dumbfucksofch.zerothatwouldratherreadelementarymundanegarbage,staythefuckout

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by El Mamerro

And Tesseract, good point about this being the counter-TV. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who hardly ever watches TV, and gets news from newspapers and the internet, but I guess most people here watch substantially more TV than I do and therefore a liberal 12oz presents the balance. I don't, however, agree that the posting on liberal posts leans to the negative side... for the most part I see a lot of agreement in the form of short sentences, a few moron replies, and some "bleh" statements, but usually never any disagreement.

 

As for the questions, you are right, yet we liberals have been presented with similar sets of questions we have yet to answer, including the first two you posted. As for the last one, we still haven't answered the counter question, "What should we have done?"

 

I'm not an american liberal, not even feeling i belong wholehearted to a pollitical party therefore i cant answer like one...on the last question though, the counter question is "what was the threat after all?" the US led to war proposing that Iraq owns guns that are putting their own security in danger...did they found them? NO did they prove that the UN wasnt handling the matter correctly? NO...Do the iraqi's feel better now...i doubt it.

I heard Powell talking about N.Korea a few days ago. he said "we realise just how dangerous the situation is therefore we dont concider war a possibillity...we'll resolve the matter with diplomacy"....a prove that Iraq was an easy target. What i'm trying to say is that instead of pickin' sides and trying to deny the accusations and find some to reply with you can judge what you see, arent you still convinced that the war in Iraq was a jar full of shit?

I am

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by El Mamerro

I don't, however, agree that the posting on liberal posts leans to the negative side... for the most part I see a lot of agreement in the form of short sentences, a few moron replies, and some "bleh" statements, but usually never any disagreement.

 

I really dont think so, when shit gets deep you see the real deal...a visit on threads like "anti-war chumps" or the numerous 9/11 threads will prove you wrong.

[RumPuncher]

Originally posted by Tesseract

-Where are the guns of mass destruction?

 

Yes... where are these guns of mass destruction?

 

and bug... you make a fine point.

[Poop Man Bob]

Although I haven't been participating in the debate that has led up to this post, I still feel the need to say something. I'll try keep my comments brief.

 

I support any thread that inspires an intelligent and thoughtful debate, conversation, whatever you want to call it .. hell, if it simply makes someone on this board realize what is going on in the world (and, yes, I know that the entire idea of "what is going on" is often colored by liberal ideology). Regardless, a thread that forces a reader to question their own perspective is exponentially more beneficial than not posting it at all. That said, until this board has a thoughtful and well-spoken conservative, I don't feel as though the posting of liberal-slanted threads should stop in any form. It adds intelligence to this board, and, hopefully (and I remain idealistic even to this point), adds intelligence to the members of this board.

 

Tesser's comment's regarding the counter-television are right on. With the number of Americans that receive their information based solely on 2 minutes of Headline News and a glimpse at the cover of a three-week old Newsweek in the dentist's waiting room, the dissemination of information that isn't covered in mainstream media should be supported at all costs. I mean, honestly, look at some of these numbers:

• A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
  
• 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the war
  

 

Okay .. I seem to have gotten off on a tangent here. My point was, and remains, that any additional information is good.

 

I anticipate that a response to that statement will be something to this effect: "when all the additional information provided is from one side of the political spectrum, the reader isn't getting any more of a well-based view of the world. Instead, it might actually do more harm if the reader beleives the only information not covered in mainstream media is left-leaning."

 

And I would disagree, not in principle, but in effect, at least here on 12 oz. The members of this board that do choose to read threads like this understand that the person posting the thread has a bias, often as a liberal. Understanding that allows them to accept the bias prior to the intake of information, thus acting as a sort of opinion-filter. Therefore, I don't feel as though some sort of caveat is required for political threads. If you disagree, then something to this effect might suit your tastes: "What I'm posting isn't anymore the complete truth than what you read, hear, and see elsewhere. Take in information from a variety of sources, then reach your own opinion."

 

So much for this post being brief...

[RumPuncher]

wow.... this thread is truly an oaisis in the barren tundra that has been Ch.Zero lately.

[SteveAustin]

while I may rarely post in BROWNers threads...I always read them and thoroughly enjoy the information in them.

 

I'm afraid most are over the heads of the 12oz general population though.

[nomadawhat]

No WMD's have been found as of yet, but I will not be surprised when they are found. This isn't to say that Iraq actually possessed these weapons. But just as political timing was a key into the build up to an iraq invasion, it will be key here. Bush will not let the egg stay on his face, and in a country he is now in control of there will be WMD's "found" at a time that favors his bid for re-election. When he need to regain some popularity points. When the "where are they?" question finally starts to make more than half the population start to wonder if the invasion was justified or called for. There are only 501 days left until election day 2004, so it will be here before you know it. And while it could be an invasion on another "threatening" nation to re-bolster his position as the man protecting the american citizens and their freedom I can see it going down this way as well. And I am awfully afraid that either route will be a successful one for him.

[Guest BROWNer]

well since this is about specifics and people are getting

specific, i want to highlight a couple more things that i didn't really before..

mamerro, you said the world is shades of grey, and so is politics..

but consider that most of my threads like

this are usually articles picking out bush team shenanigans, and

i don't perceive bush team policies as being any shade of grey,

they are mostly straight up black and white policies that claim to achieve

a, b, and c. how do you counter black and white policies?

also, when i'm talking about conservatives and policies i am

directly talking about team bush and his cocoon posse.

 

somebody dropped the little powell quote above..

and bush team rhetoric over n.korea is a good example.

if you've cross referenced enough, you should be able to formulate

the picture that US/DPRK relations are SHIT. no big surprise there.

there isn't any more appropriate adjudication...when powell speaks about solving

the 'problem' through diplomacy, it's bullshit, completely. WHAT

DIPLOMACY? WHAT POLICY? WHAT IS THE POLICY?? attitude.

this is how team bush rocks. people like the state dept.'s s.korean ambassador can't

even begin to articulate what the policy is, so these officials avoid pointed questions

and sit there fumbling over their words. ....this is why you don't see bush chillin' in front of a posse of reporters having candid, open discussions on T.W.A.T, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, N.Korea, Venezuela, and the endless litany of other questionable policy initiatives and maneuvers.

the only conservative view point i can see as being worth some salt is reminding

people what the role of government is, and then basing your argument from

there. in which case you'll be turning a blind eye to a lot of shit in the name of 'security'.

[space base]

has anyone read the book "Behold A Pale Horse?"

[Guest BROWNer]

heard of it and know of it..haven't read it, sections though..

 

what about it?

[RumPuncher]

page2...

 

sorry Browner... I had to do it.

[Guest TEARZ]

Originally posted by Tesseract

i hear you and i dont...there is debate over the stuff a handfull of people in here post...i'd say its !@#$%, browner, poop man, yours trully, europe, seeking, mental....and a couple more people i cant recall...

 

where's the love? haha.

 

i got comments coming...

[Guest TEARZ]

check it tesser & mams

 

WASHINGTON - June 18 - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), the leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq in the House, again took to the House floor today to continue his pressure to demand the truth about the Administration's lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Today, Kucinich stated:

 

"Protection of the truth and the Constitutional role of Congress as a co-equal branch should not be a partisan matter. Yet, yesterday Republicans in the House International Relations Committee stonewalled an investigation of the Bush Administration's false claims that sent America to war against Iraq.

 

"The Resolution of Inquiry backed by 40 members of the House sought to protect Congress' role in asking the Administration where is the proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Where was proof of an imminent threat?

 

"Unfortunately, as panic sets in over the realization that the Administration misled the American people in the cause of war. Republicans are refusing to hold public hearings. Republicans are refusing serious oversight. Republicans are refusing open oversight. Republicans just won't make Republicans accountably.

 

"That is the problem with one party rule. Our democracy is endanger if we do not make this Administration accountable. They sent this country into war based on lies and in doing so have damaged the legitimacy of their own government.

 

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where was the imminent threat? Why did America go to war?"

[Guest BROWNer]

..in addition

 

More Missing Intelligence

 

by Robert Dreyfuss

 

As the Pentagon scours Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to Al Qaeda, it's increasingly obvious that the Bush Administration either distorted or deliberately exaggerated the intelligence used to justify the war against Iraq. But an even bigger intelligence scandal is waiting in the wings: the fact that members of the Administration failed to produce an intelligence evaluation of what Iraq might look like after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they ignored fears expressed by analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department who predicted that postwar Iraq would be chaotic, violent and ungovernable, and that Iraqis would greet the occupying armies with firearms, not flowers.

 

Not surprisingly, perhaps, it turns out that the same people are responsible for both. According to current and former US intelligence analysts and government officials, the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans funneled information, unchallenged, from Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who in turn passed it on to the White House, suggesting that Iraqis would welcome the American invaders. The Office of Special Plans is led by Abram Shulsky, a hawkish neoconservative ideologue who got his start in politics working alongside Elliott Abrams in Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson's office in the 1970s. It was set up in fall 2001 as a two-man shop, but it burgeoned into an eighteen-member nerve center of the Pentagon's effort to distort intelligence about Iraq's WMDs and terrorist connections. A great deal of the bad information produced by Shulsky's office, which found its way into speeches by Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, came from Chalabi's INC. Since the INC itself was sustained by its neocon allies in Washington, including the shadow "Central Command" at the American Enterprise Institute, it stands as perhaps the ultimate example of circular reasoning.

 

"The same unit [the Office of Special Plans] that fed Chalabi's intelligence on WMD to Rumsfeld was also feeding him Chalabi's stuff on the prospects for postwar Iraq," said a leading US government expert on the Middle East. Says a former US ambassador with strong links to the CIA: "There was certainly information coming from the Iraqi exile community, including Chalabi--who was detested by the CIA and by the State Department--saying, 'They will welcome you with open arms.'" Rumsfeld's willingness to accept that view led him to contradict the Chief of Staff of the US Army, who predicted that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to control Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, a view that seems prescient today.

 

According to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which paralleled Shulsky's--and which has not previously been reported--prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad--which prides itself on extreme professionalism--had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official.

 

The catastrophic result of the belief that it would be easy to pacify postwar Iraq and to create a quisling government in Baghdad, a view that was codified as dogma by the White House, is unfolding daily in Iraq. The country is engulfed in economic and political chaos, armed resistance is growing among the Sunni Muslims in central Iraq, and the powerful and largely hostile Shiite clergy in the south has barely begun to flex its muscles. Not only that, but Iraq watchers report that former Baath Party members are coalescing into nascent political formations, leading armed resistance to the occupation, and that they could emerge as either a strong political party or an underground terrorist group.

 

Astonishingly, the Bush Administration did not even bother to prepare and internally publish an intelligence estimate about postwar Iraq. (An "estimate," in intelligence jargon, is a formal evaluation produced after sifting, sorting and analyzing various bits and pieces of raw intelligence. So-called National Intelligence Estimates are produced by a unit that reports immediately to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.) "Back in the old days, there would have been an estimate," says Raymond McGovern, the twenty-seven-year CIA warrior who formed Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity this past January. "In their arrogance, they didn't worry about it."

 

Other sources concur. "There was no intelligence estimate done, and there weren't a lot of questions being asked," says Melvin Goodman, a former CIA analyst with the Center for International Policy. "And I know for a fact that at CIA and NESA [the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs], none of them thought that postwar Iraq would be governable." Goodman says that CIA and DIA experts on Iraq were not called in by the Pentagon, and no intelligence roundtables were held to evaluate the situation. Most of the intelligence about how easily the INC and its allies could assume power in Iraq was coming from the INC itself, says a former State Department official. "And I know for a fact that when the subject came up, intelligence officers were extraordinarily skeptical of the exiles' information."

 

On the eve of the invasion, there was something akin to panic at the Norfolk,Virginia-based US Joint Forces Command, which was responsible for supporting the Pentagon's Iraq task force, then headed by retired Gen. Jay Garner. "They were scared shitless," says a former US official who was in close contact with the command. "They were making it up as they went along." He adds, "There was a great deal of ignorance. They didn't know the names of the [iraqi] tribes, much less how they relate to each other. They didn't have the expertise, and they didn't have enough time to assemble the expertise."

 

Such expertise would have allowed the Army to foresee that once Saddam was eliminated, Iranian-backed Shiite forces in southern Iraq, with great influence over the 60 percent of Iraqis who are Shiite, would instantly emerge as a powerful claimant to power. Instead of leading to the democracy envisioned by Bush, the war in Iraq could result in a Shiite-dominated fundamentalist regime, a prospect that is starting to seem the most likely. Not the kind of victory Bush wants to take to the US electorate in 2004.

 

At a June forum on Iraq at the American Enterprise Institute, Kenneth Katzman, the Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service, made a chilling prediction of how the crisis in Iraq will continue to unfold, to the discomfort of his AEI hosts. The Shiite forces in southern Iraq, he said, are content for now to let the Sunni-led guerrillas harass and weaken US troops. "The Shiites hope that Sunni violence in central Iraq will force the United States out, and then the Shiites will move in and pick up the pieces," he said. Despite discord and infighting among the Shiites, Katzman said, most of the Shiite leadership is tied closely to the Iranian government and its ultraconservative clergy. For the rest of this year, he predicted, the US forces in Iraq will be unable to pacify the country or halt the violence, and by next year, as the election nears, there will be enormous political pressure for the United States to withdraw--or, in Washington-speak, to develop an "exit strategy." The question for Bush, according to Katzman, is, Does the United States have the political staying power to continue to sustain one or two casualties a day in October 2004?

 

That's a question that ought to disturb Karl Rove's sleep. And it might be a question that Democratic would-be opponents of the President ought to ponder. A massive failure of US intelligence has led to an emerging disaster in postwar Iraq. It's a true crisis, and one that could determine the fate of Bush's presidency. In Watergate, the refrain was: "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" Let me suggest a question for Bush, the know-nothing GOP standard-bearer in 2004: "What didn't the President know, and when didn't he know it?"

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030...0707&s=dreyfuss

[Guest TEARZ]

hot shit.

[Æ°]

Re: check it tesser & mams

 

Originally posted by TEARZ

WASHINGTON - June 18 - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), the leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq in the House, again took to the House floor today to continue his pressure to demand the truth about the Administration's lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Today, Kucinich stated:

 

"Protection of the truth and the Constitutional role of Congress as a co-equal branch should not be a partisan matter. Yet, yesterday Republicans in the House International Relations Committee stonewalled an investigation of the Bush Administration's false claims that sent America to war against Iraq.

 

"The Resolution of Inquiry backed by 40 members of the House sought to protect Congress' role in asking the Administration where is the proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Where was proof of an imminent threat?

 

"Unfortunately, as panic sets in over the realization that the Administration misled the American people in the cause of war. Republicans are refusing to hold public hearings. Republicans are refusing serious oversight. Republicans are refusing open oversight. Republicans just won't make Republicans accountably.

 

"That is the problem with one party rule. Our democracy is endanger if we do not make this Administration accountable. They sent this country into war based on lies and in doing so have damaged the legitimacy of their own government.

 

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where was the imminent threat? Why did America go to war?"

 

 

What ever happened to the "checks and balances" within the branches of government that I used to hear about in school?

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by TEARZ

where's the love? haha.

 

i got comments coming...

 

 

duh..see? thats why i hate namedropping...i always forget the best out...you and zesto for example

[Guest TEARZ]

Re: Re: check it tesser & mams

 

Originally posted by Æ°

What ever happened to the "checks and balances" within the branches of government that I used to hear about in school?

 

What ever happened to the constitution that I used to hear about in school?

 

word tesser. :D . problems with the biatches lately?

[Vanity]

browner... this stuff is all good and all. but noticing a problem isn't the hard part. the current administration isn't exactly subtle... i just dont know what the fuck i can do about anything. there's always violence, which i think is a much more powerful tool than people care to admit, but my own paranoia keeps me from that direction.... or at least vocalizing it.

[Vanity]

also, do you read anything that brings up other alternatives? it's easy to seek out stuff that confirms your suspisions because it reaffirms your perception of the world (ie, lets you be lazy instead of questioning), not that i'm acusing you of this, because i know nothing about you except what you pose on here... aren't you a canuck anyway? :D

[Guest BROWNer]

Originally posted by Vanity

noticing a problem isn't the hard part. the current administration isn't exactly subtle... also, do you read anything that brings up other alternatives?... aren't you a canuck anyway?

 

so what, addressing the problem is the first step. these policies were enacted

by the government, and as such, the ONUS IS ON

THE GOVERNMENT, NOT THE CITIZEN to explain openly instead

of this bizarre culture of secrecy, grade 2 analogies and drunk

with power arrogance. 2 wars in 2 years bro. i cannot believe

US citizens don't have a ton of questions about the last 3 years.

the perception i subscribe to is this:

you can ignore the trajectory your president(?) has

embarked on, which MAY, and seems to be even likely now,

be based in part (or full) on lies, along

with a whole host of other fucked up and questionable things,

or you can take whatever means you have to inform yourself

and make a reasonable and logical adjudication and go from there.

if you can come out after that an optimist, then you truly rule.

the brits are royally pissed right now, and they want answers, but

in america? salon had an article recently, they referred to bush as

'teflon'.

what i see is people either getting pissed off cuz there is so much

questionable things being done that nobody is being held accountable

for or answering, just shaking their heads, or the opposite spectrum where its almost like it's too much of a headache to get into details..a total arrogant so what demeanor mixed with

this patriotic fervor that affirms your god given right to stomp anybody you want..

in the middle of that are most of the people i meet around the way or have regular

interaction with..and they are pretty much clueless..........that is scarey as shit to me. i'm exaggerating - <this much and yes there are many other types of people or whatever blahbla..

my views are open here, i haven't set up a back door for me to escape. what are your views? people i'm cordial with here are welcome to pick me apart or check me, as are people with opposing view points. don't hesitate to bring it.

what do you do? do you seek alternatives?

i don't really see other alternatives, although i look for them. i'm not a US citizen, therefore my influence and options are limited, yet your country has a large and ever expanding influence over my country and my future. unfortunately

the tonnage of questionable things these guys have done, starting with the

2000 elections, doesn't really leave much to the imagination as far as what

to do. seriously, i am all ears for some different perspectives, conservative or

whatever, but just about everytime somebody opens up their yap, i'm

just completely flabbergasted at the wholesale ignorance to the record set forth

by the bush team.

and i am canadian, your point?

[Vanity]

*yoink*

 

paranoia is a bitch eh?

 

GO BUSH!

PATRIOT ACT!!!

YEAH!

:dazed:

[Vanity]

on a sidenote, i don't consider myself liberal or conservative or moderate. noam is right... these people are not conservatives.

on certain issues i'm far right (speech, etc), on others i'm far left (lower classes, etc). however, on many issues, i consider myself more conservative than many of these so calleds.

[Guest BROWNer]

vanity, i'm not salty or anything becuz you asked..

 

i think the correct term(self-appointed) is 'Reaganites'.

i can't believe your mom is down with bald-master-cheney..

 

i don't have a clue what could/can be done, but i don't feel necessarily

bad for it. you'll have to get out and find stuff like that yourselves, but i'll

post it up if i find it. as far as the violence/communication tip, it's really interesting

that i have heard, over and over, from the most polite, non-violent

people, time and again, that they expect(and worse, some even hope)

bush will catch a slug.

one of my best friends even said it, and i fully respect and consider

his views to be measured and somewhat objective. i have heard

that SO much. these are the people i see around the way and stuff,

they aren't up or interested in specifics like i may be, but they have an

innate feeling that shit is off kilter. a slug to the dome piece..i don't know what to say to that, i'm not in favour of it, but it would not surprise me. i think tearz may be able to drop some knowledge on what some steps are, he already dropped one thread on some voting. ?

 

ps-i don't think there is gonna be another war for this term. he'd really be pushing his luck.

pps-i'm not that educated on the science of your political system, and i don't think you have to be to recognize the bullshit.

 

ppps-nice one zz.

[NOUM]

Re: Re: check it tesser & mams

 

Originally posted by Æ°

What ever happened to the "checks and balances" within the branches of government that I used to hear about in school?

when i read that i wondered the same thing,but i'm not gonna bother i'm way too tired to get into it..

[Nutonce]

yeah yeah whatever.fuck this thread.

[Guest TEARZ]

Originally posted by Nutonce

yeah yeah whatever.fuck this thread.

i demand a banning right now. seriously. this is so fucking typical of the cynical booger eating boners that have taken over. m'afuckin herbsz.

[Guest imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by TEARZ

typical of the cynical booger eating boners that have taken over. m'afuckin herbsz.

 

I demand a verbal assault lyricism award!

 

shit flows

[Guest TEARZ]

haha awesome

[Guest TEARZ]

re: what you can do

 

it's shitty to say, but team bush is pretty much unstoppable right now. they have shown that they won't be accountable to anyone, let alone the constitution or congress, the UN, any treaty, etc...

 

what's interesting to me about this thread is the notion of balance between left and right. this administration is so far from balanced. as chomsky put it, in all seriousness, this administration is not right wing or conservative, but really a proto-facist group not set on making governement smaller (typical right wing), but actually making a larger police type state that preserves its own power, thereby serving its own interests. you can write this off as leftist babble if you like, but take a hard look and you see signs everywhere that even hardcore conservatives are very uncomfortable with what team bush is doing. furthermore, look again, and you'll see that your contitutional rights and privacy has eroded more in the last two years than in the previous hundred combined.

and this is how it realtes to what you can do: the shoe has been on the other foot before. after the late 60s and in part thanks to nixon, the right was absolutely smashed in the 70s. they didn't control shit, not the courts, white house and neither the house nor senate. what did they do? they got their shit together and organized like a motherfucker at the local level, all over the nation. they knew, just like progressives today realize, that there wasn't much they could do on the national scene at the time, but they did the grassroots dirty work and turned their shit around, and finally went with their saving grace big gun in ronald reagan. it can be argued that things could be harder for the left right now, conservatives in the 70s gathered largely around backlash to civil rights and economic policies of dems, but the left today is galvenized by the peace movement, and general anti-bush sentiment. the problem is, that as stated before, this administration has shown time and time again that they don't respect shit and will cheat. but the lesson is still there, you have to get involved with shit at the local level where change is actually possible and where some semblance of democracy still exists. i know it's frustrating, but in all truth, if the left doesn't organize like a motherfucker then we really are in for some 1984 orwell type shit, not that pieces haven't already arrived. let's get shit together dudes.