants and provided examples of what constitutes an unlawful combatant, and found that the military commission’s trial of the petitioners as unlawful combatants was proper and legal under U.S. and international law.
Read the decision. Right now you are just winging it and getting it completely wrong. Read the decision.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pmYou are again incorrect. The Quirin court recognized and cited the international law of war’s distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants and provided examples of what constitutes an unlawful combatant, and found that the military commission’s trial of the petitioners as unlawful combatants was proper and legal under U.S. and international law. Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
They did this through a time machine? Because this case was 1942, the Geneva Convention statutes in question came about in 1949. Unless we’re in an episode of back to the future, your court case has to be interpreted within the context of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Please see me making fun of you about the Rumsfeld decision. This will make more sense in that context – assuming you have the mental capacity to pull these items together. I know, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I’m sure you’ll disappoint. But go ahead rainbow sprite – surprise me!
Read the decision. Right now you are just winging it and getting it completely wrong. Read the decision. Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Ironic coming from you!!! The ICRC has already categorically stated that the US government’s flawed reading of this statute in the context of the Geneva Convention is clearly incorrect. To the point of being willfully so. Then again, willfully in denial is the only thing that explains all of your twisted, and perverted opinions.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pmCNN now stands for COWARDLY NAIVE NABOBS! The news media SHOULD EXCORIATE AND CASTIGATE CHIMPya and Bushland Uber Allies, not supplant their LIES and ever GO FURTHER THAN THE LIE-MACHINE in the white house! ROLL OVER and PLAY DEAD, CNN! Also, in commenting on the psychobabble gobbeldygook doublespeak by Exley above, when CHIMPya, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, all the dastardly cretins who aided and abetted military tribunals will be brought before said same military tribunals and given the same KANGAROO-COURT TREATMENT they are giving others right now! “WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND,” Exley, and THE FOOT YOU STEP ON TODAY WILL KICK YOU IN THE ASS TOMORROW!!!!!
February 14th, 2007 at 4:05 pmNat, “Competent tribunal” is not defined the Third Geneva Convention. It is widely considered to mean a military or some other type of tribunal of the capturing nation. There is no international body or tribunal that makes this determination. The determination is the responsibility of the capturing nation. Thus, VVGFU’s contention that Quirin is inconsistent with Article 5 is incorrect.
Article 5 says:
“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
‘While this Article has been widely misconstrued as meaning that any doubts that arise must be determined by a competent tribunal; the debate then turns on what constitutes a competent tribunal.
But that this is not what the Article actually says. It literally says that should any doubt arise, then the person shall be treated as a POW until their status is determined by a competent tribunal. It does not say that the question of whether any doubt has arisen must be determined by a competent tribunal, even if the person demands one.
It is literally open for the administration to determine that a certain group has undertaken unprivileged belligerency and that with respect to any particular individual, no doubt arises and, therefore, there is no obligation to convene a tribunal.’
Prof. Kenneth Anderson
February 14th, 2007 at 4:10 pmProfessor of Law
Washington College of Law
Washington DC
Exley, I’m finished with this asinine strawman. I suggest that you take your 9-11 fantasies, your revisionist history and your specious legal pronouncements some place where factual reality doesn’t matter.
Back to the topic…anyone?
February 14th, 2007 at 4:11 pmWhat happened in 1973 was a popular revolution against a Marxist regime.
Comment by Exley
Yeah, Ex. Whatever makes you sleep nicely.
BTW, are you going to answer why arent you enlisting if Al-Qaeda did so much damage to your beautiful country? Third time…
February 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pmProf. Kenneth Anderson Professor of Law Washington College of Law Washington DC Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Ah, you quote a hack third rate flunky for the Hoover institute – figures… How about quoting a respectable attorney – someone that doesn’t seem as incompetent as you do for a change?
Even Scalia is against you rainbow sprite.
Yet, rainbow sprite Exley – appears to believe it was. Who knew that Scalia was to the left of Exley! That takes a lot of mustering!!!!
February 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pmBTW, are you going to answer why arent you enlisting if Al-Qaeda did so much damage to your beautiful country? Third time… Comment by Juan C — February 14, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Just make the sound BAWK, BAWK – it explains everything…
February 14th, 2007 at 4:22 pmHey, stonehinge.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:23 pmI use that Harold Pinter speech every time I can.
What a powerful, beautiful statement.
More about Chile…oh, that awful truth, Ex:
February 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Just make the sound BAWK, BAWK – it explains everything…
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus —
Perhaps Exely is not THAT mad about 9/11…
February 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pmWhat happened in 1973 was a popular revolution against a Marxist regime. Comment by Exley
BAHAHAHAHA, now that’s a funny claim!!! Totally unfounded, considering that this ‘Marxist’ regime came to power through an election, and was overthrown by the military. He was elected with a coalition vote of 64% of the popular vote.
If a president becoming unpopular during his term warrants a revolution – are you suggesting the US should have one for the highly unpopular Bush? Because that’s your only justification. And you wonder why we call you fascists, a bunch of hate filled self serving immoral hypocrites. It’s because you earn that description, rainbow sprite.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pmPerhaps Exely is not THAT mad about 9/11…
Comment by Juan C — February 14, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
A coward is always mad, as long as someone will do their fighting for them.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pmYes Juan,
I remember that night when I first read Pinter’s speech. You are right to use it again and again…it is like a fine wine that gets better with age. I wish I could write with that kind of grace, but sometimes I feel a need to gut these creeps…they have seen to the destruction of hope for so many.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pmFourth time, Exley, I know, you maybe working, but here it goes:
After the henious 9/11 events that Al-Qaeda pulled out, why didnt you enlist? Occupation and the “War on Terror” are still raging on, why havent you done your patriotic duty and enlisted? Why not?
Come on, Mr. “I find beheadings wrong but waterboarding and hangings ok”, tell us.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pm[...] “The idea that we’re somehow manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing (bombs) is preposterous.” [...]
February 14th, 2007 at 4:44 pmBut that this is not what the Article actually says. It literally says that should any doubt arise, then the person shall be treated as a POW until their status is determined by a competent tribunal. It does not say that the question of whether any doubt has arisen must be determined by a competent tribunal, even if the person demands one.
It is literally open for the administration to determine that a certain group has undertaken unprivileged belligerency and that with respect to any particular individual, no doubt arises and, therefore, there is no obligation to convene a tribunal.’
Prof. Kenneth Anderson
Professor of Law
Washington College of Law
Washington DC
Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
-A court has to determine that. I wouldn’t trust Bush w/ that decision; he lied us into a war.
-It must be written somewhere as to what a “competent tribunal†is. But in any case, the Bush administration is not a competent tribunal by any stretch of the imagination.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pm#135, Stonehinge, I accept your surrender. You are clearly clueless about the law and the history of unlawful combatants and Ex Parte Quirin. But hey, keep citing a speech given by a playwright as some type of significant political document.
I am happy to have taught you some legal and political history today, Stonehinge. Maybe next time you won’t embarass yourself with your ignorance.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:28 pmJuan,
This cheap rhetorical trick you are employing really beneath you. So often on this site when an individual poster cannot make their point via persuasion, logic, citation to history, statistics, legal documents or news accounts, they decide to try and change the discussion from one of policy to an irrelevant discussion about individual poster. It is personalizing a policy or historical debate in an attempt to lure an individual into making some statement about himself or herself, which cannot be validated and only provides fodder for other posters to avoid discussion of the issues.
Many times I have seen other posters using the same cheap trick you are trying to use and I am amazed to see so many others take the bait.
For example, many times I have seen one person ask another poster with whom they disagree, “Are you a doctor?” or “Are you a lawyer?” or “Have you evr done volunteer work?” or “Have you ever served in the military?,” etc. and when the person responds “yes,” all that does is prompt others to then choose to disregard the person’s answer and label that person a “liar.”
And from that point on, anything of substance the individual has to say is no longer addressed and is instead dismissed out of hand with the childish and unproven taunt of “liar.” In other words, it is an effort to have an individual make a statement that is essentially unprovable (unless one wants to give up their anonymity)
For that reason, I have always made it my policy not to reveal significant personal details of my life. I have never revealed where I live, my age, what I do for a living, where I went to school, if I am married, my religion, if I ever served in the military or in law enforcment, etc. Because it is irrelevant and merely detracts from the debate.
The only personal information I have divulged is that I am originally from New York, root for the New York Mets and New York Jets, am of Italian descent, have a sister — None of which are particularly interesting or divulged to make a political point, but rather were divulged in some side conversations with you and Wayne and Jane Schneider.
Similarly, Juan, I have never asked you or anyone else on this site what they do for a living, if they have ever joined the Peace Corps or military, where they went to college, etc. It is irrelevant and distracts from the political debate, which is the purpose of this site.
Juan, you have no idea if I have ever served in the military or not. Nor am I inclined to tell you. Similarly, I have no idea whether you have worked for a relief organization. Nor am I inclined to ask you. I don’t attempt to undermine your or anyone else’s political points by asking them questions about their personal lives or history.
One of the natural responses to your question about my military service is to ask you about what you have done professionally and personally to advance the causes in which you believe. But such tit-for-tat would get us nowhere.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:54 pmNat, I said I was done with this, but your last comment gets to the crux of the matter. These jackass attorneys manipulated these particular ambiguities, the fact that “unlawful combatant” and “competent tribunal” were not fully defined in the law, to develop their own alternate theory in such a way that they could arbitrarily deny habeas corpus. It all becomes clear when you examine Anderson’s last paragraph here:
In effect, they now have a pseudo-legal basis, codified with the passage of the MCA, to imprison anyone at any time with the assumption that they are guilty until proven innocent, with no rights to actually prove that they are innocent. All that is required is for the president to declare that they are guilty of unprivileged belligerency.
These cheap bastards could have worked to clarify these ambiguities, but instead, they chose to undermine the rights of habeas corpus. It is astonishing to realize how little effort was spent to destroy one of our most treasured democratic institutions.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:01 pmStonehinge, You write
“with no rights to actually prove that they are innocent.”
That is not true. If you look at the MCA, you see that those being tried in a military commission have access to a number of legal safeguards, including the right to counsel, a right to appeal to the a separate commission and then to a civilian court. Those covered by the MCA have more legal procedural safeguards than even P.O.W.s have.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:16 pmDid somebody fart?
February 14th, 2007 at 6:27 pmExley will not enlist because he is an unprincipled hypocrite, like countless other so-called “patriots.” Exley has no qualms about some poverty-stricken ethnic minority soldier sacrificing himself on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. But neither he nor any or other so-called “patriot” is prepared to make such a sacrifice. Exley does not have the courage of his convictions. “Patriots” do not advocate armed conflict and sit calmly on the sidelines. But COWARDS do. And that is precisely what you are, Exley – a shameless COWARD. You and other “patriots” are an embarassment to this republic, and to your (undoubtedly dysfunctional) family.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:45 pmAll that is required is for the president to declare that they are guilty of unprivileged belligerency.
Comment by stonehinge — February 14, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
And this is the biggest problem. How can we trust liar with anything.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:47 pm#135, Stonehinge, I accept your surrender. Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Says the coward that won’t fight. Ah, the bitter irony of the chickenhawk right wingnuttery.
You are clearly clueless about the law and the history of unlawful combatants and Ex Parte Quirin. Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Consult Scalia’s remarks, and the dates of the Geneva Conventions compared to Quirin, and then you can laugh at us, laughing at you.
But hey, keep citing a speech given by a playwright as some type of significant political document. Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Versus citing a court case that has been superseded by an international treaty. he he
I am happy to have taught you some legal and political history today, Stonehinge. Maybe next time you won’t embarass yourself with your ignorance. Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Says the ignorant troll that didn’t know we signed the Geneva Convention after both of his legal cases were argued.
Maybe next time Exley you’ll check your dates before you so thoroughly embarrass yourself. Of course you won’t – you’re a neocon that prefers to repeat lies, than recognize your own nationalism and fascist anti-american values.
Tah, tah, child…
February 14th, 2007 at 6:48 pmJuan, This cheap rhetorical trick you are employing really beneath you. Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Yet you claim others admit defeat, proving that no level of immorality or cheap tricks are beneath you. A fact you re-establish every time you dishonestly pretend to debate subjects you clearly know nothing of.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:49 pmThat is not true. If you look at the MCA, you see that those being tried in a military commission have access to a number of legal safeguards, including the right to counsel, Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Yet neither the accused, nor their attorneys can see the charges and/or evidence against them – right? Yeah, real safeguards that your hero Hitler would be proud of. You neocons are just a chip off of the old anti-semitic block.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:50 pmFor example, many times I have seen one person ask another poster with whom they disagree, “Are you a doctor?†or “Are you a lawyer?†or “Have you evr done volunteer work?†or “Have you ever served in the military?,†etc. and when the person responds “yes,†all that does is prompt others to then choose to disregard the person’s answer and label that person a “liar.†Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Ah, Exley’s justification for not proving that he’s an unqualified hack and a liar, is that by doing so, you’ll call him a liar…
Now that’s a funny argument!! Typical nationalist fascist.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:52 pmThis is the kind of legal protections combatants are receiving, compared to what Exley thinks is happening. Of course as always, there’s a wide gap, not just Condi’s teeth, or Exley’s thin grasp on reality – that’s so skinny our anorexic might aphrodite/valiant venus would have trouble fitting into it!
Sounds like the trials are about as competent as Exley is – he he.
You’re welcome Exley, for my assistance in correcting your ignorance, and I accept your surrender. It’s the least I can do, to help out an amateur like yourself in learning history and the legal system. I hope that when you finish high school you’ll pursue your interests in these matters – but may I suggest that you learn to vette your sources better. Most of the stuff you post from the Hoover/Neocon related sources just make you look like a little ignorant boob.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:06 pmI was watching CNN yesterday and they aired a very in-depth report about the Iranian claims regarding Iraq and they challenged the Bush administration with facts about why they couldn’t be proven true. It was a very well documented report.
I was absolutely amazed and had to check to determine if I had turned on the wrong channel. Turns out I was watching CNN, but it was the CNN International news. No wonder the rest of the world is better informed about what’s really going on in the Middle East than we are in the States. It clearly wasn’t a report that “the best team in political coverage” would air.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:17 pmBut such tit-for-tat would get us nowhere.
Comment by Exley
It is about being consequent with what you think. Otherwise is just talk, talk, talk. If your convictions and ideas are so rightfully defended by you according to your way of thinking, then I guess my question is valid.
I dont want you to tell me personal details, but for you to be completely consequent, you should be the first one with a rifle defending your country from evil terrorists, but you are not. Almost every single time I see a post form you, you come with the 9/11 stuff and how sad that was. I can only imagine how hard it was for you, I do not rejoice in anyone´s pain, but as we have seen, you are completely in agreement with this War on Terror, hence the question, why arent you fighting for such a good cause, according to you? I dont see how is that irrelevant for the discussion. Your way of acting is incoherent if not hypocritical. If you were somewhat a moderate supporter of Bush policies, I could understand, but you are not.
You always support Bush policies twisting common sense and morals: you said it was ok to kill people as long as they were marxist/leninist, you think it is ok to torture people as long as they are unlawful combatants, you think Al-Qaeda wasnt support by the CIA, you thought there were WMDs, now you say that was not the reason of invasion, you thought you will be greeted as liberators, that didnt happen, you are consistently wrong about a lot of historical facts describing US atrocities around the world, I mean a lot, but you only get your info from US sources, yet poor people like iraqis and nicaraguans seem a threat for your country which is ultimately ridiculous. I think the big question is: are you going to support this Administration no matter what just becuz you are a life-time republican or becuz you use the meaningless motto of US is the greatest country in the world? If the answer is yes, then we have really no room for debate. If the answer is no, if the answer is that you are going to be critic of your government becuz thats what Jefferson and Franklin wanted from every US citizen, then we can debate. If you are going to make this, as you have consistently done, a pissing competition using childish phrases like: “Im glad to help you”…etc, then you really kill debate and not my question about your consequence with your ideas.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:36 pmOk, I know, without reading any of the comments, what the right wing is saying. Think about it righties. Rub a couple of those brain cells together. We are not “at war” with the Shi’ites. We are at war with the Sunnis. Your president is buddy, buddy with the pro-Iranian Shia.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:12 pmJuan…damn well-said…bravo!!!
It’s a shame we don’t have any decent adversaries on this site. Gutting a fish is far more interesting than debating with this Exley.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:14 pmJust as an aside… Prescott Bush sold weapons to Hitler…. just saying.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:18 pmThis is more evidence that most of the US media simply backs the Bush administration. If you think otherwise, you’re smoking something. Watch our domestic news programs, then look at the foreign media. The difference will scare you senseless.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:01 pmcomment #132
“willfully in denial is the only thing that explains all of your twisted, and perverted opinions.”
i think this really sums up what goes on in the life andmind of most americans (in this case Exley).
February 14th, 2007 at 9:23 pmWell let’s see how it’s all worked out shall we.
Juan, You always seem to make the same mistake. It was Allende who was the oppressor in Chile and it was the Sandinistas who were the murderous dictators in Nicaragua….Just thought I would clear up your confusion again. You’re welcome.
Comment by Exley — February 14, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Let’s see, Exley scores a strawman and Juan, as I predicted ,dealt handily with the Nicaraguan strawman, with some FACTS – fairly easily sourced to the most part. Hmm. Exlax then leaves the field to Juan, so….
Juan 1, Exley 0
Moving on to Exley’s Chilean strawman – exactly the same strawman we had last week and it was handled the same way. Exlax falling back on the, Condoleeza Defense, carefully parsing the facts that Pinochet led the coup mostly from the military without obvious CIA involvement. Ah then Juan finds the CIA involvment in destabilizing Chile even BEFORE Allende takes office and then finds the CIA man in Pinochet’s coup team, not counting the immediate support for Pinochet that came from Kissinger and Nixon. BUt Valiant finds the tactical error and delivers the final blow to Exlax’s ‘popular coup’ myth by pointing out how popular Alleneda was in his election win. Exlax runs the ‘popular coup’ myth up the pole one more time and then leaves the field…so…
Juan and Valiant 1, Exlax 0
On to the MCA and ‘unlawful combatant’ discussion. For some reason, Exlax has me citing an opinion on the subject today and last night…. nope not me, I made no arguments for or against, I simply called the debate as I saw it last night: a pantsing by Valiant, DrXJ and Barfly. I guess calling it a pantsing is purile, but then in my youth the only Americans I met reminded me of Exlax: self-important, image conscious and convinced of the divine myth of American Exceptionalism. They need a pantsing: deserved every time. Anyhow, since Exlax chooses again to put words in my and others’ mouths, what you might call ‘lying’….
So without showing my lack of depth in US law, Valiant sticks him again IMO with the relative pertinence of the Geneva Convention to this 1942 decision he keeps on about (the one Scalia was ashamed of) and since Exlax then retreats to defending the ‘quality’ of representation that the Gitmo people get (nothing said about the Abu Ghraib and Afghan Gulag) he clearly doesn’t feel that this ‘unlawful combatant’ thing is that solid to begin with….well…
Juan, Barfly, Valiant, Stonehinge and Nat 1, Exlax…well it’s not been a good day for Ex.
Still we can all now look forward to Exlax’s trademarked Victory Lap – hope he’s got a new box of tissues in.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:30 pmDija Vu CNN YOUR DOING IT AGAIN .
February 14th, 2007 at 9:41 pmAh..How typical. Here we see Terry the Turtle showing up at the end of the day with no facts or arguments of his own; choosing instead to “piggyback” on the research and arguments made by others and parroting, “I agree!” or “I disagree.”
Terry, since clearly you have nothing to contribute, citing neither history or law in your posts, why don’t you sit back and just read and learn from those of us here who actually do some reading on these various subjects? Your posts are embarassingly vapid. Let the grown ups talk.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pmPoor VVGFU and Stonehinge, With each passing posting they reveals more and more their complete lack of knowledge and understanding of U.S and international law. They have said nothing to support their embarassing erroneous contention that Quirin is no longer good law or that inane claim that the Third Geneva Convention nullifies Quirin.
But because I am a sporting man, I will give each of them another chance to try and recover from the ignorant postings. So, gentlemen, please explain why Quirin is no longer good law and/or how the Third Geneva Convetion somehow nullifies Quirin and the law of war regarding unlawful combatants.
I’ll wait….Oh. and cutting and pasting from Wikipedia doesn’t count.
Looking forward to your response. It should be very amusing.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:53 pmExlax, some days I just can’t be bothered – especially since you seem incapable of doing anything but making the same vapid (great word, I’d forgotten that one – thanks) strawmen.
Reading the posts and the links and making my mind up as to what I see is as valid a way of participating as any. If you will recall, I fully contributed to the Chilean discussion with sourced facts last week because I’ve spent a lot of time in Chile and I felt I could offer something. So your commentary here on the depth of my general contribution besides today and yesterday is as usual, false. Yesterday and today, I just followed the debate.
On the other hand since you trot out the same drivel this week and lie about what others have said, you shouldn’t be surprised to be called on it and ridiculed. Behave yourself and perhaps you won’t be such an object of derision.
Anyhow, please start your Victory Lap. We’re all waiting.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:57 pmhello?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:33 pmJuan, You make a lot of statements in posting #162, many of which are simply incorrect and some of which I appreciate:
you thought there were WMDs, now you say that was not the reason of invasion, y
Indeed, I did accept the statements of the United Nations, the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration that Iraq had WMDs. I have also admitted that clearly those organizations/administrations were not correct. I have also said here many times that the invasion of Iraq, in retrospect, was unnecessary and a mistake and that I lean no towards us leaving Iraq.
I never said WMDs were not a reason for the invasion. I have said that WMDs were not the only reason. Ties with Al Qaeda and hopes for democritization of the Arab Middle East were other stated justification of the Iraq War. Again, in retrospect, the ties with Al Qaeda, while present and disturbing, were probably not extensive enough to justify the price of the invasion four laters. Democritizing Iraq at this point seems hopeless. As I have said here many times, my “progressive” friends before the war said Iraq and Arab Islamic culture could not sustain a democracy. I rejected that view, but now admit they were probably right. I have said these things many times before here, yet you choose to ignore these statements, choosing rather to cherrypick earlier comments and ignore later ones.
“you thought you will be greeted as liberators, that didnt happen”
I will dispute you here somewhat. We were greeted as liberators. The downfall of Saddam Hussein, who, I hope you will agree, was a monstrous and brutal dicator, who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, was applauded by most Iraqis. Those who did not share that view were a tiny but violent minority of Iraqis who created the “insurgency” which is now tearing apart Iraq.
“I think the big question is: are you going to support this Administration no matter what just becuz you are a life-time republican or becuz you use the meaningless motto of US is the greatest country in the world? If the answer is yes, then we have really no room for debate. If the answer is no, if the answer is that you are going to be critic of your government becuz thats what Jefferson and Franklin wanted from every US citizen, then we can debate. “
Do I generally support this administration? Yes. I supported Bush in the primaries and general election of 2000, long before the atrocity of 9/11 was even imaginable. Do I generally agree with the policy of pursuing and fighting Al Qaeda in an effort to prevent fture 9/11s? Yes….And so do most Democrats as well. Do I agree with every decision of the Bush administration? No. As I indicated above, I now believe the administration has made some terrible mistakes regarding Iraq (and consequently Afghanistan; to wit, we did not finish th job over there). Does that mean I agree with you and some of the other extreme conspiracy theories out there, such as that Bush planned and carried out 9/11 or concocted out of whole cloth the evidence of Iraqi WMDs (which ignores the fact that the Clinton administration too carried out military actions against Iraq based on claims of Iraqi WMD production)? No. To me, such contentions are paranoid delusions, with no evidentiary basis, that serves to undermine your policy points.
“you think Al-Qaeda wasnt support by the CIA”
Based on the finding of the 9/11 Commission and the reporting of Peter Bergen, the foremost journalistic expert on Al Qaeda and author of “Holy War, Inc.,” the definitive pre 9/11 work on Al Qaeda, there is just about zero evidence that the CIA funded or trained Al Qaeda. I gace posted passages from both works many times on this topic, and yet you have refused to address them, choosing instead to write, in essence, “don’t bother me with facts! My mind is made up!”
(To be continued)
February 14th, 2007 at 10:39 pmWell, it looks like the site won’t accept coded links any more. That just about ends the utility of this enterprise, but I’ll try one more time.
There are two crucially important articles which bear directly on this topic.
The Vanity Fair article at:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/whitehouse200703?printable=true¤tPage=all
This is the most profound analysis yet of Bush’s policy intentions in the Mideast. This is crucially important to understand how the Neo/Zio-cons intend to use their deliberately created instability in Iraq to maintain hegemony in the Mideast.
Then you need the article at Global Research at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20070214&articleId=4800
This article examines how Zelikov’s “public myth” technology was used to implement social control via the demolition of the WTC and the Golden Mosque of Samarra.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The article at Global Research titled Information Warfare, Psy-ops and the Power of Myth examines how Zelikov’s “public myth” technology was used to implement social control via the deliberate demolition of the WTC and the Golden Mosque of Samarra.
The new article at Vanity Fair titled From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq is the most profound analysis yet of Bush’s policy intentions in the Mideast. This is crucially important to understand how the Neo/Zio-cons intend to use their deliberately created instability in Iraq to maintain hegemony in the Mideast. I find that both articles are immensely pertinent to this thread.
Sorry that I cannot supply the links, but TP is screening them out.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:01 pmJuan, You wrote: “If you are going to make this, as you have consistently done, a pissing competition using childish phrases like: “Im glad to help youâ€â€¦etc, then you really kill debate ”
I do not for a moment deny that my postings from time to time contain snarky comments. However, I plead self-defense. Let’s take a look at just two of some of your comments re: me:
Exley doesnt care about people.
Comment by Juan C — October 18, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
As long as it implies world domination, you will support everything in order to escape your baseless fears.
Comment by Juan C — January 23, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Are those edifying and mature thoughtful comments, Juan. that advance the debate??? I think not. Clearly, this format all-too-often lends itself to childish and simplistic comments by all posters.
I will congratulate the both of us for avoiding the crude and vulgar language in which so many other poster indulged.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:12 pmOne last thing for tonight, Juan…I said that you wrote that you said something tonight that I appreciated. Your wrote:
“Almost every single time I see a post from you, you come with the 9/11 stuff and how sad that was. I can only imagine how hard it was for you, I do not rejoice in anyone´s pain”
I appreciate your empathy and sympathy. Yes, I do reference 9/11 quite frequently when debating foreign policy issues. For me and many, many Americans, 9/11 was the seminal and guiding historical event of our lives. It was “our” Pearl Harbor. It was a national tragedy and atrocity that traumatized this country, as well as much of the world (See the UN’s condemnation of the attack and NATO’s invoking for the first time ever of Article 5). Moreover, as someone who was in New York that day, it was especially horrifying (a rare piece of personal info).
You seem to get offended when you perceive that I am inaccurate about events in Chile in the 1970s and Nicaragua in the 80s. That is how I and many others feel when you and other posters derogate the horror of 9/11 or posit conspiracy theories that exonerate the perpetrators of that atrocity. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:31 pmhopes for democritization of the Arab Middle East were other stated justification of the Iraq War.
Comment by Exley
I still cant find an explanation for how does your mind work when you write this. Who are you or your country to decide how the Arab Middle East governments should be?
First, invading a country for chaging regime is a great violation of international law. Oh, but as democracy is what you practice, then it is ok to spread such good values. This is racist, demeaning, humiliating and stupid. Are you going to teach them how they should live their lives after 5,000 freacking years?
Second, it is about respect. Dont do to others what you dont want been done on you. Third, your own president told that Iraq and 9/11 had nothing to do. I really dont know how your face didnt drop to the floor in shame after so many lives lost for a lie. You can cite me any law you want, I am talking about humanity and justice.
Now, the simple question: Would you like to be told how your government should be? Imagine a lot of anxious Middle East soldiers roaming around your house, would you feel free? Saddam was a ruthless murderer that probably deserve to die for all the atrocities he did. But he was put in the government thanks to the CIA, Rumsfeld shook hands with him, Reagan took Iraq out of the terrorist supporting nations while selling him biological weapons…this is all your governments doing, buddy. I dont understand how you only can see from 9/11 to this date.
I will congratulate the both of us for avoiding the crude and vulgar language in which so many other poster indulged.
Comment by Exley
Ex, I know I push a little with those posts, but really, look at the content not just the form. You agree with this government in this occupation. This occupation, you like it or not, have produced more than 600,000 dead civilians, millions of exiled and a thousand of your soldiers. Therefore, my comment has NO irony behind, it is the truth. I dont support Al-Qaeda cuz the kill innocents, I dont support KGB cuz they tortured innocents, I dont support armies cuz they kill innocents but you do. You support this lying government. My comment has sense.
Second, world domination and fear. You have never expressed remorse about the 730 foreign bases that US possess across the world. But you express concern about Iran getting nuclear material!! Am I crazy to make that comment? Am I wrong? Furthermore, you support violent actions, pre-emptive strikes, which as you know, violates any international law, becuz you think that way you are safer against enemies. Whatever enemies mean. You had have commies, nazis, illegals, violent black men, evil muslims, crazy-for-blood marxists…etc. Dont you see a pattern here? And I am not saying that there are a lot of groups in the world that want to consolidate power with terror methods, but thats what GOVERNMENTS do!!! You support bloodshed becuz you think you are killing the bad guys, but you cant ever kill all the bad guys. You have to fix things other way, you have to support governments who use diplomacy, otherwise there will be a lot of people trying to hurt US citizens, becuz US is a democracy, therefore, whatever the US government does, it is supported by its people.
I admit I have a bias against US government and thats wrong cuz I can hurt people due to my prejudices. But also you have to understand me that a brief historical review reveals that I have 300 years of being right!!! I mean, why a country has to decide whats the best government for another country? Why? It is a simple question. I condemn Soviet Union for putting soviet tanks in Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, etc after WWII, of course. But also I have to condemn US for taking Cuba from Spain back in 1898 or Puerto Rico, or Hawaii or Okinawa or…you see my point? Is this so hard to understand? Have you ever questioned about this things? About why US and IMF, World Bank and WTO dont condemn goods produced by child labor in sweat shops? But they condemn Iran for having uranium rods…I mean, really, what do you wonder about anyway? Does this “always being right stance” really help you for being a better human being?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:46 pmJuan, You wrote:
“Who are you or your country to decide how the Arab Middle East governments should be? … Would you like to be told how your government should be? ”
These comments imply that the Iraqi people chose to live under Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime, You make it sound as if the Iraqis were thrilled to be living under a regime that routinely tortured its citizens, murdered hundreds of thousands, and established a Stalinist totalitarian state.
You condemn the rule of a Pinochet, admittedly not a saint, but seem to say that Iraqis wanted to live under a leader who was quite literally thousands time worse. This is inconsistent.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:00 amAnd one more thing about 9/11.
So, thinking that your government lied about that event is derogating the horror of 9/11? Your line of reasoning is fascist: I cant blame the State.
Any critic against the government about 9/11 is derogating the horror of 9/11? What are you talking about? Are you hurt cuz I question the official version? Do you blame me for doubting the all magnificient State? You are a fascist, have you realized that? And, Im not insulting you. You are telling me that you think I should shut up about 9/11 cuz I doubt the official version made by the State.
If I were you, and something like that occurs in my country I wouldnt give a f*ck about national security …the government has to give me ALL evidence about what happened, and I mean ALL OF IT. Not a lousy report 3 freaking years later!!! I would sit every single one of the security staff, from the President to the guy that sweeps the office in a court and make them talk. I dont care if the very Pope has to testify, I will drag him to the court, cuz 3,000 innocent people die, and I would be really really pissed if no investigation is carried out the very NEXT DAY. But not you. You are enraged, of course, but you are not critic. You rather defend your life-time “republicancy” than seek justice for those innocents.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:05 amSaddam and Pinochet were supported by the same terrorist institution: the CIA.
Come on, Ex, I mean, I know you love your country, but to defend CIA is like saying hooray for the KGB or the Gestapo.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:08 amJuan. You wrote:
“But you express concern about Iran getting nuclear material!! Am I crazy to make that comment? Am I wrong?”
Yes, you are wrong. I have never expressed any opinion on what the United State’s should do about Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:08 amRegardless of your tender sentiments, Exley, there is no legitimate evidence that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 9-11. The fact that you continue to cling to such delusions is a testament to the power of Zelikov’s “public myth” psy-ops:
February 15th, 2007 at 12:12 am
I have never expressed any opinion on what the United State’s should do about Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Comment by Exley
Exactly. But am I wrong?
February 15th, 2007 at 12:14 amJuan,
“This occupation, you like it or not, have produced more than 600,000 dead civilians, millions of exiled and a thousand of your soldiers.”
Let us set aside the fact that the 600,000 figure is specious, coming from a single now-discredited study. Thousands have been killed in Iraq since March, 2003. But the 600,000 figure is not considered credible by any serious observer. Your constant repeating of this canard does not make it any more true.
The main point is that the vast majority of those Iraqis killed in Iraq since 2003 have not been killed by Americans, but by the “insurgents.”
You once wrote the “insurgents” were simply Iraqis engaging is “self-defense:”
Exley: Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Now, let me ask you this, Juan–How are the insurgents engaging in “self-defense” when they set car bombs off in marketplaces filled with Iraqi civilains (as they did this week and have done frequently over the past months)? How are the insurgents engaging in “self-defense” when they set off a car-bomb at Mustansiriya University in Gaghdad last month? Those bombings were directed at civilain Iraqi targets….Yet, you defend those violent acts directed at civilains as merely “self-defense.” How do you justify your defense of these attacks? These were not American military attacks on Iraqis. These were terrorist/”insurgent” attacks on Iraqi civilains. Yet, you do not condemn the terrorists who actually carry out these atrocities, but somehow twist the facts of these attacks to blame the U.S.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:24 amExley, the 600,000 figure is not specious at all. In fact, it is not widely recognized, but that figure is actually a low-side estimate. Since the surveys did not include areas subjected to the highest levels of violence, the actual figure may be as high as 900,000. It most certainly is not less.
If you choose to claim otherwise, let’s your sources.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:30 am#179,
Juan, It has now been more than five years since the attacks of September 11 and every legitimate investigation of the attacks has demonstrated overwhelmingly that the attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda. There is simply no evidence that any other group or organization carried out that atrocity. It does make me feel better when I realize that these absurd 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theories are not shared by the majority of self-described progressives on this site.
And yes, Juan,,,when one denies the guilt of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, onederogates the tragedy and the memory of those who were slaughtered. It is similar to that obscene conference held in Iran held several weeks ago about whether the Holocaust really happened or if the Nazis were truly responsible.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:33 am#183, Juan,
Actually, while I believe a nuclear-armed Iran is hardly a good thing (indeed, I do not think nuclear proliferation is a positive development at all), given our experience, intelligence failures, and current situation in Iraq, I believe there is very little we can do or should do regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Militarily, I think there is little that can be done and even if there was, a military solution is temporary at best.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:39 amExley sez: “every legitimate investigation of the attacks has demonstrated overwhelmingly that the attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda. ”
What investigations might these be? Surely you not trying to make reference to the 9-11 Commission. Talk about specious, Zelikov didn’t even get the construction of the buildings down right.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:45 am#182, Actually, stonehinge, the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 atrocity. Indeed, there is absolutely no serious evidence to the contrary.
As to your cited passage from the 1998 ‘Foreign Affairs’ article, Zelikow was exactly right. The 1993 WTC bombing was designed to topple the towers and kill tens of thousands. It indeed would have been a watershed moment in U.S. history, as 9/11 was.
Actually, though, you bring up an interesting question. Since you and Juan seem to believe that 9/11 was an inside job (perpetrated by whom is left unclear by you two), do you similarly claim that the 1993 WTC bombing was also am “inside job” (albeit, a botched one)?
February 15th, 2007 at 12:47 amJuan, Stonehinge,
Time for me to turn in…Maybe we can pick this up tomorrow. Good night.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:59 am“Actually, stonehinge, the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 atrocity.”
Nonsense. Where is it? Your proposition is ludicrous.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:00 amCool article
February 15th, 2007 at 7:11 amThe point in all this merry-go-round is not who is evil and who is good. There is no such thing because literally ANYONE who doesn’t comprehend what Morality really means, is part of the game/shares the same guilt. Afterall, Bush didn’t get to where he is because he just happened to win an election, did he? He was appointed there by people who rised to the flag-waving/national anthem traps. Morality is doing what is benevolent to all, not just individuals, family or country. But ALL. And Morality is not morality, which is mere moralising/semonising, “you are wrong & I am rightâ€, sort of nonsense. Morality is that which is innate within all true humans and sustains Evolution.
What the WH cabal is doing now is reacting/monitoring/weighing, in a very sensitive and calculated manner, what the current perception is about them, like the press fracas yesterday, such that their aim of justifying an attack on Iran [in this instance] is not sunk further. When you have problems at home that you can’t handle, it is always easier to take the “national attention†outside and wars are uually the route whenever any ruling administration can find justification.
When we justify, we are selling and selling successfully needs credibility. The WH cabal are trying to rebuild their credibilty by trying to portray themselves as being sensible whereas the likes of The Chosen Ones, in all their forms and aspects, ranging from media, monentary, political & social [and more], are still pushing for the end game. Knowingly or unknowingly. Willingly or unwillingly. Taking the flak off the reality which is US=Israeli Interests. What a pity when the US, whose founding fathers are such Moral people, have succumbed to being a financial & military lackey for The Chosen Ones. And seemingly NO ONE can stop them. Not even logic. Perhaps Morality & Logic might. The difference between Morality and morality is that Morality do not [need to] justify. They are so [i.e. Moral] because Truth is what It is. Find the motive and you’ll find the Truth [and not truth] instead of being sucked into another conniving round of distraction called, “I am right/good, you are wrong/badâ€.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:32 amBrian, in case you check back here, I’d be very interested in reading more of your thoughts about:
This is a topic which is scarcely ever addressed in our materialistic society. Rudolph Steiner addressed this idea to some extent, but his thoughts are somewhat difficult to unravel. I’d appreciate it very much if you would expand on your thoughts in this area. I’ll check back later to see if you care to continue.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:04 am#178
“Almost every single time I see a post from you, you come with the 9/11 stuff and how sad that was. I can only imagine how hard it was for you, I do not rejoice in anyone´s pain†Juan
I appreciate your empathy and sympathy. Yes, I do reference 9/11 quite frequently when debating foreign policy issues. For me and many, many Americans, 9/11 was the seminal and guiding historical event of our lives. It was “our†Pearl Harbor. It was a national tragedy and atrocity that traumatized this country, as well as much of the world (See the UN’s condemnation of the attack and NATO’s invoking for the first time ever of Article 5). Moreover, as someone who was in New York that day, it was especially horrifying (a rare piece of personal info).
comment by Exley
I just couldn’t let this pass by without commenting. I too was in NewYork on 9/11. I was shocked, I’ve never felt so empty. But it did not drive me to call for war or revenge, support encroaching upon civil liberties, etc. Juan is right, your okay, but you’re scared.
I don’t follow closely 9/11 “conspiracy” theory, but I’m certainly not offended to hear people give alternative “theories” on who dunnit. I know that in the afternoon of 9/11 I was talking to as many people as possible about the obvious fact: The U.S. gov’t is going to use this to make war and suppress the domestic population. So, it certainly seemed imporatnt to track down who was responsible, but I was more afraid of people like you who were raising their flags, calling for revenge, ready to go to war. Wouldn’t Nicaragua then have been justified in declaring war on the U.S.? and Invading? By your logic, yes; but they didn’t; they attmepted to use international insitutions as according to international law (although they has every right to invade indefense). But the U.S. contd their war of terror on them. The examples of American terrorism are numerous, very numerous, but not a single nation has declared war on the U.S. for our state sponsored terrorism.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pmTo hear the “this is our pearl harbor”, makes me laugh, a sort of sick and sad laugh. Well, FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, and knew he could use it as a way to get the U.S. into WWII; beyond that most parrallels break down.
And your references to holocaust denial and denial of U.S. state terrorism in Nicaragua and Chile, as examples of why you are angry when people do not beleive AlQaeda organized 9/11, are ridiculous Ex. The holocaust, contras and pinochet have years and years of documentation and observation and reports from numerous and varied sources. 9/11 was one single act of terrorism, and if it can be connected to one single terroist group the origins and documentation of that knowledge is anything but thorough.
It is interesting however that you equate denial of U.S. state sponsored terrorism with denial of the holocaust. I deny neither, you? I’d say they are two of the grosser evils of the past century.
Among many things you suffer from, one is obvious, you are unable to apply the same standards to yourself/the U.S. as you do to others. That would be a good start if you want to be taken seriously.
KarlX,
A few things:
‘I too was in NewYork on 9/11. I was shocked, I’ve never felt so empty. But it did not drive me to call for war or revenge, support encroaching upon civil liberties, etc. Juan is right, your okay, but you’re scared.”
I appreciate your comments. “I’ve never felt so empty” is an excellent way of phrasing how I and the entire city felt that day. However, I did indeed call for war that day. And yes, it was for revenge and justice, AND (and there is crucial) to make sure nothing like that ever happened again. You lived through it. You were there. Do you ever want to experience anythinh like that again or see it happen in any other city? I doubt it.
(Note: Does this mean you also did not support the U.S. military action in Afghanistan? I ask simply because many, many progressives / liberals I know (as well as many TP posters here) say that while they opposed the war in Iraq, they supported going to Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Just wanted to know what side of the fence you fall on).
As for this curbing of civil iberties canard, come on, Karl…This charge is thrown around a lot, but could you tell me exactly which of your civil liberties have been restricted. I mean, here you are on a Web site that on a daily basis provides a forum for criticizing and lambasting and even mocking the government/administration….Doesn’t seem like a society that has had its civil liberties or free speech rights restricted.
As for being “scared,” okay…if you want to use that word. I might go with concerned, but yes, I am concerned (or “scared,” if you’d like) that the next 9/11 would be much, much worse…perhaps even involving nuclear weapons. 3,000 people were killed that morning. People who I went to high school with. People who lived up the block from me died on 9/11. Do you have any doubt that Al Qaeda would not hesitate to kill 30,000 or 300,000 in a single strike. They are nihilists and fanatics. So, yes, I do not deny what you and Juan say–I am scared that Al Qaeda will strike again and kill many, many more people. Do you think they have stopped in their planning to carry out strikes in America? Do you think they dusted off their hands after 9/11 and said, “Okay, that’s it. We made our point. Let’s go home?” I don’t.
You also wrote:
It is interesting however that you equate denial of U.S. state sponsored terrorism with denial of the holocaust
That is patently incorrect and false. I have never made such an argument. I said that those who deny that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda and who argue, with no evidence, that it was a U.S.-Israeli conspiracy are similar to Holocaust denier in that they both attempt to deny a historical fact and instead spin conspiracy theories in order to justify a current political argumenment. Some extremist critics of Israel frequently deny the Holocaust as a way to undermine Israel’s right to exist or defend itself. Similarly, 9/11 deniers or conspiracy theorists deny Al Qaeda’s responsibility for 9/11 as a way to criticize U.S. policies in the Middle East or Third World. It is spinning a historical fiction to make a political point. And when you deny history, you derogate the victims of past atrocities.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pm“And when you deny history, you derogate the victims of past atrocities.”
this is why it is so strange that you deny U.S. state sponsored terrorism.
No, i did not support the invasion of Afghanistan.
Ex, i totally agree: AlQaeda-bad, Bin Laden – bad, terrorism – bad.
(i feel like i have this discussion once a week with you, or vince, or whoever)
U.S. actions are making the world MORE dangerous! Bush is not interested in stopping “the terrorists”. Bush and Co. (and Dems. too) are interested in oil, resources, and corporate interests. Ex, don’t you see this? U.S. actions have forced other “weaker” states to seek the only protection from invasion: weapons of mass destruction.
No; when 9/11 happened, when i was standing there witnessing, when i wlked aorund in those days, i felt no desire for revenge, i felt: “please don’t let my govt use people’s anger and sadness to invade, attack and make war”. No more blood shed, is what I felt. It was so obvious that it would be used as a political tool by whoever happened to be in power. And just for the record, all the NewYorkers I know despise Bush, his lies and unabashed rogue state policies.
With the civil liberties piece. I don’t understand why you don’t see the dangers of losing civil liberties. Ex, this will always be a danger, in any society. And in a society that is so, arguably open, there is a danger of civil liberties being encroached upon, especially in times of war, especially when people are scared and angry… you have no problem with homeland security, warrentless wire tapping, secret prisons, “alternative interogation techniques”? They haven’t been used to directly encroach upon my life, but then again if George Bush suddenly declared all Jews needed to be thrown in concentration camps, that wouldn’t encroach on my civil liberties either, but i would protest it as “encroaching upon our civil liberties”.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pmI once asked this to Vince P, and he was disdainful, but I’ll ask you in the hopes that you will give it a try. Read Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival. He is intelligent and humane, and his sources impecable, his logic clear. Just try it, see what you think.
cheers
Karl,
I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful reply. To use a cliche, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on many topics.
(I would like to post an longer, more in-depth reply, but quite frankly I have been spending waaaaay to much of my time at the office reading and debating on ThinkProgress. I really should buckle down for the rest of the day…Perhaps when I go home tonight I will post a more in-depth reply, because you have said somethings here upon which I would like to comment further)….Until then, have a good day.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:16 pmIt’s deja vue all over again….
February 15th, 2007 at 10:10 pm201
February 15th, 2007 at 10:15 pmi’m checking back here every sooften Ex, respond at your leisure
stay warm
cheers
k
# 203, Thanks Karl,
Just a few more thoughts:
“this is why it is so strange that you deny U.S. state sponsored terrorism.”
I am not blind to America’s past mistakes. For example, I have said here that the U.S. patrticipation in the 1953 Iran coup was a terrible, short-sighted and morally questionable blunder, for which we are still paying the price more than 50 years later. I have conceded to Juan in previous debates that some U.S. military interventions in Latin Anmerica during the early part of the 20th century were not justified.
I do have a problem with your use of the term “terrorism” when describing certain U.S. actions. “Terrorism” is hijacking a civilain airliner and flying it into a civilian office building in New York City. “Terrorism” is setting off a car bomb in a crowded Baghdad marketplace. Terrorism is the deliberate deadly targeting of innocent civilains in order to…well…terrorize governments and the populace into taking some action desired by the terrorists.
One can disagree with U.S. actions in Chile in the 1970s or Nicaragua in the 1980s. I suupose one can even question the morality of those actions (Personally, I think both actions were morally justifiable)…but it is a stretch to call it terrorism. Allende was a bad guy. The Sandinistas were bad guys. And in neither situation did the U.S. target and deliberately slaughter civilains. When the U.S. flys a civilain airliner into an office building, then you can call it “terrorism.” Otherwise, I think it is hyperbolic to call U.S. actions with which you disagree terrorism.
They haven’t been used to directly encroach upon my life, but then again if George Bush suddenly declared all Jews needed to be thrown in concentration camps, that wouldn’t encroach on my civil liberties either, but i would protest it as “encroaching upon our civil libertiesâ€.
A valid point. I just don’t agree, however, that Bush’s policies have curbed or restricted civil liberties at all. There has been a lot of hysterical and inaccurate talk about things like the NSA domestic surveillance program and the like, but if one reads the facts and understands the law, one soon sees the hysteria is unfounded and quite frankly silly. We could talk about the specifics of the NSA program if you’d like…
“U.S. actions are making the world MORE dangerous!”
Again, this statement is certainly debatable and I do not discount your statement. I think with regard to Iraq and our blunders there, you point of view is certainly understandable. I agree that Iraq has been less than successful (to put it mildly) and may have increased tensions in the Middle East and served as a “recruituing tool” for Al Qaeda.
I vehemently disagree with you that U.S. military actions in Afghanistan have made the world less safe or were not justified. Question: If you had been president on 9/11, what would have been your response to that attack? Would you have taken any kind of action against Al Qaeda? Military, legal, or law-enforcement wise?
I also disagree with your contention that all of Bush’s actions (and U.S. actions in the past) have been motivated by oil, greed, and “corporate interests” (whatever that means). As I said, U.S. actions in Iraq are certainly up for criticism and question. But I do honestly believe those actions were taken with the best of intentions, designed to increase U.S. and world security. Remember, it was not only Bush who believed and acted upon the belief that Saddam had WMDs. The United Nations had imposed sanction on Iraq since the early 1990s — long before Bush came into office — upon the belief that Iraq had WMDs. President Clinton launced military strikes against Iraq and threatened to undertake additional military action against Iraq based on the perceived threat of WMDs. Were Clinton and the United Nations also lying and merely looking to enhance “corporate interests?”
Well, that is enough for now, I suppose. Hopefully you will check back on this thread and we can continue this discussion. Thanks.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:05 amyes, clinton definetly has the same interests as Bush and Co.
i’ll respond in greater depth soon
February 17th, 2007 at 6:43 pm