Defining the Enemy

[1feral1]

How is this for a Coady quote - probably one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have seen posted on this forum and well-below the standards set out in the guidelines.

Mate, like I said you've lost the plot. The German fuel supplied by George Bush's grandfather. That takes the cake for me.

 

[Wayne Coady]

How is this for a Coady quote - probably one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I have seen posted on this forum and well-below the standards set out in the guidelines.

Well then maybe you can chastise the writers of many articles on the Bush family and most if not all comes from within the USA

http://bushwatch.org/family.htm


1918 Prescott Bush Sr., leads a raid on a Indian tomb to secure Geronimo's skull for Skull & Bones.

1937 Prescott Bush's investment firm sets up deal for the Luftwaffe so it can obtain tetraethyl lead.

1942 Three firms with which Prescott Bush is associated are seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

1953 George Bush and the Liedtke brothers form Zapata Petroleum. Zapata's subsidiary, Zapata Offshore, later becomes known for its close ties to the CIA.

1954 The Bush family buys out the Liedtke brothers.

1955 George Bush sets up a Mexican drilling operation, Permago, with a frontman to obscure his ownership. The frontman later is convicted of defrauding the Mexican government of $58 million.

1959 Manuel Noriega recruited as an agent by the US Defense Intelligence Agency.

1960 Some investigators believe George Bush spent part of this year and the next in Miami on behalf of the CIA, organizing rightwing exiles for an invasion of Cuba. Is said to have worked with later Iran-Contra figure Felix Rodriguez.

1961 According to the Realist, CIA official Fletcher Prouty delivers three Navy ships to agents in Guatemala to be used in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Prouty claims he delivered the ships to a CIA agent named George Bush. Agent Bush named the ships the Barbara, Houston and Zapata.
Bay of Pigs invasion fails. Right-wingers blame Kennedy for failure to provide air cover. CIA loses 15 men, another 1100 are imprisoned.
George Bush invites Rep. TL. Ashley -- a fellow Skull & Boner -- down to Texas for a party in order to meet "an attractive girl." Bush writes that "she may be accompanied by an Austrian ski instructor but I think we can probably flush him at the local dance hall." Bush notes that he's had to unlist his phone because "Jane Morgan keeps calling me all the time." [From a letter in the Ashley archives uncovered by Spy magazine.]
Zapata annual report boasts that the company has paid no taxes since it was founded.

 

[1feral1]

Even though its 1048h here on a Tuesday morning, I think its time you call it a day. I have to confess, you really have me shaking my head, not in disgust, but in disbelief.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Mr Coady it seems to me your views are not popular amongst 99% of the membership. If you had any credibility with them you seem to have lost that now. If you want your posts to be taken seriously, I would step back and figure out why so many people are here speaking up against your posts/views and opinions. Otherwise most will end up skipping over what you have to say and attribute it to background noise.

 

[Wayne Coady]

Well my friend there is not to much creditability coming forward only insults, Wes asked why I menioned Blacks and others, I replied and so far all I get is trash back, nothing that would be worth while in any debate.

A question was asked and well all you need to do is read your own reply, you cannot accept the truth and facts. Man all you got to do is talk with a WW11 vet and he will tell you that they were treated like dirt, when they came home. Fact, no pensions , no health care and they were left to live in poverty. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I am sorry but whats the point of going on with your views if they are not going to be taken in the spirit they are meant to be. Mr Coady, everyones views are important but when they get to the point of being seen as blah blah blah by others its sometimes better to sit it out for awhile and maybe change tact. You are not gaining any converts, if anything you are driving people away from your views.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You keep saying Fact this and Fact that, toss out some websites like they're gospel. As learned as you claim to be, you should know most of the sites you quote only serve your side of the argument. For each of yours there is an opposing one on the net. Don't treat us like idiots.

 

[Andyboy]

Um, not to hijack the hijack but has anyone read the article(s) at the link I provided? Any impressions?

 

[a_majoor]

Two Impressions:

1. This is pretty much what I expected; the links are fairly clear and the preponderence of evidence is certainly in favor of the idea that there were operational ties between Al Qaeda and the Ba'athist regime; and

2. People with a vested interest in a certain political position will never accept any evidence, no matter how much or how well documented, that contradicts their world view. The fact that only AP reports it (and discounts their own report) and the remainder of the MSM ignore it says volumes.

 

[Acorn]

2. People with a vested interest in a certain political position will never accept any evidence, no matter how much or how well documented, that contradicts their world view. The fact that only AP reports it (and discounts their own report) and the remainder of the MSM ignore it says volumes.

That works both ways.

Acorn

 

[mdh]

Two Impressions:

1. This is pretty much what I expected; the links are fairly clear and the preponderance of evidence is certainly in favor of the idea that there were operational ties between Al Qaeda and the Ba'athist regime; and

2. People with a vested interest in a certain political position will never accept any evidence, no matter how much or how well documented, that contradicts their world view. The fact that only AP reports it (and discounts their own report) and the remainder of the MSM ignore it says volumes.

It really doesn't matter what the preponderance of evidence exists for the Iraq-Al Queda linkage. (That such evidence exists is now irrefutable but has had little pickup in the MSM as noted above.)

But even if that evidence was overwhelming, the left would simply shift the ground to some other area and declare the war as irredeemably illegal or a reckless adventure or an imperialist gambit for oil - or whatever other Michael Moore ideological pornography you care to insert.

This is a game that the Bushies cannot win and I believe it was Edward Campbell who pointed out that supporters of the Iraq war are now in a distinct minority (especially in this country) and that we had better get used to it. The real question is how long the war can be sustained politically with support dropping like a stone in the US. (Wasn't it Infanteer who wondered a while back if liberal democracies are capable of fighting long wars? We may get an answer to that question soon enough)

In sum, the links provided by our former friend are just the standard agitprop put out to discredit the Bush family (and by extension the Bush administration) and undermine the moral context for the war and to portray the occupation as nothing more than a squalid exercise in profit-taking with Halliburton and the Oil companies laughing all the way to Plutocrat HQ to plot the next generational sacrifice.  

The charges against Bush Walker (and Bush Senior) are just the latest variations on a theme. (Prescott Bush may well have been an unsavoury character or he may have bee a man of his time possessed of the usual prejudices and misjudgements that characterize nearly every historical figure... but then again the 1930s produced a lot of notorious moral ambiguity, and if there is guilt to be shared there is a pretty big cast of characters to share it with -- including the father of the beatified John F. Kennedy.)

Cheers, all, mdh

 

[Britney Spears]

Andy:

<a href=http://www.msnbc.com/news/995706.asp?0cv=KB10>Here</a> is a rebuttal to your article.

<a href=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3399&R=79942098B>Here</a> is a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

<a href=http://slate.msn.com/id/2091381/>Here</a> is a sympathetic but skeptical viewpoint.

FWIW, I don't really think there can be any meaningful debate amongst us WRT to your article, simply because there isn't anyway for us mere mortals to prove or disprove its contents.  Do you want me to produce my own signed and stamped Pentagon leaks discrediting those of the author?

Well I can't, but I WILL point out, as the third article does, that no mainstream media outlet has payed much attention to this seemingly startling revelation, just as it doesn't pay much attention to the other revelations that abound in publications such as The Weekly Standard, Washington Times, and some of the other self acknowledged neo-con mouthpieces. While I won't go as far as to say that they are dishonest journalists, I think I can conclude that they do not really have much incentive to report the objective truth, given that their very cause for existence is to advance the Bush/Neocon agenda.

I suppose now you'll claim that the mainstream media is biased to the left, or that they have an interest in propping up Saddam's regime......

But even if that evidence was overwhelming, the left would simply shift the ground to some other area and declare the war as irredeemably illegal or a reckless adventure or an imperialist gambit for oil - or whatever other Michael Moore ideological pornography you care to insert.

Absolutely, it's also all of those things too. So you understand my reluctance to wrangle over this issue any further. Even if there WAS conclusive proof that Saddam had links to AQ, do you still honestly think that creating a completely new wing of AQ that did not previously exist, alienating most of the world's moderate Muslims (hell, most of the world, period.) and creating  a new terrorist breeding ground while draining resources away from the real battle in Afghanistan was a good idea? If ties to AQ was the sole unit of measure on the Invasion-o-meter, why not the nations that DO have conclusive ties to AQ, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

(That question was rhetorical, I am definetly NOT advocating armed intervention in either of those nations)

to portray the occupation as nothing more than a squalid exercise in profit-taking with Halliburton and the Oil companies laughing all the way to Plutocrat HQ to plot the next generational sacrifice.

Oh he's doing just fine without any help from anyone.

 

[Andyboy]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I got just about what I had expected.

Now honestly, who amongst you read the article?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Andy:

<a href=http://www.msnbc.com/news/995706.asp?0cv=KB10>Here</a> is a rebuttal to your article.

<a href=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3399&R=79942098B>Here</a> is a rebuttal to the rebuttal.

<a href=http://slate.msn.com/id/2091381/>Here</a> is a sympathetic but skeptical viewpoint.

FWIW, I don't really think there can be any meaningful debate amongst us WRT to your article, simply because there isn't anyway for us mere mortals to prove or disprove its contents.  Do you want me to produce my own signed and stamped Pentagon leaks discrediting those of the author?

Pardon my french, but what the heck are you talking about?

The "rebuttal" you have linked-to is from November 2003 (and by Michael "flushed a Koran down the toilet" Isikoff, to boot - and you question the sources of those that oppose your viewpoint): the article Andyboy linked is a summary of the evidence to date (i.e., will be published in next Monday's Weekly Standard).

Andyboy, I did read it and found it a quite interesting update to his book (of which, in all honesty, I have only read excerpts), but I am about 99% certain it will be dismissed out-of-hand by the self-proclaimed "reality-based community" as it doesn't fit their "reality" and is "pro-Bush" and therefore incapable of anything resembling honesty or reason (much like his book) and therefore not worth any attention.

 

[Britney Spears]

the article Andyboy linked is a susmmary of the evidence to date

Including the tidbits that are being rebuffed, at the beginning of the article, the stuff that was originally publshed in 2003 and is now being summarized. That's what I'm talking about.

I'm tired of this. If you want to take "rum-int" as gospel in order to justfy the Invasion, nothing I say will change your mind, and like I say, I don't have any way of refuting annonymous pentagon leaks. Since we do live in a liberal democracy, if the majority of people choose to believe it, then it becomes true for all intents and purposes.

In any case, supposed links with AQ were never very high on my list of reasons to oppose the Iraq Invasion anyway. I always thought of it as kind of the cherry on top of the big cake of lies.

Like Wes says, and I'm sorry to say,  it's all done and over with, all the academic arguments are just that, academic,  so there's not much left to do but see how things pan out. Again, I pose the question: Do you think that We, the west, are now in a better position to combat AQ and OBL that we were before the Iraq Invasion? Do you feel safer now that AQ has such a big new pool of recruits and supporters to draw from?

 

[dutchie]

In any case, supposed links with AQ were never very high on my list of reasons to oppose the Iraq Invasion anyway. I always thought of it as kind of the cherry on top of the big cake of lies.

Couldn't agree more. Finding reaons to question the justification for the invasion is easy and not limited to Saddam-AQ links.

Like Wes says, and I'm sorry to say,   it's all done and over with, all the academic arguments are just that, academic,   so there's not much left to do but see how things pan out.

Debating the merits of the invasion now (while sometimes fun) is like arguing about who left the barn door open after the horses have bolted.

Again, I pose the question: Do you think that We, the west, are now in a better position to combat AQ and OBL that we were before the Iraq Invasion?

Well, on one hand Iraq seems to be a bit of a magnet for Middle Eastern terrorists, so it's kind of convenient for killing as many of them as possible (although that sadly cuts both ways). But, on the other hand, Iraq is probably pushing some people off the fence onto the 'Terrorist' side, exasperating the problem somewhat. It's kinda like squeezing a huge zit - it's gonna be ugly, and it will either make it 10 times worse, or you'll squeeze out all the puss and get rid of the zit that much faster. Once you squeeze it, it's done, and the only debate is how it will turn out.

Do you feel safer now that AQ has such a big new pool of recruits and supporters to draw from?

No. Definately not.

 

[Britney Spears]

OK, I've scoured the internet and I can find no concrete evidence to dispute the points in the article. Well apart from this:

12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.

Presumably it's a typo.

I've no desire to further antagonize either yourself nor Andyboy, in my view highly respected posters both. So, I shall respectfully concede that

NO! NO! NO!  There's no connection between Saddam and Terrorism!!!

is probably not true. I won't go as far as a_majoor and say that there is a PREPONDERANCE of evidence, but I'll be willing at acknowledge that the evidence does exist. You know, nothing is ever black and white, complex world, and all that jazz.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I'm tired of this. If you want to take "rum-int" as gospel in order to justfy the Invasion, nothing I say will change your mind, and like I say, I don't have any way of refuting annonymous pentagon leaks. Since we do live in a liberal democracy, if the majority of people choose to believe it, then it becomes true for all intents and purposes.

The point (I was making, at any rate) is not whether conclusive proof exists, but rather if *ANY evidence* does.  I don't see how anyone (not necessarily directed at you specifically) can claim that there is "no evidence" when clearly there is.  Certainly the quality and reliability of different bits of evidence can (and should) be questioned, but the notion that they do not *exist* is assinine!  And moreover, it seems that the majority of people are choosing not to believe "it," but that does not change Objective Reality, as much as the NYT, BBC, al-Queada, Saddam Loyalists, et.al. might like it to (I'm a bit of Rationalist - go figure). {EDIT: Posted past you ... I guess we agree on this part, at least in substance, if not degree  ;D }

In any case, supposed links with AQ were never very high on my list of reasons to oppose the Iraq Invasion anyway. I always thought of it as kind of the cherry on top of the big cake of lies.

Maybe try to have a bit of an open mind about it ...

Like Wes says, and I'm sorry to say,  it's all done and over with, all the academic arguments are just that, academic,  so there's not much left to do but see how things pan out. Again, I pose the question: Do you think that We, the west, are now in a better position to combat AQ and OBL that we were before the Iraq Invasion?

YES: we (not me personally, but I'm working on it) are killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq!  I see this as a good thing, on the whole.

Do you feel safer now that AQ has such a big new pool of recruits and supporters to draw from?

What pool is that?  Have we really "created" more al-Queda recruits or simply "outed" many of those that were "lying in the grass already" {am I using way too many "quotation marks," or what}?  I know the second question is unprovable one way or the other but what are the alternatives?  Do you honestly think that we could reason with groups that have sworn (on their lives) to our annihilation?  Do you really think that if we (the West) had not attacked Iraq that al-Queada would simply decide, "oh okay, no problemo: they didn't attack (our supposed enemy) Saddam Hussein, so we'll just leave them alone"?  Taking the fight TO the enemy is a good thing, and if they were so pissed-off about the Iraq invasion that they went there to die trying to resist it, so much the better.

 

[Andyboy]

Thanks for the replies again guys, I wasn't trying to start any sort of an argument over who left the door open, or even reargue the . I had actually read most of what was in this article well before the invasion but wasn't able to find the article again after that. I was just curious to see if the evidence such as it is would change any minds or what the general reaction would be or if anyone even cares to look into it.

Sometimes people invest so much of their ego into their position that they fight like hell to support it, right or wrong. (I've been guilty of that, try defending your thesis in front of a hostile Professor!) I'm not pointing to anyone here by the way, just making an observation. I've have learned (and continue to learn) that divesting your ego from your opinion is the best way to arrive at "truth". Not that I know what "truth" is.

 

[Infanteer]

What pool is that?

Although I've generally been supportive of the War in Iraq, I'm not firmly ensconced in the "everything was done right" camp.

I've put these up a few times, but I'll throw him here regarding "the pool":

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

Personally, I'm a tad concerned about the issues Britney has brought up.   Fighting against a few fringe groups is okay but having hundreds of millions of Muslims (if we assume that these stats mean that anywhere from 25-50% of the Muslim World is on the "nay" side) taking an anti-Western stance due to things like staying in Iraq and shooting up Fallujah and an Najaf can lead to some uncharted waters.

No wait, they aren't uncharted - the Soviets managed to piss off the Muslim World by invading Afghanistan and propping up a government there, turning Afghanistan into a magnet for Islamic fighters from Morocco to Mindanao (commonly referred to as the Arab-Afghans) who joined the local Mujihadeen; it is my belief that the experiences and the links that were created in this environment of Jihad against the Soviets was a direct cause for the affiliation that is now known as Al Qaeda (or, Terrorist NGO or Islamic Insurgency, whatever your flavour is).

Not saying this is what will pan out with Iraq, but the statistics in that figure above seem to show it's possible.   I'm not going to "call Iraq" - trying to call the war on account of a campaign doesn't really work, but I can't help feeling like a German and wondering where the hell Vatutin's tanks are....

:threat:
Infanteer